At what level does analog beat digital?

Ok, here goes. First: what is the definition of 'better'? If the definition is 'most natural'(let the riots begin.... :)) analog will - never - beat digital, since analog adds more distortion, offers less dynamics and a more limited frequency responce then , say, SACD. If you define better as 'most listenable'..... well, that's a matter of taste, not of money. Yeah guys, I know there will be hundreds of you out there trying to kill me now, but I'll give you one example. When I worked as a sound-engineer, we once made some recordings of a barbershop-choir. We kept things as simple as possible: two B&K condenser-microphones high in the air (X-Y), fed them into a pre-amp, which had double outputs. One was fed into a Nagra reel-to-reel recorder and, as a back-up, into a domestic Sony DAT-recorder. No dubbing or whatever, just one take and then next song. The DAT beat the Nagra hands-on....... And then, almost all recordings nowadays are done digitally, so even the masters for all those 'audiophile vinyl pressings' are digital........
But I prefer the sound of my turntable over my cd-player most of the time, depending on the records.

I may have led a sheltered life, but I've not heard a lower cost turntable/phono pre-amp combination that lights my fire to the degree that a similarly priced digital system does. The analog system requires the turntable, tone arm, cartridge and phono pre-amp (and possibly a very good record cleaning machine). A decent combination seems to run well into the thousands of dollars. Once you get into the bigger money, analog sounds pretty darned good.

Everything is relative, and going used can help a lot and everyone has different preferences. Having said that, my personal impression is that digital gets you more bang for the buck (i.e., better sound to me) under, say, $3-$5,000. Once you hit $15-$20,000, analog sounds really good. In-between are trade-offs where I can kind of go either way depending on my mood and what I'm looking for at the time.

Before anyone shoots me, I am trying to answer the question from my perspective. The exact dollar ranges may not be right, but it's only when I hear pricy analog systems that I go "wow, that really sounds great".

Satch - What tape speed and formulation were you using with the Nagra? My Nagra running at 15ips/30ips with GP-9 beats the pants off of any recording I have been able to make with 16 bits... throw in a different recorder with 1/2 or 1" tape to the mix and it takes an awful lot of digital beyond 16 bits to compare.

As far as all of the audiophile recordings being done digitally and then transfered to analog... while some of that is true, you will find an equal number being recorded on analog (its just a royal pain to drag an analog machine besides a Nagra to a venue). You will also find that pop studios still use their trusty 2" machines. Furthermore, a lot of top mastering houses will transfer their digital to a 1" Ampex to master on and then back to digital for CD production.

I am not doubting your results at the time but my experience has been the exact opposite and only the Nagra D at high bit/sample rates has been able to match its analog counterpart.

Take a look at http://www.atrservice.com/clients/ to see how many people are using analog mastering machines.

My Nottingham spacedeck/space arm/arc ph2 at $3500

is much more resolved than any cd player I have heard at $3500 or less (including my best for the money EVS Millenium II Dac and Teac vrds 10 (wadia) transport)

my $400 used Cal Labs Ikon MKll beats my Bang and Olufsen $350 1980's turntable hands down

Analog is so much more musical and engaging

and the records are cheap by comparison

At all levels. Most of the people out there really don't have the software library or the gear to compare the two formats, nor do they intuitively understand the value of analog. They want accurate and easy, not musical. Maybe they think tubes are a dumb and outdated idea too? If you're a music lover, you go to the trouble, expense, and time to listen to music.