Schiit Loki Max?

You are definitely right!

I suspect I’m simply less aware of timbre than tonal balance.

What I’ve noticed is that tonal balance and PRaT are the first things my brain locks onto and evaluates before turning its attention to timbre, sound staging and even resolution.

I’m not sure why this is so.

Do you have any ideas regarding why different listeners prioritize aspects of SQ differently?

One view -- the one I hold -- is that some kind of rather precise, fixed EQ will be needed to make many systems sound the most natural. Certainly in the bass, and sometimes higher up to correct quirks of the loudspeakers or headphones.

THEN, one has to deal with the different approaches taken in producing different recordings. Some producers will use EQ or microphones that do not sound accurate. In many cases, broadband EQ like the early Cello devices and the new Schiit ones will be able to make substantial improvements.

One could call the first kind of EQ timbre correction and the second kind tonal-balance correction without objection from me. Still, if one is wrong, the other will be wrong, almost by definition, since timbre is largely the balance of harmonics, i.e., tonal balance in some sense. That is to me not worth much discussion, being mainly semantics. My main point is that pinpoint EQ and broadband EQ are two different items and for two different purposes.

This video and the others on this youtube site explain well all the factors at play and in the right order... I discovered it few weeks ago and i arrived in my own way "groping in the night" of my listening experimentsfor 2 years to the same conclusion about the value of these factors and their ordering...

The reason why your brain lock first in tonal balance and PRAT is simple and normal... It is impossible to experience a sound perceived Timbre naturalness without having through your system settle all necessary parameters for a minimal quality threshold experience of tonal balance and PRAT... If not timbre experience cannot be otherwise than inaccurate and artificial...Most people dont recognize Timbre imbalance and one of the reason is that they never experience it in a good speakers/room or with headphone  to begin with... And for sure we must know how a piano and a voice must sound in various locations in real life ...

Then when all is optimal and timbre experience is minimally good, then and only then you can tune your speakers/ room and work with its many acoustic parameters for more in term of Spatial soundfield : ( a)improving imaging, (b) soundstaging and (c) holographical volume ratio of the sound sources and the listener envelopment factor... These three are called "immersiveness"...

In this video they say the same thing better than me because they are acousticians, and i am only an experimenting amateurs ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DseAu4LPPWQ&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_A5BFgnV1w5wNNfnks3u0oL&index=51&t=1499s

You are definitely right!

I suspect I’m simply less aware of timbre than tonal balance.

What I’ve noticed is that tonal balance and PRaT are the first things my brain locks onto and evaluates before turning its attention to timbre, sound staging and even resolution.

I’m not sure why this is so.

Do you have any ideas regarding why different listeners prioritize aspects of SQ differently?

I am pretty in the same boat as you and i concur with the way you express it about EQ...

Just a correction about "timbre" which is not only tonal balance or spectral envelope but also "Time envelope" and onset of the sound etc to described it briefly :

From wiki ...

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration

Then the timbre experience to be set rightin a room or in headphone  ask for more acoustic factors to work with than just tonal balance ...

One view -- the one I hold -- is that some kind of rather precise, fixed EQ will be needed to make many systems sound the most natural. Certainly in the bass, and sometimes higher up to correct quirks of the loudspeakers or headphones.

THEN, one has to deal with the different approaches taken in producing different recordings. Some producers will use EQ or microphones that do not sound accurate. In many cases, broadband EQ like the early Cello devices and the new Schiit ones will be able to make substantial improvements.

One could call the first kind of EQ timbre correction and the second kind tonal-balance correction without objection from me. Still, if one is wrong, the other will be wrong, almost by definition, since timbre is largely the balance of harmonics, i.e., tonal balance in some sense. That is to me not worth much discussion, being mainly semantics. My main point is that pinpoint EQ and broadband EQ are two different items and for two different purposes.

I have had MY LOKI Max for about a year and I must say I could not do without it in my system. I have space limitations in my room, which cause me to locate my bookshelf speakers close to the rear wall. What I like most about the Loki, is it seems to change more the characteristic of the speaker then the sound. Someone ask about transparency. Absolutely to my ears it is. I have remove it dozens of times from my Pass 250 and I can not detect any difference in or out. I have my room treated so I don’t need to use it often, but it sure is handy when I need it. Most of the time is just a very small adjustment here or there. Nothing like adjusting from a chair. I did use a black magic marker to color the notches on the knobs, to heal me see. It’s a bit pricey, but if somehow it stopped working I would immediately get another if it was not repairable.