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

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!

Mike,
The problem with many of these "high fidelity techies", is that they are long on notoriety, but often weak on being a real "techie". I don't know this person, so I hope that is not the case, but it seems to occur a lot in consumer audiophilia. Anyone who claims that 24/192 with remotely modern studio A/D and playback does not have, at least the potential for superior dynamics, I do have to question. I don't claim to be a music or recording engineer (because quite obviously I am not), but I do have a fair amount of practical (and some not so much) experience with the technical end of this.


What seems near impossible to find is an exact equal mastering of vinyl and high res digital, and not with crushed dynamics on the digital. They all seem to have not so subtle differences.

Your system ... saw it on Facebook, is very impressive! I would love to hear it.


Not to challenge you, but do you believe that vinyl/analog has more headroom to work with even when the vinyl was recorded and mixed via digital means?   I think that is an important question to answer.


I have a fair amount of experience with the digitization and reconstruction of audio, even more in some fields (mainly software radio) where we really push the limits of the A/D and D/A performance and they really do live up to their specifications.   So, something must be wrong, somewhere in the chain,  if audiophiles like you believe that vinyl has more dynamic range and I am not convinced it is the reasons that HDCD or MQA gave, but I don't discount there is something.

Cheers!

i wish i had license to I.D. this person i’m referring to; but i do not. we can leave it at that and move on. if you were sitting here next to me in my room i would tell you.

understand that the designer of my music server, easily the top server product on the market today, is hugely invested in absolutely top digital performance. he came into my room expecting digital to compete, and left bewildered. and went and looked for answers. hence the reference to that Stereophile article. i also referred him to a mastering engineer i know who has mastered all of the Reference Recordings titles for the last 20 years for additional data points on the subject.

your perspective of digital having technical superiority is unfortunately not correct. it might have greater frequency range but that is not significant. bandwidth and dynamic range is where it’s at. 1/2" tape kills any digital format. direct to disc vinyl is exceptional. 45rpm vinyl is awesome.

respectfully; the only thing wrong is the lack of listening to analog recordings. i've had 20 year veteran pro audio guys in my room doing recordings and hearing top level vinyl for the first time. they could not believe that their ADC's could not capture and play back what my vinyl was outputting. 

just listen.

i have 17 terabytes of digital files including 50+ dxd (352/24) and 50+ dsd256 albums on my server. the best digital can deliver. they do not approach what my analog can do. but i do enjoy listening to them. i am very invested in the best possible digital and it’s a big part of my listening as that is where new music is. love streaming especially Quboz.

my overall listening approach is to try and listen to any recording in it’s native format. tape, vinyl or digital format. even redbook 16/44 can be fantastic if that was the native recording format. i love dsd recordings, but if they were PCM sourced prefer that format.

of my 8000+ Lp’s likely 400--500 or so have a digital component to them in one form or another. certainly these are typically less ’robust’ in their sonics. less headroom for sure. but it’s not a one size fits all situation. there are many fine sounding digitally sourced Lp’s. but they don’t compete in the top realm of vinyl, know that great recordings can transcend any format. and during digital’s infancy there were many cases where there were digital recordings mixed and mastered to tape. pressing plants could not use digital masters initially.

OTOH i have over 7000 completely 100% analog Lp’s......and -150- 2-reel 1/4" and 1/2" tape albums.

the case of how vinyl compares directly is made like a punch in the nose in my system. it is not anything subtle. more like ’you got to be fu**ing kidding’.

I had a 1k TT and a 1K DAC and the TT always won. I moved up to a 6k TT and 6K DAC. The TT usually won. Now with a 35k DAC and 35K TT setup and I think the DAC finally has the edge but only on things that had good digital copies (many 60s recordings still better on vinyl). So the answer is 35k. I recommend the dCS Rossini.