Hi Raimund -
i think I know what you mean but Im not sure - what you are basically sayin=
g is that if say you wanted to record a frequency of ,say, 100khz you would=
nt just need a recorder that stated its max sample rate was 200khz but actu=
ally 205 khz or something like that (ie a little bit over) ?
Gus
--- In "Raimund" <> wrot=
e:
>
> Hi Gus,
>
> You are right. In theory, the sample rate should be at least twice the ma=
ximum signal frequency that one wants to record.
>
> If there were any signal components above that Nyquist frequency, then th=
e sample should be even slightly higher than that because the stopband atte=
nuation of the inbuilt anti-aliasing filters of any real-world recorder wou=
ld otherwise fail to reject those components.
>
> Regards,
> Raimund
>
> --- In "gus" <gustard33@> wrote:
> >
> > I could be wrong here - but from what I remember of my sound engineerin=
g course the sample rates only allow you to sample frequencies of HALF thei=
r stated value. So 44.1 khz allows you to sample up to 22.5khz , 96 khz wil=
l allow you to record up to 48 khz etc - so the mazimum 192 khz will only a=
llow yoyu to effectively record up to 96 khz no matter how good your mics. =
Niquist effects then become involved ... if I remember rightly , as I say i=
t was a while ago I studied this but its worth checking out to be sure.
> >
> > --- In "Christine Hass" <pizote2@> wr=
ote:
> <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 regard=
ing the
> > > higher range recordings from the "standard" mics, such as the Sennhei=
ser
> > > MKH20 were particularly interesting, as I thought I might have to hun=
t down
> > > a wideband mic to cover 1-100 kHz.
> <snip>
>
|