Would I benefit from a dedicated DAC?

After many years of exposure to high end - read expensive - audio kit, I now find that audible differences are caused by just these variables that are therefore worthy of attention:
1. Mastering/recording quality
2. Speaker quality/sonic signature, in turn driven by levels of technology that active crossovers in active speakers bring to the table
3. Speaker placement
4. Room acoustics
5. Room response DSP including herein the basic EQ settings
6. Sound levels, as in that all it takes for something to sound better than another is as little as a 0.2dB higher sound level

All else, even in those instances where small audible differences may survive, is lost in the ambient noise level of a typical domestic listening environment, even a quiet one. Not counting here an amp that is so poorly designed or chosen such that it is being driven to clip almost all the time by the speaker load, that then confers a sonic signature that was missing in the source signal.

Of course, I accept that the listening experience is also driven by many biases like confirmation/expectation ones as well as visible inputs, and there is nothing to argue with the listening pleasure derived by things like backlit dancing Vu meters, or glowing valves as long as they are accepted to be subjective and therefore by definition variable from person to person.

After many years of exposure to high end - read expensive - audio kit, I now find that audible differences are caused by just these variables that are therefore worthy of attention:
1. Mastering/recording quality
2. Speaker quality/sonic signature, in turn driven by levels of technology that active crossovers in active speakers bring to the table
3. Speaker placement
4. Room acoustics
5. Room response DSP including herein the basic EQ settings
6. Sound levels, as in that all it takes for something to sound better than another is as little as a 0.2dB higher sound level

All else, even in those instances where small audible differences may survive, is lost in the ambient noise level of a typical domestic listening environment, even a quiet one. Not counting here an amp that is so poorly designed or chosen such that it is being driven to clip almost all the time by the speaker load, that then confers a sonic signature that was missing in the source signal.

Of course, I accept that the listening experience is also driven by many biases like confirmation/expectation ones as well as visible inputs, and there is nothing to argue with the listening pleasure derived by things like backlit dancing Vu meters, or glowing valves as long as they are accepted to be subjective and therefore by definition variable from person to person.

So with all things 1-5 being constant, audible differences between two different receivers is purely related to volume or preconceived perception? What is it about speaker crossover circuitry that is unique / special / different to affect the sound in your point 2, but the signal path from Dac, to receiver preamp, to amp section is exempt from audible variations and thus all kit is the same? There is significantly more complex circuitry and power regulation going on within that system no? But hey it's all the same because any differences when all things held constant are due to volume or in your head because you paid more for the kit? Why is it that my Grado headphones sound literally one hundred times better through my chord Hugo than through my iPhone with built in DAC? Volume? Or I want to hear a difference because I paid $2gs for it and it's my brain rationalizing.

I agree all kit in theory can be engineered to sound the same but your devotion to ignore the entire chain from recording studio to speaker as universally the same or without audible differences is strange to me given your own argument of crossover influence and my own extensive 35 years of owning various low end and higher end kit. Theoretically it should be the same but it isn't. But hey- a Pinot is a Pinot. That's what my brother would say.

Final note. I just listened to Alt-J "intro" AB comparison Sonos DAC vs Chord DAC. Complex signal. Both amazing. Significantly more detail and spacious presentation with the chord- but it must be variation in DB or in my head.

it must be variation in DB or in my head.
Spot on! As long as the Chord DAC has been set to a flat position such that no sound shaping filters or EQ of any kind has been engaged on it, or on Sonos Connect either. If you disagree, prove it to be otherwise in a single variable level matched double blind test of a rigour that is commonly accepted in all realms and fields of scientific testing except in the field of amateur home audio. The kind of which is a term of service - TOS8 - on the Hydrogen Audio forum, unless you believe that too is a place set up, and administered by trolls.

Oh and by the way, oenophiles, like audiophiles, also hate double blind tests.

Last words with you; as I said, arguing with creationists is pointless.

On the wine subject, something with more than just a little truth in it and some learnings for the rare audiophile that wants to learn:
"our expectations of the wine are often more important than what’s actually in the glass. When we take a sip of wine, we don’t taste the wine first, and the cheapness or expensiveness second. We taste everything all at once, in a single gulp of thiswineisMoutonRothschild, or thiswineisfromSouthJersey. As a result, if we think a wine is cheap, then it will taste cheap. And if we think we are tasting a premier cru, then we will taste a premier cru. Our senses are vague in their instructions, and we parse their inputs based upon whatever other knowledge we can summon to the surface. It’s not that those new French oak barrels or carefully pruned vines don’t matter—it’s that the logo on the bottle and price tag often matter more.

So go ahead and buy some wine from New Jersey. But if you really want to maximize the pleasure of your guests, put a fancy French label on it. Those grapes will taste even better."
Italics added for emphasis

There is an even more hilarious example of experts that set out their tasting notes of a red wine in great detail ascribing the typical red wine attributes to it, never realising that it was a red coloured white.

I like my wines, but I have never much cared for those that insist I must have it only in Riedel crystal glasses to fully savour it. Nothing wrong with the glasses, especially if one can afford them, but by no means are they an essential part of the experience.

But I shall now see how to relabel my Sonos kit;)

it must be variation in DB or in my head.
Spot on! As long as the Chord DAC has been set to a flat position such that no sound shaping filters or EQ of any kind has been engaged on it, or on Sonos Connect either. If you disagree, prove it to be otherwise in a single variable level matched double blind test of a rigour that is commonly accepted in all realms and fields of scientific testing except in the field of amateur home audio. The kind of which is a term of service - TOS8 - on the Hydrogen Audio forum, unless you believe that too is a place set up, and administered by trolls.

Oh and by the way, oenophiles, like audiophiles, also hate double blind tests.

Last words with you; as I said, arguing with creationists is pointless.

Believe it or not we are saying the same thing. But manufacturers don't all produce things that are perfectly flat right, either by choice or capability? What is the evidence here? I get the whole signal with gain thing- flat is flat no way to tell a difference. Two more questions for you. In double blind tests are people able to consistently pick out the flat presentation (forget being able to tell flat from flat), and if so, do they generally prefer it?

Two more questions for you. In double blind tests are people able to consistently pick out the flat presentation (forget being able to tell flat from flat), and if so, do they generally prefer it?
It seems to me that you are mixing up two things here - there is no doubt that HiFi to the input signal - as in being straight wire with gain for an amp, or just a straight wire for a DAC, are widely desired attributes besides being HiFi by definition, so I don't know if you have a question about whether HiFi is a general preference.
If someone wants an amp with the kind of flavoured HiFi of the kind that a mildly clipping valve amp will provide, there are some that prefer that sound that, strictly speaking, is distorted sound. Akin to the vinyl distortion preference.
What is not usually preferred is a speaker with a flat frequency response when measured in the near field because by the time the room has done its thing to the sound from the speaker, what reaches the ear is sound with attenuated bass, something that is usually NOT preferred, as sounding too dry or thin.
So, what trait are you referring to when you talk flat and a preference for it in the quote above?

Some folks prefer the rendering that classic 1960s lenses from Zeiss, Schneider, etc can provide to certain types of shots, even though, by modern standards, those lenses are quite distorted. They can make a person look great through softer focusing, for example, where a much more accurate lens will show every flaw.

Sonos does what modern cameras do. They correct the nonlinearities of the drivers (lenses) using DSP, so that they are as flat and undistorted as possible. Some audiophiles seem to prefer the distortions, or at least they've been conditioned to think they do.

Sonos takes things even further, correcting for room anomalies, which are far worse than that of any amplifier's, except perhaps the worst of those silly little SET amps. Sonos' approach is far more sensible, sticking to the things that truly make a difference to the reproduction of sound. The "high end" audio companies, and their shills in audiophile publishing, do exactly the opposite, to a very large degree. Expensive cables, tube/valve amplification, ridiculously overpriced speakers and DACs, all provide bragging rights to the ignorant, but don't advance the state of the art.

Quite right. Though if one wants to obtain these outcomes from Sonos approaches to sound quality improvement, one has to move on beyond quaint things like external DACs, to their integrated play units.

Two more questions for you. In double blind tests are people able to consistently pick out the flat presentation (forget being able to tell flat from flat), and if so, do they generally prefer it?
It seems to me that you are mixing up two things here - there is no doubt that HiFi to the input signal - as in being straight wire with gain for an amp, or just a straight wire for a DAC, are widely desired attributes besides being HiFi by definition, so I don't know if you have a question about whether HiFi is a general preference.
If someone wants an amp with the kind of flavoured HiFi of the kind that a mildly clipping valve amp will provide, there are some that prefer that sound that, strictly speaking, is distorted sound. Akin to the vinyl distortion preference.
What is not usually preferred is a speaker with a flat frequency response when measured in the near field because by the time the room has done its thing to the sound from the speaker, what reaches the ear is sound with attenuated bass, something that is usually NOT preferred, as sounding too dry or thin.
So, what trait are you referring to when you talk flat and a preference for it in the quote above?

No biggie. I think we would all agree that SONOS is AMAZING.

I'm just challenging you on how do you know WHEN you are hearing a straight wire. To my ears, the internal DAC on my Sonos Connect TRUNCATES the output signal, albeit slightly. Perhaps it is perfectly flat and therefore a perfect representation of HIFI. But the Chord by comparison sounds more rich and alive. The beats hit you in the chest a bit more, linger a bit more in the air, while the detail within the other parts of the music, the detail that colors the edges of the notes in the other spectrums has more sparkle- like information is not lost. I know you say its because I paid dollars for it or that it is artificially colored with EQ. But my point is how do any of us know when you are hearing straight wire vs. enhancement? I do know it sounds different, more impactful and interesting, and for that, agree to disagree with you. Before you discount my perspective entirely to religious differences, I would encourage you to optical out to a Chord Hugo digital to analog converter and hear the difference for yourself and then we can have an honest dialogue.

To my ears, the internal DAC on my Sonos Connect TRUNCATES the output signal, albeit slightly. Perhaps it is perfectly flat and therefore a perfect representation of HIFI. But the Chord by comparison sounds more rich and alive.

I would encourage you to optical out to a Chord Hugo digital to analog converter and hear the difference for yourself and then we can have an honest dialogue.
LOL, the old refrain from every audiophile! You are saying - drink my brand of Kool-Aid, and then let's talk; I don't see the need to and here is why.
I have done my optical outing with two other high end external DACs, both of which claimed to deliver the kind of magic you describe - these are boiler plate audiophile descriptions of better sound, the ones you have used in the quote above and in the unquoted parts of your post. In both cases tested, the differences vanished in a level matched blind test.

No one has ever published a controlled single variable ABX of any DAC with the Connect DAC, where the difference in sound has been picked reliably by listening alone.

Given both the above, I haven't the need or the inclination to run after every claimed black swan. It is for you to prove it is black in the way the world of science in general accepts as a valid test, to prove that what you have found is black and yours may even well be the first black swan in the world of external DACs. But not just because your existing claim for it to be so, which so far is no different in quality from the usual audiophile claim for every magical DAC its owner happens to have bought or heard.

If you haven't the time or inclination to do what no one else has either, I am perfectly content to agree to disagree, as I would with a creationist who doesn't demand that I be one too. Which was my first statement on the subject, if you recall.

The other major point where we disagree is based on your admitting the possibility that the Connect is a perfect representation of HiFi, but you prefer the Chord sound. Logically, since perfection cannot be exceeded, it means the Chord isn't HiFi, but is doing something to the source signal, to change it, that the Connect isn't. If that truly be the case, my vote is still for Connect because I would prefer to have the source signal. If I wanted to play around with it, I would rather have this as an option at my end via things like EQ level controls or, more advanced, things like Trueplay with an on/off toggle. I would not want to be forever stuck with "sound like Chord thinks it should be" where I would need to get rid of Chord to get the sound as it was recorded. YMMV, and note that I am not saying you are wrong in preferring the Chord signal over the originally recorded one. But it does mean that the Chord market is limited to people like you that like the permanent Chord flavour conferred on their sound.