<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Digital Filters on Decades of Musings on HiFi</title>
		<link>/topics/digital-filters/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Digital Filters on Decades of Musings on HiFi</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en</language>
		
		
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="/topics/digital-filters/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>Why All Digital Filters Are Wrong</title>
				<link>/articles/why-all-digital-filters-are-wrong/</link>
				<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>/articles/why-all-digital-filters-are-wrong/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;All digital filters for audio are wrong. All of them, including the &amp;ldquo;no filter&amp;rdquo; option.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;They differ only in how they are wrong. Every digital filter adds its own error signature, either in time (how a transient comes out) or in frequency (what is left of the ultrasonic images, how flat the treble is). Usually both. The lower the sample rate, the more these errors matter, so the most common source of all, CD at 44.1 kHz, is hit hardest.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
