After going through Beocentral, I'm convinced that this old peripheral communication interface wasn't called Datalink. As I said it's very simple - maybe two bits worth of information is sent with each command, so there are only a few possible operations. For example the Beogram 4004 doesn't have any kind of a microprocessor doing this

I agree with Chris Take a look at this thread to get an idea of the construction. The fret (including the fabric) is an integral part of the speaker body, and you have to practically dismantle the whole speaker and remove the drivers from behind until you can have a look. But, no need to do all that in this case as the RL60.2 won't have foam rot

[quote user="hangglider"] I contacted Feller to give me this information, but they were not willing to make this data public. So I gave up. In the meantime I used the original remote. [/quote] The silliness of some manufacturers... nothing prevents anyone from just using an IR phototransistor and an oscilloscope to find it out anyway. However

I'm not sure (anymore) if it was actually already called Datalink, but it is indeed a different (much simpler) protocol than the one used in the later products. I have a BG4004 but nothing link compatible to connect it to - I was planning on building a converter just for fun...

Oh yes, that ground screw should work just as well. The extra pins are indeed reserved for Datalink control of compatible B&O record decks (Beogram 4004, 2400 and 2402 I think). Not much use with others.

Correct, but you'll need to take care of the earthing as well for a record deck. The separate earth connection from an RCA equipped turntable should connect to the metal sleeve of the DIN connector.

Take a look at the phono input, they are the same and in phono the outputs are (obviously) N/C... Or just try it and there's a 95% chance that your first choice is incorrect Seriously, the input pins are 3 & 5. Don't ask which way they are located in which connector as I never remember, most of them have tiny numbers beside the pins at least

Those 2000's look beautiful! I've never heard that model (I have a pair of RL60.2's) but I would expect them to be clearly better than either of the CX models without a sub. Descending from 45.2, it should have no foam rot problems either, can anyone confirm? The RL35 is from the smallest model family and lacks many of the fine points of

CX100 is better of course, but don't expect much bass from them either (look at the size!). They are fine as link speakers and easy to place anywhere, but I wouldn't like to use them in my main system. Adding a Cona subwoofer will help a lot with the bass though. You can be pretty much sure that the foam surrounds of the drivers are shot - or

I'm not familiar with that particular model, but in those days Marantz was highly respected, and not wrongly so. Give it a try, and search the web - it may welll be quite collectable by now and in any case well worth using... although it won't blend too well in a B&O household