It could potentially be end game...if Rob decided to retire. As you start to understand the differences between the various DAC architectures that are readily available today, whether it be a chip-based DAC like the Berkeley Reference 2 or an R2R ladder DAC like the MSB Select II, it becomes apparent that each of these DAC architectures has inherent limitations that Rob himself couldn't overcome and even though the components that comprise each technology can be cleverly optimized (ie better power supplies, better isolation, better resistors, better analog section, etc), ultimately, these DACs still must conform to some rigid box that will limit them. For a chip-based DAC, it could be something like the DAC chip itself. A good analogy would be something like a Ford Fusion. You could bore out the engine, improve the suspension, swap in some racing tires and transform it into a NASCAR racing car and with the right driver, maybe this car even wins the Daytona 500...but this car will never win Le Mans. It's not in its DNA and so this car will always be defined by the limitations that define all NASCAR racing cars. The DAVE is different. It isn't forced to conform to anything and so it has more of a potential to be anything. Just about every aspect of its performance is based on code and its only limitation is the hardware that has to run the code and the brilliance of the individual that writes the code. Where most DAC builders strive to create a rich and organic sound, Rob's intent was to recreate the original analog wave form. That should tell you something. Other DAC manufacturers speak of their desire to achieve transparency when what many of them really mean is pleasing tonality, at least that's how I see it. As a regular patron of live performances, I have never been to a performance and wished for pleasant tonality. There's nothing wrong with pleasant tonality but if you have to give up that 3-dimensional quality of space and depth that makes a performance sound real and palpable, for me, the compromise isn't worth it. If a tenor makes a mistake and misses a note, then he misses a note but better that than him lip-syncing to a perfectly polished pre-recorded track. The connection for me isn't the same. This is for me the magic of the DAVE. The music just breathes. Once again, for poor recordings, there are some sweetened DACs that will sound better than an accurate and transparent DAC like the DAVE. Voices might even take on a certain heavenly harmonic character, perhaps better than the actual performance and there's nothing wrong with liking this. I like it myself. But in my view, you can achieve the same result by adding a tube amp and rolling in a Tung Sol Round Plate 6SN7 driver tube or Western Electric 300B power tube and not end up compromising the dimensional qualities of the recording by buying a less than transparent DAC. What happens in the future as better and better recordings become available and actually become the norm instead of the exception? What happens if DAVINA comes to fruition and takes off? Are we going to want to sweeten those recordings and lose out on the depth of the details that will be there in even greater abundance? Looking at your situation from a practical standpoint, for the price of a Berkeley Reference 2 (about $20k), you could buy a DAVE, the most transparent DAC I have heard that comes with the most transparent headphone amp as a bonus along with an Eddie Current Zana Deux S OTL tube amp which would pair brilliantly with your HD800 for those times when your recording warrants coloration and while you're at it, also throw in a nice collection of tubes, an HFC CT-1 mains cable, HFC CT-1 interconnects and microRendu with upgraded power supply and still end up with change in your pocket. And as a final bonus, Chord will even throw in that Crossfeed feature that you like so much. Sounds like the best of all worlds to me.