When does analog compete with digital?


With vinyl becoming all the rage, many believe (perhaps mistakenly) that a budget of $1K will allow them to bring their analog front end up to par with their digital. I would like a reasoned assessment of this issue.

How much time, money, and expertise do you think is necessary before one can seriously claim that their analog front end can compete with their digital? What characteristics, if any, are simply incommensurable between these two mediums? Let's use my system as an example.

Personally, I tried to build an analog front-end that focused on texture/warmth (as opposed to dynamics), but I still feel as though something is missing. Trouble is, I can't quite put my finger on it. I'd be grateful for comments/suggestions (system in sig)
jferreir
After reading my long-winded response, please allow me to clarify the initial question...

Suppose we are trying to compare wine and beer. Some say they are incomparable. However, we would certainly say that a very fine wine is much better than a stale beer. So, they are comparable in at least one respect - we can compare them according to their perceived quality, value, 'bang for buck', etc.

I would consider my digital front-end to be 'very good'. How much should one expect to pay to achieve the same level of performance from the analog side?

That's a general question open to all. It has nothing to do with my particular system/set up. I think it would interesting to hear the various responses...

But I would still like some feedback on my own predicament!
It should read "When does digital compete with analog" as digital is an imitation of the real thing with the exception of some of the newer 24/192 and other high rez digital which is just wonderful if done right..... I usually find I have to spend 2-3 times as much on digital to get close. Now to murky the waters a bit, a good cd stomps a poor vinyl record so the comparison must take into consideration there are fantastic recordings in cd and analog, as well as crappy recordings in both medium. Which is better.....depends on the recording used....jallen
I agree with those who say your question is backwards. Yes, digital can be very clear and extremely detailed. However, this is at great expense in other areas that many of us consider much more important, such as more correct reproduction of instrumental and vocal timbres. Another big difference is that the distortions inherent in the digital realm, even though they are much less than in analog, take place at higher and much more musically objectionable frequencies. Digital processing also simply removes too much information, IMO. The designers justify this by saying that the human ear cannot hear most of the info they are removing, yet research has proven that the brain can still perceive frequencies above what the ear can hear, for example. There is also in digital too much loss of what is sometimes called "low level detail," one example being ambient noise in the concert hall that an orchestral recording was made in, which of course contributes greatly to the effect of the music.

All of these examples above apply much more to acoustic music than electronic, however. If you listen to mostly electronically produced music, then these things probably won't bother you nearly as much as they do others. It's a question of what your priorities are, and only you can really determine that.