Is this a crazy idea.


Tell me if this is a crazy idea for a vintage HT system. I want to keep it simple. Please be merciful to me when you respond.

I picked up four (4) matching JBL 4412's at a garage sale for a very good price. I'm thinking about using a vintage(they only come this way) Quadraphonic receiver for a vintage (almost) HT system.

I am toying with the idea of a using four analogue outputs from my Oppo dvd player. I would eliminate the center channel. You would have to configure the front, rear, left, right of the quadraphonic receiver as fl, fr, rl, and rr. Is this crazy or is it doable?

Balancing the speakers might be tricky but I think it might work.
128x128mjcmt
"So???? If ANY high end speaker designer would agree then why are such a minute fraction of makers doing an active?"

IT's REAL easy. And They usually come up with about the same answers as to why the manufacture won't approve, design, or market an active speaker (and associated components). And yet, they all understand the huge benefits of active, as that would be ideal. (*yes, ideal!).
Basically it gets down to economics, marketing effectiveness, and return for their dollar!!! They must then be dealing with electronics as well, which means more involvement, and it's easier to simply build a passive speaker network. In short, it's WAY MORE EXPENSIVE to build an Active speaker setup! IT's hard enough for any of these companies to maintain profit margin, and keep the doors open, and the average consumer isn't going to be aware enough to chose the expensive one. (case in point, the NHT
active speaker system, at $8000...this is a SUPERB Speaker system, all in all, and it doesn't sell!!!--I'd put that speaker side by side with any passive Thiel, B&W, or Wilson Monitor, of the same parameters, and it DESTROYS THOSE SPEAKERS, YES!!!....however, that's my oppinion.)
And, yes, it's ALL about marketing! If you doubt, just ask
*Bose!
But yes, that's ok, I think it's wonderful that several here think passive speakers are equal to or even better often then active counterparts! (I liken this to people who read Maxim Magazine, and find all the skinny-hipped, fake-boobed chicks smokin hot!--That leaves all the "Betty-Boop-like", curvy, velupuous, "real women" are left for me!!!--no problem) LOL!
This just makes my job of promoting active setups, all the more speciliazed, and higher end!
Yes, if you like superior dynamic transparancy, powerful transient response, "hit-you-in-the-chest" dynamics, and basically realistic sound with force and body, then actives are for you, yes!
Heck, just play any serious rock and roll, 2 channel through your beloved passived speakers, then through some active ones, all sizes equal, and tell me what you think! The differences are clear to me.
Sorry active speakers sound "pro" to me and it gets on my nerves.....maybe I will find ones I like but not quite yet.
Don't get me wrong. Just because a speaker is an active design (especially tbe many pro audio "active speakers" I've heard at Sam Ash) doesn't mean it sounds good across the board! It has to be a good speaker, fundamentally. You can't take crappy drivers, a slip-shod cabinet, and poor design, then make it an active setup, and expect great sound over all. No! All things equal however, and active is clearly superior. All powered subs are basically "active". That's why the dynamics and power handling are superior there!
I think we got way off base talking about active vs. passive speakers. Maybe another thread should be started on this subject.

The whole idea of this experiment is to put together a very good HT system using my vintage JBL monitor speakers, and therefore mate them to an equally vintage 70's quad receiver, using a not so vintage Oppo DVD player as the source.

And yes, you can tell the Oppo that there is no center channel and still have 4 channel HT, just like you can tell it that you only have L & R and have 2 channel HT, which I enjoy now.

I still haven't got a quad receiver as I'm a bargin hunter for this experiment. My JBL 4312's are not going anywhere soon, and I'm leaning more for a Sansui because the Marantz may be too warm and not dynamic enough for HT.

If I'm not mistaken didn't Sony make a quad receiver for a short time. If they did this would fit the HT sound perfectly. I had a 1970 Sony F3200 110 w/ch poweramp in 1970 and I chose it for its better articulation, if not a tad bit bright, to drive my larger Advents. the Advent really sang with this amp vs. my previos Dynaco. If Sony made a quad receiver it should have the same Sony sound and be perfect.