The language of audiophiles and/or terms and words we use to describe sound is an attempt to objectify an inherently subjective experience. Melm's one example of descriptions of 'analog like' goes to show how it can have different meanings to different people. I presume most audiophiles know what intent of that descriptor means, yet it may not be entirely accurate in an objective sense. We can't know for a fact the person claiming to hear this characteristic in their system really knows what analog sounds like, or conforms to our definition or understanding of same.
I suppose I was lucky in a way in that my beginnings in audio were prior to information technology explosion. I had virtually no communication or access to information in regard to the sound of audio equipment. I only had my own experience listening to various sound reproducing systems to guide my own path into creating my own systems. I had very few preconceptions or biases, I didn't yet have the need to be cynical or judgemental, therefore, I was like an open book, I could easily trust my own ears/mind to judge the qualities of sound that appealed to me. And so this was my method for building my first system, and remained the method for subsequent system building.
I'm not sure I'd like to be novice audiophile today, I'd have a terrible time making decisions on which direction to pursue in everything audiophile. Who can you trust? Here we are extolling the virtues of this virtually unknown dac, I understand the cynicism of outside voices, why should any of us be trusted, what are our credentials?
And so audiophile's attempts to objectify audio language and certify themselves as experts to be trusted is highly questionable. Obviously, at some point individuals make choices as to audio equipment purchases. Based on the many requests for guidance on this forum and many others, any number of individuals are letting others guide their purchases, they are placing their trust in certain others. I further presume the more experienced of us are at least somewhat influenced by other audiophiles, even if we are consciously oblivious to that influence.
And so the point is, its very likely virtually every single audiophile makes valiant attempts to objectify an inherently subjective experience. I can't live in your shoes, and I don't have your assemblage of equipment in your room, I know virtually nothing about your audio system listening experience! And here I am extolling virtues of a dac with my unique audio language, audio system, room and ear/brain listening complex. Seems quite useless!
Which brings me back to this overly long winded spiel. I purchased 005 virtually blind, not a single review, absolutely no guidance other than internal pictures and description of parts used. My only guide in this purchase was my knowledge of audio parts gained through many years of modding various audio components. And that was hard gained knowledge, I destroyed a couple diy projects in the early days. How any of this makes me qualified to be a guide as to any dac purchase is beyond me.
Melm's honest appraisal on the subjectivity of audiophile language was food for thought here. This recent article by Roger Skoff also great stimulus, https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0322/Disagree_About_Audio.htm