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

 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.

@daveyf  “…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,…”

Absolutely. I think I have upgraded probably 7 times in fifty years. The last two  times it was much easier. The most recent had a very different target sound… I nailed exactly… the analog, CD, and streamer have the same sound… exactly what I was shooting for. It was very satisfying, something that started off so difficult in the beginning, is now fun and I can accurately hit a target. 

@daveyf 

By the way I have a contemporary Linn LP12… nearly Klimax. I skipped the Linn phonostage and use an Audio Research Ref 3 phonostage… so avoided the digital conversion. Not sure why they did that either. 

@ghdprentice You ask why Linn went with the digital processing at the turntable.

I would say they did it because they probably believed it would sound better, and certainly on paper, this makes some sense. Now here’s the thing, if your reference for great sound quality is a DSD file or a system that really has flaws that you cannot recognize, due to your inexperience with what is possible, then I think your understanding of what is great SQ from a system will be based on that experience.
One of the things that I think a lot of folks get confused with, here and on other a’’phile sites,is what level of SQ the member is using as a reference? To that, their ability to delineate what they hear, or do not hear, seems to vary greatly.

At this point in time, I have to say that I think that Linn and their dealers ( this also applies to a number of other manufacturers and dealers as well, not just Linn) are somewhat unaware of what the top of the heap SQ sounds like from a super high end system. As such, their belief in what constitutes SOTA is in fact far off base.