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


I have heard some very high end digital front ends and although  they do sound very good, I never get the satisfaction that I do when i listen to analog regardless if its a"coloration" or whatever. I will listen to high end digital, and then I soon get bored, as if it just does not have the magic That I experience with a well set up analog system. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?

tzh21y
As I stated before  key to getting digital right great digital design knowledge 
Lampizator, 2, vacuum tubes bring much more realism to the music ,
which too you can tune to your sonic taste. A top USB cable also is instrumental
i have compared  usb cables up to $1500 and the Final touch audio- Callisto 
is very natural and detailed and at $850 a bargain, and a good power cord.
even the new Lampizator Amber 3 entry lever around $3 k with cable
sound very good  and vinyl at the same price imo is not as good.
Gallus, priceless.
Zalive, I can still hear fine up to 18 kHz.  I have had many issues with CDs over the years I suspect to various problems with links in the chain.
It is obvious from many albums such as The Trinity Sessions that digital recording can be excellent. I suspect it is the playback process that creates the issues you complain about. Having evaluated many recordings of which I have versions in both digital and analog formats I can say without question that in many circumstances the analog version sounds nicer due to the addition of euphoric distortions. When compared to live acoustic instruments the digital version is more accurate. In many instances that sense of air and depth that many of us, myself included like is due to added distortion. Many interpret that "air" as high end. I have many remastered Hi Res recordings (downloads) that over come the lack of euphoric distortion through thrilling dynamics and more accurate imaging. 
Making generalizations about any format is a mistake and more likely indicates a bias on the part of that individual. There are just too many steps along the way that when not done correctly can pervert the final product in any format.

Mike
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.....
Except almost all vinyl in the last several decades has been digital right up to the cutting head. Pre-digital, most analog tapes and cutting head amps/systems had bandwidth limitations too, even if the theoretical cartridge limit was higher.


The dynamic range database is purely an indication of the mixing and mastering, nothing about the limits of the format.


Absent any proof, your points about CDs are just conjecture, the overall robustness shown in ability to store data shown in data CDs. The real time nature of audio called for different error correction but data CDs show that putting 650mb of data on a CD (similar to amount of audio data) and recovering it is possible. Either way streaming negates that.