Hi ALF,

The two pieces you have mentioned are, as you say, both visually stunning. The 70s model is the clearest visual match with your Beogram 4002, but is notoriously difficult to work on - even the acknowledged experts steer clear of repairing them. Whilst beautiful and of course offering quadrophonic capability it is not B&O's finest sounding amplifier.

The 80's model is an interesting hybrid with its obvious styling similarities to the 8000 but owing much of its electronics to the earlier 4400. It is a very good sounding piece, but has a reputation for occasional problems with overheating and the volume control.

Another alternative might be the 4400. Whilst visually much more conservative, it is arguably B&O's best tuner amp and is a great match for the 4002.

Cleve

Cleviebaby wrote:

Hi ALF,

 even the acknowledged experts steer clear of repairing them.

Cleve

Oh I love servicing and troubleshooting this amplifier, and as far as I am aware every one I have serviced is still going strong after more than a year - I sincerely hope! :-) They do occasionally exhibit strange faults though, and can be awkward to work on!

I agree with all other sentiments. I would personally struggle between the two 6000's. I think the quad more as a showpiece as part of a complete system, but the 80's version for both good looks, sound and raw power :-) The 4400 whilst sounding lovely is not for me, but it is definitely a good alternative!

Olly,

I wasn't inferring a criticism of your skills! I know a number of people have found the 70s 6000 really time consuming to work on. Good for you for taking them on.

Cleve

That is a very good question.

Now I can only speak for the '80s version as I have used mine pretty much all the time since 2008 when Martin/Dillen saved it from a burnt powersupply. I also had the optional remote print installed which were untested but also still works fine.

I find it to sound very good and strong built while service when correct done lasts for years. Play around with the bass and treble settings as it does benefit the sound of it.

Connection are with the 7 pin data link which came in the '80s and that works very well indeed. I have tried running a Beocord 5500 with the basic tablet remote responding correct to the functions given on it. Also it has a very good FM reciever in difficult areas compared to my new Besystem 6500.

Now due to the service being difficult to do and the sound not being anything that is really being mentioned here the '70s version is not that interesting apart from the design of it. The Beogram 6000 is the better option for it and that one is good enough.

For a Beogram 4000 series I would say BM 4000 or 4400 though the '80s BM6000 can be recommend as it is not that common talked about but can still holds it own and it even got better test reviews in Denmark than the BM8000 for the sound!

Don't worry Cleve I wasn't taking your comment personally :-) I know people don't like this amp - I remember the Tech I did odd Saturdays with remarking on this particular model when it hit his bench!

 

Cleviebaby wrote:

Olly,

 

 

I wasn't inferring a criticism of your skills! I know a number of people have found the 70s 6000 really time consuming to work on. Good for you for taking them on.

 

 

Cleve

 

thank you to all of you who gave a bit more insight away

 

I am keeping my options open, but one decision  is clear so far :-))

 

cheers, ALF

Have had all of these - I believe I have a 6000 quad under a bed somewhere still!  These are splendid machines - way ahead of their time and made to look as if they have LED displays but in fact use bulbs and revolving tape! Difficult to work on because they have a huge amount in the box but are essentially a souped up double 901 so not actually that complex. The 3400 is a better electronic design but the 6000 is much the more beautiful. Matched by the even more difficult to service Becord 5000 which is only stereo.

The 4400 sounds better but the 6000 is pure theatre!

Peter wrote:

 

The 4400 sounds better but the 6000 is pure theatre!

Are you referring to the 6000 80's version? I would like to see a properly conducted double blind test on that one. two units, each fully refurbished to the same standard and a panel of Beoworld members :-)

The Beomaster 6000 4 Channel is a show-off piece, and I have mine because it always impresses friends when I say it's from 1974. The output amplifier is very inferior to newer models and lack the ability to drive larger speakers because of a very low damping factor. The beomaster 3400 uses the same amplifier topology as the Beomaster 4400 and will perform much better, but not as aesthetically pleasing.

My first serious Beomaster was the 80's 6000 which did well; though I dislike the preamplifier section. The EQ looses effectiveness and the powerful bass disappears at anything over "30" on the volume control. Mine was restorated, my Father's original 6000 and my Uncle's restorated 6000 are behaving similarly...

Then I found a Beomaster 8000, had it serviced. Way better in my opinion; tighter bass response because of a huge power supply, better preamplifier and the EQ section was worth using. I enjoy cranking my 8000 any day.

I was then given a 4400 by my grandparents. Did the total recap and tune-up, with great results. Preamplifier is 8000-like and it likes to drive large speakers - my 4400 is used with a pair of MS150.2's now, it's a nice combo. I hosted a graduation party last year for my classmates in the backgarden; my 4400 and a pair of recapped S75's connected to spotify on a computer. People were impressed that it sounded so good with such clarity, even though the overload lamp was flashing.