this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
292 points (98.7% liked)

Asklemmy

44148 readers
1339 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The Norquist-Shannon rate sampling theorem only asserts that for a given maximum frequency, you only need another other given maximum frequency of sampling to represent it.

It does not say you can “perfectly” reproduce a signal. Only that you can reproduce all fourier components of the signal that are below half your sampling rate in frequency. It perfectly does that, yes.

But the signals that only contain a finite number of frequencies all below a certain maximum frequency are abstractions used in signal theory classes for teaching that theorem, and in engineering to hit a “good enough” target, not a “perfect” target.

Any frequencies bouncing around the room at over 22 kHz are lost at least to something using the 44 kHz sampling format.

TL;DR: Norquist-Shannon lets you completely reproduce signals with finite information in them. But real life sound doesn’t have finite information in it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's Nyquist–Shannon. Norquist is taxes.

Also frequencies greater than half the sampling rate aren't lost they fold into lower frequencies unless filtered out.

But if you think it's easiser to capture those room acoustics with analog equipment the non linear amplification and distortion of any analog system is going to change the sound just add much if not more then a good digital system.

So yeah both lose or distort the signal but digital does it in avery predictable way that can be accounted for and it does have a frequency region that it captures precisely. Analog doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nyquist, thank you.

aren't lost they fold into lower frequencies unless filtered out

If by “fold into” you mean they add noise to and hence distort the readings on the lower frequencies, that’s correct. But that just takes it further from a perfect reproduction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Frequency folding is the term used in DSP no need for quotes. The Nyquist frequency is commonly referred to as the folding frequency.

And yes frequencies above the Nyquist folding frequency alias into lower frequencies. A simple low pass filter prevents this however.

Properly filtered digital sampling produced a more accurate reproduction of the frequency range with less distortion then an analog signal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I don’t disagree that there’s noise in analog signals too, limiting their information capacity. But that’s coming from the limitations of our physical implementations’ quality, no?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Also I used quotes to refer to your words, not to throw shade at a term’s validity. I use quote marks to quote.

If by “x” you mean …

Doesn’t mean the same thing as just randomly surrounding it with quotes in normal use means.