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

rauliruegas,
The problem with your statement is it takes a simplistic approach to "information".
I won’t disagree with you that digital, especially high resolution digital contains within it more raw information, but let’s look at a really simple example:

A CD is 1411 bkps to achieve 44100 samples/second at 16 bits and 2 channels.

What if we had an uncompressed signal at 128kbps? ... That would allow us to do say 2 channels, 10 bits, 6400 samples/sec or 3.2KHz. We could do 8 bits, at get up to 4KHz. Not too terribly impressive huh?

How do you think 8 bits at 8ksps would sound compared to a 128kbps MP3 or AAC? It would sound awful by comparison even though technically both have the same amount of information.

Why does the MP3 sound better for the same raw information? Because the MP3 concentrates the information into areas in which the brain can make use of it.

Perhaps due to dynamic compression during the mixing/mastering process, other intentional choices made during mixing and mastering, even what we consider limitations during playback, we are maximizing the audio information that the brain can take in. Perhaps that inherent "filtering" that a turntable does maximizes the useful audio information that the brain can take in my minimizing extraneous information that can cause information overload. I am more of a digital guy, but even I feel this happens at times.

That information limit will be different for different people. That could even explain why some love vinyl, and some, not so much. I think it could also speak to the listening fatigue that some claim to experience when listening to digital. It is simply information overload, especially when coupled with "loudness wars" information levels which could be considered extreme.

You could make arguments against this, like, "why are high end DACs" then viewed as being closer to vinyl? I would counter with, who is making those statements and why is their brain telling them that and why do some of those DACs measure so poorly. Why do non-OS R2R DACs sounds better (only to some). 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?

rauliruegas9,612 posts11-11-2019 10:24amWhy do you want to replicate the analog experience that’s wrong and different medium where you lost a huge signal amount of information and where adds a lot of non recorded signal information. Digital is truer to the recording to what recording microphones pick-up?:

I am full of preposterous blanket wet noodle statements and totally politically incorrect which is intentional.  

You said it bud.....

Mikelavigne, I totally agree, it all comes down to the master. I also can not tell a difference between vinyl and a 192/24 version done with Pure Vinyl of that very same record. I am debating getting one of their phono amps but have not made that leap yet. The Hi Res files files I buy are usually old material I already have because they have been remastered such as older Bowie discs, the older Stones records etc and the remasters have universally been improvements over the older versions. Occasionally a new record will come out in Hi Res. Several groups are allowing this such as King Crimson, The Shins and Wilco. Obviously I have no old recordings to compare these too but they are all first class projects all the way through and they do sound better than your usual CD and dynamic compression is used much more sparingly so they are as or more dynamic than an LP.

I am full of preposterous blanket wet noodle statements and totally politically incorrect which is intentional.  

Dear @ronres : ""  If you enjoy and seek the sound analog creates then no amount of money spent on digital will be able to replicate the analog experience.  """

Why do you want to replicate the analog experience that's wrong and different medium where you lost a huge signal amount of information and where adds a lot of non recorded signal information. Digital is truer to the recording to what recording microphones pick-up?: 

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-much-do-you-need-to-spend-to-get-digital-to-rival-analog/post?postid=1828665#1828665

@fleschler  , please read that post. Of course that I can be wrongs but those are facts.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I wiz listening to some NOS early Beatles cassettes - the ones you never see anymore, blue with no barcode - yesterday on my SONY Professional portable cassette player. You simply cannot hear dynamic range like that on any Beatles CD - especially the recent spate of reissues that came out on the last few years. It’s great to hear the opening Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band the way it’s SUPPOSED to sound. Same for the White Album on early cassette.

Maybe I will take a look at the Lampizator as they seem to be pretty well respected.  The best I've heard to date have been the DCS products.  Still, they do not sound like my very modest analog rig.  

@tzh21y
As to the original question:As mentioned before, the answer to this depends on certain variables, but to simplify things, let's assume an excellent quality LP and a similarly outstandingly mastered digital counterpart and an outstandingly well set up TT with a superb sounding phono.
In my experience, you would need in excess of 3k for a high performing dac, a reclocker, and a very good music player & suitable cabling in between.

@mikelavigne
Hello Mike,

...he heard tape and vinyl do dynamics far beyond what any digital could do

I am perplexed at the use of the word "can" because digital, esp hi-rez, *can* do dynamics (i.e. the difference between the lowest & highest amplitude reproduced) beyond what analogue *can* do.
Whether the files contain such dynamics is another matter, of course -- in my experience, they often do not! In fact, much of the digital content available today is abysmally compressed. Additionally, the digital compression rate is much higher than we find in LPs. compression, I believe, is one reason why vinyl sounds better: because the source material is better, to begin with.

In this respect, it is not surprising that an LP in your system has better dynamics and generally sounds better than many (mediocrely mastered) digital files.

Following up on @ct0517 post above, I have compared a vinyl reproduction to the same LP encoded 20/192 (direct from the TT output). The playback results in both digital & analogue were not particularly different; being of a certain age, I like the analogue sound—but frankly, I cannot say the digital copy sounded bad in any way (in fact, I'm not sure I could easily tell the difference!).

Fleschler.
I will grant you that were indeed a number of poorly recorded tapes sold, but so too CD and records.
There were/ are some superb pre recorded tapes as well though but yes generally a very well home recorded tape on say TDK SA media on a top flight Nakamichi deck can sound spectacular.
As good as same treatment on a good r2r? No of course not but nothing like Mijo blanket critique.
If his Dragon truly gave such poor results it obviously needs a full restoration!

To the Op's question - as it applies to New Music sourced from a digital file going to vinyl.   

I talked years ? ago to a few of the studios that do the vinyl cutting near where I live. Its a well known fact that the engineer when supplied with higher resolution files from the artist will use these for the actual vinyl cutting.

So, to the Ops question in regards to...... new music on vinyl - a DAC that will play 24-96 khz - on average is the requirement to match the vinyl record.

With that I personally have heard 16/44.1khz  CD's , per my previous posts here, whose source recording / mastering was done so well that it was - right there. Likewise, some Hi Resolution files sounded like Ka Ka - due to I assume - poor recording technique. We are at the mercy of the recording. 

https://vinylpressing.ca/pages/vinyl-pre-mastering

Vinyl Pre-Mastering - taken from the link. 
 
Pre-mastering is the process of getting your audio ready for the vinyl lacquer cutting stage. If your audio is already mastered for vinyl, you will not require pre-mastering services from Train Records.

What is required for submitting an acceptable vinyl premaster to Train Records?

Source Audio Files:
• 24 bit 96kHz WAV or AIFF format file is the vinyl pre-master standard. Other file resolutions are acceptable, down to CD quality audio, 16 bit 44.1kHz
• File resolution should be the highest available, but should not be converted up to a higher resolution.
• MP3 audio is not a suitable source for vinyl production.
• The source audio files should be provided as a single WAV or AIFF format file for each side, with track spacing as it is intended to appear on the record and with an accompanying PQ sheet, indicating track IDs

A Note About High Frequencies:

The lacquer cutting system (the next step in vinyl manufacturing) is capable of putting very high peak levels on the record, but only ideal playback systems in optimal conditions will be able to play the sound back without distortion. Since we need the record to be playable on all types of equipment, it's necessary to limit the High Frequency information. It's recommended to provide a vinyl premaster that already has a balance of high frequency suitable for vinyl production.

A Note About Low Frequencies:

Excessive level in the very low bass can cause the record to skip. Excessive stereo information in the bass appears as vertical movement in the groove, so it's sometimes necessary to remove the stereo component of the music as well as any out of phase information in the very low frequency range. The cutting system is equipped to correct minor issues with the bass however, more severe problems will result in a record that can't be cut or that sounds very different from the source audio files provided. It's recommended to provide a vinyl premaster that already has low frequency level and stereo content that is suitable for vinyl production.

Then send the Dragon to me.
We all have opinions obviously but you should avoid silly blanket statements that you cannot substantiate.
Sorry but I do not watch the little reels spin whatsoever, too absorbed in the sweet music.
No nostalgia involved, just music on a grand scale.
As I said I invite you to listen to them on my rig......

Uberwaltz, I am thrilled that you like to watch little reels go round and round but even under the best circumstances cassettes are colored and bland. If you turn the dolby off they sound better but noisy and the worse kind of noise is the steady state stuff like tape his. There is no way you can win but back in the day it was the best way to get music in your car and in a way they are better than CD's because they are harder to damage. One good scratch in the right direction and a CD is worthless.
Played back on the Dragon they are worse than MP3 files. If you like to listen to then for nostalgic reasons wonderful, that is why Howard Johnson's made 23 flavors.

I used a Tandberg 320? and a Nakamichi zx7 for recording live choirs in the 80s along with a Tandberg 9000 R2R.  The DAT deck was superior.  However, the cassettes I made were of superior quality to nearly all prerecorded tapes.  There lies the probable cause for the previous posts.  Prerecorded tapes generally were awful compared to LPs and R2R 2 track or 7.5 ips 4 track.  Premium cassettes recorded at home or live sounded good.  I got rid of about 500 cassettes and kept only my live recorded tapes. 

Mijostyn-good for you, another audiophile interested in the music first although 78s can be very dynamic if frequency rangebound.  They are direct discs with perfect non-edited take credentials.  My 78s go back to 1900 so stylus size, speed and equalization make it more cumbersome to listen to.  It's an active hobby to listen to acoustic 78s (pre-1925).  

Mijo
I will buy your Dragon.
It can join my zx7 and 660zx.
Cassettes suck?
What a preposterous blanket wet noodle statement but how come I am not surprised.
I invite you to an evening of cassette tape playback on my rig with some of my tapes.
Of course some tapes suck, just like some vinyl and some CDs etc etc.

Yes zalive, it comes down to the master. But better is better. We have no control over which master is used. 
The question is, is computer audio better than digital playback from a CD drive. I can not really answer that question. I have compared the original CD to its copy on a computer (Apple Mini with Pure Audio) and I can not tell the difference and the computer is up sampling to 192/24 the player is not. A down loaded Hi Res version does usually sound better than it's CD counterpart but again are they using the same master? 
I am more than happy to get rid of all my CDs. They are now all on the hard drive, what a PITA that was. Gives me more room for records:) I have nothing bad to say about computer audio. I love the degree of flexibility you have with Pure Music which uses iTunes library to organize the music. The whole set up cost me about $5K. The Mini, a 6 TB hard drive and a Berkeley Alpha USB. This is about the price of my cheapest cartridge so from a price perspective digital has it all over analog. 
I only buy a CD on rare occasion when music I want is not available to download. 
Geoffkait with two F's, Michael Fremer's opinion is not one I would rely on. His hearing is way better than mine and your's for that matter. He can hear the "dramatic" difference between a $100K turntable and a $400K turntable. His use of superlatives boggles the mind. I can't even tell if he likes music. 
Geoffkait, I'm worried about your ears. Cassette tapes suck. I have a Nakamichi Dragon up in the attic you can buy from me if you like. I bought it to record cassettes for the car before CDs became available. 
I'll bet you are an 8 track fan!
Fleschler, I only have 2,348 78's  

rluciano - Similar to my system.  Phono-VPI TNT6 super platter, SDS speed control, tricked-out SME IV arm, Benz Ruby 3, Townsend Seismic Sink, Audio Interface SUT and custom made subminiature tube phono stage.  Cost over $22K plus cabling.  Digital = half that now that I purchased a separate DAC.  Still, great LPs sound great despite the 12 bit resolution asserted to by the other poster.

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...

It was almost 18 years ago that Michael Fremer, you know, of Stereophile Magazine’s Analog Corner fame, declared that of the top five best sounding systems at the Big Show in Vegas that that year, four were digital. Hel-loo! Only one vinyl rig, the Walker/ Kharma room, made the top five. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭

I think digital has made it to the point where it is very competitive. I also would not spend mega-bucks on digital as it is still improving and evolving. 

I have a VPI TNT-HRX with a Lyra Scala cartridge and Audio-Research PH-6 phono stage. I recently purchased a Roon Nucleus, Holo Audio Spring 2 DAC Kitsune tuned with the Kitsune Tuned Edition SU-1 DDR  USB digital to digital converter. 

If I have a MoFi UHQR and a hi-res download, the UHQR still wins. But standard vinyl pressings against hi-res downloads are often too close to call. 

This is roughly $5,000 digital front end versus almost $20,000 vinyl front-end. I still love vinyl, I still use vinyl. But to my mind vinyl is no longer cost effective. I am unlikely to buy more vinyl.

I totally disagree ,if you listened to the Zlatest Lampizator Vacuum tube dacs 
with top quality USB cable which is essential to bring the realism out
I highly recommend the Final touch Audio- Callisto usb, and their great interconnects.  Records lack in many areas for example a record at best 12 bits
digital almost double Thst, dynamic range No contest, Bass also .
and in a proper setup the warmth of the tubes and  greater resolution ,
as well as not all the added headaches of cleaning records, storing a wall of vinyl.
i just get my tablet and play. A good turntable setup is well over $5 k 
the entry Lampizator with upgraded tubes ,power cord and usb is about $5k.
at $5k with full turntable setup and cartridge ,That is maybe average for a decent turntable setup , which I heard many , and I would never go back to a turntable
too much added labor and No sonic benefit IMO. Some reviewers are jaded for their hearing likes a duller warmer foundation , your cartridge can tune your turntable like a different Vacuum tube can flavor your system .
one person likes a more defined leading edge, where another prefers a silky smooth midrange ,that too is why we hav3 Vacuum tube Amps preamp ,
land solid Stste many times mixed Solid-state Amp,Vacuum tube preamp
you system cables ,power cords all have influence . That is  why you hear many 
good systems ,and vinyl had maybe 10% of music selection of high res DSD
or cd . And far more expensive ,and need a room just for storage. If you like Analog good ,I prefer good digital .go to a show where Lampizator or other Highend digital is playing for sure you will hear a major difference ,
I do agree that vinyl will sound better at the lower priced setups , but once you start approaching over $5-10 grand the gaps closes fast ,check out the $25k 
Lamoizator Pacific,or Golden gate World class  sounding music Period 🎶🎶👍

I agree with geofkait re cassettes. Holly Cole's "Temptation" sounds as good as any CD or LP in my collection when played on my Tandberg 440 A. 

I have 25,000 LPs, 7,000 78s and 7,000 CDs.  Sure, I love playing analog.  As of yesterday, I now have more than an analog-like sounding CD front end (EAR Acute).  I purchased a COS Engineering DAC (D2).  I have entered to realm of great digital playback.  As mentioned, digital can be sonically uncolored unlike most analog gear.  My new DAC is not 100% perfect but it allows me to hear music with a unfettered/untethered frequency response, dynamic contrast, soundstage, tonality, resolution and imaging.  I wonder if it's pacing could be bettered.  There is so much music I was missing, the subtle sounds that my best LPs have.   Moreover, this is the first time that I can enjoy music from very soft to very loud sound pressure levels (my system should have been able to play quietly did not until now).  My friend Grover Huffman has the H1 and last week showed me how fabulous my system could sound.  I got pant flapping bass without distortion, wild dynamic contrasts and an ability to listen for 4 or 5 hours without listener fatigue (his demonstration led to a very long listening session).  I should mention that I have Grover to thank for his all silver RCA 75 ohm SPIF cable, his Pharoah A/C and RCA ICs which I own.  I enjoyed the EAR from 2006 with it's rich, lively sound but it has been eclipsed by the DAC.  Warning-this DAC is not forward sounding to bright.  The plane of the sound is between the speakers.  Digital playback cannot make a mediocre or poorly mastered CD sound great, but I have so many great CDs that it is as difficulty to choose music to hear as it is in the analog realm.  

There are audiophiles who swear by analog. The other day, I saw, in a coverage of the AXPONA show (If I am not mistaken) a TT that costs $130,000! There was a debate in the forum about LP's that were mastered digitally. I find them to be as good as those that were mastered from Reel-to-Reel decks. I am one of those audiophiles who are annoyed by the clicks and pops when listening to Vinyl. The only way to solve this is to buy an uber-expensive FM Acoustics Phono Stage - they supress the clicks and the pops. As for me, my TEAC CDP3450SE CD Player (with ken Isiwata teaks) sounds as good as analog. No grain, not analytical, just a warm, articulate sound. But I want to share with you a simple, cheap setup that I have devised. I bought a 1USB to 3USB splitter ($20), and connected it to a USB port at the back of my PC. from there, I connected a cheapo ($5) USB cable to my humble integrated amp. All I have to do is type the name of a concert, album, song, in any genre, in Cortana. The source of the  files is YouTube. Now, You wouldn't think that a $25 setup like this is a recipe for a good SQ? Surprise Surprise, the SQ is excellent! My mother, my brother, and myself were impressed by the SQ. No need for a costly streamer, this set-up does the job beautifully!

35 yrs ago I had a fully vinyl rig set up to compete with a heavily modded magnavox player du jour (which did sound way better than other players of the day). I had many vinyl/CD repeats and auditioned them extensively, one after the other (through a big tube amp & Vandersteen 4 speakers). Digital always sounded different from vinyl in way described above, and to my ears, vinyl usually sounded better. But it was easy to see the vinyl recession that would follow--vinyl would no longer be ascendant. 

I formed an opinion then that still holds up, though my audio gear is vastly different today: that is, if I had a vinyl system, I would put serious $$ into the TT & cartridge, also the phono preamp--because the extra outlay could be heard relatively easily. But with digital, I would keep it mid-level, never plunging on the big-$$ brands of the moment. Beyond making sure the cables were good quality, I'd upgrade players from time to time, rather than going for any one SOTA player.

And so it is today in my desktop audio system. No vinyl here (no room). I use DACs pretty much as I did CD players back in the day. I'm fond of non-oversampling (NOS) multibit DACs & am on my 2nd. Its sound is very fine for digital (MHDT Labs Orchid @$700). I have no urge to upgrade. My passive studio monitors are very high resolution & sound wonderful to me in the current setup. I listen to a lot of streaming music, also 100s of GBs of music I ripped to the HD.

One thing I would certainly try if I had a vinyl front-end (1500 LPs in storage) is to rip vinyl recordings to disk, then output through DAC + speakers. That would be very interesting, to see if the positive attributes of vinyl survive digitization.

Comparison's made with the same system cancel out everything except the variables being changed. For digital it is relatively simple. It is all about the DAC. Any good transport will suffice. For Vinyl however it is the cartridge, tonearm, TT and phono amp. Get a few of your favorite albums in as many formats as you can. In order to do this correctly you have to be able to match volume levels and they have to be exactly the same which is not so easy and you have to do this with every set of recordings. I use a sound pressure and match peak output. Then I get all three going, CD, Hi Res and vinyl just a little staggered so I can listen to the same passage in all three formats, sit back and trigger between the formats with a remote. This is actually a lot of fun and I promise you will be surprised at some of your results. The first time I did this was with Dylan's Desire as I had all three formats and I was sure the Hi Res was going to trounce the others. It did not. The MoFi 45 rpm version won hands down. Even Cleeds would agree. But in other cases Hi Res won like Led Zepplin One Two and Three. The surprise here is how well vinyl matches up to Hi Res. You would never think that dragging a rock through a trench could match up against modern computer wizardry. Anyone who thinks taking care of records is a PITA needs to bone up on their technique. Even getting up to change sides is an advantage if you are over 60. If you sit too long in one place you freeze:) With an automatic tonearm lift you do not even have to disrupt whatever other activity you have going at the time. Everyone should know my mantra by now. Dust Covers and Conductive Sweep Arms. 

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.

The average high end Vinyl rig 
with cartridge and power supply is at least $5-6k. That being said 
a Lampizator has a Tube rollers dac for $7k  , then buy the critical 
Final touch audio - Callisto USB 
cable  and it will not only give a Vinyl a challenge but beat it in many areas even 2x that. I have listened to many record rigs side by side , band width is very limited to 12 bits , where digital can go 
to well over 20. Plus you can keep your labor of cleaning,demagnatizing, pops and clicks, cartridge maintainence, a wall just to store them . Where with 
well done Digital ,your whole library at the touch of a button through a tablet. I owned a Audio store in the U.K.  What’s next a stack of 45 records stacked on a spindle like In the days of old ?
why not buy a juke box too ? As I suggested check out a Very good Vacuum tube Lamoizator dac 
and get a good power cord and a Essential top quality ASB cable 
such as the Final touch Callisto 
the best cable outthere under $1500, for $800 is a steal,
Digital owners ,just check it out.

It costs me about $12....... for the right CD.     So many times the better format is simply the one that was from the better master.... or better Mastering.  I've have good and crappy versions of the same record in either format.  I love both LP and CD, and there's good & bad versions of each.  HiRes digital..... when DONE RIGHT.... can beat them both though.  I'm still too afraid to get into HD though, because some HD pop music is still over compressed, and there's no return policy if your not happy with the sound.  I wish I could get a refund for all the defective CDs i have, where the sound is distorted.  That should be a legitimate defect.

Hi  tzh21y,
In response 
"I have been used to analog my whole life "
Specifically what kind of analog set up do you currently have? forgive me if you have already answered that.

" I think I read someone said that "no digital will ever satisfy like analog" "
But at what cost are you willing to see if digital could make that happen?

When ever I feel comfortable enough to confess to people that I am a self proclaimed audiophile, they ask me "what kind of turntable / analog set up do you have"?,  I answer I don't have one. 

They then ask me "why not"? and I say " because I can't afford it".

You may need to reevaluate your situation and priorities in your current situation. Cherry pick your LP's and if $3k is your number, stream the rest with a decent player,  while simultaneously growing your LP library 
- Best of Luck ...

I think the technology of the 20th century, dictated that a recording engineer knew the limitations inherent in vinyl.  
They knew that the music being recorded was going to be mass produced and the majority of sales would come from LP's. And the turntable was the main source for playback. It's no wonder music from the 20th century sounds good on a turntable.

I agree that most analog system sound like music being played not a recording of music. Is this because more information is being stored in vinyl than on digital? Can we even measure how much information is stored in a LP record?

Even though the LP's can sound more "real", I don't care for all the maintenance required. It's like owning a car, every time you operate it you are wearing it out.  

Picking a CD Player / DAC

1) Pick 3 music selections that (a) push your buttons, (b) make you come alive. (c) are like a fountain of youth for you. These selections will be different for each one of us and they should not be longer than 15 minutes in total.     
                                                                        
2) Take your personal CD player or DAC to 3 different Dealer Salons or friends places.                                                                     

3) Insert your CD Player / DAC into the chain first (very important) and listen to the music. This allows you to "Form An Opinion" in their "Room" with your gear and music as input.                                

4) Now - try the music with their CD players, DAC's, ...                     
If they allow you to bring the gear home - highly unlikely - even better.

If their gear, does something better for you - then you know what gear and the cost.    

3 music pieces and 15 minutes of music is important.  I found more than 3 was too much to take in. Also 15 minutes allow you to be out of their hair within the hour (if at a Dealer Salon)  

tzh21y As for your question...I spent under 5K for a Lumin T2 w/ external power supply. I can't tell the difference vs. analog. Lumin T2 has a built in dac. Amp is tubes.  

As for "I have heard some very high end digital front ends" ...were those piped into tubes or SS? And what about all the rest?

As for the analog vs. digital conundrum. I would love to read, go to or see a blind listening test of a analog/digital rumble by an august bunch of audiophiles (Old gals/guys)...That would be something!

I suspect vinyl love has an innate component of the undulating subtle variance of the sound. In other words the slight ever so subtle imperfections (minus dirt, ticks and pops) of vinyl has a darn attractive quality. Digital sound is "even."

I have recently gotten a dcs Bartók DAC, which I’m using in conjunction with a Roon Nucleus. The cost was about $15K, and for the first time the sound rivals, IMO, my Clearaudio turntable/tonearm/cartridge with a Nagra phono stage which was about $10K. To my ear the vinyl still generally sounds better, but the difference is pretty small.  That is playing ripped CDs and some downloaded hi-res files though - if I stream music (using Qobuz) there is a definite (but generally acceptable) step down in quality.  My experience anyway (and ears)...

Let's have some real world stories, at the price point suggested by tzh21y.

I have a vinyl front end at the 3k price point, with an excellent phono stage. My CD playback did not rival it until I purchased a stand-alone DAC (Border Patrol). That investment was enough to create parity in listening pleasure. No huge bucks necessary, just a symbiotic purchase. The same music that I own on both CD and LP, sounds sufficiently pleasurable, not identical. This is the first time I've managed to do it within my mid-budget system.

Are you saying that a CD transport or CD player is better than a streamer/DAC?

     I know this is not exactly what you mean, but to answer your specific question, buy a CD player that costs as much as your cartridge, tone arm, record platter, phono pre-amp, head amp, assorted isolation equipment and wiring.  
     For your question, total all these up and compare the total to the price of your streamer, which BTW, I am not convinced would work, being on my list of inferior products, along with horn speakers. 
     Don't anyone continue to ask me to consider horns by saying I must hear yours, without an actual invitation; ditto for your streamer.  I have heard Audio Advisor's (WPB, FL) streamers and am not impressed, even though they carry the best equipment I ever heard (Wilson, Audio Research, B&W 800 series, and much more, along with the $27000 turntable at their entrance, and $1500+++ LP's to play on it. 
     Am I a total snob?  Not really.  I even listen to the inferior XM radio through my 803's, because I Iike the jazz station, and drive an old, blown S2000S.     

Everyone has to remember that now it is the rare recording that is done analog. The vast majority are now recorded directly to a hard drive. So in saying that analog is better you are also saying that high resolution digital is not a problem and that analog playback of digital material is better than digital playback of digital material. I believe this is an admission that vinyl playback is adding something to the signal that many audiophiles prefer be it the background noise that dithers our brain or increased distortion (added even order harmonics). There is a euphoric quality to vinyl playback. Another interesting comparison is older analog recordings vs newer digital ones, a very difficult comparison to make because you can not get a single piece recorded both ways for comparison. In thinking about it I really could not say. Most of my classical collection is analog and given that I was very picky looking for the best artistry along with recording quality, it is an excellent collection. But, what little DDD I have is also quite good. I have the four Brahms Symphonies in 24/96 digital and they are wonderful. I can not imagine it getting any better. But I also feel the same about many of my analog recordings.

I may have to check out the Lampizator products.  I think I read someone said that "no digital will ever satisfy like analog", especially for someone like me as I have been used to analog my whole life. Its been a tough transition for me to listen to digital other than to put it on while I say.. clean the house or background music.  The thing is that some music is just not available on vinyl and maybe never will be so I have to have something for that.

@audioman58

Unlike the OP I am very happy with my digital setup.

You didnot state how much $$ spent on complete turntable setup ,that is key

IMO - you need to reword your statement to arrive at the truth here based on my personal experience.

so your statement reworded.

"You did not state how much TIME/EFFORT spent on complete turntable setup ,that is key."

Proper vinyl setup is all about dealing with vibrations and resonances - not 1- 0 - 1 - 0 -1- 0 ..............

Just torquing the headshell bolts for the cartridge too tight can mess things up. Its a more mechanical, meticulous setup. In a resolving system it is all heard.

I have an IT background. i remember punching cards and loading them into the card reader. You can manipulate the 1 and 0’s all you want. It still comes out 1 and 0 in the end.

Since I build both dac and phono stage I have not been able to build a dac that betters the phono stage yet. The dac will better most analog systems I have compared it to but even with a low cost TT the phono still beats the dac.   I'm working on it though!  Happy listening.

Apparently you just have to know what you’re doing. 🤗

You have not heard a proper setup then , You didnot state how much $$ spent on complete turntable setup ,that is key
for under $4k the new Vacuum tube Lampizator vacuum tube 
Amber 3 dac, and a Must their Callisto USB cable try that ,
look at the reviews. 

Lemme bring my AudioEngine B-1 to the shootout and I’ll win this horse race for pennies

IMO - The dilemma for the Audiophile, is that this is not a horse race, but a marathon.

The Op has already said he has heard great digital - in short spurts.
I will say it again I blame the engineers. They were given this gift when CD came on. They just didn’t know how or were not allowed to "play with it" , especially when it comes to the popular music genres. Now, if I did not have my vinyl rig I probably would not be saying this as my digital sounds just fine - when all I do is listen to digital. But then I will introduce that archaic black plastic disc....

And, when one does come across music that has been recorded well on digital. You know it when you hear it. It has a presence. You cannot stop listening to it. Concentrating on it. With this kind of digital recording all it takes is a good CD player to bring it out - imo. I believe everyone has examples of this type of music. The problem for me, is that this music is usually an obscure recording, and not the music I grew up with. So I can only listen to it so many times. When I hear music I grew up with, it brings back good memories.

About $25.

Depending on Budget. The Excellent Lampizator vacuum tube dac 
which received a 5 star rating in Enjoy the music .com 
is their latest entry level dac that is $2750: and by far the most natural sounding dac under $5k. If your budget can go higher their next step is around $6-7 k. The key is very good USB cable 
they distribute a small little known brand a Final a Touch Audio
Callisto usb cables by far the best cable I have heard and nothing under $1500 can beat it for its natural presentation especially after 
150 hr runin , it was so good I bought the cable ,their interconnects are just as good . Check out the Lampizator Amber3
dac .they even have a money back guarantee, and the USB  cable 
at around $800 a must if you want to hear proper digital thst sounds like good analog.

Very simple answer--Exogal for 7k. Absolutely wonderful sound that kills my former tube equipment with a far smaller footprint. Tubes are greatly overrated though lots of fun.

i have a 6 year old NAD D1050 and have not heard anything better lately under 2K.  you can pick them up for about $400. 

rbstehno nailed it. IME, for most audiophiles' analog or digital budgets (let's say $100 - $15,000) digital yields better quality sound. If this question were asked 8+ years ago, the $ range would be different. Between analog requiring a TT, a cartridge, a phono preamp an isolation platform not to mention brushes, record cleaners etc. there are simply many more components to purchase versus digital which as we know is a DAC and a  computer and now there are models integrating both into one. Once you get >~$15,000 things balance out. At the level I'm at (Aqua Formula xHD) + the convenience of unlimited music at your fingertips, spinning records has no appeal.