Vinyl vs. top-notch digital


I have never had an analogy rig. My CD player is a Meridian 800, supposedly one of the very best digital players out there. From what I've read, it appears there is a consensus in our community that a high-quality analog rig playing a good pressing will beat a top notch digital system playing a well-recorded and mastered CD. So here are my questions:

1) How much would one have to invest in analog to easily top the sound quality of the Meridian 800 (or similar quality digital player)? (Include in this the cost of a phono-capable preamp; my "preamp" right now is a Meridian 861 digital surround processor.)

2) How variable is the quality of LPs? Are even "bad" LPs still better than CD counterparts?

Thank you for any comments and guidance you can provide.
jeff_arrington
Chinese Butterfly- Streaming it now in high rez from Qobuzz.... lovely 

have to be flatlined or willfully ignorant to not connect with the interplay with Gadd...

but like all things, YMMV
@millercarbon
Your last post, I didn’t understand what you meant. Sorry but I have to ask. Did you agree with me or was that a disagree. Either way. All good.
sdr, he does not know and you will confuse him by asking:) I love R to R.
I grew up with an Ampex in the days when you could get prerecorded tapes for just a little more than the vinyl. But when you have to pay $350 to $500 for just one title and when you can count the number of titles on two hands? Does not seem very practical. If you were a rich guy who just wanted to use it for demonstration purposes I suppose It would be fun. If you had access to live venues with permission it would be a lot of fun.
Music is emotional. Digital and analog are methodologies. 
@sdrsdrsdr
Yes. 1/4” tape. I’ve never heard any debate from the vinyl crowd on which is more superior, many discussions though. All seem to agree that tape is the best. I don’t know if this is also the same consensus the digital crowd shares too.
here’s the rub.

i love my tape (observe my system page), and have plenty of great tapes. but as my vinyl has improved over these past few years, more and more times i find that my vinyl equals or even slightly betters the tape reference that i had. it’s not that tape should not be better, more that tape varies so much as to the provenance, quality of transfer, and age at transfer.

i have now 20 year old 45 rpm re-issues that were transferred when the master was much younger. now we see these same titles offered on tape that are not as good as my vinyl. OTOH; acquiring those fantastic 20 year old 45 rpm reissues might cost you more than the tape, so a case can be made to own that tape for less.

the answer is, like most things, is that ’it depends’.

tape is king, but only when it’s optimal. i have been very selective as i’ve acquired tape titles over the years, and my tapes are generally a cut above my vinyl, but i do find lots of exceptions. and this has caused me to slow down my tape buying considerably and be very picky.

now when you get into 1/2" tape titles, or 30 ips tape titles, sourced from 1/2" or 30 ips, then it’s easy to be confident that it will be superior. nothing quite like 1/2" tape. if digital people think it can compete with 1/2" tape, i have to laugh, that is just ignorant.
Thank Mike. Very interesting. How many titles do you think are available in 1/2" 15 or 30 ips?