This reminds me of my days at Gartner. FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), is what drives this industry (i.e. fear of missing out on the latest "breakthrough" innovation).
Yes, I have had an eye-opening experience in this regard when, courtesy of Goodwin's High End, I was able to compare at home the highly acclaimed NAD M51 DAC to my Wadia 12 DAC. I sonically preferred the 20 year-old (!) Wadia 12 to the NAD DAC, except in the bass performance (well, the Wadia 12 had been upgraded in 1997 with the Wadia 860 opamp, but that was also 17 years ago). So much for the hype of ever higher performance of digital over the years. Don't get me wrong, the NAD is a great DAC when judged on its own, but folks, let's be real. Paul at Goodwin's High End wasn't surprised about the findings.
I ended up buying the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2. Now that one did live up to the hype of ever higher performance of digital over the years ... It was simply in a different league than both the NAD M51 and the Wadia 12, with a stunning price/performance ratio. Paul was like, I told you so... (yes, it is 2.5 x more expensive than the NAD M51, but in my view ridiculously cheap relative to its performance).
But the NAD M51 is still a reference of comparison for John Atkinson from Stereophile when it comes to the best of today's DACs. This DAC comes up again, for example, in his recent review of the Auralic Vega DAC. To be honest, his comparisons left me completely in the dark about the Auralic Vega's performance, which may be great, but I really don't know. I like to read JA, but that was one hell of a worthless review, in my opinion.
Well, in general most reviews of audio gear are worthless, again just in my opinion (there are a few writers that do make me pay attention, such as Roy Gregory, now at Audio Beat).