I guess I have to ask isn't the nyquist limit at half the sample rate? iirc yes, however it idealy relates to unchanging signals of infinite length (!) Its easy to visualise how oscillations near or at nyquist limit of half the sampling rate are ambiguously represented. eg. imagine observing an unusual astronomical object at a hundred frames a second, which seems to be blinking bright/dim every other frame but increasing in brightness and decreasing in brightness over a period of 50 frames. The amplitude of the objects oscillation may be constant and its period my be slighlty below the nyquist frequency @ 2+1/50th of frame, or its amplitude may be oscillating at a period of 50 frames and its quicker period at the nyquist limit of 2 frames. In other words the blinking star may be getting brighter and dimmer over a longer period, or it may be constant with a different primary blink speed. The only way to tell is observe at a higher sample rate. iirc the nyquist model commonly envolked does not deal with variations of oscillation power, or (oscillation of (oscillation)), or any change in oscillation such as a sine sweep involves. The nyquist limit should be considered the last observable frequency region of the waveform, with ambiguity increasing as its approached, until when you are at the nyquist limit, any appearance of oscillation noticed at half the sampling rate we have no idea what its phase or power is. It will aways be likely to be more powerful than observed, but there is no way of observing the powers at different moments of the signals period, when the signal and the sample rate are perfectly in step. In my own experiments, waveform interpration does get messy above ~85% of nyquist limit. hth