Hi Iron Dreamer ... what a competent review. Well done !
Cosmopragma also added another view on AQVOX usage. This is a unit I had been considering against a DAC-1, but now that the small Lavry has turned up - my attention changes.
I agree that a remote volume control would be most worthwhile on a DAC if possible, but also, in this computer age, USB sourcing could also be usefully selectable.
AQVOX make great claims for op-amp-less single ended class-A amplification and load effect free output driving, which I take to be a cascode-like arrangement, as often favoured for RF stage isolation.
Actually these are the very claims that put me off, because I cannot see single ended class-A being as dynamically accurate as a properly implemented integrated push-pull output driving stage: I am thinking of the throughput of dynamic but assymetrical music signals as compared to balanced and steady audio frequency sinewaves, and the possibility of small degrees of lower frequency zero level shifting developments, from mid range crescendos, that can accompany and thus muddy low frequency output.
Also, the load effect free arrangement would only protect the internal control loop from reactive load induced change, while the output phase relationship of harmonic content might be more free to alter through frequency with load impedance, this being relevent to higher frequencies where reproduced left and right harmonics must retain original relationships for correct image placement.
Iron Dreamer, your review makes me think of these possibilities, especially as you comment that the mid-frequencies (which automatically become the aural reference) reproduce well. Thus the AQVOX resolution might be more sensitive to signal dynamics and output loading than the other two are with more conventional amplification; thus further improvement might be possible via modification.
Cheers ........ Graham.