"Digital engineers have gone through years of training where these problems were never mentioned." Really? All those computers and no one ever realised they had to get the 1's and 0's from one place to another, using wires, with an imperfect voltage for '1' and another imperfect voltage for '0'? And they never figured out how to make it work, get those digits from place to place without corruption? Pull the other one."There is an entire generation of designers that lacked even a basic understanding of analog electronics." That must explain why analog circuit performance over the last 30 years has gone all to heck? Oh wait, no, it's actually gotten better and better and gone from strength to strength. That must have happened while Hansen had his back turned, and via the efforts of non-engineers. Not likely.
"We live in an analog world"
Actually we live in a world that can be described in terms of waves AND particles. Continua AND quanta. Even the human ear and its nerves ultimately reduce the stimulae to quanta. That's NOT analog, BTW, so Hansen is making crass and childish generalisations as if they are the ultimate imperative in support of his argument, when in fact it is just crooked thinking and possibly deliberate deception, depending on how smart he is.
"How much energy is wasted delivering the data seems to have an effect on sound."
SEEMS to? Prove it. And don't blithely say it until you have proven it. And not how much energy it takes, but how much energy is WASTED. So let me see now, if the data comes from a downloading website server in USA to me in Australia, that must take a lot more energy to deliver than if it is sitting on my hard drive at home, so it must sound a lot worse, right? Well, um, no. And then the very next sentence.....
" with increased energy usage the amount of EMI/RFI radiation also increases. This might be a reason why applications sound different."
Bitperfect applications sound different? Prove it. And Gordon, don't ask me to hold my breath while you try. Notice the clever way he swaddles the contentious part of his statement, about apps sounding different, as a presumption while he appears to be making an uncontentious statement that RF energy goes up with increased HF energy usage. This is exactly the sort of 'sandwich technique' that I described in my first posted comment.
I see I have only gotten through 20% of the article, but sadly I am out of time. But you get my drift. The thought that there is a part II is truly disturbing......
