Difference between today and yesterday.

If you listen to companies like Wilson even last years model sounds like crap compared to the latest "upgrade"

quad 57s could be driven by a 35 watt maple tree el 34 amp, or vtl deluxe 120 in triode mode.

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!

in order to compare live music with a recording, it is necessary to compare the recording with the source. this means one must have access to a live performance in one's listening room. orchestral music is out of the question.
it may be feasible to record a single instrument and compare the recording to the live performance, if a musician will copperate. still, the project has other difficulties.

aural memory is unreliable. trying to compare one's memory of the sound of a piano. eg.g, to a recording of a piano is probably an invalid procedure.

thus, it reverts to preference and opinion regarding the issue of current production vs vintage components. subjectivity and opinion are the main elements of our listening experiences.

Mrtennis- If a person attends live performances on a regular basis, it's natural to become accustomed to certain things that ARE consistant. IE: the sound stage of live venues, the SPL of live music, impact of a kick-drum, how the size and timbre of a piano(or any instrument) are perceived, How the wood of a double bass(and rosin on the bow) can be felt, the breath over the reed of a sax, the "hole in the middle" of a concert orchestra, the human singing voice especially, breaths taken, and how one can actually hear the resonance of the chest cavity in person(I could go on). As I suggested: If one were to listen to a particular music group live, then take a recording(hopefully a well engineered one) of that group's music home to play on their system: they would have a better idea if the system was accurate. That wouldn't take much aural memory at all. And yet: It's not hard to retain the sound of "live" IF you know how to listen to/focus on individual sounds/instruments. All it takes is a DESIRE to train one's ears and brain to do so. But- most are satisfied with their preferences as their references, and that's fine too. I have the benefit of access to musicians, instruments, live music and original recordings all the time. It's cost me dearly over the years to try and re-create the gestalt of live music in my home, but my system is only the vehicle to deliver what I love, and not what I love.