I’m sure there are “favorites”, though they’re going to be different for everyone … I’ll give you mine in a moment.
If you mean “industry favorites”, my opinion there is that the stuff that manufacturer’s tends to like is biased towards a) excellent measurements/specs that are unlikely to be met in a finished product and b) which are easy to implement.
Much of the “sound” that comes from, or gets associated with, various DAC chip sets is down to how the raw converter IC is applied, as much as it is what that IC itself is doing. Such ICs come with a “data sheet” or “reference circuit” as part of their documentation.
A great many, probably most, complete DACs simply implement that circuit … just using fancier (i.e. more expensive/boutique) components, and maybe pair it with a high-spec power-supply. And, as a result, they tend to exhibit the same fundamental audible signature and technicalities.
Additionally, DAC ICs (i.e. the actual chip) generally don’t just to the data-to-current conversion part of the process. They include upsampling, over-sampling and filtering functionality. And the filters, especially, contribute quite a bit to the way these converters sound.
For example, the AKM 449X line was specifically designed to have what AKM call “velvet sound”. If you use, say, the 4490, in it’s reference sheet/default configuration, the chip is doing all of the conversion work (excepting a final current-to-voltage “I/V” conversion) and all the digital-domain filtering. Used in this way tends to result in DACs with a slightly bloomy bottom-end and a bit more warmth to the sound than is strictly neutral.
You CAN bypass the filtering, and various other features of the 4490 - in which case you get a neutral result BUT have to do those parts of the implementation yourself (and the lower-down the price tiers you go, the less likely anyone is to bother with that).
Still, the surrounding reference circuit imparts it’s own character to the result.
The short version is that the “sound”, or what would drive “favorites” in DAC chipsets is not just down to the raw converter, but how it tends to be implemented. And it’s when you get the interesting/original approaches to implementation that things start to stand out.
Data-sheet designs using the ESS (Sabre) chips tend to rub me the wrong way - with a tendency towards being bright and with an exaggerated sense of detail. I’ve found this to be less of an issue with ESS 9038 series ICs than with the 901X lines.
I’ve yet to hear any product featuring the CS4398 chip set that I liked at all.
AKM449X I like, but I like them better when they’re implemented in a fashion that avoids the “velvet sound” signature.
Wolfson’s WM8740/8741 have a tendency to a slightly warm bottom end, but without the bloom that comes with the AKM4490, and they’re generally very smooth in the treble with excellent resolution.
PCM1704 is another well regarded one, though for me I find the bottom end a bit loose and generally prefer the PCM1702 as an overall solution. But the 1704 is a “classic” for a reason.
PCM56 and PCM63 are both excellent … don’t think I’ve heard something using these that I didn’t enjoy.
TDA1541 was quite nice in it’s day as well.
Analog Devices have a classic or two in their old catalog.
Now, the minute you have manufacturer’s moving away from the standard “came in the box” data-sheet implementations, all of the typically associated behaviors/signatures for any given chip set or IC vendor can go right out the window!