Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Arnold Krille <arnold@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 6:47 pm

--0016362845127173450484c3a04f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Arnold Krille wrote:

> The highest frequency possible to reproduce -with correct amplitude- is

Wouldn't that only apply to a signal *at* Nyquist, which by definition is
not covered by the sampling theorem? How would it even be possible for a
signal at, say, 22.04 kHz be phase-aligned to the sampling clock?

> It is easy to understand that this correlation between phase and correct

This is a pretty bold claim, and contradicts Nyquist and other literature.
Do you have a citation for the claim that frequencies "as low as a quarter
of the sampling-rate" are damaged by sampling?

--0016362845127173450484c3a04f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Arnold Krille <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><arnold@arnolda=
rts.de
> wrote:

The highest frequency possible to reproduce -with correct amplitude- is hal=
f
the sampling-rate _only_ if the phase is aligned to the sampling-clock so t=
hat
minima/maxima of the sinus are correctly sampled. If its out of phase, the<=
br>
amplitude is not reproduced correctly.Wouldn'=
t that only apply to a signal *at* Nyquist, which by definition=20
is not covered by the sampling theorem?=A0 How would it even be possible fo=
r a signal at, say,=20
22.04 kHz be phase-aligned to the sampling clock?=A0
It is easy to understand that this correlation between phase and correct
amplitude also affects frequencies below half the sampling-rate. Might be a=
s
low as quarter of the sampling-rate, which in case of the CD is 11kHz. Belo=
w
that you will have more then four samples to reproduce the sinus wave.
That is in fact another reason to do the recording, mixing and mastering in=

more then 44kHz...=A0This is a pretty bol=
d claim, and contradicts Nyquist and other literature.=A0 Do you have a cit=
ation for the claim that frequencies "as low as a quarter of the sampl=
ing-rate" are damaged by sampling?

--0016362845127173450484c3a04f--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Ken Restivo, (Wed Apr 21, 1:35 am)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Monty Montgomery, (Wed Apr 21, 7:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Arnold Krille, (Wed Apr 21, 3:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Arnold Krille, (Wed Apr 21, 6:42 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Arnold Krille, (Wed Apr 21, 6:51 am)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Arnold Krille, (Wed Apr 21, 9:02 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Arnold Krille, (Wed Apr 21, 10:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Apr 21, 11:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Monty Montgomery, (Wed Apr 21, 7:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Niels Mayer, (Wed Apr 21, 8:59 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Gwenhwyfaer, (Sat Apr 24, 5:27 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Monty Montgomery, (Wed Apr 21, 10:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Jörn Nettingsmeier, (Wed Apr 21, 9:43 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, micromoog, (Wed Apr 21, 6:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Monty Montgomery, (Wed Apr 21, 8:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Niels Mayer, (Wed Apr 21, 5:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Niels Mayer, (Wed Apr 21, 5:47 am)
Re: [LAU] Rolling off high frequencies when mastering?, Reuben Martin, (Wed Apr 21, 4:52 am)