Tim Wescott wrote:

> Quantifiable in both cases -- you take the original signal and the
> corrupted one, you calculate the 'badness' of the corruption by whatever
> criteria is important to your problem at hand, and you compare the two
> numbers (hopefully you can reduce the corruption down to a number).
>
no I meant analytically, in the general case, not by experiment

> In the case of the EKG what's important (AFAIK) is the size and timing
> of the roundish humps that occur before and after the great big spike.
> If your anti-aliasing filters are contributing roundish humps of their
> own, then that's a bad thing because it knocks the pattern recognition
> element (the doctor's brain) for a loop. In this particular case it is
> very important not to have artifacts from the spike either before or
> after the spike --

I don't know, this doesn't make any sense to me, the artifacts
generated by aliasing doesn't guarantee specific signal corruption
won't happen, which you seem to imply