I'm not sure it's under- rated; probably just under-discussed. 

If I were limited to just one Beomaster, this might be the one I would go for, combining as it does the styling of the 8000 with much of the electronics of arguably the best sounding Beomaster of them all - the 4400.   There are supposedly some concerns about long term reliablity and the remote for it is rare, but if I didn't have a 4400 and an 8000, this is what I would be looking for now.

Cleve

I think the discussion of older gear has tailed off a bit over the past year or so anyway, so probably it's just as Cleve says in that this model is under-discussed, rather than ignored. 

I had one for a while and really liked the sound of it, but when faced with a straight choice between losing the 6000 or one of a Beomaster 8000, Beomaster 6000 Quad, and Beolab 5000, it was the 6000 that was the first to go. I made that choice based on the fact that it was a hybrid of the 4400 with some nice LEDs at the front end, as opposed to the blank sheet of paper-based design of the 8000. 

I think they have their place, and I'd be happy to own one again, but the 8000 always reached parts the 6000 could never reach in my case!

I have a Beomaster 6000. I use it daily and think it is great! To me the 6000 is an ideal compromise between a 6000 Quad (too fragile/rare), and a mighty 8000 (too big/rare!).

They are generally reliable and reasonably easy to service. They also are great to use with the interesting UI and weighted tuner wheel and sounds pretty good. Also powerful enough to drive pretty much any B&O loudspeaker from the same era...

I chose my Beosystem 6000 (well, BM6000, BC6000, BG6006, CDX and M150's) over for instance a 1900/2400 system (of which I am also a fan of), because they simply don't have enough grunt!

That said, I would swap my 6000 for a 6000 quad or 8000 in a heartbeat! The finest sounding "classic" system I have ever owned was a Master 8000, BG4000 and CDX couple with a set of passive Pentas and I have been striving to reach that heady level of audio perfection ever since!

Having worked for Bang & Olufsen and listened to many combinations of speakers/systems and room sizes/shapes I can honestly say Beolab 5's are the only speakers which hands down sound better in the current range. To my ears anyway.

Llewelyn's post sums up the dilemma I had recently when I realised I had too much classic B&O gear. The full 8000 system I use with Beovox Pentas was pretty much untouchable, so the 80s 6000 was the first to go, followed by my 6000 Quad which Tim Jarman serviced for me. I kept my Beomaster/Beolab 5000 + CDX + Beovox 5000 panel speakers as a bedroom system, and do not regret letting either of the 6000s go. The Beolab 5000 and 8000 systems were pretty much tour de force pieces of engineering from B&O, and as such I always felt they had that little extra cache over and above sheer rarity (as was the case with the 6000 Quad).

That said, I would still like a two-way BC9500 with a Beolink 7000 and some Beolab 1s to add to the collection!

I would say that the BM6000 is a fine audio master, though I don't think that the preamplifier section is as well designed as that of the 4400/8000. At higher volume levels, the loudness function stops (at 25-30 on the scale) and my S-75's (pretty bass heavy in nature) begis to sound thin and tinny. The 6000 is restorated with new caps and idle currents checked. I still own it, have lended it to my female cousin with a pair of Epicures I have refoamed and a Beogram 4002. It plays well, a better speaker match than with the S-75's.

I had used mine for at year before finding an 8000 to replace it, have not used it in my own setups since.

One big problem with the 6000 is that it is a compromise in itself. Being built from a Beocord 8000 cabinet with a few "technical" features. The volume control was a brilliant thought (Really a Gyro Gearloose thought), but they already started breaking back then.

Personally, I think the BM6000 is a lovely hifi, but of course does have its pitfalls, and you can guarrentee that just about every example you pick up will need the same work doing to them sooner or later!

When in good service they are a joy to use and the sound is good enough for me - and after doing a blind test with an 8000 and speaker switch there really is not a great deal in it ;) (the 8000 has the edge in clarity at the top end, and I didn't drive the speakers past comfortable listening.)

I personally think it looks much nicer than the 8000, which falls short due to its huge size and dissapointing display interface, although the volume and tuning dials are a delight to use!

Søren Hammer wrote:

At higher volume levels, the loudness function stops (at 25-30 on the scale)

That is exactly what "loudness" is supposed to do! If you want more bass through the scale, crank up the bass! 🙂

But really you shouldn't be able to notice the use of loudness at all, which I guess is why it has such a bad name!

tournedos wrote:

Søren Hammer wrote:

At higher volume levels, the loudness function stops (at 25-30 on the scale)

That is exactly what "loudness" is supposed to do! If you want more bass through the scale, crank up the bass! 🙂

Step1 wrote:

But really you shouldn't be able to notice the use of loudness at all, which I guess is why it has such a bad name!

Sort of... there are of course different implementations of the operating curve, and some might prefer one over another. But you can't really call any of them "correct", as loudness doesn't have much to do with faithful audio reproduction to begin with. It's a deliberately introduced flaw, which sometimes happens to give desirable results 🙂 In any case, it should be gone when the volume is at mid scale, or something...

In my pre-B&O days I used to have a Kenwood preamp with adjustable loudness. I kept it around 1/3 up. I very rarely use loudness with any of my B&O kit, it's always much too strong to my tastes.