Shouldn‘t the goal for any set-up be neutrality and transparency?In that case my vote goes to the Zodiac Platinum. I think that NOS Euphonics are ultimately a dead end and the Zodiac‘s upsampling actually allows for shifting filters away from the audible spectrum. The result is a very transparent and uncoloured presentation. BTW the best way to assess a DAC is solo piano because of its reach harmonic spectrum, overtone decay and Impulse.
This viewpoint encapsulates what I call the "short view" vs. the "long view". The phrase "transparent to the source" is a myth. The real world does not allow for something going to our brain that is "transparent to the source". Reviewers use it indiscriminately. Often they use it as short-hand for something else.
Digital reproduction of analogue sound is inherently flawed, as is vinyl, as is loudspeaker technology, as is recording technology. For many of us -quite likely even the majority of us-digital reproduction of sound waves is even more problematic than the others. If the sound from your digital rig does not allow you to RELAX, to feel good, to enjoy the music, than the fact that the DAC measures superbly is meaningless. The "long view" is this-do you find yourself watching TV or doing things at night other than listening to music? Why? Something must be amiss in your system! I firmly believe this happens to the majority of us and that often it is because equipment was purchased based on technology and measurements and short-sighted reviews. "Euphonic" is a loaded word, mostly disparaging and implying artifice.
I don't mind the use of the word "euphonic" because I know I can get fantastic sound in my system and I know how to go about it. It can mean one thing to you and an entirely different thing to me. It is not that we are using the same word to describe the same thing. We evidently hear differently and strive for different recreations of the sound that was recorded.
