I am looking for advice on selecting a small set of speakers to pair with my 1960s tube Kenwood receiver.The receiver is only about 6 watts per channel.I currently am getting great sound out of a pair of Advent 3002(2 way accoustic suspension,8" woofer).I use this setup at my summer cottage and it sounds great,but my wife has deemed the Advents to obtrusive for the small cabin.(they are what I would call slightly bigger than a typical bookshelf speaker).I figure this would be the perfect opportunity to expand my B&O collection beyond receivers,turntables,and a CDX.I don't own any vintage B&O speakers and really have nowhere to begin my search.The main thing I am am looking for is NOT to downgrade the sound I am getting from the Advents,but get something a bit smaller.The CX 100s really catch my eye,but I have never heard any before.Of course with a receiver of such low power and I assume damping,good efficiency is important.I do realize that downsizing a speaker is likely to compromise bass response but mainly what I am concerned about is preserving the incredible midrange detail that this amp is capable of.

Thanks

Paul

I have to confess that they are not what I would choose. I like CX100s - I use a pair every day - but they are not that efficient and I am not completely convinced that I would call them a Hi-Fi speaker. They are wonderful - for their size, but it sounds to me as if you need a more efficient speaker made for a valve amplifier. Some of the much older B&O speakers are much more efficient - the 2200s for instance, but these are probably not what you are looking for in design.

Paul,

I have a pair of rosewood 500's available in the states if you have an interest.

Not sure how they might compare to your Advents.

Thanks Peter

I just looked up the 2200s.I have never seen those before.Interesting design with the deep box.Those are within the size range I have in mind at 285mm(11")tall.Glad to hear your input on the CX 100s,I would prefer to just convince the wife to leave the Advents in place as opposed to taking a downgrade in sound.The Advents,which I bought new in about 1982,were failrly inexpensive and not High end at all,but history has proven them to be very good speakers.I am sure B&O has something to match the quality.I don't need super efficiency,just something like 89-90db or so.

Paul

Thanks Jaff

Yet another older pair I have never seen before.I will keep you in mind as I get this sorted out.I realize it's a bit subjective as to what "sounds as good as" the Advents unless you have heard them first hand.All I can say is they were one of the smaller,least expensive models offered at the time by Advent but have now proven to be very good sounding for the price range.I would think that a company like B&O could easily match or exceed these.

If you are looking for superb midrange especially spoken and sung voice, the speakers I use are BBC LS3/5As. Ridiculously small and no bass and the treble rolls off as well, but quite superb sonically. They divide opinions in that, as a full range speaker, they have huge flaws, but when listening to vocals, they are simply unbeatable. I cheat and use the AB1  woofers with them which adds the bass that is missing and which render them wife unfriendly. Mine are Richard Allan models - they are made under license from the BBC.

The other small speaker that is B&O and is excellent is the S45.2 but I feel this may be too big for you.

Paul,

No problem. Keep in mind that both the 500 and the 2200 are from the late 60's, ending production in 1970. So, at least 12 years older than your Advents. They are very similar in size. The 2200 is the better speaker. I happen to have two pairs of 2200's in teak and rosewood that are matched to respective BM1000's. I am not interested in breaking the matched sets up... might you have an interest in a complete correct setup? The rosewood set is the better of the two.

One thing to keep in mind with the 2200 (and I guess the 500 as well, I never heard them) is that the cone treble is immensely directional. In this respect, I think my 2200's are the most directional speakers I've heard! If you can't aim them directly at your head in the regular listening position, they may be a disappointment. Other than that, I could listen to them all day. I don't care much for boomy music, though...

Great input guys!

Mika,Is there any correcting for the extreme directionality of the 2200?I would hate to see a fight break out for the center seat at the cottage when the boys are up.

Thanks

Paul

There's not much you can do about it except placement - this affects all speakers with cone tweeters, and was exactly what the Beovox 2500 cubes were designed to compensate when paired with the bigger speakers of the time.

It's not that bad in practice though, just something to be aware of before getting them. If you can keep some distance to the speakers, the sweet spot gets larger as well.

Just took a critical re-listen, and the bass is actually pretty good - probably beats CX50!

Peter :

If you are looking for superb midrange especially spoken and sung voice, the speakers I use are BBC LS3/5As. Ridiculously small and no bass and the treble rolls off as well, but quite superb sonically. They divide opinions in that, as a full range speaker, they have huge flaws, but when listening to vocals, they are simply unbeatable. I cheat and use the AB1  woofers with them which adds the bass that is missing and which render them wife unfriendly. Mine are Richard Allan models - they are made under license from the BBC.

The other small speaker that is B&O and is excellent is the S45.2 but I feel this may be too big for you.

Peter,

I totally agree with you: Beovox S45-2 are truly very fine speakers (in particular w. new capacitors). They are a bit more sensitive than the Advents (90-91 dB 1W/1m vs. 88dB) – but only 1” smaller (both H and W). Wonder is this is enough to ensure the “WAF”?

The Rogers (BBC) LS3/5A are small and consistent - but no bass as you say.

Perhaps B&W DM5 could be a compromise: They sound well, has a lot better bass than the Rogers and are 3” resp. 2“ (H and W) smaller than the Advents. Fine dispersion too – but less sensitive.

I have some B&W DM12s which are not that different from the 2200s in appearance but have the dome tweeter. I think they need some work on them as they are not as sweet as they used to be but some new capacitors might improve them. I know I go on about them, but S45.2s are the VW Golf of the speaker world! Whatever the question!

Thanks for all the great input guys.

Claus,Sorry,no WAF on the 1" smaller s45-2s.Perhaps I should get a pair and if they don't "work out" at the cottage I will bring them home to use on my BM 3000-2 at home.

Paul

Another good chpoice might be a the Beovox S30's.  (the late 70's resin backed version, there were several variants over the years) They look similar to the S45-2's but they are significantly smaller and hence have a much higher WAF. They are ultimtely not as good as the S45-2's but have a similar  'warm' sound . As you are not looking for high power handling they may well be sufficient.

http://www.beoworld.org/prod_details.asp?pid=662

My father has used his pair almost every day since buying a B&O system in 1977 and has never been tempted to upgrade them even though he is  in a position to afford much more expensive speakers and upgraded everything else in his setup many years ago. My father listens exclusively to classical music and they constantly surprise me by how good they sound through a modestly powered (20 wpc) Rotel amplifier.

Simon

Paul,
That would be a fine match with the BM 3000-2.
Go ahead! There is always room for a set of nice speakers

Peter,
No complaints (from me) for praising the 45-2.
Brilliant comparison (VW Golf): Nothing fancy – just well & honestly made. And it’ll pass anywhere show up in it.

Simon,
The S30 and S45-2 are - unfortunately - very much the same size: H: 48cm / W: 26 cm - only difference is D (resp. 18 and 21 cm) which you might not notice since the height and width is what you normally see.

The S35 and S45.2 use the same grille - you will notice that there is a cut out for the extra driver that is not needed in the S35. The S30, I think, uses a slightly different one though the same size!

Claus:

Simon,
The S30 and S45-2 are - unfortunately - very much the same size: H: 48cm / W: 26 cm - only difference is D (resp. 18 and 21 cm) which you might not notice since the height and width is what you normally see.

There were different speakers called S30 over the years. the S30 I am referring to is significantly smaller than the S45-2 ( I know this because I have both!) I think the dimensions on Beoworld refer to a later, inferior  version of the S30 that had a flat rather than a resin back, I would estimate the overall volume of my  S30's to be about half that of the S45-2's. The S30's are shorter, narrower and significantly less deep.

If can post 'side by side' pictures if it would help but will not be able to do so until the weekend.

Simon

Simon

wirralsimon:

If can post 'side by side' pictures if it would help but will not be able to do so until the weekend.

Simon,

Pictures are always nice - so let's have a side-by-side .

I was puzzled because the link shows the S30 (type: 6317) which has the same grille (and height/width) as the 45-2.

Yours must be type 6301 then (H: 41cm / W: 22cm / D: 15 cm).
And you’re right – that is a good deal smaller.

Simon,It sounds as if you are quite pleased with the S30 type 6301.Any specs on these available?Those would likely get the WAF.

What I did not mention was that I tried to substitue a pair of baby advent II speakers with somewhat disappointing results.These are,like the S30s a 6 1/2 inch woofer,2 way system.They were just too much of a downgrade.The bass wasn't really the problem,it was the lack of detail and the 3D soundstage collapsed.

I had some S22s which are the smallest of the S range - OK for a link room and they had the dome tweeter. I wouldn't use them for a main room though. I think you are trying to get a quart out of a pint pot! Especially when you want to use a valve amplifier. Obviously speakers like the Beolab 3 can produce a well balanced sound from a very small box much that is down to an amplifier matched to the cabinet - to frequency output from the amplifier will not be flat in the slightest! I have a manual showing the amplifier output on the Beolab 2500 - looks like the Himalayas!

I agree Peter.I am sure the frequency response curve out of My tube amp would not likely be too pretty.With these vintage tube units,it's more about creating a very pleasant to listen to tone.I just need to find a set of speakers with a good match to this low power amp.By the way it sounds,I would say I already had it with the Advents!I'm sure many of the suggestions mentioned in this forum would be as good,if not better.I kind of like the vintage appeal of the 500s and 2200s.

Thanks

Paul

Beovox 2200 is a nice little speaker.
Beovox 1100 springs to mind too as one of my own favourites.
The 1100 actually has a dome tweeter.

Martin

I am considering the offer by Jeff (burantek) of the forum to sell his 500s.Are these comparable to the 2200s?Or would I be better off with a pair of 2200s?

It sounds like the 1100 with the dome tweeter are better still.I assume this helps correct the directionality of the tweeters.

Paul

The Beovox 500 are the smallest "full range" speakers produced by B&O.
They are fairly good in their own right but shouldn't in any way be considered Hifi
as they do not live up to the DIN 45.500 Hifi norm.

For collectors of vintage B&O, owning a pair of Beovox 500 and/or 600 is a must but
for daily use a pair of Beovox 1100 (or 1700/1702) would be the better choice soundwise.

I tend to prefer the sound of the older B&O speakers to that of the later CX range that
to me sound a bit sterile.

Martin

Perhaps I need "all of the above"?

I am not familiar with the DIN 45.500 standard,can someone enlighten me?