But yes, my taste is getting cleaner and cleaner. This year I've even done my first all-ITB masters. It was a jazz album which I just could not make sound better in analog.
Had a similar situation with some chansons; but I nearly always prefer my clean analogue over digital in this cases as it sounds less obvious in my ears (Porter, ADT, RS f.e.). But a problem could be ADDA conversation. It might questionable to go DAAD for one band of eq, isnt it? But I have done so nevertheless.
I always found the term 'coloration' misleading. What sounds more coloured in the sense of 'changed'; a clean, fast digital EQ with a boost at 2k or a slower analogue design which sounds less obvious in this dedicated area due to its transient/decay behaviour? I always found that freq and dynamic interacts in moste cases, so I often prefer tools that acts a bit in both worlds.
Is there a digital EQ out there which manipulate the virtuell slew rate, f.e.?
I prefer clean with atttitude. But everyone is different. I know quite some (test) masters from colleagues which sound quite saturated or nearly overdriven with boutique analog gear and which are far away from what the mixes sounded like. That without any instruction. The bands often liked it, but the mixers hated it (of course)... So, it seems that some folk quite enjoy it when 'mastering' is very obvious. May its what they think 'analogue processing' had to sound like...