Well, I guess that it is because the older Beomaster has simpler, discrete circuits. It is widely acknowledged that the Sanken modules don't quite cut the sonic mustard when compared to more traditional technology. They are not bad, but I have always been disappointed in amps using them. That '4500 of yours is quite a mystery. You have a Mc Intosh for heaven's sake!

Agree about BM2400. There is something I cant put my finger on with the transistor amps and the sound.

Agree about BM2400. There is something I cant put my finger on with the transistor amps and the sound.

chartz wrote:

Well, I guess that it is because the older Beomaster has simpler, discrete circuits. It is widely acknowledged that the Sanken modules don't quite cut the sonic mustard when compared to more traditional technology. They are not bad, but I have always been disappointed in amps using them. That '4500 of yours is quite a mystery. You have a Mc Intosh for heaven's sake!

Hi Jacques,

I agree, there is much to be said in favour of the older, more traditional design…… although it takes a whole lot less time to repair.

And the mystery of my Beomaster 4500, it truly was wonderful….. but the warm, soft, velvet-like sound is gone, replaced by a very decent, if slightly bright sound. I really do like the sound of my rebuilt Beomaster 4500, but it isn’t what it used to be….. and I didn’t expect that it would.

As for the McIntosh, yes sir I sure do have a McIntosh 2255, but not just any 2255, one 100% rebuilt by McIntosh Laboratories. (This rebuild included a brand new shipping box, which is bomb-proof and easily must cost the factory $100.) There is a LOT to recommend a 500 watt amplifier that had zero difficulty in powering 18 speakers at the same time.

Jeff

Piaf wrote:

There is a LOT to recommend a 500 watt amplifier that had zero difficulty in powering 18 speakers at the same time.

 

😂

Mc Intosh gear is very highly regarded this side of the pond, but overly expensive. I was just dreaming possessing one of them - valve or transistor - in my teenage years! I still do, but they are even dearer nowadays 😭

By the way, how does one get the f next to the stars?

chartz wrote:

Piaf wrote:

There is a LOT to recommend a 500 watt amplifier that had zero difficulty in powering 18 speakers at the same time.

 

 

😂

 

Mc Intosh gear is very highly regarded this side of the pond, but overly expensive. I was just dreaming possessing one of them - valve or transistor - in my teenage years! I still do, but they are even dearer nowadays 😭

 

By the way, how does one get the f next to the stars?

 

Hi Jacques,

McIntosh makes superb equipment and to this day it is all made in Upstate New York with the highest quality parts available and with absolutely no outsourcing.

And yes, it is very, very expensive. My 2255 amplifier sells on eBay used, not rebuilt, for more than I paid for it, a LOT more than I paid for it. Why? Because their stuff tends to last forever.

Sure I had a switch burn up on me and lamps have burnt out, but otherwise they go on and on.

I have said this before, but McIntosh sells the steak, Bang & Olufsen sells the sizzle….. and I like the sizzle, the styling, and in most cases the sound.

As for the “F,” I thought you’d never ask. It was a promotion, BeoWorld was promoting their gold membership and the first X-number of people that signed up, became “Founding Members.” I think it was 100 people, but I could be wrong about that.

Jeff

I remember when I bought my 2400 new, the salesman told me I should really buy the 2200. I didn't because I thought the 2400 looked better and wanted the remote, but he was completely correct! The 2200 really is a forgotten amplifier - almost hand made and superb quality sound. Same basic circuit design as the 4400, AM and FM radios, and plenty of power. Not seen one advertised for a while but they also sell for nothing most of the time.

Well, I very much like my Beomaster 2000 too. The 2400 is really a 1900-2 plus remote, I found the empty PCB section in my 1900-2 when I repaired mine!

chartz wrote:

Well, I very much like my Beomaster 2000 too. The 2400 is really a 1900-2 plus remote, I found the empty PCB section in my 1900-2 when I repaired mine!

Jacques,

I really appreciate the fact that you genuinely like your Beomaster 2400, which gives me great hope and expectation for my restored Beomaster 2400.

I got my Beomaster 2400 in a package deal in order to get a near (very near) flawless Beogram 4002. As such initially I had no use for the Beomaster 2400.

In a very odd unintended setup, I found that my Beomaster 2400 could play through the speaker controller I used with the McIntosh 2255. It back-fed through the controller which was fine on the surface, but the 2400 would get really hot as it ran into the McIntosh even when off.

The McIntosh could have cared less but the Beomaster must have struggled considerably. When I found out what the back-feeding entailed I disconnected the BM 2400 from the trio of speakers the McIntosh powered.

We can safely say that it was this same configuration (with the McIntosh departed for the factory) that damaged my Beomaster 4500. Although Benny told me the Beomaster 4500 had badly over-heated it was repaired in less than a day and strangely enough did not require a single capacitor replaced outside of the power supply and the bad IC.

Technicians do not always like explaining things to non-technical people like myself, so I never got a real picture of what was wrong with my Beomaster 2400. However the basic assessment was there was not much wrong, nothing whatsoever out of the expected and no overheating.

Now I know it overheated, as I felt it, but that had something to do with the bias circuit pot. That and a power supply rectifier. Two light bulbs also bit the dust in transit.

So I have to assume in spite of my view that the 2400 was in dire straights, it wasn’t all that bad, but still needed rebuilding. Even the tone, balance, treble and bass pots were in good shape, which shocked Benny…. or so it seemed reading between the lines.

I feel a little foolish for over-reacting, but comforted at the same time that the back-feeding didn’t seem to damage the Beomaster 2400, whereas it did the Beomaster 4500.

If nothing else the Beomaster 2400 is certainly more hardy than the Beomaster 4500.

Lastly, as I have mentioned numerous times I never was all that impressed with the sound quality of the Beomaster 2400. It wasn’t bad, not at all, but not “special” in any way. Kind of boring, if that makes any sense whatever.

So I am now really excited at the prospect that after being rebuilt, I will share in the pleasure your Beomaster 2400 gives you, Peter, and of course Søren.

We’ll see.

Jeff