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

I would put up ADS Speakers against almost anything for use at home.

Improving a system is an incremental long process , it was for me...

Begininng with synergy between components , and then mechanical, electrical and acoustical embeddings controls and optimization ...

In this incremental process , including experiments of various kind, there is error done but they are corrected by being perceived as such by their impact on some acoustic perceived factors... These optimization errors are not costly and anyway you cannot go 10 steps behind when you have reach some synergy between components because only one misstep will affect immediately , timbre , transients, dynamics, spatial chatacteristic of sound , immersiveness , bass , etc and this mistep will be perceived and you will correct it ...

The only costly errors that i made was in the journey to reach good synergy between components by reading, and trials and errors etc ...The other errors which was costly was trying to upgrade my already good Sansui alpha 2 months ago for one of the best tube amps... Synergy matter when you upgrade , i learned it the hard way...i return "the upgrade" after one hour ( it was a used one component already broke in ) and i loose so much by post fees, customs, assurance, i call this lesson learned... my system is satifying completely , i tried to upgrade because i want to try this amplifier for 5 years and i wanted to know... Now i know... Dont upgrade when you are completely happy even by curiosity... 😊

In my one year of room acoustic experiments i go from better to better at each step... Each weeks of experiments taught me something and i was in awe because of the improvement each time for 50 weeks but i commited errors i corrected all along the path  .... Was it perfect ? No not at all ,but there is not one gram of comparison between the same component in an untreated and especially uncontrolled room acoustically and in the same treated and controlled room... It was not a small change , it was a metamorphosis... The same will be true with better components than mine at any price ... Acoustic laws dont change because of the branded name of each components...It help to have good component or better one but Acoustics had his own laws ...

I also experimented with mechanical vibration control with success at low cost...

I also experimented with EMI shielding with my own homemade product and ionization , Schumann resonators and even other "tweaks" always with success... Always by homemade or very low cost product ( 10 bucks chinese Schumann resonators for example )..

I recommend creativity through experiments with NO EXPANSE at all or minimalistic ... We must learn not buy ...

An error made in the system/room optimization process , is the deviation of the needle on the compass, each errors is corrected to push us in the right direction ... Dont be afraid of errors in experimenting then , but be afraid to PAY too much or to upgrade BEFORE you could know what you are doing ...

If a good satisfying system may cost low amount of money when the component are well chosen , as mine is ;it cost time, as mine had cost me one year full time and even more ... I am retired... Nothing is free ...

So, to add to my last post...here is a question for the folks on this thread...

Is it possible that more experienced a’philes will have enough knowledge/experience of how to put together a system so that it has the least chance ( i’m not saying that all of these folks will not occasionally make mistakes and regress, but also not make obvious mistakes, like ignoring room acoustics, cabling, etc) of in fact going backwards as regards to SQ in their rooms/systems?

We absolutely believe that higher quality, older speakers (from the mid-70s onward) in good working condition can sound great.  We also believe they can benefit from today's technology to sound even better.  Check out our video on "Bringing Your Vintage Audio System into the 21st Century":  https://youtu.be/WDUhNRzVjzs

 Still happy with my v.3 Paradigm Studio 60s. I'd be happier if I had my old ADS L1530s back, though. They were very good, IMO.

@daveyf wrote:

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.

What’s important here is to pay attention to which degree a specific solution - in this case DSP - is recommended and sought implemented from actual experience. In my case I’m speaking of the use of DSP strictly in the context as a digital crossover replacing a passive ditto for active configuration - with a digital source only. This has several implications not least of which is the removal of the passive crossover between the amp and speakers, with all that implies.

Regarding your Linn turntable example, I’ve always thought it defeats the purpose to digitize an analogue signal at the source as described. I don’t have the experience to back this up the way you do, but at least my outset could say to run in tandem with your perceived findings. In what way a DSP acting as a digital crossover later in the chain will impact the sound of an analogue source compared to going analogue all through with a passive crossover instead, I couldn’t say, but you’d have to hold this up against having direct amp-driver control with dedicated amp channels feeding each L/R driver section - again, with all that implies. This is not trivial, nor is outboard active configuration tried out by many to get a bearing on the implications of this.

My point here is that using DSP must be seen in its context and how it’s implemented. As I said, I use a digital source only, so there’s that. I don’t yet use DSP for digital room correction, but only as a digital crossover, actively, and as such that’s my recommendation of it. I’m not against using DSP for room correction, but I do find it needs to be done sparingly so not to lend any noticeable "processing imprinting." Down the road I’ll be using DRC for sure, both in the amplitude and time domain.