After seeing this post, I went back and re-read the article. My conclusion is the same as when I first read it - these are some interesting topics to discuss, but they reach no conclusions and they have no real recommendations on how to turn their discussion into better sounding systems. Of course, that is mostly a function of the interview format. I would have much rather see these 2 guys (and Steve can join in) collaborate on a white paper that goes into all the currently discussed issues for why computer audio can sound different to different people and on different systems and analyzes the importance and size of those issues and how to fix them.
The whole "gray area" issue(which Hansen eventually admits is not really an issue in a well implemented system), the issue of running multiple processes on the computer, the potential of noise on the grounds, jitter (in all its forms), RFI etc. have been discussed over and over again. A lot of progress has been made on all these fronts with aysnc USB, galvanic isolation, attempts to minimize CPU usage, much better jitter control, etc. Unfortunate, it seems that after several years of figuring out many issues and addressing them, we are now stuck more in a discussion phase than in an significant improvement stage. I understand that a lot of the easy improvements have been made and many of the problems left are hard to analyze and hard to fix. Although this interview is getting a lot of attention, I do not think it moves us down the road in any meaningful way.
Personally, I am happy with my PC based system. I also know it can be improved. For me, one major question is how the issues within the PC compare in importance to new DAC technology, to new digital filters, to the use of DSD formats, etc. For now, I will enjoy my music.
