And definitely not better sounding that what can be done for 1/4 the price.

Well, yes and no. The last thing one needs is to have cancellation, which can and does happen in real world conditions when you have cross-talk. So, yes, separation at some points in the chain is enormously important.

Certainly at the higher frequencies (2000kHz and above), separation plays a role in the effect. At lower frequencies, one needs to prevent a + and a - cancelling each other out. At all frequencies, one so does not need a reinforcement due to false summing because of poor separation.

I like the looks of that console, and the apparent craftsmanship.

That said...I think one's audio dollar would go much, much, much further elsewhere. At least as far as performance is concerned.

I could see having a console of some sort as a collectible. But I'd rather have vintage--which has considerably more affordable options, as well as a feeling of "history".

Now everyone is convinced records sound better, they certainly didn't when things were recorded properly with a ear towards sound quality rather than mine goes to 11. 

I remember the 80s, and the early days of CD. Although I didn't have experience with the earliest days of CD. For me, digital audio was a total disaster back then, and it's one reason why I moved to better than mass market equipment. I was convinced that LPs at their best were better. But to get good sound, one needed a good turntable. One also needed a good LP, which was something the mass market record industry wasn't interested in making after 1970-something. I remember one turntable maker even bluntly stating that there were times he wished the major record companies would leave the LP business. The major labels were, he thought, doing more harm than good for the future of the format.

In my case, a system based around a good turntable made sense to me. It unfortunately required a bigger investment. But it promised longer service life, and access to cheap used records. And systems like that were more enjoyable to listen to, and did more to encourage one to listen seriously (rather than background). New releases weren't a problem for me--older records were enough for me, and, of course, a cheap CD player could handle the occasional new release that one really wanted.

I have mixed feelings about the renaissance of LPs. Part of me is quite happy, since I can laugh at those who laughed at me. But if the format will be more than nostalgia fun, it still needs quality equipment, which isn't cheap new. And I still think digitally recorded LPs seem like a way of getting the worst of two worlds. If one is using digitally recorded material, it would be better  to simply use high resolution digital files (if/when possible).

The other thing that gets me are high end systems that work (at least part of the time) fully in the digital domain, even with analog sources. (Obviously, the analog is converted to digital, first.) One local dealer loved one brand of amp like this. It was a nice amp for those who wanted digital--and had lots of money. But I was never convinced that it was a good choice for those sticking with LPs, even if the dealer claimed that it was "good digital" and it allowed one to easily hear the differences between different cartridges. (Heck, I can hear differences between cartridges on YouTube videos! But it doesn't mean I want to do my serious listening to YouTube videos!)

Yes, Phil stated my feelings quite nicely. There's a great deal of "psychology" in what makes us love one thing over another, and the world of high-end audio attracts "all kinds". High prices, exclusivity and 'unique designs' can go a long way at convincing folks of a superiority that was never there in the first place.

In the world of audio, the only real way to compare different sources, is not merely an "A-B test", but an "A-B-X test", where 'X' is either 'A' or 'B', AND the levels are matched within no more than ½ db, AND the equipment is covered or the listeners are blindfolded. This sort of accurate testing is virtually unheard of [no pun intended] in the world of high-end audio, as many results would disprove the ludicrous nonsense that is foisted upon the weak-minded with or without piles of cash.

Both the analog and digital formats can (within their own limitations) reproduce quite lovely sounds. Folks should be concentrating their attentions on the music, itself, and be less concerned on the origination format, the cost of the equipment, and/or its looks - but then we wouldn't be human beings, would we-?.

Pops and ticks on LPs have never particularly bothered me. It's worth noting, however, that the system makes a difference. One thing that really surprised me on the first good system I heard was how much more listenable a worn record could be. 

But...for those who want dead quiet backgrounds, analog is admittedly probably not the best choice.