Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Strictly speaking, the term is self-contradictory |
||
Line 68:
</blockquote>
But this is wrong. The Nyquist Theorem says that the highest frequency of signal that CAN be recorded is 1/2 the sampling rate. It does not say that a sampling rate of R will accurately record a signal of frequency R/2. For example, to accurately record a frequency of, say, 22 kHz with a 44 kHz signal requires that the samples be taken at exactly the maximum of the peak and exactly the minimum of the valleys; if the 22 kHz signal is phase-shifted at all from the period of the sampling, then the 22 kHz will be aliased as a lower-frequency signal by the 44 kHz model. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MarkRLindsey|MarkRLindsey]] ([[User talk:MarkRLindsey|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MarkRLindsey|contribs]]) 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Strictly speaking, the term "linear quantization" is self-contradictory==
This article says that "LPCM is PCM with linear quantization". However, there is no such thing as linear quantization. Quantization is an inherently non-linear process. Linear processes are invertible (except in the degenerate special case). Quantization is not invertible. No quantizer is linear. Some abuse of basic mathematical concepts is necessary to come up with such a term. This strange term "linear quantization" should be removed, or at least explained. The referenced document does not provide a definition of this self-contradictory term. —[[User:SudoMonas|SudoMonas]] ([[User talk:SudoMonas|talk]]) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
| |||