so here's my question:  how does the BG 1700 with an MMC 20CL or a BG 5000 with an MMC 2 compare to some of the new audiophile turntables that you see at the upscale showrooms?  Do you think matching some full speakers like the Vienna Accoustics Beethovens or a nice pair of totems will improve over what we used to match those turntables with?  And how does the B and O amp compare with modern technology?  Anyone think about this?

I think it depends on your ears. If I compare my turntables with a good digital source, I think the digital source has more bass extension compared to those decks you mention and also has more dynamic range. However the difference is only really apparent when doing a direct comparison. I listen to both sources because I like the ritual of listening to an LP. Do I think it is better sound? - no, but I am far more likely to listen to it properly.

Good B&O amps are in my view about as good as you need. The Beomaster 4400, 6000 and 8000 will be the last thing to be a weak point in a system. The part of the system that has the most influence on the sound in a digital age is always going to be the speakers. Clearly the amplifier has to be up to driving them and so more esoteric speakers will need very powerful amplifiers to deal with their efficiency problems. Do I think B&O passive speakers are brilliant? - no, they have a host of compromises inherent in all normal speaker design - whether they suit you is dependent on the type of compromise you wish to make. If I had the space, I would have Quad ESL speakers with a subwoofer - but I don't have spare metres of space behind where the speakers would go, I have a daughter and three dogs! Pentas therefore suit me down to the ground - good sound, small foot print and relatively unfussy about siting.

Paul,

Paul:

how does the BG 1700 with an MMC 20CL or a BG 5000 with an MMC 2 compare to some of the new audiophile turntables that you see at the upscale showrooms?  Do you think matching some full speakers like the Vienna Accoustics Beethovens or a nice pair of totems will improve over what we used to match those turntables with?  And how does the B and O amp compare with modern technology?  Anyone think about this?

The two turntables and cartridges you mention are both excellent, but you would probably here audible differences between either of them and a 'high-end' turntable.  However, what you won't get are ease of use, elegance in design or astonishing value - 1700s seem to go for ridiculously low sums of money these days.  I also think that unless you are using very good amps such as the 4400 and 8000 Peter mentions and excellent speakers you probably won't hear much difference.   

As for new audiophile turntables, I'm not sure 'new' is necessarily better anyway.  Thorens TD124s and Gerrard 401s are still lusted after by many audiophiles and command very high prices when up for sale.  However, as most B&O lovers have an interest in design, these audiophile turntables, whilst from an engineering point of view are wonderful designs, leave something to be desired aesthetically, even the Beogram 3000 version of the Thorens (Sorry, Peter!).  To me, the only high end turntable that meets both criteria - performance and design - is probably the Michell - either the old Transcriptors Hydraulic or the current Gyrodec.  

I share Peter's love of Quad Electrostatics and sometimes think, half-seriously, of a system with a Michel turntable, a Beomaster 8000 and Dieter Ram's version of the Quads, the Braun LE1 shown in my avatar.  However, as Peter says, the speakers need lots of space around them to work  properly and my MC120.2s are only just about tolerated by my partner now, so elecrostatics are out!  

As for current amplifier quality, Tim Jarman doesn't think much has moved on in 30 years since the 4400 - and he knows a bit about these things.

Cleve