What am I losing with a 20 year old receiver?

[tentaguasu]

I'm just getting started with a "do it on a shoestring" home theater set up.

I wondering about using an old receiver as a way of saving money. I'm assuming I could pick up a very nice, high performing old receiver for a fraction of what a new AVR would cost.

I've already decided (tentatively) that I'm going to go with a 2.1 (maybe 3.1) channel setup to save money. My understanding is that I can get excellent results from 2.1 setup (though obviously without some of the fancier effects).

I know that with an older receiver I can't get modern video to run through it.

But assuming I'm willing to live with 2.1 and willing to juggle a few remotes (or not have a remote for the receiver?) it seems like this would be a great way to save $.

Would the sound quality be worse (noticeably) for any reason? What about the ".1" - how old is too old to get the subwoofer output/processing?

In sum, should this strategy work for me, or am I missing something?

 

[markw]

The center and surround channels and perhaps video switching, but you knew that.

Sound-wise, if it was a good receiver then, then it's still good today. Amps haven't really improved by leaps and bounds in the last fer decades. In fact, some would say they are skimping somewhat nowadays.

As for that pesky ".1" issue, well, you won't be able to get a discrete LFE channel but the good news is that most of that is folded into the two-channel mix.

To get that deep, deep bass you can easily connect a subwoofer up to a two-channel system as long as you get a proper subwoofer.

Subs with only one input are out. Make sure you get one with stereo inputs. If your receiver has preamp outs, then you can connect it there. If not, many subs have speaker-level inputs (and maybe outputs) and will work fine.

The good news is that most, not all, powered subs (and you WILL want a powered sub) offer both like in/outs and speaker level in/outs. Keep that in mind when shopping for subs.

So hope is not lost. I use a 35 year-old receiver and a pair of old JBL's in the basement system and it sounds very, very nice.

 

[tentaguasu]

Sweet, that's what I was hoping.

Also, the "20 years old" is an arbitrary age.

If I want to spend, say, $100, am I better off with a 5 year old receiver or a 20 year old receiver?

Or put another way, would $100 buy me a lot "more" receiver if I'm willing to go back further in time, or once I'm back a few years does it start to become a wash?

For instance, I've seen the Yamaha HTR-5540 for $100ish. Would I get more by going on back to 1980 or something?

 

[markw]

Hard to say.

Receivers are not forever. Some older receivers may have problems. So might newer ones. It all depends on how well you know the seller.

Personally, I like the stereos from the early/mid seventies put out by the major players of that era (Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood, etc...).

You can buy a two-channel Sherwood 4105 NIB with a guarantee for $100 or less.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm just getting started with a "do it on a shoestring" home theater set up.

I wondering about using an old receiver as a way of saving money. I'm assuming I could pick up a very nice, high performing old receiver for a fraction of what a new AVR would cost.

I've already decided (tentatively) that I'm going to go with a 2.1 (maybe 3.1) channel setup to save money. My understanding is that I can get excellent results from 2.1 setup (though obviously without some of the fancier effects).

I know that with an older receiver I can't get modern video to run through it.

But assuming I'm willing to live with 2.1 and willing to juggle a few remotes (or not have a remote for the receiver?) it seems like this would be a great way to save $.

Would the sound quality be worse (noticeably) for any reason? What about the ".1" - how old is too old to get the subwoofer output/processing?

In sum, should this strategy work for me, or am I missing something?

You asked this question before and got sensible answers. Now you have to decide if that is the way you want to go. Double posting like that is a time waster!

 

[lsiberian]

I'm just getting started with a "do it on a shoestring" home theater set up.

I wondering about using an old receiver as a way of saving money. I'm assuming I could pick up a very nice, high performing old receiver for a fraction of what a new AVR would cost.

I've already decided (tentatively) that I'm going to go with a 2.1 (maybe 3.1) channel setup to save money. My understanding is that I can get excellent results from 2.1 setup (though obviously without some of the fancier effects).

I know that with an older receiver I can't get modern video to run through it.

But assuming I'm willing to live with 2.1 and willing to juggle a few remotes (or not have a remote for the receiver?) it seems like this would be a great way to save $.

Would the sound quality be worse (noticeably) for any reason? What about the ".1" - how old is too old to get the subwoofer output/processing?

In sum, should this strategy work for me, or am I missing something?

I understand you are a bit timid about making a choice, but this isn't life or death and unless you buy a HTIB I don't think you can really go wrong.

I must suggest you visit the harman kardon store and pick up a 254 or 247. This will give you limitless options. Why limit yourself from the possibility of surround sound down the line. Plus you can use it to switch between devices for your TV. They go for around 200 shipped with full warranty, new firmware and a great amp section. HK makes stereo receivers, but why limit yourself.

 

[TLS Guy]

Receivers are not forever. Some older receivers may have problems. So might newer ones. It all depends on how well you know the seller.

Personally, I like the stereos from the early/mid seventies put out by the major players of that era (Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood, etc...).

You can buy a two-channel Sherwood 4105 NIB with a guarantee for $100 or less.

Markw has a good point.

With older gear, like now, there is the good and the bad. However the passage of time tells what is good and what is bad. For a decent 70s receiver that was any good you are going to be giving $350 to $400. I have just been checking on eBay, and despite the current situation, prices have only moderated about $100 per unit.

For separates such as Quad FM3 tuner, 33 preamp and 303 power amp, you will have to give $500 give or take a few dollars. So why would someone give that kind of money for a 45 watt per channel rig designed over 40 years ago. The reasons are that there are plenty of people who know these Quad units have superb construction, fit and Finish. They sound superb. Perhaps the biggest reason is that of anything you could go out and buy, used or old, it is the least likely to go wrong. Compared to a cheaper new unit, it is far more likely to still be going another 30 to 40 years on.

Basically with older gear if you are educated in vintage gear you know what to buy and what to leave alone. With new gear that is much more difficult.

eBay prices in my view do reflect fairly well the true worth of good vintage gear.

 

[forkbeard]

A first-hand perspective

I have the kind of set-up you're talking about. Why? Because my old receiver ( a big old sony prologic dealie form the eighties ) won't die. I'm an 80/20 music/movies guy, and with all processing turned off, the old black box provides plenty of power to two channels. I run a pair of Axiom M22s and for each channel I have an Energy S8.2 sub connected (full range) via speaker wire. I love it for music, when it's really a two-way sytem with powered subs and active crossovers in each channel.

For movies it's way obsolete, of course. I send upconverted DVD video output via HDMI to my plasma, and analog L/R audio to my receiver. I switch the receiver to Prologic mode (3 channel) and use a center channel speaker. No surrounds.

What am I missing? Bass management first and foremost, I think. Plus, for movies, the center channel bass doesn't go to the subs. A little convenience, but it's not like I switch from music to movies several times a day. The best surround effects for movies. For music, I'm not convinced a new receiver would sound any better.

All that said...if my reciever died or for any reason I found myself purchasing a new one, I would definitely go for bass management, HDMI connectivity, digital inputs, the usual stuff. Because I can get all that for not much money these days.

 

[markw]

Dolby Pro Logic.

Every so often I'll throw in an old VHS tape and I'm still pleasantly surprised how decent VHS Hi-Fi can sound with DPL. "Iron Giant" was the last one I played.

It's not discrete digital but it doesn't suck as bad as one would think.

 

[forkbeard]

to be clear...

...if I valued movies more than I do, then the upgrade to a modern AVR would be would be a given. As it is, I am almost hoping my old receiver fails.

 

[popotoys]

IMO, if you are going HT, then I would buy new. There are very good AVR's out there in the $500.00 range that will also have pre outs. You can always upgrade to more power with external amps, but for now you will have the new surround formats availalbe to you.

 

[highfigh]

I'm just getting started with a "do it on a shoestring" home theater set up.

I wondering about using an old receiver as a way of saving money. I'm assuming I could pick up a very nice, high performing old receiver for a fraction of what a new AVR would cost.

I've already decided (tentatively) that I'm going to go with a 2.1 (maybe 3.1) channel setup to save money. My understanding is that I can get excellent results from 2.1 setup (though obviously without some of the fancier effects).

I know that with an older receiver I can't get modern video to run through it.

But assuming I'm willing to live with 2.1 and willing to juggle a few remotes (or not have a remote for the receiver?) it seems like this would be a great way to save $.

Would the sound quality be worse (noticeably) for any reason? What about the ".1" - how old is too old to get the subwoofer output/processing?

In sum, should this strategy work for me, or am I missing something?

I didn't read all of the other responses but I'm pretty sure what I post will be different.

Look for a decent integrated amp (it has the preamp and power amp but no tuner) and tuner instead of a receiver. Each section will generally be better, especially if it's one of the better lines from a company that made an attempt at higher quality, like Sony ES or Pioneer Elite. Some have preamp outs, but most won't have anything specifically for a sub. If the sub has a crossover in it with a separate Left/Right input, this isn't a problem because you can use cords to connect from the preamp out to both the sub and the amp's power amp input and then you would set the input level on the sub so it blends with the main speakers. If the main speakers sound good on their own, you can make a crossover to remove the bass from their signal with two components for each one. It's easy and if you have questions about how to to it/where to buy the parts, we can answer them.

Using an integrated amp with preamp output also allows for more flexibility, too. If you decide that you want more power, active crossover/EQ, true bi-amplification or the power amp section dies but you like the preamp, all you need to do is connect the preamp outputs to whatever you add or replace.

I have used Sony Audio Lab and ES models for decades and have been very happy with them. I'm using a TA-F500ES now and you should be able to find something similar for a reasonable price.

IMO, old receivers don't sound all that great and I didn't think they sounded particularly good when I was working at the stereo store. Once I heard the difference between receivers and integrated amps or separates, I offered my opinion but made the point that the customer's opinion was what counted. When a receiver uses a big output chip, it generally won't sound as good as separate output transistors, partially because the chip can't deliver the current needed for driving some speakers.

Here's a link- this is a good model and it has separate preamp out/power amp in but I wouldn't buy this one, just because it was rode hard and put away wet.

http://cgi.ebay.com/SONY-TA-F-700-ES-INTEGRATED-AMPLIFIER_W0QQitemZ230353573256QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item35a2249588&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A13|66%3A2|39%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50