Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!newton2
From: newton2@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: CD reflections
Message-ID: <667@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 01:53:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.667
Posted: Mon Jan 21 01:53:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 05:43:59 EST
References: <boulder.264>, <81@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA
Lines: 16


	is that information gets fuzzier (and so reconstruction gets
	worse) as the frequency gets closer to the nyquist limit."

	Like so much opinion presented as "the actual fact" on net.audio,
this is just hogwash. "Fuzziness" is independant of frequency, up to or
even above the Nyquist limit, unless you consider fully precise aliased
components (resulting from sampling too seldom) to be fuzziness. Noise
and distortion are functions of the number of bits per sample and linearity.

	There *is* a fecund source of fuzziness WRT to digital audio,
but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to pinpoint its origin.

	Getting grumpy again (sorry)

	Doug Maisel