Klarinet Archive - Posting 000709.txt from 1997/11

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: Nyquist
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:36:56 -0500

Perhaps we should also take heed of the term "highest frequency
component", which could be of arbitrarily high frequency. This makes
Nyquist-compliant reconstruction physically
impossible to implement for a
faithful analog(ue) of a real audio signal. Isn't this the
*real*
point?
roger Shilcock

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Jonathan Cohler wrote:

> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:14:12 -0500
> From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.net>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.us
> To: klarinet@-----.us
> Subject: Re: Nyquist
>
> Jerry Korten wrote:
>
> >Actually, Mark in the case of telecommunications, they may be considering
> >only logic signals (a 1 or a 0) in which case the Nyquist criteria can
> >faithfully reproduce the input data stream.
> >
> >This is not the case for analog data streams.
>
> I don't know why you persist in these blatantly incorrect statements. But
> to avoid the confusion that you have begun to generate, I will once again
> quote the theorem:
>
> An analog signal waveform may be uniquely reconstructed, without
> error from samples taken at equal time intervals. The sampling
> rate must be equal to, or greater than, twice the highest
> frequency component in the analog signal.
>
> Please read and notice the first four words "An analog signal waveform".
>
> ------------------
> Jonathan Cohler
> cohler@-----.net
>
>
>