The sound quality from DACs - is it all the same?

While I feel the measurements over at ASR have some merit (e.g. if a product is grossly flawed, or measures horribly for its price point) the conclusions drawn solely on measurement numbers are deeply flawed.  It's been said a million times-- measurements do NOT equate sound quality.  One example of a bogus review on ASR would be when Amir measured the effect on tube rolling on an MHDT DAC.  He found no difference in distortion numbers and concluded: 
'"I would not waste time "rolling tubes." You are likely to suffer more from "rolling placebo" by your brain than any variation in such tubes." '

This is one unit, one set of tubes, with irrelevant measurements (measuring distortion?). Also, how the hell could he jump to that conclusion with an N=1?  Depending on the type of equipment, the circuit design the tubes are in, and the type and quality of tubes used, tube rolling obviously, and sometimes drastically results in sonic differences.  It was that "review" that sealed the deal for me at ASR. There is NO real science there.  

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/tube-rolling-does-it-make-a-difference.28583/

Can the width, depth and height of soundstage be measured accurately in spite we know the SS is created/affected by the delay of sound arriving at ears? How can one measure imaging, separation of intruments, the quality of bass such as speed and weight of bass, etc.?

I measured these acoustic factors rigorously with a finely tunable and precisely located grid of Helmholtz resonators and diffusers, their placement changed the pressure zones signature of the room, all these devices are precisely mechanically adjustable by hearing experiments like a piano tuner tune progressively a piano in a room and for a room...More than only measuring these acoustic factors i can change them at will in my room...

Please show me/us an example of these measures and how they are related to  the soundstage, imaging, instrument separation, ... discussed here.  Absolutely fascinating if these measures exist.

A measure is not only a number interpreted on a dial , like reading a sound level for example..

It can be a specific measures related to  the dimensions of a device , like the specific measures associated to an Helmholtz resonators for example and the way it affect the S.Q. for OUR EARS...(perimeter/volume/lenght ratioof the device and his neck)

There is no electronic measure of imaging and soundstage, but there is ACOUSTIC/PSYCHO-ACOUSTIC MEASURES linked to the experience of imaging and soundstage in acoustic...Like the precise relation between the timing of the wavefronts coming from each speaker and their sound level intensity FOR EACH EAR...I use these OBJECTIVE facts to create imaging and soundstage at will...

These measures are used in the headphone technology like the Smyth realizer for example... I use mechanical devices myself instead of electronical one  after  the Helmholtz method, who is the father of acoustic/psycho-acoustic...

Please show me/us an example of these measures and how they are related to the soundstage, imaging, instrument separation, ... discussed here. Absolutely fascinating if these measures exist.

“I've been talking to my cousin brother”

Nice. 

"Self proclaimed expert audiophile"  - Wonderfully oxymoronic description.