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

Is it possible that if we all listened really close to the speakers that we would want perfect measurements but once we get beyond a certain distance away, that's where components can sound different from one another?  In other words, sound waves close to the source look similar or even identical, as confirmed by ASR measurements, but the better sounding gear is designed around sounding better at a certain listening position and in a certain environment? That's why something can sound great at a dealer but not in one's own house and vice versa? The "trick" the component designer is getting paid to implement is making it sound better in room than close to the source, sometimes to the detriment of sound at the source. Maybe the only way to make it sound good in room is to make it look or sound bad at the source, i.e., up close measurements? I really have no idea but just a thought. I think @mahgister understands this more than anyone else on this thread as he is doing the component designer's job in the room, rather than paying the designer to do it for him.

Click click push.  There, just changed from sigma delta to NOS DAC.  Sounds different.

Even my wife sister can hear the difference.

You are very kind with me thanks...

Is it possible that if we all listened really close to the speakers that we would want perfect measurements but once we get beyond a certain distance away, that’s where components can sound different from one another? In other words, sound waves close to the source look similar or even identical, as confirmed by ASR measurements, but the better sounding gear is designed around sounding better at a certain listening position and in a certain environment? That’s why something can sound great at a dealer but not in one’s own house and vice versa?

In my room the two position sound good...

But they sound very different... One is more like an headphone but better than all my headphone because all is 3D out of my head with depth... 3 feet from the speakers position.... But i must be clear, all my acoustic treatment and control improved greatly the S.Q. even so close to the direct wavefront ...

¸Why?

Because the speed of sound and my small room of 13 feet make the sound cross my room 13 times each seconds... Then some reflected sound play a big role too for the imaging depth creation ...

In my regular position at 8 feet, the soundscape is different completely not better but different... It is more natural life like sound , less detailed but more natural, more bass, more dynamic, an intimate sensation with the sound too which is surprizing for me...I cannot choose between these positions... I go half the time in one or the other...

I like my room very much.... For sure it look like a mad house laboratory of a dement or mad scientist with hundred of tubes but i dont give a damn... It is better that than paying 60,000 bucks for an acoustician to do it if not more higher price and had all my tubes hidden in wall... Anyway almost no one did what i did... Almost no one use 30 Helmholtz diffusers for example and most audiophile dont know what it is and confuse it with a resonators of the same name... I know because i read that nowhere in any audio articles in the last 10 years...

It is the reason why people "taste" gear without paying attention to the acoustic...They think the sound come from a cable... Read me right here no cables sound the same, but it is monir differences compare to the ocean of changes coming from acoustic control especially...

😁😊

My deepest respect for your kindness toward me...

@khughes 

The question is, do you want one that *has* a distinct sound of it's own? Or one with the most accurate reproduction? The former will be a form of fixed tone control you may not want if you're an equipment junkie and change components frequently. Maybe it fits with the next gear iteration, maybe not. This type of "voicing" is one likely culprit for what I consider to be the "system synergy" canard.

Yes, this remains a key question for any budding audiophile.

It's quite important in that knowing exactly what you want can save you a lot of time and money in the coming years ahead.

It's also the kind of question that I never once considered. For some unknown reason I just assumed that the more highly regarded equipment espoused by the magazines that I was reading would inevitably be more accurate.

Obviously, that was not the case back then, and I doubt whether it's the case now.

Audio magazines are there to sells new costly gear if possible...

Not one spoke about the primacy of acoustic...Acoustic is secondary addition for them... Anyway the reviewer change pieces of gear each week and cannot bent the room qualitatively adapted to ONE system anyway...His room is a changing show place and he likes change... We like music in a room designed to serve it , not "sonic" character changes...

If they did spoke about the primacy of acoustic instead of suggesting upgrading multiple times each audiophile would learned to direct his focus on other less costly acoustic solutions than electronic upgrades only ... There is many acoustic solutions even for living room...

Magazine will loose their share of publicity if they did otherwise...

All people are not in the obligation to create a dedicated "ugly" room like me, they can pay more for esthetical acoustic devices put at the right spot...

😊

Me i dont give a damn about my mad scientist ugly room... My money is counted anyway.... God is with me listening music in my room, he likes Nietszche few musical composed pieces, i dont know why... He listen him more than Bach... Know your enemy but love him, this is his motto, i think ... He love him a lot....I prefer Bach...

😁😊