Analog or Digital and why?

I think I already made the point that an analog front end is/will cost a fortune compared to a similar quality digital front end. I've heard nothing but amazing things about PS Audio's DirectStream DAC for $6,000. An really good analog system can easily set you back 20K and that's before buying any records. Yeah there are cheap turntables with cheap arms cheap MM cartridges and $100 phono stages, but this is an attempt for companies to bamboozle people into thinking analog is affordable. There's several online dealers who are absolutely shameful in perpetuating this myth.

Analog can sound great if recording was done right, terrible if poorly recorded, mastered, etc...
Digital is no different. It all has to do with each individual recording. To generalize is impossible. I have 10 times more vinyl than CDs but while most of my best sounding records are analog vinyl, some are digital CDs. I worked hard all my life and I love hard work. At 66 I still love hard work and that's why I love analog. Lazy people or ones who can't make the time should stay away from analog is my recommendation. It takes a lot of work to make your analog system sing, but there is no greater satisfaction than when you can achieve it. That being said digital fits perfectly into the instant gratification mode we live in now. Different kind of enjoyment is all.

Chintziphiles desperately want any sort of analogue to be better than all digital. 

Either way  no matter what, people will always say that digital sounds sooooo analog or that high res file sounds sooooo much like vinyl.  Analog formats will always be the baseline or reference for discussions like this.
Also in 30 years you look back and say to your grandkids, here ,you can have all these files or oops I don’t know where they went or you can say, pick out any records you want and then help me to EBay the rest
Oh wow this ones worth $500 now!  You will never say or experience this with a file of any kind.  
Enjoy the music Will-T

Chrismini, analog is not near as inconvenient if you know what you are doing. All I have to do to play a record is take it out of it's jacket and toss it on the table. The only difference between it and a CD is you have to flip it over. Then both have to go back into storage. I do not have or use any of that stuff you mention and my records are in like new condition. 

I can not speak for the younger crowd but those of us that have been at this for 50 years have analog material that never made it to CD or when it  did the music was tortured. On the other hand there are excellent high resolution digital downloads that are spectacular. The big problem with CDs back in the early 80's was the machines. They had not figured out how to do the filtering right resulting in butte awful sound quality. Early CDs played on modern machines do not sound near as bad.
I have records that sound better than any high res download. Many records do not sound as good. I do not have digital copies of most of my records and vise versa so it comes down to two things, what music I want to listen to and what I am doing at the time. If I am in the shop then I select one of my digital play lists which run for many hours. If I am just listening then it is only a choice of music not digital vs analog.
Obviously digital is way more flexible than analog particularly if it is on a hard drive. I have probably 100 instances where I have both analog and digital copies. I have A/Bed many of them and it can go either way. 
Looking through this thread it looks like most of us are in the "both" camp.
I can certainly understand why young people who have no history with records want to stick with digital. I think that most of us vinyl jockies have a thing for turntables, I know I have.