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


I have heard some very high end digital front ends and although  they do sound very good, I never get the satisfaction that I do when i listen to analog regardless if its a"coloration" or whatever. I will listen to high end digital, and then I soon get bored, as if it just does not have the magic That I experience with a well set up analog system. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?

tzh21y
Post removed 
+1 @rauliruegas 

Digital was not the medium for us because just did not exist yet. So, our ears/brain are 100% ( like it or not. ) biased to the analog signature sound in home audio systems. I’m too.

That " signature " is for me the key for the main controversies in between digital and analog where the ones that prefer analog just can’t avoid from their brain that " signature " and this " signature " in on control of what we are listening and if something like digital comes wioth diferent " signature " well does not like us as the analog experiences.

This mirrors my perspective on the topic.  Thanks, R. - David.
It’s hard to beat cassette. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes. So musical! Airy, sweet and dynamic! 🤗
Having been into vinyl for most of my life, including it's predecessor, shellac and later abominations like poly-styrene, when the CD hit the market, it was the best thing I've ever heard. When prepared correctly, almost nothing can beat it.
Spending $3.k on a turntable is a waste of money. Especially today when vinyl records are being manufactured with worn-out equipment operated by inexperienced people. There are, however, old-timers still around who know how to cut a record properly, but that is often where the expertise stops.
Due to inexperience and worn equipment, pressings are often lacking. With not being done in a "clean room", records are still going to have pops, ticks and other imperfections. Off-center pressings abound not by just equipment or experience issues, but by poor set-up and poor quality control. The tone arm is not supposed to move side-to-side as is plays a record.
Most people can't tell the difference, in a blind test, between good equipment and cheap-o equipment. The more you spend on something doesn't always pencil out. The differences are so minute that any advantages may not be worth the extra expenditures.
The most important thing is that you are happy with what you get. A good rule of thumb is that if looks cheap-o, it probably is. If it seems too good to be true, it usually is. Don't go overboard, there are advantages to both digital and analog. 
what brought that 1995 Stereophile article to my attention recently was a private exchange i happened to be on the periphery of, between the designer of my Music Server, and an un-named iconic high fidelity techie we all would know. my Server Designer was lamenting that visiting my room he heard tape and vinyl do dynamics far beyond what any digital could do. and i have plenty of digital firepower in my room both hardware and files.

his question was why the difference? now. right now. November 2019. not 1995.

the high fidelity techie referred to that article and said nothing has really changed. and there is no push (or market demand) to change things. digital still cannot do the real world dynamics that analog can. and the soul of music is the dynamics. it’s the hard part.

i personally don’t claim any intimate knowledge of what is possible digitally except for what my ears tell me from the highest rez files i have. i’m not in the studio. but those Pacific Microsonics guys were, and this un-named person certainly is too.

my room was built for big reproduced music. and my system has been assembled to do it without limit. it is easy to compare formats and when you do that this stuff we are discussing is just so evident and obvious. and the bigger the music the more it is clear. analog just has so much more headroom to work with.

horsepower!