A warm DAC?

Wouldn‘t that amount to fighting one coloration with another? My own experience throughout many years of improving my system has been that avoiding any deviation from neutrality and transparency is the only good way to achieve life-like sound reproduction. Usually this means reducing the number of analogue connections in a system to a minimum and fighting power related noise intrusion wherever possible, ideally with a dedicated spur to the mains. 

On digital, things are even more complicated: DACs can sound very different when fed via USB, SP/DIF or AES/EBU. I have from experience ruled out optical and am still experimenting with Ethernet. In my System SP/DIF is still the preferred route, USB is making progress but still prone to interference from the 5v line and poorly designed USB receiver chips. Here again, reducing mains and IR interference is paramount.

So cleaning up rather than compensating is my preferred way to go.

Who's version of "neutral or transparent"? Listen to a Steinway in the Village Vanguard or the exact piano in Carnegie hall. If it was recorded with identical equipment down to the cables? Of course not. We are listening to the space/musical interface. Please share with us what is neutral and transparent.

My point is and has been that compensating for one component‘s forward or harsh sound by chosing another ‘warmer’ component down the chain amounts to adding colorations. I have no desire to define absolute transparency nor neutrality, when people though hear relative improvements along either dimension they tend in my experience to agree about it. Obviously intrenta, venues and recording equipment have impact on the reproduced sound, that however tends to not affect relative neutrality and transparency of individual components. 

Take a walk on the pro side. The Burl B2 DAC is highly regarded in the pro world and at $2,449 is just within yr budget. Very involving but not in a bloated way.

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.