To shed a little light on why you might feel you prefer analogue EQs, especially those in your A&H: their EQs are actually extremely carefully tuned and use really musical curves and well chosen frequencies and slopes. That’s one big reason why they sound better - I have no idea if the K-Mix EQ slopes, centre frequencies, and Q are well chosen - or maybe they just don’t gel for you. That’s going to be the first probable reason why you prefer the A&H EQs - they’ve got a great reputation for being “musical” by virtue of their design (to wit: their digital EQs also sound fantastic - just ask anyone with a Qu-SB, Qu-Pac, or Qu-24 around here).
Their EQs are actually a selling point of their consoles - I wouldn’t call them nothing special by any means!
A big screed on EQ, phase response, and why digital gets stuck with a bad rap
Any EQ is an EQ: it’s not whether it’s digital or analogue that makes it musical, warm, better, etc. It’s how well it’s designed and implemented - there are ghastly analogue EQs and stunning digital ones, etc.
Another reason people often hear differences they associate negatively with digital EQ is that of phase response - not all digital EQs are designed with much attention paid to the phase response of the EQ, though most of the really good ones are designed with the same attention that good analogue EQs are, and sound equally as fantastic. The phase response matters for two big reasons and a host of lesser:
When an EQ is only partially applied to a signal, it will alter the phase of even the portion of the signal that it is not affecting (e.g. your cut at 10kHz is actually changing the phase of the signal at 100Hz too), this can, through comb filtering, alter the harmonic content of the mix as a whole.
When the EQ makes a large change to a very narrow range of frequencies (high-Q) the phase necessarily and radically changes in that narrow section - which can alter even those local frequency’s responses relative to each other in a surprisingly wide range around the notch or boost. This also changes the audible harmonic relationships in the mix.
By carefully choosing EQ implementations which either reduce the total phase change (so-called “minimum phase” designs - though they are not all equally “musical”) or reduce the *change in the phase change" (so-called “linear phase” designs - most if not all of these are digital for technical reasons) you can reduce the negative aspects of phase response while emphasizing (hopefully) positive ones. This is a choice left up to the designer of the EQ, and is one of the reasons why some EQs are legendary and countless others are only ordinary.
Now, I’m not a golden eared audiophile, and I’m not an EQ connoisseur either, but one of the things I have noticed is that EQs which have a pleasing phase response, are chosen with more gentle slopes (lower Q) and have well-placed centre frequencies (if they aren’t parametric) tend to sound fantastic no matter what implementation they come in. You’ll notice this FAR more than whether it’s analogue or digital.
Sound on Sound has a great explanation of most of this at https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/whats-frequency if you want to go deeper but still keep it at mostly layman’s terms…
Another thing to think about: analogue gear almost always comes with side effects to the sound - think of the harmonics of tube amplifiers, or the way that saturation distortion in the gain stages of a preamp lends character to a sound - it might be good character, or bad (that’s up to you to decide!) but it’s unavoidable. Digital stuff tends to lack those side effects - clipping and other utilization/design faults notwithstanding - that make digital gear sound “lifeless”, “sterile”, “lacking warmth” etc. What you’re hearing is the transformation of your audio without the expected side effects you’ve come to be used to from the analogue gear. This is a HUGE part of why digital emulations of analogue hardware exist: because those side effects are considered an essential part of the gear’s sound and they are HARD to replicate digitally - they take additional effort, computation, and analysis to identify and create whereas with the analogue circuitry they just show up - often to the designer’s chagrin and despite their great efforts!
So, while I’m entirely with you that some, especially well done analogue EQs sound astoundingly good, almost like an audio enhancer in their own way (because, quite literally, their side effects are doing precisely that), I’m not down with the idea that digital is inherently worse, less musical, defective, deficient, or even remotely incapable of replicating the same experience. In fact we can do more (and, if you ask a mastering engineer, sometimes much better) with digital EQs than we can with analogue, by nature of the limited circuit choices we have in the analogue/time domain versus the algorithmic tricks we can pull in the frequency domain. Again, neither is actually better, they’re both tools. But they must be considered on the merits of an EQ, not by whether the underlying technology is numeric.