Speakers 10 years old or older that can compete with todays best,

Very interesting thread. Particularly appropriate to me, as only yesterday i visited a dealer who's system was what he felt to be excellent sounding. Yet, and here's the thing, this system was a disappointment to me. Not because it did not have some good gear in it, but because the system was put together with the typical mistakes that someone who thinks they really know what they are doing, yet disregard the very basic things that separate a great sounding system from a  mediocre sounding one. For example, no consideration given to cabling, no consideration given to room acoustic treatments, no consideration give to the importance of speaker placement, and so on. One thing i have learned in this hobby over the years, is this, no matter what the listener's experience level is, the dealer always believes he/or she ( not many ladies in this scenario) has more expertise than the customer. 

@mikelavigne  You are a highly experienced a'phile, why would someone believe that they could improve your system, without a) first listening to it and then b) believe that their knowledge would trump yours??...I don't really understand this attitude from several members who have posted upstream. To these very same members, i would ask this question: Is it possible that in fact someone like Mike L could have a superior sounding system to yours...and not only that, have more experience/knowledge than you? 

I have wanted to ask this very same question to numerous dealers in this hobby, iow-- is it possible that the customer who just walked in the door, could in fact teach you something about not only system set up, but also about music itself?? 

To get back to the subject in the OP. are there speakers today that can compete with today's best? Absolutely, I think some of these speakers from the past have in fact never been bettered in some areas. Take for example, the Quad '57's. How many speakers on the market today can equal their mid-range reproduction, never mind beat them? Another example, the SF Guarneri Homage speakers that I utilize in my system, how many stand mounts can equal these today?? There are a few (maybe a handful that i know of)...but the vast majority of current stand mounts still cannot better them. 

There is a point made by RH in TAS that he recently heard the old Hill Plasmatronic speakers (with the ion tweeter), stating that the upper mids to highs were the best reproduction of these frequencies he had ever heard!! RH has heard a  lot of speakers....

@daveyf wrote:

@mikelavigne You are a highly experienced a’phile, why would someone believe that they could improve your system, without a) first listening to it and then b) believe that their knowledge would trump yours??...I don’t really understand this attitude from several members who have posted upstream. To these very same members, i would ask this question: Is it possible that in fact someone like Mike L could have a superior sounding system to yours...and not only that, have more experience/knowledge than you?

Speaking for myself and my replies to @mikelavigne I anticipated an above-like response, and it’s not without merit. Maybe I even hoped such a reply would be leveled at me/us so that I could better explain at least myself and not come across as an arrogant know-it-better, but rather that my intention was to challenge a single aspect of which I find myself to have some experience here that Mike, it appears, does not - at least not extensively with his 2-channel setup.

Yes, I would expect most everyone to find Mike’s system to be superior sounding to my own setup, and yes it wouldn’t surprise me if Mike - in a range a areas - has somewhat more knowledge and experience than I. Hopefully I made it clear that I can only assume it’s a truly great sounding system of his, and that the implementation in every regard, from all that I can assess, has been thoroughly considered and executed. The effort and time put into it all is certainly awe inspiring.

That being said it’s also problematic to blindly expect an individual with a highly sophisticated and expensive system like Mike’s is above criticism or suggestive acts of any kind. Having not listened to his setup implies both the fact that I can’t judge its sonic merits, just as well that I cannot take it for granted it’s a sound that - despite the money, time, research, effort and dedication that went into this - would blow me away in every single aspect. I’ve heard my share of über-expensive setups in homes that left me quite unimpressed; systems that sounded disjointed, uneven, stale, bloated, over-damped (more than under-damped, actually), overly detail focused, malnourished, etc. Very few of them sounded really natural to my ears, and it just goes to show that every setup, regardless of price, is a potential only, but also that personal preference varies. Preference I can deal with, but a badly implemented system is just a waste.

Nothing to me implies that Mike’s system is badly implemented, on the contrary. I merely suggested an approach, of which he apparently has no experience to speak of (and who among us has experience in every facet of audio reproduction approaches?), that could potentially lift the sonics to even higher levels of quality. From my chair it would be worth pursuing if this particular area (i.e.: outboard active configuration) is a stone unturned - not least with the ambition at play here.

All acoustic factors that contribute to a better sound are numerous they are all different but all are related acoustically ...The electronics of component and their design , the system /room acoustic , the psycho-acoustics specific ears filters of the owner and his specific audio journey and experience and experiments , and the specific working embeddings dimensions : mechanical,electrical and acoustical controls of the Ears/ room/system/house, by control here i spoke about electronical control but also often forgotten the mechanical controls , ALL aspects are important and differ in impact to begin with the specific synergy level between components as the first starting point ...

Remember now this : there is a minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold SPECIFIC different for each of us , or M.A.S.T. to be remember easily and there is also an optimal satisfying acoustic threshold or O.S.A.T. similar for all of us by the way  ...

The minimal and optimal tresholds differ by all the factors i described in the first paragraph above...Not only by price and evident design quality of the components ...But the two levels the minimal and optimal had something in common they represent in their price bracket/ sound quality ratio , a BALANCE between all acoustics and audio factors which are implied , one in a minimal way, the other in an optimal way ...

Mike Lavigne seems to me along the years here with all his posts very happy and satisfied by his audio system/room ...He is on the ultimate OPTIMAL level of possible satisfaction, which is almost evident for everyone because of the quality of design and the room quality and his expressed knowledge ... His system is among the costlier one here...

I am myself with a 700 bucks system/room , very happy and completely satisfied AS WELL AS HE IS ... I am on the MINIMAL level of possible satisfaction ...Which level when reached give to us music already with a good timbre, spatial aspects and immersiveness with my speakers as well as with my headphones...

People in general want to improve our system, Lavigne or mine , the costlier here and the less costlier , without knowing all the factors enumerated in my first paragraphs... They even dont know how to tune a room , as someone here said to me that room tuning dont even exist, then i will invite people to not criticise anyone system...

Think twice about what you know and what you dont know ...Perfection dont exist in musical and acoustic playback but trade-off , wise one and unwise one , wanted one and unwanted one ... Our ears/brain are not perfect they are efficient in their own specific way and history ...

Remember : everybody must learn how to hear and listen and it is not given by gear upgrades mainly ...

Psycho-acoustics science rule audio not the gear name or price...

By the way i know how to improve my system drastically but at a price which will be 15 times at least my actual price...I cannot and i dont need it because of the M.A.S. T. i enjoyed...

It is the same thing for Lavigne , it will be very hard to improve his system drastically and anyway he dont feel the necessity nor the urgency because he is on the O.S.A.T. side of audio...

My Linn Nexus from 1988 still sound great!

Nexus are Linns best selling speakers of all time. Matched with a Hsu sub,  they really shine at higher (+70 db) levels. Recently purchased  a backup used set for $150. My system consists of an LSA Warp 1 amplifier,  Audible Illusions Modulus 3a preamp, Wiim Pro Streamer, Gustard r26 Dac. And Chord Clearway interconnects. Love it!

@phusis One other thing i have also learned in this hobby is this: it is just as easy to go backwards in regards to SQ when you implement something into your system, as it is to go forwards...and many times, even easier!

Interestingly, the dealer I visited most recently utilizes a Linn turntable with the latest thinking by Linn on the interface between the table and the upstream phono stage. Their phono stage is now built into the table and called the Urika 2. This phono stage takes the analog signal and transforms it into the digital realm to send it upstream. Essentially, one listens to a digital signal when now playing the top flite LP12 Klimax model with Urika 2! On paper, this looks impressive, because not only is the signal taken immediately from the tonearm via a very short lead to the phono stage, but also the potential for loss of signal is now limited upstream, due to the digital conversion/aspect. Unfortunately, in real life, what I always hear when i hear this set up is the following...1) a severe lack of depth portrayal 2) a sheen that can only be considered as a digital artifact that pervades across the whole frequency spectrum and 3) a certain timbral aspect to the high frequencies that upon first listen is impressive, but actually wears on one as time progresses. My point here is that while Linn ( a well respected company within the a’phile community) believe that their way forward is superior to what has been done in the past, in my personal opinion, they have actually gone backwards. Is DSP the answer? Possibly in some systems, but I would say that an ’analog’ solution would be preferred firstly, if at all possible. At least to my ears, and IMHO.