Difference between today and yesterday.

One of the areas where speakers have not, for the most part, improved, according to HP, is the midbass. The other area is the upper midrange. In MY experience, and I have reviewed for several publications, including Ultra Audio, many speakers STILL cannot get the upper midrange AND lower treble correct ALONG WITH the midbass. It seems that either one or the other area fails.
Using that logic, it's great that newer speakers are "clearer," lower in distortion. But if a speaker cannot get the dynamics right in these two regions, along with the upper bass and lower midrange, in my humble opinion, they are hardly superior, given the improvements in other components, such as amps, digital and cartridges.
Therefore, it is less the perspective of older being better/worse rather than newer speakers having solved the frequency/dynamic domain sufficiently.
Also, are we using live music as the comparison or other speakers? I would NEVER use another speaker as the basis for comparison in an experiment, I would only use live music, and in that experiment, that would depend on how familiar the listener is with it (live music in different venues). From what I read, quite a few reviewers only refer to other equipment when they compare. Using an imperfect, man-made item, and comparing it to another imperfect man-made item is foolish. Hence the absolute sound as a basis. If we don't know what it sounds like, how can we make a comparison to anything???
So, in summary, of COURSE some older speakers will best some current designs, if the designers are unfamiliar with live music. Good luck with that!

I do want to remember that the original post was: are speakers from yesteryear as good as today. And my response was: yes, from certain perspectives. Again, the midbass is wrong in very many speakers, yet it is rarely noted in reviews. My opera singer friend can tell --quite easily -- which speaker has a good midbass. He does not have to "compare" speakers: he's a musician. He listened to (good) recordings and was able, on the basis of his own personal experience with piano, flute and a few other instruments, to determine which speaker most accurately sounded "right" in that area. Memory, per se, is not a requirement here if one is a musician.
I think we got a little off track on fthe subject of the (original) post. It is not about personal preferences: it was a simple question of whether older speakers could compete with current speakers. In some cases, as I pointed out, they are equal to current equipment. In some cases, probably not.

I believe musicians might disagree on an orchestral recording, but a direct recording of a flute at a microphone is going to have all its components intact, barring a bad recording. Also, a "good" recording of the human voice is also going to have all its components intact.
And, assuming that someone knows what they sound like when recorded, it is unlikely -- although we must allow for hearing differences -- that someone will not be able to discern which speaker sounds more "true to life."
The nice thing about clasical (and opera) musicians (some) is that they are not distracted by the razzle-dazzle of many audiophiles, plus they have one very important benefit: they hear music LIVE constantly. They need not be concerned about "more bass" or "better soundstage" or other things that audiophiles (myself included) place so much emphasis on, while ignoring that a voice unquestionably moves towards you through space. I have never heard a voice that does not project in music, since projection is de riguer in opera, all the while maintaining the line and the volume.
It's unlikely that a classical singer/musician would not recognize the musical capabilities of one speaker as superior to another, although things like tone and timbre can be a matter of personal taste in reproduced music.