Old speakers with high quality AVR

[onwardjames]

Good lord, are we chewing on this tired old chestnut again??

Here, let me solve this for everyone involved, borrowing from some of AK's great minds in the process.

New stuff has the potential to be better, due to advancements in design and materials. Are the bean counters going to allow this on the low end of the spectrum. Maybe, maybe not. But much of the low end stuff I've heard is worth the coin. Those Andrew Jones speakers from Pioneer a few years back?? Maybe not the best, but damned good.

Old stuff can be hard to beat if we're talking amplifiers and speakers. DAC's have greatly improved.

The used market can net someone a stereo FAR BETTER with new stuff than the old, thanks to the inevitable markup the vintage market is enjoying. When I got in, circa 2000, things were much different.

If you like how it sounds, shut up and listen. I enjoy a 1990 Kenwood AVR that has, wait for it. ...PRO LOGIC. It also has cd direct and 130 wpc. Cost me all of 100 bucks, and some of that was shipping.

LOTS OF GREAT GEAR ON THE CHEAP, BOTH NEW (and occasionally) OLD.

 

[hjames]

First - don't worry that it will "Look dumb" - its an Audio system, so as long as its not profoundly UGLY -
what really matters is how YOU like how it sounds - its a SOUND SYSTEM.
How many folks that come to listen to your system will know as much about it as you do?
Its YOUR system - the real concern is what YOU think and like.

Ok. I just read through this whole thread.
I'm identifying with this statement.
Currently I am building a older kenwood system. Its a system using all 70's components.

What do like about the system im putting together?
I like the way the lights glow
I like the craftsmanship of the aluminum face
I like the heavy click click of the switches
i hope you guys can relate

so heres the thing about the speakers
I want my speakers to be mid to late 70's to be period correct with my system.
I personally think if I put a new speaker with my old 70's kenwood system it will just look dumb.
So while the sound quality can be argued sometimes there is more to speakers then sound.
I would be willing to sacrifice some sound quality in order to make the system look like it fits together.

 

[peterp1]

Good lord, are we chewing on this tired old chestnut again??

I love this topic, just wish where were more direct comparisons posted (e.g. "I compared vintage "X" to modern "Y" and preferred _______ because ___________________"). It's fascinating in general, and even more so with speakers where (logically) new should beat the crap out of old, but I'm not sure that's the case in many instances. Not much benefit in talking about it in theoretical terms, but actual comparisons are great to hear about (but few and far between it seems).

I enjoy a 1990 Kenwood AVR that has, wait for it. ...PRO LOGIC. It also has cd direct and 130 wpc. Cost me all of 100 bucks, and some of that was shipping.

The best AVR I had for 2-channel music was my pre-DD Dolby Pro Marantz Integrated amp from 20ish years ago. The Rotel/Krell/Sunfire/Emotiva DD AV Processors that followed it were crap for 2-channel music but rocked DD movie content. I've always guessed that the Dolby Pro sounded better because it lacked any digital -- so everything stayed analog. Dolby Pro is crap for movies compared to DD, but for 2-channel music it can be a safer bet than DD AVRs. The "pure direct" buttons on DD AVR's should fix that, but I still think that old Dolby Pro Marantz sounded best for music. Of course, room correction EQ in later AVRs can improve music for difficult rooms.

 

[GChief]

(e.g. "I compared vintage "X" to modern "Y" and preferred _______ because ___________________").

3 new Marantz integrated’s side by side a mix of restored Marantz 70’s TOTL receivers. Out of the 6 , 5 preferred the new. The one old vote was my dad. But he was 78 (about 2.5yrs ago) at the time and can’t hear much anymore

Edit: I posted about it a few times long ago
Edit II: may have been my uncle , and it may of been more than 6 now that I am thinking about it. To many beers ago.

 

[MaxP]

3 new Marantz integrated’s side by side a mix of restored Marantz 70’s TOTL receivers. Out of the 6 of us 5 preferred the new. The one old vote was my dad. But he was 78 (about 2.5yrs ago) at the time and can’t hear much anymore

Edit: I posted about it a few times long ago
Edit II: may have been my uncle , and it may of been more than 6 now that I am thinking about it. To many beers ago.

So your old man was the only one in the group with a discerning ear?

 

[GChief]

So your old man was the only one in the group with a discerning ear?

Not at all these where members of my uncles audio club who I know and opinions I trust.
My dad only voted old to be different he said they sounded the same to him.

 

[432HzBob]

My experience was the newer AVR's (like my Denon and Marantz) have a more shrill sound , faster with less body than my older receivers.
Not a bad sound, just, you can tell pretty soon the sonic difference between a 1970's receiver and a newer AVR sound..
That the new AVR's have sounded great with the older speakers that sometimes roll off at the high end.
Combination of the two features.

 

[NH-MAN]

My experience was the newer AVR's (like my Denon and Marantz) have a more shrill sound , faster with less body than my older receivers.
Not a bad sound, just, you can tell pretty soon the sonic difference between a 1970's receiver and a newer AVR sound..
That the new AVR's have sounded great with the older speakers that sometimes roll off at the high end.
Combination of the two features.

For me, I have units form 72, 83 and 2001, they basically all sound the same that its not even worth thinking about. Other than higher powered one that controls bass a little better they should as far as I am concerned.

 

[Snook hansel]

Good lord, are we chewing on this tired old chestnut again??

Here, let me solve this for everyone involved, borrowing from some of AK's great minds in the process.

New stuff has the potential to be better, due to advancements in design and materials. Are the bean counters going to allow this on the low end of the spectrum. Maybe, maybe not. But much of the low end stuff I've heard is worth the coin. Those Andrew Jones speakers from Pioneer a few years back?? Maybe not the best, but damned good.

Old stuff can be hard to beat if we're talking amplifiers and speakers. DAC's have greatly improved.

The used market can net someone a stereo FAR BETTER with new stuff than the old, thanks to the inevitable markup the vintage market is enjoying. When I got in, circa 2000, things were much different.

If you like how it sounds, shut up and listen. I enjoy a 1990 Kenwood AVR that has, wait for it. ...PRO LOGIC. It also has cd direct and 130 wpc. Cost me all of 100 bucks, and some of that was shipping.

LOTS OF GREAT GEAR ON THE CHEAP, BOTH NEW (and occasionally) OLD.

I have a 90's pro logic. Can't seem to let myself get rid of it. I bought new and I'll probably never get rid of it.

 

[Bodyblue]

Comparing the sound of 10 to 20 year old items and 45 to 50 year old items is pretty silly IMO. Sure one can compare them but does not make for a reasonable comparison.

 

[Snook hansel]

First - don't worry that it will "Look dumb" - its an Audio system, so as long as its not profoundly UGLY -
what really matters is how YOU like how it sounds - its a SOUND SYSTEM.
How many folks that come to listen to your system will know as much about it as you do?
Its YOUR system - the real concern is what YOU think and like.

Your probably right. I could be over analyzing things. A picture for context may help with why I am making sure I have a certain look. Maybe I will be the only one to notice. I'm installing a bar area in my basement and I want to give a going back in time laid back feel sonically as well as visually.
Guitars will be removed from area and built in will be installed in the location behind bar. I will also tuck speakers into the wall on either side of the bar. Also building a shelf system to display the amp, tuner and TT.

 

[peterp1]

Your probably right. I could be over analyzing things. A picture for context may help with why I am making sure I have a certain look. Maybe I will be the only one to notice. I'm installing a bar area in my basement and I want to give a going back in time laid back feel sonically as well as visually.
Guitars will be removed from area and built in will be installed in the location behind bar. I will also tuck speakers into the wall on either side of the bar. Also building a shelf system to display the amp, tuner and TT.

Now we are talking! This just became my favorite thread. I don't think you are overthinking it at all. It's very cool to build a space around a particular "look" or feel, and vintage speakers are perfect for that in addition to sounding great when carefully selected. You might want to mention what music you will be playing and at what volume level.

When you say you will "also tuck speakers into the wall on either side of the bar", do you mean: 1) They will be mounted "on wall" or are you actually cutting a hole in the wall to inset the speakers? 2) Are the speakers going to be mid-wall, or on the floor or on stands from the floor?

Assuming on-wall mounted midway up, I think some very good choices would be Allison 4's or (don't flame me!!!) Bose 301's.

The Allison 4's look really cool, sound amazing and, with the up-facing 8" woofer and forward facing tweeters on each side, they sound best when they are placed directly on the wall at bookshelf height. Fewer speakers are easier to place (while ensuring great sound) and they sound amazing. They are a bit difficult to find, but worth looking for. The woofers will need to be refoamed if they are original, but most times that's already been done. The black grill covers were very fragile from when they were new -- but they will remain fine as long as you treat them very carefully.

The Bose 301's look great and sound pretty great (though not as good as the Allisons). Bose gets beat up regularly on all audio forums, and I'm not not a fan of many of their products, but the Bose 301's were very good sounding speakers. In the late 70's, I actually chose the 301's over Advents (which was "the" speaker in the $200 range my lawn-mowing income allowed ) after a ton of back and forth listening in the store. I ended up exchanging the 301's for Advents because the bass wasn't quite as strong, and I used to crank the stereo in my early teens, but I think the 301's were more musical than the Advents. Today, it's easy to add a powered sub if bass isn't as strong as you want.

There were a few different iterations of the 301's -- this is one of the more visually interesting versions (the 2-tone grills are probably a "love or hate" -- but pretty cool for creating a "look" -- nobody is going to not notice them):

 

[Snook hansel]

Now we are talking! This just became my favorite thread. I don't think you are overthinking it at all. It's very cool to build a space around a particular "look" or feel, and vintage speakers are perfect for that in addition to sounding great when carefully selected. You might want to mention what music you will be playing and at what volume level.

When you say you will "also tuck speakers into the wall on either side of the bar", do you mean: 1) They will be mounted "on wall" or are you actually cutting a hole in the wall to inset the speakers? 2) Are the speakers going to be mid-wall, or on the floor or on stands from the floor?

Assuming on-wall mounted midway up, I think some very good choices would be Allison 4's or (don't flame me!!!) Bose 301's.

The Allison 4's look really cool, sound amazing and, with the up-facing 8" woofer and forward facing tweeters on each side, they sound best when they are placed directly on the wall at bookshelf height. Fewer speakers are easier to place (while ensuring great sound) and they sound amazing. They are a bit difficult to find, but worth looking for. The woofers will need to be refoamed if they are original, but most times that's already been done. The black grill covers were very fragile from when they were new -- but they will remain fine as long as you treat them very carefully.

The Bose 301's look great and sound pretty great (though not as good as the Allisons). Bose gets beat up regularly on all audio forums, and I'm not not a fan of many of their products, but the Bose 301's were very good sounding speakers. In the late 70's, I actually chose the 301's over Advents (which was "the" speaker in the $200 range my lawn-mowing income allowed ) after a ton of back and forth listening in the store. I ended up exchanging the 301's for Advents because the bass wasn't quite as strong, and I used to crank the stereo in my early teens, but I think the 301's were more musical than the Advents. Today, it's easy to add a powered sub if bass isn't as strong as you want.

There were a few different iterations of the 301's -- this is one of the more visually interesting versions (the 2-tone grills are probably a "love or hate" -- but pretty cool for creating a "look" -- nobody is going to not notice them):

Thanks for the reply. I'm a old rock and roll guy. Zeppelin, Sabbath of course sitting around with other people in conversation there would be anything from ELO, Boston, Crosby Stills and Nash you probably get the picture.
Listening levels for the most part will be at a reasonable level with the occasional crank it up with some Maiden.
Yes I'm planning on cutting the wall out and partially inserting speakers into the wall. They will be on a recessed shelf so to speak.
Its funny you mention a sub. I was planning on installing one if necessary. I have a fairly large space so a full range cabinet would require a larger speaker to move enough air without the assistance of sub. At least in theory. I was going to make that determination once a settled on a set of speakers. The pics you posted are very good looking speakers. All are interesting and I actually kinda dig the two tone grill.

 

[Bodyblue]

The older Bose 301s would be a great choice for room filling sound and a small footprint. The later ones have pretty rolled off highs. Get them set right and they will fill the room with sound easily at a pretty decent volume.

 

[onwardjames]

The older Bose 301s would be a great choice for room filling sound and a small footprint. The later ones have pretty rolled off highs. Get them set right and they will fill the room with sound easily at a pretty decent volume.

True this.

If I'm being blunt, my restored 601 Series II's I had were about as pleasant a speaker as I've owned. Very interesting sound. Yeah, not for ultra-critical listening, but damned entertaining. I think if that little tiny spike in the upper end were tamed, I could have settled with them for the long haul. Sadly, the coin they fetched was too good to ignore.

301's are basically half of the 601. They sound very nice coupled with good, clean watts.

 

[MaxP]

True this.

If I'm being blunt, my restored 601 Series II's I had were about as pleasant a speaker as I've owned. Very interesting sound. Yeah, not for ultra-critical listening, but damned entertaining. I think if that little tiny spike in the upper end were tamed, I could have settled with them for the long haul. Sadly, the coin they fetched was too good to ignore.

301's are basically half of the 601. They sound very nice coupled with good, clean watts.

My 401s sound pretty damn good as well.

 

[Dr. Ears]

I have owned Bose 301's, 401's, 501's and 601's, none were keepers, my girlfriend is still enjoying my 501's.
Infiniti Kappa 200's bested all of them, I picked them up in great condition for $225 after some horse trading.

 

[cgutz]

The older Bose 301s would be a great choice for room filling sound and a small footprint. The later ones have pretty rolled off highs. Get them set right and they will fill the room with sound easily at a pretty decent volume.

My son has 301's that I got him for his AV system. The back speakers are 201. I paid only $50 for all 4. They have a subwoofer attached.

The only problem with Bose 301 is placement in room is key for them to sound their best, even more so than other bookshelf speakers. If your room arrangement isn't ideal, they won't sound very good at all...imho.

 

[Bodyblue]

My son has 301's that I got him for his AV system. The back speakers are 201. I paid only $50 for all 4. They have a subwoofer attached.

The only problem with Bose 301 is placement in room is key for them to sound their best, even more so than other bookshelf speakers. If your room arrangement isn't ideal, they won't sound very good at all...imho.

I have owned both 201 and 301s and they are far more forgiving in placement than 901s. 901s must be place perfectly in the right room to sound great. 201 and 301s can sound decent without perfect placement. The better the placement in an easy to place room makes them sound better of course.

201/301s are awesome for front main HT use for sure.

 

[MaxP]

I have owned both 201 and 301s and they are far more forgiving in placement than 901s. 901s must be place perfectly in the right room to sound great. 201 and 301s can sound decent without perfect placement. The better the placement in an easy to place room makes them sound better of course.

201/301s are awesome for front main HT use for sure.

I have found this to be the case with 401s as well. Not so placement sensitive.