The assumption that the DAC chip or processing technology is the determining factor for sound quality is a fallacy. I have posted before, it is the implementation of the design intent in using whatever processing technology is chosen, from the digital input stage to the analogue output stage, that determines sound quality. I find implementation of the analogue output stage as critical, more critical to sound quality as the processing stage. I have noted over the years the gap between DACs in the lower price range to upper price range has narrowed. The benefit/cost ratio becomes personal preference and means.
The assumption that the cost of goods should dictate retail price alone, and companies selling expensive DACs do so to take advantage of customers, is a fallacy. The capital goods we purchase in the hobby are luxury goods. The driver for setting retail price for any luxury goods is value based pricing where the price is set based on the perceived value to the customer rather than the cost to produce it, leading to higher retail prices, and of course, higher profit margins. The content developer only considered COGS. He did not consider that this is a boutique market with small volume net sales and low volume manufacturing processes that drives COGS higher. I would assume the content developer has never participated in a formal break even analysis. He did not consider development cost and GMROI. Many brands do extensive analysis of years to bring a new or revised model to market. However, prices of some manufacturer’s equipment are above the means of most of us. Unless we have participated in their market and price analysis, we cannot comment and should resolve ourselves to respecting their technological achievements, and be satisfied with our systems.
I find this content developer is speaking from an uninformed position from both and audiophile and business perspective so as to strike emotional response in an effort to get more views to elevate his marketability. Sorry I helped him.