What makes a DAC so expensive?


You can buy a Cambridge Audio AXA25 25 Watt 2-Channel Integrated Stereo Amplifier | 3.5mm Input, USB Input for $225, and most DACs seem more costly. 

I'm wondering what it is that makes a Bifrost 2 almost as expensive as an Aegir and 3x's as expensive as the Cambridge product, above. I would have thought an Aegir would out-expense a Bifrost by a factor of two or three. What are the parts that make the difference? 

I'm wondering if the isolated DAC concept is one that comes with a "luxury" tax affixed. Can anyone explain what I'm getting in a Bifrost 2, or other similar product that justifies the expense...?

Thank you.
listening99
The GAIA can even accept multiple inputs, so a many-2-many distribution point.

My interest in it is to try different DACs into the system while comparing against my reference Benchmark DAC3B. These DACs would not measure the same so their will be sonic differences.
@Listening99

This forum is a microcosm of our larger culture. I appreciate your pursuit of truth- in this case in DACs, but I am guessing based on your writing skills this is standard for you. I would probably thoroughly enjoy a shared skull session on a variety of topics. I do get discouraged when I see the attacks, especially when I believe we all have similar goals and a shared appreciation for music. I am not certain how old you are, and please don’t feel disrespected if I offer some unsolicited advice. Days may seem long, but years will fly by. Chasing the truth too vigorously can rob you of simply enjoying. Peace be with you. 
listening99, forgive me for offending you. 

I felt offended several times back when I was a budget audiophile. Nearly any honest criticism of my equipment or methods was cause for disgust. But, looking back, those critics were right. 

FYI, The terms "objectivist" and "subjectivist" are not particularly name calling in the sense of calling someone a fool, but are used widely in the industry and among hobbyists as descriptors of methodology. 

I have spent enough time on this. Blessings to all. 
Audio is not about an upgrading race, not about buying costlier components at all...

This is a truism, or a common place evidence that costlier gear can be better....

Audio is about creating the best conditions to experience a good S.Q.

Thinking that money only can buy that is ignorance....

Saying that costlier gear are better is a common place argument devoid of any originality....

In audio we must use a minimum of brain power to identify the problems and after that solving them.... My experience is that this does not cost much money....It cost fun work and time....


Then am i a fool completely deluded or is it possible to reach something acceptable and very good at low price? yes i know that by my experiments....

ANY system MUST be embedded mechanically, (minimizing vibrations/resonance)electrically (decreasing the noise floor) and very important located in an acoustically controlled room...

Any relatively well chosen audio system at relatively low cost may sound marvellous, if its embeddings are well done.... ANY.....

Contradicting that saying that i never listen to 100,000 dollars system is logically a sophism....

When you enjoy a good S.Q. it does not mean that there is nothing better than your system, it means that you are no more obsessed by sound race to upgrade at all cost, because you have it in way so satisfying that throwing money is ridiculous....

But i know it by reading all threads all this years most people dont have a clue how to reach some S.Q. level except buying costly gear....I was like that....

And saying to people they will never have a clue about good sound without paying a fortune is not only false it is pure ignorance about audio creativity and experience.... Consumerism is not audio.....  

My best to all....