My conclusion: mid level $$ analog vs digital

There are many that spend hours upon hours refining their analogue playback but don't think beyond the plug-in about digital.  Is your router up to date and capable of easily streaming the data you need?  Have you abandoned wi-fi to go Ethernet to get the best signal transmission..  and that means Cat 6a and higher Ethernet cable.  How many digital cables did you try to see what the result was?  ..  after all, they all sound different.  Have you done the same with all cables?  If digital sounds slower on transients and such it's your system not the medium since there is no mechanical response time involved with digital.
In the 60 + years I've been messing with "hi-fi" and 30+ in the high end I've been through most everything from vinyl, R2R, cassettes, FM and horrid digital in it's infancy.  Spend as much time setting up and dialing in your digital with the same love and care you do for your vinyl and here's what happens next; you go to the garage to try and find that album in 6 or 7 thousand you have there you may have misfiled and I'll tap tap on my phone and have access in a second to everything the artist ever had published.

I agree with this statement: "Assembling a high end system is challenging. Some people cannot do it." Getting an analogue system properly set up can be a real challenge especially if there's not a good, experienced stereo shop nearby for assistance. The advent of "plug and play" turntable/arm/cartridge systems from good manufacturers should go a long way to rectifying this potential problem for those (like me) that appreciate the help.

Jeff, the difference was not night and day so to speak, but to me the Hana el sounded more unleashed for lack of a better term. The mc stages in some tube preamps are an afterthought and don’t always benefit from the actual tubes. Instead they rely on solid state circuitry. On the tubed Tavish the classic, the MM section benefits from full tubes. So by using the Jensen mc 2-rrL sut (JT-44K-DX 1/10 transformers) connected to the MM inputs of the tavish, I’m getting a more tubey sound. So in essence, the SUT will allow you to utilize the full benefits of a tubed preamp by stepping up the mc low voltage to the higher mm voltage. Some preamps with mc sections accomplish this with solid state components (rather than passive transformers) and to me, something is lost or just not right with the sound. Some may beg to differ, but I hear a difference using the SUT, the Hana el was more free, and the transients seemed faster. The hana el as well as your sl both call for 400 ohm or greater load impedance. What is good about the Jensen SUT is that the L model has a built in 430 OHM impedance, so a great match to the Hana. It is also a 1/10 step up, so the .5 mV is stepped up to near 5 mV. These numbers are perfect. Lastly the compliance of the Hana @100 ohms is 17. When plugged into the vinylengine calculator using 13.5 gram arm (the pro-ject classic arm) and cartridge total weight, including the hardware, of about 6 grams, you arrive at a resonance of 9hz. So the Hana is a good match for the pro-ject the classic arm. The hana’s also use Alnico magnets, which to me provide a more organic sound. Herb Reichert mentions this in his review of the Hana el.
In my personal opinion, the Hana, the pro-ject the classic (especially the SB), and the Tavish design classic are all steals at their price point. You seemingly get a performance from all three of these components that are above what you would expect for the money. If you want to add in the Jensen mc 2-rrL @ $599, then you can say 4 steals.
I would also advise you to grab the EVO machined aluminum sub platter for your classic to replace the stock plastic/abs one.  From the pro-ject web page:
"It adds more mass to the entire platter and drive system, resulting in additional damping of noise and unwanted resonances. The improved tolerances during production will increase overall speed accuracy. The additional mass improves short term speed stability, or also called Wow & Flutter."
https://pro-jectusa.com/product/classic-evo-sub-platter/

When I used to have a vinyl setup I would occasionally compare the same album on vinyl with CD. Some of them sounded nearly identical with a moderate grade cartridge and phono stage. Some sounded very different. I think the mastering is a big deal, and perhaps the implementation of the RIAA curve in the phono stage and how well it mates up to the cartridge it’s being used with. I heard a lot more variation between cartridges and phono stages than I heard between dacs and transports. My favorite vinyl setup had a Sumiko oyster cartridge and a Carver phono stage with various settings. This produced an obviously colored sound that I found very pleasing. When I upgraded to a Bluepoint cartridge and Creek phono stage it sounded much more similar to CD to me. It was technically better but lost some flavor that I enjoyed. What’s the point if it sounds pretty much like the CD? Well, there’s the mastering differences. It would seem we’re all sensitive to different aspects of the sound. Other than the very earliest CD players I never heard anything specifically wrong with digital. And even then it was a lot less overall than I could always hear with analog. To my ears it was and still is a big step forward.

I acquired a digital 31 band equalizer while I still had the vinyl. Playing with that I was able to very closely match the sound of records and CDs of the same album that had sounded different before. The trick was usually to apply a gently sloping downward curve across the entire audio band to the CD playback.

One other thing I'll say - I LOVE turntables as mechanical gadgets that are beautiful to behold and operate. I'll never feel the same about solid state electronic devices. I also LOVE old film SLR cameras. I'll never feel the same about any digital camera. 

In building a number of systems over twenty years I've experienced so many variables in regard to vinyl vs. digital. In earlier years vinyl generally won out, digital exclusively cd, likely vast majority of these 1980-90's cd's remastered from analog masters, Analog to digital converters pretty bad in that era (D/A not much better). Somewhere around 2000 digital became better as A/D converters improved, so DAC was upgraded, digital closing in. During period 2005-2015 or so, vast majority of my resources used in upgrading digital, result was digital superiority. In reaction I upgrade vinyl, result vinyl superiority.

So, moving on to around 2015 and the discovery of streaming. Past five or six years almost exclusive upgrading and optimizing diy streaming setup. Result digital superiority again.

Based on my experience, optimizing streaming setup is NOT plug n play. Every single link in the chain is critical, the myth of digital simply being ones and zeros is a simplistic notion and detrimental to the digital experience.  My streaming setup is far more complex and somewhat more costly than analog setup, and I do have all the setup tools, cleaning apparatus, etc for analog. I have more than 2500 albums from 1950's-contemporary recordings. Point being I love all aspects of vinyl. I presume my analog could well challenge superiority of digital with expensive cartridge upgrade.

My point in all this is that digital vs analog superiority is SO subjective. Systems not optimized for both cannot be fairly compared. And yes, digital and analog do not sound the same, I've always heard vinyl superiority as what I'd describe as 'flow', a sense of calming that digital just doesn't quite do. Digital also has some inherent advantages. As for the 'flow' thing, latest digital closing in on this elusive quality. My present digital is not in the least fatiguing, I simply hear a sense of living, breathing performers in room. Visitors to my dedicated listening room happily listen for 5 hour plus sessions listening exclusively to steams and cd rips. Have a hard time getting rid of them at 3am.
Both digital and analog happily coexist in my listening room.