How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?

Mike, I have not yet spent nearly as much on hi fi equipment as you have but my system is no slouch either. Neither the physical reality or my own listening experience matches yours. The best your ever going to get from a record is 70 db. Most are down around 60 db if they have not been damaged. With 24 bit digital 110 db is attainable limited by digital max.
But, as with everything we listen to it all depends on the mastering. Digital is going to sound very flat if as usual today a ridiculous amount of dynamic compression is used. Everything we listen to has been mastered, engineered. The older records were mastered assuming the limitations of vinyl. Dynamic compression was used to keep the music above the noise floor and below the maximum reasonably attainable tracking capability of phonograph cartridges giving at best 70 db of dynamic range. If I use that same master on any current full resolution digital format I will get the same 70 db dynamic range. If I make a master for digital use only with a dynamic range of 90 db I can get considerably more dynamic range out of any of the high res digital formats. If I used this master on vinyl the stylus would fly out of the groove. These new masters and remasters are starting to invade the market thus hi res digital can easily attain the dynamic range of high speed reel to reel. 
I can hear and demonstrate this easily with my system using the right software which means I can do it with yours. Which means you can do it also. I can also fool people into believing a version of a recording is more dynamic in AB comparison just by tweaking the volume 2 db. 
In the end it all comes down to the master and then the limitations of the format and although many analog to vinyl recordings do sound better than their digital counterparts, analog media are crippled when it comes down to dynamic range even next to lowly 16/44.1  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording  
So Mike, it appears you have an obvious bias in this regard which makes it difficult for us to interpret what you have to offer in this conversation.

Sincerely,
Mike

Focusing on the "spend" is not going to get you very far, even if you increase your "spend" amount.

May I suggest looking at this differently... that is: investing the time to learn. 

I'm sure you can attest to a lengthy learning curve and time spent developing experience and expertise with respect to your analog system. You are where you are with your analog rig for a reason... a number of reasons. Good (great) digital requires (calls for) the same.

How much do I need to spend for a digital front end to better my 7K analog front end.

So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?

+1 mikelavigne. Agree word for word, and NOT because I am “conditioned” or “biased” to the sound of vinyl.

**** digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part. ****

Real world dynamics. Exactly. Of course, if one thinks that this refers only to the ability to play more loudly or even to make wider dynamic contrasts from softer to louder then that may explain the insistence by some that digital betters or even matches analog in this regard. It is the way that any medium does it, what happens along the way from softer to louder and from louder to softer that matters. A key element of “real world dynamics” is the sense of vibrancy and life that live music has and which projects the “soul” of a performance. More than tonal issues it is what determines the level of involvement with the music that the listener will experience. Good analog seems to make better musical sense of the difference between ppp and pp as well as the difference between ff and fff. A good musical performance is greatly about the constant very subtle dynamic changes that a musician projects to create a great rhythmic feel. Not just in a great 4/4 Rock groove, but also in how a great string section in gets from musical point A to point B while playing a very soft and slow phrase with great musical direction; the “soul”.

Not saying that good digital cannot do well in this regard, that would be silly, only that in my experience good analog does it better; often, much better. I’ll let others duke it out as far as the technical reasons why this may be so or why it “can’t be”. Frankly, I don’t care that much. I do care about what my “bias” to the sound of live music tells me.

Mike, thank you for taking the time to respond, and for others keeping this civil.


I was on a Facebook forum yesterday, and someone whose opinion I value, and is certainly accomplished in this field, said something that I have believed for a while, but have not tried to prove .... that you have to voice your system (room treatment + speaker placement) for vinyl or digital due due to inherent differences ... i.e. cross-talk.

As tzh21y said, perhaps it is just what we are used to?

In other areas of perception, like light, our preferences change as you change intensity, and we know that in sound, the Fletcher-Munson curves define how intensity impacts our perception. Perhaps inherent dynamic range limitations in vinyl coupled with aforementioned dynamic compression creating the ideal results for our interpretation of music and dynamic range from a perception standpoint, not a measurement standpoint?

Back to the thread, best answer as pointed out ... is no answer, as it is deeply personal it appears.

I thought I replied as asked. I said $35k. That said, I suspect the $13.5k dCS Bartok would rival it as well. Sound the same, no, of course not. Sound equally awesome in a different way, yes!