What makes a DAC so expensive?

If you are newer to audio class leading quality per dollar $$  spent Are Denafrips, tons of awards, Schiit audio, Mytek ,and         Bench mark, p.s Audio each one will have a different sonic character ,the most analog per $$ spent a Denafrips R2R dacs .
the Denafrips Ares2 , the best dac under $1k  on the market and best many at $2k , their Pontus at  under $1800  IMO class leading In the next upper class like the .Schiit Yggsdrasil,Has also very good value but less forgiving of older,less 
refined recordings , and depending on what you are loooing for your system as a whole and it’s sonic foot print matter.  Read as many reviews on the possible choices to get an idea. I bought several just on one reviewers opinion and it may have sucked 
in my system . Your budget too will have a lot to do with ultimate refinement . A lot of possibilities, p.s when a company gives you 2 weeks audition it is worthless imo digital takes a solid 300 hours + to truly settle in being so low a voltage say compared to a Power amplifier to be at its best I have had dacs that took 150 hours just to start settling in and being less bright ,several factors there as to 
why and digital cables too effect the sound ,and take time to runin 
over 40 years at this ,I hate running in new gear for that is when you have to go through hearing it at its worst ,unless you have a backup system to just put it in .besing an Audiophile can be great 
but sucks when trying to voice your system to your specific 
sonic goal,or expectation. Having owned a Audiostore in the past 
and overspending many times.  ,and more then a nice home on Audio .as I get older I look for best value , for when you get to 
a certain point you may have to spend 2xthe cost or more just for a 5% increase in Fidelity ,there are No guarantees ,cables one area 
where there are many way over priced out there ,and all sound different . Budget your purchases myself Loudspeakers  spend the most you can afford , and digital second IMO for it is the sourse 
you can’t make up a lost musical signal downstream . Then both amp,preamp,or integrated ,cables never go cheap ,or weak link 
In  the chain. Just my observation ,nothing more.

Is my discussion a tactic? At least for me, it's not a "tactic". I was a Chintziphile many years ago. I'm simply discussing the ulterior motive that often accompanies the effort to claim that the differences in performance are not that great. 

The only thing that changed my perspective was the blessing of being asked to review, and consequently handling equipment in a different class than I ever would have considered buying. Apart from that, I likely would still be arguing along the lines of the objectivists in order to defend the wallet - and frustrated with the sound/experience.   :)

It's simply not worth arguing about it. Either open your wallet or not, and get the results you are working (or not working) for. If you don't want to spend money, feed your skepticism. If you want to build a superior audio system, get ready - you have to open your wallet.    :) 

I am not a fan of shutting down others voices. DJones is technically correct. The measurements are what they are. The difficulty in refuting his absolutes is that “transparency and measurements” does not always sound so great or the same. I have 2 transports with similar measurements- one I use daily the other is in a box. Why in a box? Because it doesn’t sound as good as the other. The one I use does have much better components. Does it sound better  due to some yet to be discovered attribute? Don’t know, nor do I spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating. I have plenty of technical background but I also have travelled the world extensively and realize that some things buck current science. I also do not believe that big money is the only path to phenomenal anything. Big dollar components can be trumped by better application and synergy of lesser priced components. What’s wrong with audio being a mixture of science and art and magic? Last point, all of us have varying financial means, and similarly varying definitions of audio nirvana. It isn’t a zero sum game where ones win is another’s loss. 

I am not a fan of shutting down others voices. DJones is technically correct. The measurements are what they are. The difficulty in refuting his absolutes is that “transparency and measurements” does not always sound so great or the same. I have 2 transports with similar measurements- one I use daily the other is in a box. Why in a box? Because it doesn’t sound as good as the other. The one I use does have much better components. Does it sound better due to some yet to be discovered attribute? Don’t know, nor do I spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating. I have plenty of technical background but I also have travelled the world extensively and realize that some things buck current science. I also do not believe that big money is the only path to phenomenal anything. Big dollar components can be trumped by better application and synergy of lesser priced components. What’s wrong with audio being a mixture of science and art and magic? Last point, all of us have varying financial means, and similarly varying definitions of audio nirvana. It isn’t a zero sum game where ones win is another’s loss.

i very much like your post and wise comments....

Thanks....

I will add my own comments about "what buck science" :

Too much tools use dependency, not enough disciplined perception.....Something that, almost 2 centuries ago, Goethe called "delicate empiricism".....

If it results in distortion then it is measurable. If it is above a certain level it will be audible. If it is audible then it's a lousy DAC sell it to an audiophile and move on. DACs that are well engineered DO NOT have sound signatures they are considered audibly transparent
I hate to break it to you, but no audio equipment is 100% transparent.