How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?

I have posted before on this topic, so I’ll be brief. I believe that 90% of the problems in ANY sound are locked into the recording/mastering process, and maybe the actual pressing with Vinyl, since there is so much opportunity to f it up.

There’s another thing which makes things much worse than they should be, which is room acoustics. However typically when you have a problematic acoustics in your listening room is when you usually get bothered with the subject. One doesn’t have to be aware his biggest issue is room acoustics, though. It’s what makes good recordings sound less good than they’re capable of, and it can make worse recordings sound unbearable instead of still enjoyable.

If you are currently a "vinyl" person, then you may have an expectation of a sound that digital .... well just isn’t.

It should not be about "vinyl" or "digital" persons. It should be about high fidelity, getting as close as possible to natural sound of instruments as they sound in nature. But this is what most "vinyl" persons are telling: it sounds more natural.

Comparison's made with the same system cancel out everything except the variables being changed.

Except, how to escape the music being a variable itself when digital and analog are made from different (differently produced) masters? A fair comparison digital vs analog should include analog and digital sources made from the same master...

For digital it is relatively simple. It is all about the DAC. Any good transport will suffice. 

Possibly in a world of CD transports it's closer to reality; however there's comp audio, which is more interesting because of its openness to all the existing digital formats and resolutions...

Why do non-OS R2R DACs sounds better (only to some). 

I was discussing the R2R vs delta-sigma approach of PCM DA conversion with a local knowledgeable guy who is audio designer himself (though more on the analog side, yet he has designed digital as well and has a lot of knowledge on the subject).

R2R is basically a natural, straightforward approach in itself. There's no feedback in the process, unlike delta-sigma for which the feedback is necessary means of getting the DA done. And feedback is generally associated with corrections, approximations and messing with the time domain (as with the feedback you always correct with the time delay relative to the signal you're correcting with). This basically renders technical problems and various noise generated in the DA process which depends on the input sequence. Delta-sigma is from the very beginning on the path of constant improvement of the DA process...because it requires constant improvement, because of its imperfection.

The thing is that constant tone and FFT tests don't reveal flaws in delta-sigma conversion. To reveal noise produced you need more complex tests which requires bit more complex test signal which will provoke what's going on.
One of such signals from what I could read is a square signal, which consists of various harmonics of the base frequency. 

With R2R, this process is so simple that you don't have anything other than error from the resistor ladder due to resistors precision limits, which shows as HD (plus IMD which results from the THD). There's nothing more to provoke which wont show on simple tests, that's all.

As for NOS vs OS, as much as I have understood, NOS is the was which is least demanding for output filtering, as it is most tolerant for less steep filtering - it's even tolerant for a non-filtered approach. And it's the steep output filters which produce pre and post ringing. Which is nothing other than a time domain oscillation audible in a HF range, rendering an unnatural effect - nothing similar happens with the sound in the nature. My opinion is that brain is unable to handle it - since it's not even remotely close to natural phenomena, brain doesn't know how to filter it out from the impression he sends to the cortex. 

Hearing mechanism aims to render information from the raw tonal data entering the ears (and reflecting in the ears). When unnatural tonal signal enters ears, brain cannot draw correct information from it because it's impossible - but it still attempts to do so. The end result of this attempted brain processing on unnatural signal is easily far from what was intentional when producing the record. And this is the reason why relatively small in scale time distortion such as ringing is can do much wrong to an impression.

NOS design can sacrifice the strength of filtering out the ultrasonic noise from a DA reconstruction to make the pre and post ringing much lower (or non existent), in an idea that ultrasonic content, its eventual audibility plus IM byproducst in the audible range, will do less audible damage than ringing time domain distortion, from the 'viewpoint' of a human hearing mechanism. It can be either completely non-filtered approach (no ringing but more noise) or filtering with lower steepness (less ringing than steep filters like brick wall but also more ultrasonic noise, though much less than with non-filtered approach).

With PCM HR signals of a higher sampling frequency, 88.2kHz or higher, there's a benefit since ultrasonic noise from DA reconstruction happens higher in the frequency (where attenuation from a less steep filter attenuation of a noise is stronger), so there's a clear benefit over a 44.1kHz signal DA. So for such signals 'mild filter' approach may benefit more than with non-filtered NOS. 

DSD is a different story since DSS native conversion is different than PCM and basically it's again more straightforward than delta-sigma PCM conversion. So DA converters with direct DSD DA conversion path (no conversion to PCM prior to DA) can benefit in sound since DSD conversion doesn't require output filter at all, so no ringing as well. However typical cheap DAC converts DSD to PCM, then processes DA as with ony other PCM signal. 

Perhaps the high frequency artifacts that modulate into the audio band mask additional information allowing the brain to concentrate on what it most wants to hear?

I suspect it's about less damage, comparatively. Artifacts themselves are noise which can further increase the IMD and it can't be beneficial to the sound. But the alternative delta-sigma deals with specific additional noise, plus ringing.

We are talking DACs here. There is no feedback on a Delta-Sigma DAC.

Delta-sigma conversion is based on a feedback, it’s how it works. In fact, feedback is described even in very words ’delta-sigma’.

Delta-sigma conversion

You can see with any delta-sigma conversion diagram there’s a feedback associated. While those are simple conversions, you can’t escape a feedback no matter how advanced or modern it is, because...at some point you’ll have to do a delta-sigma, you know? ;) you can’t escape LPF-ing too.

Even on an almost 900K system, I still feel there are compromises. For one thing, its not analog. also, I have never heard drums, cymbals and overall air sound right on any digital system. Unfortunately, sometimes you have no choice as some music is digital and was never releases in analog or (tape, record).

Whether it releases on analog or digital, most music in the last several decades was digital right up to the cutting machine.

Cymbals on LPs made from digitally made masters don’t sound right either, if you listen critically. I can go to a hifi show, listen to many analog systems, but on a typical record I usually can’t hear an ’analog sound’ out of the analog rig, With digitally made records it’s not what’s there.

of course not, you can’t hear it that way not only in digital but in LP neither:

first because you can’t have the live music exprerience in true/real way in any room/home system and second ( between other reasons. ) becdause in a Hall your seat position maybe it’s at 20+ meters from the instrument source where the recording microphones pick-up the same information " seated " at near field: 1m-3m.

It's all correct what you say, but differences between live sound and production/mastering plus reproduction applies to all the frequency range. Yet many report it's least credible in a HF range. Obviously it's not all related to mikeing and production, there are specific additional problems related to production and reproduction of a HF range.

Zalive, if you do not like the symbals on digital recordings just focus on the bass.

It's really complex, as reproduction is (the way I see/picture it) a multiplication of influences. What's unrealistic with the cymbals or other sounds located mainly in a HF range is a result of not only digital but as well the amplification. Shushurin said a long time ago that the main problem of dominantly used amplification topologies is a total distortion which rises with the frequency, so biggest issues with distortion is expected in a HF range. Bingo, that's where digital has its worst moments too. When distortion and distortion multiplies at some point it easily gets too much and psyhcoacoustics will react: HF becomes more pronounced and easily falls out of balance.

Why I'm saying this: if room acoustics (which is another issue) and amplification quality allows it, system is pretty tolerant to bit of misbehaving on the digital side as there's a headroom of quality reproduction after it and sound is easily full with nice timbre and definition accross the spectrum. So even if cymbals are not perfect it's not a big deal and it's easy to 'forget' it. However if issues multiply too much, you must do some heavy mental self-programming to forget all and enjoy :D and it's not what hi-fi should be about.

Many went to analog rigs I think as they didn't succeed in setting up a nice digital based sound. And it's not impossible to set up a really nice digital front-end system with rich, full and gentle sound. It requires care with the rest of the system, it requires quality amplification, paying attention to details and...if anyhow possible, a solid nice room acoustics (setting up speakers the correct way means 'earth and sky' difference). Because IMO it's the room acoustics which can bring too much focus on a 'digital sound', and make it more relevant than in some other circumstances. 

In the end it's really easy to forget the fidelity imperfection as long as you are able to get the tonal balance completely right. 

Looking back, even BEFORE the Loudness Wars started, vinyl generally has higher dynamic range than its CD brethren. No bout a doubt it. You only need to look 👀 at the Dynamic Range Database to appreciate that. The other big advantage of vinyl, at least potentially, is frequency extension. I’d opine it’s extremely difficult to excavate the intricate data that is contained on CDs for a variety of reasons I’ve covered before many times. It’s a shadow of itself, or what it should be. For CDs, without a whole lot of effort, Air, Sweetness and fullness of bass are usually sub par. Even then...

I exchanged few comments with the local audio designer. He also has years of experience in studio production. He claims 24/48 which is practically used as a standard for many things today provides a real dynamical range which on a format level surpasses anything a vinyl can produce. As I understand the same is not true for 16/44.1, though.

The real difference happens in production/mastering. Practically anything on the digital side gets compressed when producing a master. There's an attractiveness associated with compression, too - with some music at least it may sound more attractive when compressed, especially on non hi-fi systems. Sad but true. However though compression is used commonly the level of compression is not the same on each record, of course. 

On another level, part of a dynamic nature is associated with reproduction device. Currently I use AD1865 based DIY NOS r2r DAC, and I can tell it made an immediate difference in dynamics of reproduction compared to few modern delta-sigma DACs, which according to their specs should not lack dynamics...