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.

When CD's first came out, there was a disclaimer stating the crappy sound is the result of the crappy analog source. The discs had AAD printed on them that stood for analog/analog/digital. The only full DDD discs were classical recordings. So maybe a lot of you guys don't remember the bad old days of early CD's. You're very lucky to have the good sounding digital recordings of today. No one had cell phones or GPS either. Or computers...

Analog is a very expensive option if you want it to be your primary source of music reproduction. Turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono amp/stand/record cleaning machine and a host of necessary products from stylus cleaner to carbon fiber record brush to a Zerostat you have to have in the winter. Last Record Preservatives and Stylast. A modest system can be an easy 20 grand and you have yet to purchase your first record and the new audiophile pressings are going through the roof. The new thing is they take a record that was originally a single 33 and third and pressing 2 records at 45rpm and selling them for $50. Guess they sound better? Haven't heard Fremer weigh in on this. The newest thing I read about is the PVC is being reformulated and look out what these will cost. So in my humble opinion, high end analog is for wealthy audiophiles. There are those who may disagree, but my analog front end was $15,000 in the early 2000's and my system had a lot to be desired. 

What has happened in the recording industry is the proliferation of Pro Tools, a software program that allows engineers to record, mix, add effects, etc without touching a mixing console. The Smashing Pumpkins wanted to record an album the old fashioned way, but they had a difficult time finding an engineer that couldn’t record an album without using Pro Tools. So what all major studios are doing is purchasing analog mixing consoles, like Neves, that have motorized faders so they can use Pro Tools with a traditional console. Now are they using digital processing and effects when they record and mix down analog recordings? Well they’ve been doing that since the 70’s when a company called Lexicon built the first digital reverb. However if a band wants to issue a vinyl release, they, unless they are complete jerks, are going to do a final analog mix with that in mind and another final digital mix for the CD. So yeah it ain’t like the old days where analog was the only thing that existed and yes vinyl releases today have digital processing, but to say modern records are nothing but CD’s stamped into a record simply isn’t true.

I'll shut up after this. Analog is also very labor intensive. When you get these expensive records they have to be cleaned with a decent vacuum record machine even before you think about playing it. New records have a substance called mold release compound in their grooves or your record would not fallen out of the stamper. After that comes the Last Record Preservative. This stuff is magic. I found a Bowie Ziggy Stardust mofi issue. I lost count at 100 plays. No record wear, no increase in surface noise. They also make a product called Stylast you put on your just cleaned stylus  After applying this, now your ready to play the record.(don't forget to dust off the record with a  nice, meaning expensive, carbon fiber brush.) But is your cartridge's overhang/azimuth/tracking force/anti-skating and VTA set. Ha, many records are of different thickness so the vertical tracking angle has to be properly set. All good tonearms allow you to adjust this while the record is being played.
Or you can open the music player software of your choice and click on what you want to listen to.

Still if I somehow suddenly became a rich guy, as in $100,000 to buy gear, it would be back to vinyl. Done right, it can sound that good and digital just can't match the magic...

I'm 60 so I grew up in the bad old days of vinyl records. No one took care of them or we would use a Discwasher which destroyed more records than it cleaned. Instead of coughing up $10 for a new stylus, guys would tape quarters to their headshells so it wouldn't fly across the record. Or turn up the anti-skate all the way up.(Like that's what it's for.) We didn't know any better. So when CD's hit the scene, wow! If you wanted to hear a certain song, you didn't have to drop the stylus as close as possible without spilling any beer. Oh those were glorious times. You could see the Grateful Dead for $7.

I have fallen into the audiophile curse of concentrating on the gear instead of what the gear is for: reproducing recorded music the most satisfying way we can. If you want to do MQA because that's what you like, then do it. I'm not going to but I grew up at a different times. This country was torn apart by the War in Vietnam. Jimi Hendrix was rocking. Jim Morrison too. Vinyl records cost $3.99. Everyone had an 8 Track in their vans. Oh man you want to talk about a hideous sounding medium. Done .