home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!cj164
- From: cj164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Ryan Glover)
- Newsgroups: rec.audio
- Subject: Re: Digital critics - sampling argument is nonsense
- Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:14:36 GMT
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
- Lines: 29
- Message-ID: <1jnaosINNhho@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- References: <1993Jan20.211233.37643@watson.ibm.com>
- Reply-To: cj164@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Ryan Glover)
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
-
-
- In a previous article, zellers@22_clancy.manassas.ibm.com (Cevin M Zellers) says:
-
- >I recently witnessed another case of the analog sentimentalist trying
- >to use the 'sampling' argument to lodge a complaint against Digital.
- >
- >It was MTV, with they're nifty diagrams showing how sampled digital sound
- >loses information because of the 'choppy' digital waveform. Unfortunately,
- >critics are pressing this argument and misleading the public, due to their
- >ignorance of the Nyquist Sampling theorem. All of you digital skeptics,
- >please note that CD's capture ALL frequencies up to 44.5 KHz, reproducing
- >them faithfully (butter than vinyl, I argue). Frequencies above 44.5 KHz
- >don't matter, that's far above the threshold of hearing anyway :)
- >
- >Cevin
- >
- The Nyquist frequency is 1/2 the sampling rate = 44.1khz/2, or 22.05khz to be
- exact. Cd's will reproduce sine waves up to 22khz, which is all that matters
- since non sinusoidal components of a waveform are present as harmonics well
- above the range of human hearing.
-
-
-
-
- --
- ------------------------------|
- Jeff Glover |
- cj164@cleveland.freenet.edu |
- eaeu188@orion.oac.uci.edu |
-