In my experience, the high points of the Beogram ranges are the likes of the 4000/4002/8000/8002, with the latter two models in particular being capable of superb sound when loaded up with an MMC20CL or MMC1. The Thorens/Acoustical Beogram 3000 models from the 1960s are also no slouch, sonically.

As to the later models, I'm afraid I've always been underwhelmed by the performance of the TX2/5005/5500 etc. type linear trackers. Their internal construction is neat but greatly economised compared to the earlier models and you can hear it in their sound. For this era of equipment, I much prefer the radial tracking Beogram RX2/2000/5000 etc. models, which is excellent news as they command much lower prices!

That said, even some of the more lowly models can be a surprise. I remember buying a mint Beogram 2200 purely to acquire the equally mint MMC20CL that someone had fitted to it. I fitted an MMC20S to it before selling it and remember being greatly surprised at just how good the 2200/MMC20S combo sounded!

As to how they compare to modern turntables, this is all down to personal taste. Personally I'd take a Beogram 8002/MMC1 over a comparably priced Linn LP12 and a Beogram 2000/MMC4 over a Rega Planar 3 but many would not...

I tend to agree with Adam. Beograms are really very good with their only weakness being record support. The Beogram 3000 Thorens does not suffer from this. The Beogram also has the advantage that there is no real set up problem so once transit screws are undone, the Beogram is going to sound great whereas setting up a Linn is complicated in comparison. The Beogram is also automatic of course in the majority of cases and the quality of parts is also superb compared with many decks of the time. A Beogram 4000 is hewn from solid and is made to be serviced not disposed of. 

I personally prefer the 4000 to the 8000/2 simply due to build quality - there were definite corners cut in the 8000 which is a huge shame when one looks at the concept. The 4000 was over engineered and built, as is seen in the 4002 which was much cheaper to make but still kept the same sound quality and was still an impressive piece of engineering.

I also completely agree with his appraisal of the later tangentials against the radial models - I changed from a 5000 to 5005 and apart from some remote control possibilities, the swap was a downgrade.

Very interesting answers. I have a 4000 in for repair, minor I hope as is otherwise mint and a 4002 which might be more complicated. Am sending an MMC2 cartridge for restoration for a 3300. Hoping to give each of my children one and keep the 4000 for myself.

I have four different Beogram, 5500, 6500, 4002 and 6000. So far, I have only been using the 5500 and 6500, both with MMC2. I am surprised buy the noise pickup from the vinyl. These are not up to my conventional turntable (own design) with a Rega RB-300 arm and Audio-Technica OC-07 cartridge.
The other two from the seventies have a far more solid feel. I will rebuild at least one of them. The 6000 comes with the onboard RIAA/CD4-decoder. Like to have a built-in RIAA, maybe this more than 40 years old one is not very good? These are both with the AC-motor and the heavy platter. I am a bit worried of the main bearing that is a bit different to other turntables. Both are some kind of self-centering not really stable if you touch the periphery of the platter.

If you are trying to compare turntables then the phono cartridge used in the comparison needs to be a constant. The media...selected vinyl for the tests should also be a constant. So comparing a Beogram to another brand means you have to use a B&O cartridge of course. After running some tests in a Beogram, pull and fit the MMC cartridge into the adapter to mount it to a non-B&O brand turntable and repeat the tests. Then you will have a better comparison. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges as the saying goes.

-sonavor

True, a turntable consists of a chain of components but you can still compare with another chain of Components (turntable/arm/cartridge/RIAA).

And the huge problem when comparing turntables/cartridges/arms is that it's almost impossible to do it rapidly, at least for an average user/listener. Subtle differences are very hard to detect, and imaginary differences easy to induce, when the time between switching from one to another is not almost instantaneous.

Of course, like speakers, most such combos, especially cartridges, have such gross differences subtlety is not usually an issue.

Jeff wrote:

And the huge problem when comparing turntables/cartridges/arms is that it's almost impossible to do it rapidly, at least for an average user/listener. Subtle differences are very hard to detect, and imaginary differences easy to induce, when the time between switching from one to another is not almost instantaneous.

Of course, like speakers, most such combos, especially cartridges, have such gross differences subtlety is not usually an issue.

Exactly. For me those type of comparisons are not useful. With regard to vintage audio equipment evaluation, I suggest first finding the original specs and see if any reviews can be found when those products were new (old Stereo Review magazines, etc.).  Then evaluate what your used, vintage equipment currently sounds like compared to that.  I would expect the used item just acquired off Ebay to be less than desirable.  That is to be expected with thirty plus year old units and why a full restoration is required to truly experience how the unit can perform. 

-sonavor

That is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is whether the Beogram system ie turntable and limited choice of cartridge sounds as good as or better than other turntables which have greater choice of cartridge and upgrade paths. One doesn't have to compare by using the identical cartridge just one's ears.