Timeline for What's your strategy behind 192kHz recording?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2015 at 19:18 | review | Late answers | |||
| Oct 18, 2015 at 19:26 | |||||
| Oct 1, 2012 at 23:58 | comment | added | Internet Human | + Cheaper and less engineered filters can be used, because the filter steepness (of the anti-aliasing filter) won't be as big concern as it would be with 44.1kHz sampling rate. The higher the sampling rate, the less steep the filter has to be and it can still remove the frequencies above the Nyquist frequency. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing_filter | |
| Oct 1, 2012 at 23:58 | comment | added | Internet Human | @Arnoud: There may not be steep enough filters, so the cut-off frequency of the anti-aliasing filter may be varied. So then it's a decision of whether the cut-off frequency is placed in the audible range or it's at some higher frequency. If the signal is sampled at 44.1kHz, you have to ideally cut all or enough above 22.05kHz to minimize aliasing. If the sampling rate is higher, aliasing starts to occur after higher frequencies (e.g. above 24kHz at 48kHz SR). Thus the filter cut-off can be brought higher and it won't attenuate the highest audible range as much, but can still prevent aliasing. | |
| Oct 1, 2012 at 17:22 | comment | added | Arnoud Traa | hi caleb, thanks for the explaination, but i don't understand why the nyquist frequency is easier to filter... what makes it easier? do you have a link? | |
| Oct 1, 2012 at 16:18 | history | answered | Caleb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |