Hi Gus,
You are right. In theory, the sample rate should be at least twice the maxi=
mum signal frequency that one wants to record.
If there were any signal components above that Nyquist frequency, then the =
sample should be even slightly higher than that because the stopband attenu=
ation of the inbuilt anti-aliasing filters of any real-world recorder would=
otherwise fail to reject those components.
Regards,
Raimund
--- In "gus" <> wrote:
>
> I could be wrong here - but from what I remember of my sound engineering =
course the sample rates only allow you to sample frequencies of HALF their =
stated value. So 44.1 khz allows you to sample up to 22.5khz , 96 khz will =
allow you to record up to 48 khz etc - so the mazimum 192 khz will only all=
ow yoyu to effectively record up to 96 khz no matter how good your mics. Ni=
quist effects then become involved ... if I remember rightly , as I say it =
was a while ago I studied this but its worth checking out to be sure.
>
> --- In "Christine Hass" <pizote2@> wrot=
e:
<snip>
>> It sounds like I might be able to get away with a
> > recorder such as the Korg MR-2 or Tascam DR-680. The messages regardin=
g the
> > higher range recordings from the "standard" mics, such as the Sennheise=
r
> > MKH20 were particularly interesting, as I thought I might have to hunt =
down
> > a wideband mic to cover 1-100 kHz.
<snip>
|