Interesting read, this whole thread, in which I would not like the above to go unnoticed (it kind of did, or at least it seemed so to me reading on).
In my humble opinion, 99% of all those audiophiles who claim they want the truth couldn't live with it if they got it. To me, this fundamentally calls into question the meaning of the term "state of the art".
I used to build loudspeakers with time alignment, with phase-coherent filters of my own design. So my mindset is pretty much the same as that of a recording engineer (there are great interviews online by the likes of Bert van der Wolf, Morten Lindberg and others). The gear one builds, same as the recordings one makes are not supposed to compensate for flaws elsewhere in the system or the recording/mastering chain. Guess what brand people with this mindset tend to use.
Now, I'm not saying one should exclusively play back clap tests on the DAC one intends to audition. On the contrary, unless one is a classical music buff like me, comparing dozens of recordings of the same Opera, Symphony, Piano or Violin Sonata or Concerto etc., where one wants to be able to differentiate between e.g. an early or late Stradivari or other make of violin, and more importantly, all the subtleties of a soloist's playing not just in audiophile, but also historical recordings, the so-called truth is elusive, if not an illusion. More to the point: it may not even be a legitimate goal.
Audiophiles who primarily listen to Pop, Rock, electronically produced music, studio productions or live recordings using anything from microphone arrays to amplified instruments and voices, had better do as the musicians do: it's a mere matter of getting the sound one likes. No use obsessing over what's "natural".
Having said that, given the price category that "state of the art" inevitably seems to imply, I sometimes wish audiophiles would at least include some natural recordings of human voices, real instruments, if not sounds of nature, in their playlists, preferably in the form of phase-coherent one-point recordings, before making a buying decision.
Not long ago, I attended a "shootout" (who ever came up with the idea of using that term in this context?!) of two pricey DACs: one from - depending upon whom one asks - a Greek or Turkish island, the other from a former Eastern-bloc country, i.e. neither brands that either of the afore-mentioned recording engineers would consider using in the studio, but that one would expect to provide a satisfying listening experience, where the last song used for comparison was Jon Hopkins "Abandon Window" from his album Immunity, no doubt a multi-track studio recording that has little to do with what I'd use to base buying decisions on, but still, the closest to a natural sound on any of the track list was some rain and lightning in the background that one of the two DACs reduced to electronic crackling reminiscent of the resolution of a first-generation CD player from the eighties - I've heard white noise from an FFT analyzer that sounded more like rain drops falling. That same DAC, deemed by at least one listener to be the more "dynamic-sounding" of the two, suffered from digital artifacts that made it sound aggressive. Why am I relating this? It reminded me of something else audiophiles tend to underestimate in my opinion: listening fatigue, which one won't notice playing half a track here, skip to a portion of another track there. There's a huge difference when one is a classical buff like me and listens to, as I've done with a friend, Wagner's Ring in one legendary recording, takes a nap or makes sandwiches and gets a nice bottle from the cellar, then listens to another Ring (to the uninitiated: I just described the activity of a whole weekend).
It's no mystery to me why some in this thread find it hard to integrate e.g. the DACs of a certain British manufacturer into certain systems: gear conceived, designed and built with a studio mindset will not, for all the reasons mentioned above, compensate for any flaws elsewhere in a system (for example: using them as source makes it even easier for me to hear the midrange drivers of a loudspeaker brand they're often demoed with are connected in inverted polarity in most if not all models I've heard). Taking that path can lead to frustration.
Or, in a best-case scenario, goosebumps and that elusive "you are there" feeling. I remember hearing Keith Jarrett's Köln Concert and Vladimir Horowitz's Return to Carnegie where I ended up lying in bed awake tingling all over, with the experience engraved in my memory as if I'd attended those concerts in real life. Priceless. Literally.
In a nutshell: what goes in comes out - I love it. I imagine it might even grow on some people if they tried. But would I recommend it? No. Not to 99% of those audiophiles who claim they want the truth and nothing but the truth.
I didn't mention those who aren't even claiming truth is what they want. Personally, I see no wrong in wanting something that sounds unrealistically beautiful.
At home.
Just my five cents' worth, obviously…
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
