News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fourier Transform existed, but I never had intuitive unde... by voidhorse on Thursday April 20, 2023 @01:19AM (#35636692)
That's true but sampling beyond your target domain bounds seems pointless, right? If, say, you're sampling audio oversampling will just give you a bunch of frequencies you'd end up throwing away regardless. It's extra work for no benefit if the domain already has well-prescribed bounds.

I guess it could be useful in cases where you don't have bounds to work against.

This comes back to the poor writing, though, as I believe the author meant to indicate that the industry standard for sampling audio is 10x their cited sampling rate of 2000HZ in the text (though this is incorrect, too. Audio is sampled at 44100HZ because the general upper bound on hearing is 22000HZ, so by Nyquist's theorem, sampling at 44100 gives you enough range to avoid aliasing within the 0-22000 band).

Re:Fourier Transform existed, but I never had intuitive unde... by fsckboy on Thursday April 20, 2023 @02:00AM (#35636879)
Here's what I've never understood, isn't Nyquist sampling discrete in time but continuous in amplitude? If the amplitude is instead (as is normal in digital) being sampled discretely (in steps), wouldn't that introduce errors, and wouldn't more samples make up for these errors?
Re:Fourier Transform existed, but I never had intuitive unde... by ajb on Thursday April 20, 2023 @03:34AM (#35637346)
There are Sigma Delta ADCs, which sample quantised to one bit at a higher frequency. They need to do some processing in the analogue domain though. IIRC you need to multiply the sample rate by 4*N to get the equivalent of an N but DAC
Re:Fourier Transform existed, but I never had intuitive unde... by GianIsAlive on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @01:59PM (#35704238)
This is a way better explaination. Thank you! I do agree my writing could be better.