"Old" vs. "new" digital equipment

Everyone is entitled to there opinion but after owning the 3A Signatures for years and comparing them to speaker after speaker, I can say without a doubt, they are one of the better speakers available at any price for reproducing mass strings (realistically.)In fact, this is one of the time and phase designs biggest attribute.

With CD being the "Flawed" source it is, it is amazing how much money we spend trying to make a format better. I know I have over the years. The problem is, as you go up in quality, the more flaws become apparent. If you offer every last degree of transparency in a player, you might not like what you ultimately hear. I suppose the best players are for the best CD's only. Otherwise, we have surpassed the quality of the source itself (and for what?)
With that said, some CD's just don't sound natural and all the CD players in the world are not going to change that.
Contrary to what a lot believe, SACD is the better format and strings sound realistic (of course they are poor SACD's too.) Go for pure DSD. I know SACD is a niche market but there's still a lot out there available and it does sound better (lot of the music you are refering to here.)
Otherwise, good vinyl is the only way to go.
I think you will chase your tail and spend a lot of money with CD and never get where you want to be.
I used the Vandersteen 3a Sigs with a pair of 2WQ's for years and your system is very good. My suggesdtion would be to upgrade your preamp to a ARC Reference II or III. I personally feel it would be money well(better) spent (other than on a CD player.) You would be surprised at the improvement over the older ARC preamp.
If you MUST go for a new CD player, I would spring for a Wadia 861 or 861se. They go around less than 5k for the 861 and a touch over for the se model(which is a substantial upgrade.) If they don't sound correct, you're just out of luck with CD!

I have done a lot of experimenting and I've found between most decently designed CD players, the differences are rather small. At first you might think there's a big difference but after a while, you'll find it's not as big as you thought. The first thing you have to do is make absolutely sure that the compared players are at the exact same volume. Small differences in volume make huge differences in the perceived sound.
I think the price of digital has come down with a lot of players now where you are getting close to the best for a lot less money.
The biggest differences I've noticed between expensive players like the Wadia and others is in soundstage depth and shear transparency. I just can't agree with people who come up with the HUGE differences in sound unless there is some distinct coloration they prefer.
I have never heard HUGE differences but smaller differences that add up to a better sonic presentation.
I still love my old Sony XA7es for just listening. It is one of the more analogue sounding players around.
To directly answer your question, yes, I think technology has advanced somewhat. Is it better in absolutes? Well, that depends on the player. There are some that have all this lovely technical garbage but actually don't sound as good as as some older players. So, it is a BIG DEPENDS!
You can spend 10 times the money for a 2% improvement. If it's worth that to you, go for it.
I have listened to the DCS stack at length and actually had people say they didn't like it as much as some much cheaper players. To me, on good CD it sounded great. On bad CD, well, it sounded bad!
There's a lot at play here and you really just can't make blanket statements. Is your total system resolution up to snuff? How about cables. There's so many things that can tilt to one player or another old or new technology. Unless you put the player in your enviroment and compare directly at exact levels with the exact same equipment you are not getting the true picture. So what is the answer to your question? Honestly, you need to decide!I've been at it 40+ years and they're some old players that I really like and they're some new ones I like. BUT, personal preferences play a BIG part in audio and a lot of times honest reproduction is certainly not what everyone wants. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so many pieces for sale.
BTW, I do beleive in some power conditioning with certain products but with well designed power supplies in excellent products it doesn't make all that much difference IMO.
I also feel the older transports were built better. Everybody likes to use the computer drives for all their upsampling/oversampling garbage.

Eweedhome, And I thought I was bad. It is nuts! That's why for music (just listening and not being critical) I love my old 20 bit Sony XA7es. I've noticed a good many old 20 bit players have a nice warm, more analogue sound than 24 bit players. Most 24 bit newer players seem to be a touch strident overall which I personally think is just a by-product of the median. I can give up some transparency for a richer overall sound.
The one thing to me that divides the players is sounstaging, both height, width and depth. This is where some of the pricier players live. Of course, your speakers must be up to offering this depth. Not just in the middle between the speakers but behind and even depth outside the speakers. Some speakers offer up an inverted "V" type of soundstaging depth with the max in the middle. I like a speaker that delivers more of a square where it's the same from side to side. This will let you know about cd players. David's system above is perfectly capable of this. I would also mention your room acoustics. I know for a fact the Vandersteen's David uses will offer up more than enough depth for a realistic soundstage. Some of your edginess in the strings may be reflections in the room.