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

I am going to throw out the proverbial Molotov cocktail in regards to actual frequency response in comparing digital to vinyl. It is never even mentioned in these threads. 

LPs...gasp! Are typically in the 20 Hz- 20Hz range and to expand that range it comes down to the cartridge but how many new LPs contain frequencies up to 50 Hz? I have a feeling only the most expensive pressing do.

Those stats are never listed on Music Direct's site but if you buy an SACD or High Res recording you get those stats....as we expect to know what they are as that is the basis for our motivation to get the best sound quality possible.

I currently do not spin vinyl but are heading back soon, maybe within a year as I want to upgrade my integrated amp first,  to take the plunge. I am going to NY Audio show on Friday and I look forward to hearing the difference and hopefully being blown away. I will bring a couple SACDs too.

I am a big advocate for  SACDs and if you have a good to great rig you should be impressed by their audio reproduction...even in high res stereo.

I have been very please with High Res digital as well. I purchased the  Yes Steve Wilson remixes and completely love them. I have the DVDA of Fragile and I listen to this newer release exclusively now. The details, bass reaponse, and nuances of these sophisticated recordings completely shine through.

In regards to SACD. The reissues of Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here is stunning! I listen to the multi-track on my HT rig and it has renewed my love for this record big time. Shine on You Crazy Diamond (Parts 6-9)will rock you house.

Gilmore just  completely unleashes.

 I can't wait until they do Animals.

That all being said I would love to see this discussion steered toward the possible greater technical aspects of LPs...I mean vinyl over SACDs and 96/24 high Rez.

Less hyperbole and more meat.

Merci

@mikelavigne 

From your linked article:

It was painfully obvious that sub-order harmonic distortion and noises were getting in. It was the result of high-frequency things creating distortion components that were not harmonically related to the lower frequencies.

This is why you're never going to be fully satisfied with your standard digital recordings. DSD at least does a better job of moving more of the offending distortion to higher frequencies, and covering up or filtering some of this distortion. When that distortion is removed, digital can be made to surpass all analog.

Some would argue that it is painfully obvious that that statement is gobbly-gook :-)

Not yours, the one you quoted.

@atdavid

Serious question for everyone. How do you reconcile claiming that vinyl is technically better ... not euphonically better, but technically better, when the vast majority of recordings made in the last 2 decades have been recorded on digital? Even where the original is analog, many remasters have been remastered via digitization? At some level, Vinyl is just another "DAC" for many records.

Digital recording is non-destructive and far easier to use. That said, there are still a select group of studios and artists that still record using reel-to-reels.

Reel-to-reels have a soft clipping nature, as it reaches 0. Those analog recordings keep part of their characteristic sound, even if they're converted to digital and processed digitally. This is why some mixing and mastering engineers will transfer their mixes/masters to reel-to-reel, before - or as - their final format.