432 EVO

at first was using the wrong usb input

You mean the wrong OUTPUT on the EVO 432? Or the wrong USB input on his DAC?

And if the reviewer says the following on FB forum immediately after posting the review, that is all someone needs to know. Having a hard time distinguishing between USB out from a $400 NUC to DAC vs. a $5,000 server / streamer, sounds like a waste of money to me.

I have to say though, up until the actual review of the unit, the entire historical story of the 432 tuning was well written and a pleasure to read. Lots of stuff I did not know. I enjoyed that.

I read the review last evening. My take: Positive Feedback should get an experienced (digital focused) reviewer for a second opinion. @thyname  @facten  @lalitk all would do a far, far superior job.

I agree on the historical portion of the review...perhaps the reviewer should reconsider what he's better suited for?

@thyname, You left this part of the "Where's the Magic?" section of the review out:

I recalled reading a passage that warned not to use the USB 3.0 ports to connect the audio, as they were noisier than the USB 2.0 port which I couldn't seem to find. Then, spotting another reviewer's photo of their USB playback cable plugged into the 432 EVO, I found it: a single USB port with the familiar SOtM Audio name stamped sideways to the left (SOtM USB cards are specifically designed to reduce noise and maximize computer audio playback performance with its special filter circuits, low-noise voltage regulator and ultra-low jitter clock). 

Apparently using the USB 2.0 output on the 432 brought the magic that the USB 3.0 output on the 432 did not.  This part of the review was not well written or laid out with the pictures, but I think this is what the reviewer meant.  You'd have to ask him to know for sure.

I did read that. But he did not specifically said this USB port was much better to his NUC than the previous USB port was using. And as he posted this on FB right after (see screenshot I posted above), that led me to believe he did not hear much difference vs. NUC USB out to DAC, period.

I am perhaps arriving to wrong conclusions, but that’s what I thought when I read these. Just me.

Maybe someone can ask him of Facebook. It's on Audio Enthusiasts Group, private group with about 57,000 members

I agree with david_ten that pf needs to have someone else review the 432 or have Juan C. Ayllon clarify what his opinion of the 432 is. Is it this (from the conclusion):

The 432 EVO High End Music Server is a remarkable player, making good on its promise to deliver a warmer, more pleasant listening experience via its 432 Hz tuning. It definitely takes the edge off digital files and, if you’re jonesing for vinyl playback but don’t have the bucks or inclination to purchase a good one (or a decent cartridge and phono stage preamplifier, for that matter), this might be the way to go; you get the convenience of digital with a lion’s share of vinyl’s warmth.

or this (from Facebook):

Save for the tuning and DSP, the Intel NUC with a great DAC like the Yggie is quite competitive.

Although, the Facebook post does say, "save for the tuning and DSP", well aren’t the tuning and DSP major functions of the 432? What does their inclusion in the 432 do to the comparison with the Intel NUC?