[PD] smallest possible value of a delay-time

Larry Troxler lt at westnet.com
Sun May 16 21:30:29 CEST 2004

On Sunday 16 May 2004 13:25, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2004, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > i had a discussion with a teacher today. the topic was the smallest
> > delay-time possible. in his opinion one sample is the atom of signal
> > and cannot be divided anymore. in my opinion it should be possible to
> > get shorter delays than 1 samples with interpolation. my argument was:
> > it should be possible to set the values of each sample so, that the
> > resulting signal would be similar to a digitized analogue signal with
> > a shorter than 1 sample delay.
> Suppose you have a signal at exactly the Nyquist frequency and
> RMS=sqrt(2). Then its data is like +1,-1,+1,-1,...

Isn't that a pathological case though? I thought the Nyquist requirement was 
SR > Fmax,  not SR >= Fmax.  I could be wrong A signal at SR/2 is by theory, 
outside the Nyquist creterion.

> is there anything still unclear?

Yes,  namely what you are attempting to prove.

Larry Troxer

More information about the Pd-list mailing list