FWIW, I did appreciate everything else I had read up to the point where I stopped reading. While masking seems to be missing, the author deserves props for addressing oversampling (which is more germane to the topic). I may pick it back up at a later time, though I honestly don't imagine I'm going to read anything I haven't already read either here or elsewhere, though I'll try to keep an open mind. wink.gif
another good article by Justin Colettihttp://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/...d-when-it-isnt/
The only thing I don't get is the part about sampling "too fast". There is no such thing as a "loss of accuracy" when sampling at 192 kHz rather than 96 kHz, not generally at least. While it is certainly imaginable that a practical ADC would be performing worse for all kinds of reasons, the very fact that the actual converter is running at rates well into the MHz range nowadays (with the final sample rate obtained by decimation and filtering) should be telling you something. If filtering is not up to snuff or jitter varies significantly, that's a converter / implementation problem.
... Exactly what I was thinking every time I read that statement. This is in fact how it works and the article and Dan Lavry are wrong on that point, correct? How could Lavry get such an idea?