I have a well recognised recording engineer using 2x CMA800R with LCD2s here. He's really happy with the improvements. Obviously this isn't exactly the same product but the current mode circuit is well suited to what you want to do. Their products don't generally add lots of coloration and the studio market is one we are actively pursuing with Questyle and one they felt their products have relevance to from the start.
I think the other things mentioned here could be considered 'niggles'. Most products have them. There are no serious flaws.
It's not a lit volume meter. There are several status LEDs inside the unit besides the ones on the front panel that are bleeding through.
I literally called for a negatives roundup because we love the amp so much. I was curious if people had real problems with it. Most problems you read here are just physical nitpicks if anything. If you want a clean reference Dac/amp it should be more than capable for LCD-X.
I would strongly advise against this unless the person demo'd a Deckard. It has a very different character from the clean precision of a CMA400i.
My point about "extended" in so many cases is that Manufacturers for example tend to say this version have "better extension in the lowend".... the product may go lower freq response but most likely they also boost the lower Freq range just to please a market that cares more about extra Lows and extra highs forgetting the importance of the mid-range.
To give you some context on what I used previously. For a long while I only had a TEAC UD-H01, an sub-par/average headamp with a decent DAC section. I upgraded the amp to an ifi iCan SE, which has a really neat bass boost button, but it was still a tight package in terms of presentation. When I tried the CMA400i it added a whole bunch of depth and room-feel to the music for lack of a better word. I could hear much better what was happening and the detail is addictive to me. I sold/still selling my entire previous setup because it's almost completely redundant now.
