My measurements for the DAVE largely align with Amir's. Some small differences but to be expected when testing different units in different places etc etc.
I don't however agree with his conclusion, for several reasons.
Firstly: SINAD alone is a seriously poor metric to evaluate the quality of a DAC.
Even for very basic reasons like the fact that if you do not apply at least -3dB of digital headroom to a DAC, it becomes susceptible to intersample over clipping.
Because of this, Chord, RME, Benchmark and various other companies will keep that headroom because it's important to do so. The downside being that you are then sacrificing about 3dB of SINAD.
Compare the Benchmark DAC3B with the Gustard X18 in this test:
Gustard X18:
Clipping to hell and back, lots of unwanted distortion.
Vs DAC3B:
Much better! No clipping at all, cause it has the proper headroom.
And yet if we were to go based only off SINAD the X18 would be the clear winner and there'd be no need to look at any other behaviour.
Additionally in the instance of the DAVE there are things like jitter performance being absolutely amazing, or the reconstruction filter being to my knowledge the best inbuilt option available in any DAC, even many years after its release.
SINAD is a good thing to look at to get a quick indication of if it's going to have some sort of big problem or not, but when looking at dacs over 110dB or whatever, honestly choosing to go based off SINAD alone rather than looking at other areas of performance seems incredibly odd.
There are also other areas of performance such as noise shapers which you actually cannot measure at the output of a device because it's impossible to separate analog noise from quantization noise. You have to simulate it mathematically.
Point is, if you're JUST going off SINAD, then sure, there are other DACs which have a higher number, doesn't mean they're a better DAC and there are lots of areas where the DAVE is still one of if not the highest performing options on the market, and the subjective feedback on it widely speaks for itself