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

I was attracted to my 9-year-old design Yamaha NS5000 speaker because it is the successor to old NS1000 speaker from the 1970's. I think that was made for about 30 years and considered a classic.

The NS5000 has some of the best drivers I have ever heard. Only speaker I wanted more than the NS5000 was the KEF Blade 2 Meta. 

Maybe one days have both future classic speakers.

Pretty sure the KEF Blade design is 12 years old I love them.

I don`t know about competing with "todays best" but my Revel F52`s sound pretty ok to me.  

My Thiel Audio CS 2.4SE loudspeakers.  A special mention for Apogee Slant 8.

An older speaker does not mean obsolete.

Happy Listening!

Original Von Schweikert VR-4s. A timeless design. RIP Albert.

Paradigm Studio 100v2. 110 Lbs. each. Outstanding. Please read reviews online.I have a mint condition pair for sale. Let me know if anyone is interested.

My best and favorite ? Right now I have the JBL J216 very efficient and big sound . I bought these for 40 bucks at a antique store .  Goes great for low watt tube amps , I"m running these with a 6 Grand tube amp , not disappointing in the least . These were all original and good condition 40 years old and they sound fantastic. There out there buy a pair on Ebay . I have auditioning speakers up to 2500 bucks and still can"t find anything that sounds better !!! 

I’m guessing most 10 year old speakers vs a current model of the same speaker is probably less about technology improvement and more about slight "sound " changes depending on the speaker engineer handing the model at a given time. Just like any other industry, speaker makers need to have their buyers buying the latest and greatest. If a newer model one is better or worse, that’s a taste question. After 10 years, unless the manufacturer was using garbage materials or has some non traditional electronics involved, the speaker should perform as new (assuming owner has not abused or placed the speaker in a rough environment). If anything, the manufacturer is trying to cut cost even further while maintaining the "house" sound. 

are we talking about speakers that were discontinued 10 years or more or designed 10 years or more? 

My first speakers looked exactly like that in yogiboy's post. They needed power to be happy, but they were excellent. 

interesting post!

Thanks yogiboy ...

I had these over 40 years ago. Still one of my favorite after owning many others since!!

Dahlquist DQ‑10

One should always be wary of pronouncing “firsts,” but, appearing in the early seventies, Jon Dahlquist’s DQ‑10 was to my knowledge the first dynamic speaker to employ multiple drivers in an open-baffle configuration (except the acoustic‑suspension woofer, which was enclosed) staggered for proper time‑alignment and phase coherence, in an attempt to realize the openness and freedom from boxiness that Dahlquist prized in his beloved Quad ESL-57s—with the added advantages of deeper bass and dynamic extension well beyond the Quad. (The physical resemblance to the Quad was both mandated by the design and an intentional homage.) Far from flawless (including conceptually), the DQ-10 was nevertheless a ground-breaking design that preceded dozens of subsequent speakers (perhaps most prominent among them models from KEF, B&W, Spica, Thiel, Vandersteen, and Wilson) continuing up to the present day. Few large, full-range dynamic speakers before or for some time afterward equaled its openness. Paul Seydor

When I first heard of the Sony SS-AR-1 I knew I should investigate. They were special.

Epos M5 -- I’ve owned some great stand mounts and these remain where others have passed in and out. Proac, KEF, etc.. It’s no wonder the great, late Stereophile reviewer Robert Reina kept the M5 as his go-to stand mount reference for so long. Don’t be fooled by the size. These speakers are incredible in a medium sized room placed 12-18" from back wall. The mid bass alone makes you forget about deep bass. Midrange and highs produce lifelike image.

I’m rocking an over 12 year old pair of speakers, whose designer recently stated that it was the speaker he was most proud of. The designer: Andrew Jones. The speaker: TAD CR1.

Just bought a pair of 805s nautilus’ new old stock, they are amazing and must be about 20 years old. 

I recently replaced my 9 year old Wilson Alexia 1's.  I replaced them with the Alexx V's so not an apples too apples comparison.  As I've said in an earlier post I felt the Alexia's held up well and were 70% of the Alexx V's especially in the mids and highs.  

My Yamaha NS1000 speakers serve me well in my second system, one speaker I won't be parting with anytime soon

My Audio Physic Avanti III speakers are the best I have owned.  They were Michael Fremer's reference speaker for a while. 

Looking at this question, I am realizing how hard it is. In order to answer it, you must be familiar with a number of speakers brands… say five and what they sounded like ten years ago and now. More would be better. It would be really hard to compare random ten year old speakers with different speakers, since there are so many different flavors and each person has such particular tastes and listening abilities.

So ten years typically makes an important difference. Brands that I have known in the comparison include Sonus Faber, B&W, DynAudio, Kef and a couple more. Each maintained their house sound while making overall improvements.

So, the final part of the question… what does compete mean? I guess it means that in side by side test there is no competition… the newer is better, easy call. Or does it mean a notable improvement that most folks would recognize regardless of their overall liking of the house sound? So in the former case no and the later case yes.

I’m just not sure what to do with the dredged up two or three speakers that became ledgendary like Quad and never go out of favor… these are outliers. The vast majority of speaker companies that have remained in business continue to make significant improvements over time, decade by decade.

Wow, so many comments.  Both informative and some insulting.  Interesting.

In my opinion, cabinet making has improved greatly over the years.  However, there are some excellent speakers out there 10 years and older that If I could grab (without losing my shirt) I would.

1.  Martin Logan Statement 2.  I've attended many audio shows over the decades and these are still some of the best I've heard.  Good luck finding a set and also good luck getting them into your room.

2.  Many of the speakers mentioned by others in this post are also excellent.

3.  Goldmund Apologues (spelling?).  Heard them at Robertson Audio back in the day in LA.  Oh my word, they were excellent. Never had an artist walk out of the speakers, sit at the piano, bass player and drummer do the same and simply blow me away at the sound.

I forgot the electronics, but keep in mind that you are also listening to the electronics used at the time also, not just the speakers.  Also, the dealer played the album on the stupidly expensive (at the time $35,000) Goldmund turntable.  

Being a retired (recently) Electrical and Electronics Engineer and a current Track and Field Coach, I always tell my student/Athletes that there is always someone out there faster and can jump further or higher than you.  Just be the best you can be is what matters.

There is always a piece of equipment or system out there better that what we have (most of us).  So, a little kindness please.  I've seen equipment designed as one offs by a Manufacturer just for a particular customer that was just too expensive and time consuming to market, that will blow anything out there away.  So, yes, there is always something better.

I still to this day remember the outstanding sound of my Uncle's Thiel Type A speakers.  I bet they still would sound outstanding.

enjoy

I still listen to a pair of Vienna Acoustics Mahler which I have since 2001, they sounded great and even better after upgraded crossover caps.

@phusis 

I never said to limit yourself to one approach. But what you hear repeatedly is that people get high efficiency loudspeakers to support low powered amps that are deemed to sound better. That is not my experience, but that is why Howard Johnsons made 28 flavors. Also many classic speakers were very high efficiency because the amps they had back then were not very big. Efficiency was a big deal, back then, unfortunately time alignment was not. Also nobody took sub bass seriously. It was not until the late 70's that subwoofers creeped into the situation and due to the lack of adequate bass management were endlessly belittled to the extent that many audiophiles will not go near them even today.    

As far a digital EQ is concerned, it is not parametric EQ in the traditional sense, you draw target curves on a grid and the computer will apply them assuming the curve does not go outside boundaries. Once the system is flat down to 18 Hz I apply a rather standard target curve that increases bass up to 10 dB at 18 Hz, is back down to 0 dB by 100 Hz then tapers off slowly from 1000 Hz on up to 20 kHz which is down 9 dB. This allows stress free listening at high volumes giving the feeling of a live performance at volumes that are not destructive to iones hearing. I have one curve aside that has a notch filter at 3500 Hz in case I encounter a sibilant female or violin. I have not used it in over a year. It seems that the AtmaSphere MA2s have abolished sibilance in my system.

@mijostyn wrote:

And just how are you correcting amplitude 1 Hz at a time? It is not down the road for me. You can do it in an automated fashion or manually including programing delays. I start with automated then fine tune manually. I find it best to program for flat then overlay my own preference target curves which were constructed by ear. 

Depends on what's being addressed. Are we speaking notch placement or PEQ? Notches in the HF-region are located precisely with nearfield measurements, whereas PEQ's can be more of an assessment by ear from the listening position (in addition to measurements), starting out "overshooting" in larger Hz-steps (and gain ditto) to get an overall bearing, and then fine tuning in ever smaller increments and Q-width variations.  

Efficiency is nice if you want to use small amplifiers. Personally, I do not care about it. I prefer to look at the type of loudspeaker.

It's a common misconception I find think to exclusively link up high efficiency with small amps as the preferable scenario. High eff. speakers + high power amps can be great solution as well - why limit yourself to one approach, and from what, experience? I too look a the type of speakers, which is really about what that dictates sonically rather than eff. per se. 

You like horns, I prefer ESLs which admittedly are not efficient @ 86 dB. But, since I remove 100 Hz down from them they go louder than ---- , which is all I really care about, the ability of a system to reach realistic volume levels.

With horns and large displacement dynamic drivers it's about that as well, but then it's about how realistic volume levels are reproduced rather than merely attaining them. 

At any rate with the amps we have today efficiency is not an issue.

If that was the case it's assuming the amp is the only determining factor in achieving realistic volume levels and overall effortless reproduction, which clearly it isn't. Low eff. speakers will eventually compress both as a dynamic phenomena (as in transiently fairly early on, dulling transient behavior) or more outwardly as a macro-thermally induced ditto heating up the voice coil to such a degree that SPL is reduced from an expected value. 

It only determines volume per watt and not sound quality.  

As an outset, yes, but practically it's not that simple. High vs. low efficiency isn't an all things being equal scenario as there are many differing factors at play comparing the two segments of speakers that will shape the outcome one or the other way. For one, with high eff. and maintaining extension into LF-region comes very large size, and controlling directivity into the lower mids will have the same consequence for the horn size here. The dispersive nature makes a big difference sonically, and high eff. + deep extension is a different meal/animal vs. low eff. and the same. A good quality, high eff. large format comp. driver + large horn combo simply steamrolls over a direct radiating low eff. dynamic driver combo in ways that has to be heard to be understood, whereas a large ESL speaker will have other qualities to bring to the table that in some ways exceed horns, while in others they fall short. 

I've had really good systems and when times were tough, a boom box. The best system I had back in the 70's was a Setton preamp and power amp PS5500 with built in fader mixer & BS5500, a dual mono block, with LR power switches. A pair of ESS AMT 1's, Teac R/R, Sharp Cassette deck with auto search stop & play, and an SL1200 with an AT Shibata stylus. The ESS were ahead of their time and no longer in business today, but their AMT tweeter is being used in many of today's high-end speakers after their patten timed out. Really miss those speakers. Today I have a Pr of Wilson Sabrina's that image like a Mo Fo in 3D sound being driven by a pr of PS Audio Steller M1200's. It's my last system, a Simaudio Moon 350P, PS Audio M1200s, Parasound JC3 Jr, VPI Aries TT w/ Hanna ML low, OPPO BDP-105, Schitt Audio Bitfrost 2/64, Lokius 6 band EQ, Wilson Audio Sabrinas, and an SVS Ultra 16 Subwoofer. I find buying used gets a greater system for the money than new.

Great post and totally agree! I currently have Revel Performa F228Be. They are breathtaking. But honestly, nothing I've heard or have owned since back in 2001 has come close to Dynaudio Audience 82's. I had to sell my entire rig after my divorce in 2004 and have since gotten back into the game. I started with Dynaudio (started with Emit, then Excite, then Evoke), yet none of them gave me the same magic that Audience did. Evoke came the closest. I finally heard Revel and my ears decided that was the direction to go. But Audience 82 were just pure magical. No other way to describe them...I'll always miss and remember them. They were the first speakers that truly "disappeared". I'll never ever forget that first moment I sat down for that first critical listen at homer after running them in for 1 week....WOW...wow....Have had many amazing moments in my second go round, but never had that "wow" moment like I did with my Audience 82's...

Von Schweikert VR 4 HSE - still sound wonderful. I gave them to my son so I have a chance to listen when I visit him. I always thought they were equal to or better than the Wilson Maxx especially considering the price difference. 

@daveyf 

It seems we are always destined to do that.

@phusis 

No, you correct it as much as you can especially if the irregularity is only in one channel. It is not so important that the amplitude curve is perfectly flat, it is important that the two channels are perfectly identical, or as close as possible.

And just how are you correcting amplitude 1 Hz at a time? It is not down the road for me. You can do it in an automated fashion or manually including programing delays. I start with automated then fine tune manually. I find it best to program for flat then overlay my own preference target curves which were constructed by ear. 

Efficiency is nice if you want to use small amplifiers. Personally, I do not care about it. I prefer to look at the type of loudspeaker. You like horns, I prefer ESLs which admittedly are not efficient @ 86 dB. But, since I remove 100 Hz down from them they go louder than ---- , which is all I really care about, the ability of a system to reach realistic volume levels. Back in the day speakers like the EV Patrician and the KlipschHorn were SOTA as the most powerful amp we had was 70 watts/ch. The Marantz Model 9 comes to mind. Then came the hideous Crown Stereo 150 followed by the Fuzzlinear 700, somewhat better than the Crown, but..... These initial SS amps were the reason people stuck resolutely with tubes. Some hangovers are hard to get rid of. At any rate with the amps we have today efficiency is not an issue. It only determines volume per watt and not sound quality.  

I am still very happy with my Aerial Acoustics 10T v2 and my Dunlavy SC3`s. All powered by BAT VK-5i and a VK-250 ss amp with Bat-Pak.  For me to try to seriously upgrade to where it`s like listening to a whole new audio experience is way to expensive. All audio quest cables with DBS.  If you can connect to the music emotionally and just love your listening sessions DO NOTHING just enjoy. Do have you amps and pre amps serviced, cleaned and re`capped as needed.

                                          VIVA LA BAT and Victor and Steve

I think its not just speakers, its the amplifier and source too.  New equipment has the techology along with electronics/caps to play the new music so the synergy with the sound more fast pace imo.  Like my pair of Elacs with ribbon tweeters.  My vintage B&W803 and Silverline Sonatta II that are over 20yrs old sound fantastic.  These speakers were built for equipment during the 90s and early 2000 so I like using equipment to match with these.

@mijostyn wrote:

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. 

You're right, there isn't, but I explained what I meant by the "lossless" part in parenthesis, while forgetting the quotation marks. Whether or not the volume control of my DAC/preamp sports a 64-bit floating point (I don't know its specs in this regard, other than it's digital through and through), I can't say, but it trumps the 64-bit floating point VC of my JRiver MC31 playback software (with DAC volume at what equates to 0dB), and that's all I need to know. And bear in mind: my speaker system is ~100 to 111dB sensitive, actively configured, so oftentimes I'm using the lower range of the volume control, which only tests its resolving capabilities here.  

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. 

That's what I'm doing already and have for a few years now, but what I've learned from measurements and the corresponding, manual frequency corrections is that a frequency peak of, say, 5dB's shouldn't be suppressed with -5dB's, but rather less. Indeed, less is more here, and it's surprising how smaller corrections can have an effect - indeed the proper effect. We measured a peak over my EV horns at just over 13kHz with the left and right horn peak measuring exactly the same down to the single Hertz, and applied a mild suppression here (i.e.: less than the peak indicated) for the best sonic outcome. Decibel increments with the Xilica DSP are adjusted at 0,25dB's, although 0,10 would've been nice. Delay in 0.010ms increments. Single Hz ditto. 

I've been trying out a used set of ProAc D25's about 15 years old now. I need a speaker to stand in while i look for something more permanent after selling my Spendor D9.2's. So I'm saving up for a while and thought the D25's would be a fine stand in for a year. They are quite nice if I was honest.

But I also have some vintage ADSL910's ( late 70's early 80's vintage) that have been restored by Richard So. Well after listening to the Proac's for a couple weeks I tossed in the big ADS and if I was honest I think I'd prefer the ADS as a stand in. They have better bass more detailed, deeper, faster. probably due to being sealed and 2x10" drivers. The midrange is actually better as well more presence, detailed and better dispersion. The only places the Proac's take the big ADS is the top end, it's more extended, detailed and the imaging is better but not by as much as you'd expect. I think the dome mids and tweeters in the ADS help quite a bit here.

The Proac's are lovely specially for the used prices but sound a bit boomy or maybe its a lift in the lower mid-bass that I'm hearing, I will say though the downward port is better in my room then rear ported designs. 

I'm on the fence to be honest, but there is some great vintage speakers out there you just need to restore them in most cases to get the most out of them. Also modern measurements can go a long way to bring back the sound specially if your doing a crossover rebuild already. 

There are many fine speakers to listen to and many not so fine. However, once you get to listening for a long years those become your reference and that's fine but we can never own the best, why because it's subjective.  There are a lot of fine speakers and even ones you can afford.

I was at an estate sale last year where the owner was selling his DCM Time Windows for $60. There wasn't a buyer for them. It seems the brand has been forgotten, unlike the Spendor and Klipsch products. I still have a pair of Spendor BC2's with their crossovers at 3K and 13K. Lovely. But I have no space for them, and listen instead  to what I can afford from KEF.

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

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

@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.  

@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. 

@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. 

@mijostyn   The discussion about whether a digital step in vinyl is audible or not is an old one. IME, I always prefer the 'purity' of a AAA source vs. a digital source. Digital has come a long way, but IME--and IMHO, it just is not quite there yet. YMMV.

Anything by Verity Audio.

Ovations, Sarastros etc.  Verity is a Quebec maker not well known but should be. Anything reasonably priced in the used market should be seriously considered.  

@daveyf , @phusis 

I have been using digital signal processing for 25 years. For the last two years I have been running my phono stage into an ADC, digitizing the signal into 192/24. RIAA correction is applied digitally without any distortion or phase shift. I can also turn any record into a digital file.

I can AB pure analog to Digital at any time and there is no one individual that has prefered the analog version. My system is also optimized for digital use and does not represent the finest of analog system, but I do use ESLs with subwoofers and fine cartridges like the MSL Sig Platinum, Lyra Atlas SL and Ortofon MC Diamond. 

If you know what you are doing and have the right equipment, the benefits of digital signal processing far outweigh any disadvantages. It is also true that two channel processors have not really come into their own until recently. Digital volume has always been a problem because as you drop the volume from 0 dBFS you lose bits. The newest 64 bit floating point processors still lose bits but they start out with so many that resolution never drops below 192/24. Volume is no longer an issue. 

kennymacc

Yes. Thiel Audio.

Happy Listening!

I bought my 3.6 Maggies about 18 years ago and could not be more satisfied.  That said, I went through a couple of amps and pre amps to get the right power as well as moving to a tube pre amp.  What made them really bloom was the addition of Mye stands and treating the room.  It was a busy 3 years, but the last 15 have been a joy of focusing on the music as my only additions have been a dac and a streamer.  Great sound and contentment are a good thing.

I have a pair of Albert Von Schweikert's Vortex Screens that I bought directly from Von Schweikert (who was the nicest person) in 1991. They still sound amazing. They were a great deal in 1991 and haven't degraded at all.

@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.

@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. 

@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 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.

 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.