Greetings to you "downunder", from "up north".

Well -it depends on which BM 2000 you're talking about. There are 2 different receivers called 2000 -one from the early 70's and one from the mid 80's. In any case -I would go for the 2000. But that's just me 🙂
I don't know the pricelevel where you live, but in Denmark they are quite cheap: 50-100$ (US). The 2000's are quite common here -the 1700 is a bit rare -but, then again -not the most sought after.

Steffen

The 70s 2000 is a very good one - excellent amplifier and worthy of good speakers - the inevitable S45-2 comes to mind. The 1700 ( I take it you mean the 80s receiver) is very pretty but the tractor controls break, the clutches slip and the amplifier is indirectly coupled and nothing like as good as the 1500 it replaced.

Get both !

The Beomaster 2000 (if the 1970's version) is a beautiful receiver with a superb sound.
There are a few common faults but not many and all are fixable.

The Beomaster 1700 may not be a technical wonder but it is a unique design and most tractor belt
problems can be solved.
Reproduction rubber clutch "washers" are available.

Martin

I have a 2000 in white and it is a great sounding amp. It also looks fantastic, but they do tend to blow the dial lamps as far as I know and replacement can be a bit of a problem if you're not electronically minded.

j0hnbarker wrote:

I have a 2000 in white and it is a great sounding amp. It also looks fantastic, but they do tend to blow the dial lamps as far as I know and replacement can be a bit of a problem if you're not electronically minded.

Same here! (Martin's lamps (inc dial lamp) still working!)

Graham

Thanks to all of you and your great inputs. Looks like I will have to buy both. I love the look of the 1700, while it sounds like the 2000 has the edge on the sound quality. Ill have to find some S45's as well......So I guess i will play the 2000 and admire the 1700.

Thanks, once again...

Michael

I have a Beomaster 1700 which I bought purely for its quikiness. I didn't want it to be relegated to being simply something to be admired on looks alone so I have it connected to my PC with some CX50's.

Works great in this application & always gets admirred.

Chris.

One superb thing about the 1700 is that unlike the 6000 quad, the display panel is glass so is usually unmarked. I also love the 'bonnet stay' which makes it easy to service. Amazing how little is inside it mind you!

Peter wrote:

One superb thing about the 1700 is that unlike the 6000 quad, the display panel is glass so is usually unmarked. I also love the 'bonnet stay' which makes it easy to service. Amazing how little is inside it mind you!

You can't really compare the 6000 Quad and 1700 😉 I have both and the 6000 is a masterpiece. Strange how you aren't very fond of the 6000 Quad?