MOTM

> > But if you sampled a 10khz sine and a 10khz square wave, it'll still
> > come out exactly the same.
> This is just another way of saying that the maximum frequency represented
> is 10kHz.

That's already a given, and you missed my point anyway. If you sample a
sine wave @ 20Khz and a square wave @ 20khz, you will only get a 10khz
square wave when you go D to A. The sine wave will lose detail. Having a
higher sample rate will keep the shape of the original waveform much more
closely than the lower sample rate.

> > Having a higher sampling rate will yield
> > better/closer to the original results, which was the point of the
> > original post IIRC.
> If the human ear can't hear anything above 20kHz, then it makes no
> difference at all if a 15kHz square wave looks better on the scope sampled
> at 96kHz. (It'll only look a little better, anyway.)

It does if the original sampled sound isn't a square wave.

> I don't really have a strong opinion about whether 96kHz sounds better
> than 44.1, except in the context of audio processing. I just didn't agree
> with your statement about the Nyquist theorem.

I don't know what "statement" you're referring to, other than the quality
of the waveform has zip to do with the Nyquist Theorem.

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley            In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is not
Synthcom Systems, Inc.  king - he's a prisoner.
ICQ #29402898