Trying to combine old and new -- looking for advice

[Mike S.]

I have a pair of Bose Series 4 901s from the 1990s. Hoping to replace my 1983 Marantz receiver and keep the 901s, which have an active equalizer. The EQ runs into the tape recorder input/output on the receiver, which has a tape monitor button on the front. I've been told that a modern receiver with a preamp out and main amp in can accommodate the EQ as the tape recorder circuit does now. Preamp out and main amp in, from what I've seen so far, seems to be the definition of a surround sound receiver. I don't care about surround sound, and I've read that it's an inferior way to play stereo music. At the same time, I'd like to connect my (smart) TV to the new receiver via optical cable, so I don't think I'm in the market for a restored vintage receiver. Neither am I trying to build a home theater, but I'd like to hear the TV through the stereo occasionally.

If anyone would like to help an old Beatles/Tull/CSN fan who hasn't bought stereo gear since the 90s, my questions are:
Is a surround sound receiver the only thing that can run my equalizer? If so, will the sound quality make me regret buying one? (Yes, the Marantz in its prime could shake walls.)

 

[Leemix]

I dont know of any modern AVR with pre-out and direct to amp inputs. Maybe someone else knows. You could use pre-outs into the EQ and then to external amps. May be someone knows of a model with this, it was not uncommon some years ago but not now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Leemix]

Some 2 channel integrated amps may still have this though and should be able to connect through optical.

 

[Mike S.]

If a receiver has an optical input, does that make it an AVR? Does the optical cable coming out of my TV now really have anything to do with video?

 

[Leemix]

If a receiver has an optical input, does that make it an AVR? Does the optical cable coming out of my TV now really have anything to do with video?

No most integrated 2 channel amps have optical in, it doesnt make them an AudioVideoReciever.
Optical is audio only, digital audio data is sent as light through an optical cable instead of electrical signal through copper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mike S.]

So if I don't care about AVR or surround sound, I'm looking for a traditional stereo receiver with an optical port and some means of running my EQ. I'm unlikely to find a receiver made to power a tape recorder but I might find one with preamp out and amp in. Is that a fair statement?

 

[Leemix]

So if I don't care about AVR or surround sound, I'm looking for a traditional stereo receiver with an optical port and some means of running my EQ. I'm unlikely to find a receiver made to power a tape recorder but I might find one with preamp out and amp in. Is that a fair statement?

Yes, some 2ch integrated may have a tape in and tape out loop or pre-out amp-in.

Might be others know of some good models to look for and can chime in.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TLS Guy]

I have a pair of Bose Series 4 901s from the 1990s. Hoping to replace my 1983 Marantz receiver and keep the 901s, which have an active equalizer. The EQ runs into the tape recorder input/output on the receiver, which has a tape monitor button on the front. I've been told that a modern receiver with a preamp out and main amp in can accommodate the EQ as the tape recorder circuit does now. Preamp out and main amp in, from what I've seen so far, seems to be the definition of a surround sound receiver. I don't care about surround sound, and I've read that it's an inferior way to play stereo music. At the same time, I'd like to connect my (smart) TV to the new receiver via optical cable, so I don't think I'm in the market for a restored vintage receiver. Neither am I trying to build a home theater, but I'd like to hear the TV through the stereo occasionally.

If anyone would like to help an old Beatles/Tull/CSN fan who hasn't bought stereo gear since the 90s, my questions are:
Is a surround sound receiver the only thing that can run my equalizer? If so, will the sound quality make me regret buying one? (Yes, the Marantz in its prime could shake walls.)

The only way you can use those speakers now, is to use a pre/pro and separate power amps. Then you can pace the equalizer between the preamp and the power amp.

I don't know why you are wedded to those speakers. I know they have garnered some advocates, but some people will like anything. The truth is they are absolutely awful speakers, and can not even come close to producing accurate sound.

Back in the day, I had colleagues that were interested and intrigued with those speakers, and one actually purchased them. One visit to my basement studio system, made them run fast in the opposite direction. The colleague that bought those 901, soon did a deal with a B & W dealer.

 

[Mike S.]

The only way you can use those speakers now, is to use a pre/pro and separate power amps. Then you can pace the equalizer between the preamp and the power amp.

I don't know why you are wedded to those speakers. I know they have garnered some advocates, but some people will like anything. The truth is they are absolutely awful speakers, and can not even come close to producing accurate sound.

Back in the day, I had colleagues that were interested and intrigued with those speakers, and one actually purchased them. One visit to my basement studio system, made them run fast in the opposite direction. The colleague that bought those 901, soon did a deal with a B & W dealer.

I'm sure there are better speakers out there today. I'm pretty hard of hearing now and it would be silly for me to spend a bundle on speakers. My 901s cost almost $1000 in 1983! Off the top of your head, what does it take today to get into a decent, not great, speaker? An accurate sound would probably help me understand dialog in movies (if you have a few years on you, you know what I mean).

 

[sterling shoote]

OP,

your answer, Marantz NR1200.

 

[M Code]

Dolby certification does not permit the use of a Tape Monitor as it can change the level which affects the Dolby circuit and performance... If U want to use Bose 901s' and equalizer set up a system that has L/R pre-outs and goes into an external stereo amplifier for the front L/Rs...

Just my $0.02...

 

[TLS Guy]

The only way you can use those speakers now, is to use a pre/pro and separate power amps. Then you can pace the equalizer between the preamp and the power amp.

I don't know why you are wedded to those speakers. I know they have garnered some advocates, but some people will like anything. The truth is they are absolutely awful speakers, and can not even come close to producing accurate sound.

Back in the day, I had colleagues that were interested and intrigued with those speakers, and one actually purchased them. One visit to my basement studio system, made them run fast in the opposite direction. The colleague that bought those 901, soon did a deal with a B & W dealer.

With your hearing problems, I can't think of a speaker to make dialog hard to understand than those Bose 901s.

Very, very few speakers have clear and natural speech reproduction.

I am probably not the one to ask, as I do not buy speakers, I design and build my own. However, since the advent of AV and the need for speakers with good natural speech, this has become a particular line of research and study for me.

If I had to point to what is the greatest fault of the vast majority of currently available speakers, it would be their inability to reproduce clear AND natural speech. That is incredibly rare in commercial speakers.

The ones that I have auditioned that do the best job in this regard, have been from KEF speakers with their coaxial drivers.

These are above your budget, but to you would be well worth it.

If you also bought the matching center channel, that would help significantly, with your problem. That would get you over budget, by a little more than 100%, but, I'm certain you would find it worth the expense.

 

[sterling shoote]

With your hearing problems, I can't think of a speaker to make dialog hard to understand than those Bose 901s.

Very, very few speakers have clear and natural speech reproduction.

I am probably not the one to ask, as I do not buy speakers, I design and build my own. However, since the advent of AV and the need for speakers with good natural speech, this has become a particular line of research and study for me.

If I had to point to what is the greatest fault of the vast majority of currently available speakers, it would be their inability to reproduce clear AND natural speech. That is incredibly rare in commercial speakers.

The ones that I have auditioned that do the best job in this regard, have been from KEF speakers with their coaxial drivers.

These are above your budget, but to you would be well worth it.

If you also bought the matching center channel, that would help significantly, with your problem. That would get you over budget, by a little more than 100%, but, I'm certain you would find it worth the expense.

Would speech reproduction include Diana Krall singing My Funny Valentine?

 

[sterling shoote]

I'm sure there are better speakers out there today. I'm pretty hard of hearing now and it would be silly for me to spend a bundle on speakers. My 901s cost almost $1000 in 1983! Off the top of your head, what does it take today to get into a decent, not great, speaker? An accurate sound would probably help me understand dialog in movies (if you have a few years on you, you know what I mean).

There are great speakers out there today that can be bought for peanuts. JBL and Klipsch make models that impress in the $500 per pair arena.

 

[sterling shoote]

So if I don't care about AVR or surround sound, I'm looking for a traditional stereo receiver with an optical port and some means of running my EQ. I'm unlikely to find a receiver made to power a tape recorder but I might find one with preamp out and amp in. Is that a fair statement?

There are integrated amps out there which still have record out. All you loose is the AM/FM Tuner function. As I earlier posted a nice receiver with coax and optical S/PDIF, as well as 2.1 preouts is the Marantz NR1200 for about $650.

 

[Mike S.]

Would speech reproduction include Diana Krall singing My Funny Valentine?

I see KEF bookshelf speakers for $600. Would they be worth having, or do you have to bump up to their pricier stuff? You mentioned Klipsch and JBL, familiar names from the 80s. I always thought that "folded horn" concept from Klipsch was kind of an indirect way to bring sound waves to your ear, much like my 901s bouncing sound off the wall.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't know why you are wedded to those speakers.

Only 2 reasons I can think of would be 1) not willing to spend more money or 2) sentimental reasons.

But if he continues to read the forum and see tons of Bose-bashing, that might change his mind.

 

[Mike S.]

Only 2 reasons I can think of would be 1) not willing to spend more money or 2) sentimental reasons.

But if he continues to read the forum and see tons of Bose-bashing, that might change his mind.

I'm open minded, but I don't want to spend a bundle. Honestly don't sit and listen to music much these days. No system is going to make hearing aids sound good. But decent background music for housecleaning and clearer dialog for movies would be nice. Modern movies are bad for old folks -- explosions and car crashes followed by actors mumbling under their breath.

 

[Eppie]

I'm open minded, but I don't want to spend a bundle. Honestly don't sit and listen to music much these days. No system is going to make hearing aids sound good. But decent background music for housecleaning and clearer dialog for movies would be nice. Modern movies are bad for old folks -- explosions and car crashes followed by actors mumbling under their breath.

Let's start with what your goal is. If it is simply to connect the TV to your music system, there are cheaper ways to do that. There are devices that will convert the optical audio out from the TV into a line level stereo signal with RCA outputs which can be connected into the AUX input (or other line level input) of your current Marantz. You could do that for $20 and just need a long enough RCA cable.

If you want improved dialogue with TV viewing, a pair of modern bookshelves will help there. The 901s have 1 forward and 8 rear facing drivers and rely in reflected sound which is good for immersiveness but not good imaging or clarity. You could still use the old Marantz and the optical to RCA converter for the TV and change speakers to something more modern like the KEF bookshelves.

Top of the budget is to replace both the receiver and speakers. I don't think it makes sense to replace the Marantz and keep the 901s. The 901s have to be used with the EQ and since few (if any) modern receivers have both pre-amp out and amp-in, you would likely be looking at a separate video pre-amp and amplifier to use the 901 eq and that bumps the price up a lot.

If you don't need surround sound, just 2 channel audio, the Marantz NR1200 pictured above by sterling shoote will do the job as it has optical in for the TV, AM/FM tuner and connections for a turntable or CD player. That's $900 retail though and what would you have left for speakers?

Let us know which option makes the most sense to you and if you can provide a budget we can recommend the best bang for the dollar. FYI your old Marantz could be worth several hundred dollars depending upon the model and condition. That could help your budget.

 

[Mike S.]

Let's start with what your goal is. If it is simply to connect the TV to your music system, there are cheaper ways to do that. There are devices that will convert the optical audio out from the TV into a line level stereo signal with RCA outputs which can be connected into the AUX input (or other line level input) of your current Marantz. You could do that for $20 and just need a long enough RCA cable.

If you want improved dialogue with TV viewing, a pair of modern bookshelves will help there. The 901s have 1 forward and 8 rear facing drivers and rely in reflected sound which is good for immersiveness but not good imaging or clarity. You could still use the old Marantz and the optical to RCA converter for the TV and change speakers to something more modern like the KEF bookshelves.

Top of the budget is to replace both the receiver and speakers. I don't think it makes sense to replace the Marantz and keep the 901s. The 901s have to be used with the EQ and since few (if any) modern receivers have both pre-amp out and amp-in, you would likely be looking at a separate video pre-amp and amplifier to use the 901 eq and that bumps the price up a lot.

If you don't need surround sound, just 2 channel audio, the Marantz NR1200 pictured above by sterling shoote will do the job as it has optical in for the TV, AM/FM tuner and connections for a turntable or CD player. That's $900 retail though and what would you have left for speakers?

Let us know which option makes the most sense to you and if you can provide a budget we can recommend the best bang for the dollar. FYI your old Marantz could be worth several hundred dollars depending upon the model and condition. That could help your budget.

I really appreciate the time you guys are spending on this. My receiver is an SR940 from 1983. The knobs for bass, treble and balance are gone, but the stems that held them still light up. The remote is long gone; I've seen them for sale on the internet. I have Speakers A and Speakers B, one of which has quit working. I think the other channel is getting weak too; it just doesn't sound good. It sounds terrible when the optical cable from the TV is the source. I have the device for converting optical to RCA plugs but I gave up on it because the sound quality was so poor. I'm ready to replace the old Marantz. It still looks good and would probably make a restoration project for someone. I'm sentimental about my 901s too, originally bought in 1983 and replaced in the 90s when the cone material disintegrated and Bose offered all us owners a new pair for $500. But I don't need the power in a system that I wanted in my misspent youth, and I've always known they weren't great for clarity. Nowadays we'd like to listen to movies or the music channels on DirecTV through the stereo, but we don't watch a lot of movies and don't need a home theater system. I'm especially averse to surround sound if it means that regular stereo recordings don't sound good with it. Sterling mentioned KEF speakers. I'd be interested in their bookshelf speakers for $600 if they have any bass to them. I notice their "woofer" is the same size as the 18 speakers I currently have in my 901's, so I wonder. I would go 5 or 6 hundred on a receiver. I have a DVD player to play CDs and don't care if I have a radio. Any further feedback would be appreciated.