I have heard the Bricasti M1 with the new network card, but I actually purchased the Bricasti M12 --- it is the same design, and contains the same DAC (except for an improved DSD converter), plus analog inputs and an analog volume control. Both have the network card. The M12 falls in the category of a "DAC/pre". Sorry for the long post, but I think it is a fascinating area of development right now.
To give my comments some perspective, I have been using a computer as a front end since 2008, and moved to LAN network playback when the Sonore Microrendu came out last year. It has been an interesting evolution. The Mrendu was an improvement over direct USB playback because it takes the actual rendering of the music out of the noisy computer environment (in this case, Windows 10) and moved it to a purpose-built audiophile computer. It does this by using the LAN to transport the signal from the server to the MRendu, and those LAN info packets are not real-time audio.
However, the MRendu and other devices like it such as the SOTM 200 and most recently the dCS network bridge (which I own), all share one common conceptual weakness (IMHO): they all have to translate the LAN signal back into USB or SPDIF to get it to the DAC. They are all fine devices, because there is a huge installed base of DACs that needs such conversion, and as I noted above, and they still are preferable to a straight USB connection.
The Bricasti network card eliminates the need for USB or SPDIF anywhere in the playback chain. How can this be bad, from an audiophile perspective? No USB receiver chip, no extra USB cable or USB reclockers. According to Brian at Bricasti, the LAN packets are translated directly to the DAC's native I2S just millimeters from the converter, and the card shares the same internal clock.
Of course, context and implementation are everything. Start with the fact that the Bricasti M1 and M12 are amazing DACs, regardless of which input is used. The LAN input just makes it better. I used my dCS network bridge and connected it to the M1's XLR input -- the LAN input was clearly better. I tried connecting using the USB input. Had I not heard the LAN input, I still would have thought it was an amazing DAC. But it was a few notches below where the LAN connection gets you.
By the same token, before trying the Bricasti, I demoed the Ayre QX5-20, which also has a network card. It sounded better using the network bridge. Plus, overall, it wasn't in the same league with the Bricasti --- IMHO!
The bottom line? A few, actually. Input choices shouldn't be driving your choice of a DAC. But with streaming and computer front ends here to stay, LAN delivery is the wave of the future. DACs that accept LAN inputs directly are part of that wave. Congrats to Bricasti on its brilliant implementation of the network card --- it pushes a world-class DAC even further ahead.