DAN DUGAN:
>Yes. Thanks for that study. I haven't paid much attention to high
>sampling rate stuff, but it looks like Sound Devices chose a
>1st-order gentle rolloff instead of the usual brick-wall sharp cutoff
>filter. The rationale for that is usually given that such a filter
>makes less phase distortion on the frequencies below it. But so far
>as I know from perceptual studies, that doesn't make a damn bit of
>difference up beyond audibility, anyway. I'd rather see just a higher
>brick-wall filter that didn't alias.
Yes, I fully agree on this. For normal audio applications, the frequency
response and the anti-aliasing filters of the SD722 are absolutely
appropriate. Certainly the potential aliasing effects are not an issue with
common audio-range microphones that usually act as additional rolloff filte=
r
for frequencies above 25...50 kHz.
However, it would be an issue for those who are interested in recording
ultrasounds via special ultrasonic microphones.
Raimund Specht
--
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|