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

@mijostyn --

I use a digital source only, my DAC/preamp sports a lossless digital volume control (i.e.: no effective loss of bits at lower volumes; it's also the preferred volume control option over JRiver MC31's internal digital ditto), and a digital crossover for active config - I'm not a stranger to digital, I'd say. Implementing the digital XO-settings has been done with the aid of measurements and countless hours of listening tests, so in a sense this has been done in the analogue domain, certainly without DRC, and that's how I prefer it as of now. There's hardly an automation to this approach that can bypass a range of manual factors in setting the filter values (i.e.: by ear and experimentation), and these would come in handy with an eventual correction in both the amplitude and time domain, say, with FIR-filters. As I've said already, this will come down the road. 

@phusis

There is no such thing as a "lossless" digital volume control. Some units may revert to an analog volume control. But, even the best digital volume controls lose bits as the volume goes down. It is just that the really fast processors do not lose enough bits to affect sound quality. 

Down the road? I have been tuning my system one Hz at a time for 25 years. Let's say I measure my system and see a 3 dB dip in the left channel at a specific frequency say 358 Hz. I can select 358 Hz and increase it 3 dB. I can also adjust the Q of the filter matching what I see on the measurement exactly. 

@daveyf ,

I record rare, out of print records to my hard drive all the time. The people who bring these records over are other audiophiles. Not a single person can reliably identify the recording vs the real record. I can go back and forth between analog and digital RIAA correction. This one is close. Most people cannot tell the difference. I notice an improvement in imaging on the digital side. A few others describe similar improvements. IMHO the people who prefer analog have uncontrollable expectation bias. There are evils used frequently in digital recordings like extreme dynamic compression which is very unfortunate. This is not the fault of digital, and there are many digital sources that are not compressed. IMHE it can go either way. Some analog records are better than their digital counterparts and vice versa. 

I think my own system is the best residential system I have ever heard, but I designed it to be that way and it is certainly not others cup of tea. This is not to say there are not improvements to be had. There are. I am sure it can be even better and I know where specific problems are that need to be addressed. Going back to analog is not on the list and never will be. 

Forgetting about digital vs analog sources, there are things you can do in the digital domain that are impossible to do in the analog domain either entirely or without unacceptable distortion. Crossovers are one example, correction of group delays and adjustment of amplitude are others.  

@mijostyn   I think we will have to agree to disagree. 

https://forum.audiogon.com/posts/2615738
 

you got my attention. I love my IRS Betas but I’m always looking for improvements. We have corresponded about implementation of DSP before to see if I find improvements (still having issues getting good readings thus process stalled). 
 

Now, I’m intrigued by the Pre-8 and wouldn’t mind being a Beta tester. I wonder how it could be implemented on my system. If it works, I guess my Allnic pre could be for sale…

is there a specific page for the beta tester program?  I looked with no luck. 

BTW, I have lived with AR3a which were nice for the time, moved into DQ10 which were a massive improvement, DCM TW which were nice, Mirage M3 which gave way to M1, to IRS Beta which were out aside during a stage in a smaller home and replaced with Aerial 8b.  Now back to the Betas and the 8b are on a secondary system  

thanks!  Juan