Is this a crazy idea.

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.