Hello all

As you maybe know, I am fairly new to owning collecting B&O, but have admired for ages.

I have been lucky, and just acquired a Beosystem 6500  to replace my 5500, and I like it lots. But, I have also been offered a 4500 for a good price too.

On looks alone, I have always been a bit infatuated with the 4500 - it is simply gorgeous to my mind; all futuristic and retro at the same time, and I can imagine Buck Rodgers having one of them in his 25th century pad (if you see what I mean).  The 6500 (and other family members are of course lovely looking too, and take up much less space, but since when has it been about practicality?  It is (for me at least) about the looks foremost, and nice as they as they are, the "stacked" Beosystems just seem a bit conventional-looking next to the 4500.

 So, looks-wise, the 4500 is an easy winner for me (just my opinion), but how about performance wise?  Turntable-wise it is no real difference as all of these Beograms are basically the same, but in different cases, and the Beocord will only ever be used for playback, and even then not very often.

But what about the rest of the system?  . Mainly thinking about the CD and the Beomaster.  Apart from the looks, what's the real differences? Output wattage isn't really a big issue, as I never push my system much as I live in a small house, and also because I am planning to buy some Beolab 4500s anyway. I have some link speakers and other stuff (being removed from previous location and not sure what it is yet) on the way that was used with the 6500, but I am presuming that this will also work fine with the Beomaster 4500.

CD wise I doubt there's much in it, but I am happy to listen to superior wisdom.

Final question is related to 2 way remote operation.  I have a Beolink 7000 and also MCP 5500. As I understand it, the Beomaster 4500 is 2 way also, and should work fine with my remotes, but if someone can tell me different....

Anyway, sorry for the long post guys and all advice gratefully received. If you love/hate the 4500, please tell me why.

Best wishes to all

Ray

The 4500 is very beautiful - especially when wall mounted. The sources are broadly similar though the casstte and CD are more highly specified in the 6500. The 4500 can be two way though it depends on the software fitted. If you are using Beolab speakers then the amplifier differences are minor.

It sounds as though you want the 4500! It is to all intents a BC9500 made into separates so I can understand why you like it. I swapped from a 5000 system to a 9500 many years ago and never regretted it. The amplifier in the 6500/7000 is however quite a bit better if you plan to use passive speakers especially in a link room. The MCP5500 will not work with the 4500 system

I would go with the 4500.The styling is absolutely elegant and timeless whilst the 6500 is a bit more conventional looking in my opinion. Like Peter says it does have poerlink sockets so you can really have a great sounding system. Of course i'm no expert and having never heard a 6500 in my life I suppose i'm commenting more on the design aspect and the wow factor that the 4500 has. It screams B&O

Tough choice!

Nothing really to choose between them IMO so I would go for the system you prefer the looks of. Reading between the lines it sounds like the 4500 is the winner. The expanses of polished aluminium look sublime especially when wall mounted

My preferrence is the 6500 but I'm biased as I own the later but almost identical system 7000 and I just love it.

 

Chris.

Peter:

The 4500 is very beautiful - especially when wall mounted. The sources are broadly similar though the casstte and CD are more highly specified in the 6500. The 4500 can be two way though it depends on the software fitted. If you are using Beolab speakers then the amplifier differences are minor.

It sounds as though you want the 4500! It is to all intents a BC9500 made into separates so I can understand why you like it. I swapped from a 5000 system to a 9500 many years ago and never regretted it. The amplifier in the 6500/7000 is however quite a bit better if you plan to use passive speakers especially in a link room. The MCP5500 will not work with the 4500 system

My first B&O was a 9500, and I just loved it. I only sold it because the 5500 came up, and the cassette mech in my 9500 was broken by previous owner, so I let it go, and regretted the swap almost instantly.  I just love the looks of those "laying-down" Jensen designs.  I think I have a thing for sleek, low shapes (I drive a Citroen XM) and Red LEDs (I have a Pulsar P3 watch).  Put the 2 together with black and mirrored bits, and I am a happy man. :)

Talking of software, if the 4500 hasn't got 2 way, can it be upgaded easily?  Forgive my ignorance, but I am assuming it is just a matter of blowing an EEPROM?

Ray
(Soon to have no room to move past all the B&O :)

rayfenwick:

(Soon to have no room to move past all the B&O :)

Well, that's the other option have both and become like the rest of us on here - forever stubbing our toes on piles of B&O creating ever narrower passageways in our homes

 

Chris.

Medogsfat:

rayfenwick:

(Soon to have no room to move past all the B&O :)

Well, that's the other option have both and become like the rest of us on here - forever stubbing our toes on piles of B&O creating ever narrower passageways in our homes

 

Chris.

 

Hi Chris

Well, I would, but money is also an issue for me at the moment, so if I do buy the 4500, the 6500 will have to go to pay for it.

Ray

As others have said, if you're driving active speakers, then the 4500 would really easily be the best choice for you. However, if you're driving a relatively large pair of passive speakers, you may find the 4500 struggles to meet the power demands of the speakers!

My personal preference is the 6500, simply because I own one! However, I agree that the 4500 is certainly sleeker and more timeless than the 6500 in terms of design.

Alex:

As others have said, if you're driving active speakers, then the 4500 would really easily be the best choice for you. However, if you're driving a relatively large pair of passive speakers, you may find the 4500 struggles to meet the power demands of the speakers!

My personal preference is the 6500, simply because I own one! However, I agree that the 4500 is certainly sleeker and more timeless than the 6500 in terms of design.

Thanks Alex. I must say I do like the 6500 very much, but there's "something" about the 4500 that I love :)

Ray

rayfenwick:

Peter:

The 4500 is very beautiful - especially when wall mounted. The sources are broadly similar though the casstte and CD are more highly specified in the 6500. The 4500 can be two way though it depends on the software fitted. If you are using Beolab speakers then the amplifier differences are minor.

It sounds as though you want the 4500! It is to all intents a BC9500 made into separates so I can understand why you like it. I swapped from a 5000 system to a 9500 many years ago and never regretted it. The amplifier in the 6500/7000 is however quite a bit better if you plan to use passive speakers especially in a link room. The MCP5500 will not work with the 4500 system

 

Ray
(Soon to have no room to move past all the B&O :)

Know the feeling Ray!
I have had latent Beovirus for a while but since my visit to Frede in Struer it seems to have emerged as strong as ever.
We're all doomed! Bank balance spiraling downwards etc

Andy T.

jandyt:

rayfenwick:

Peter:

The 4500 is very beautiful - especially when wall mounted. The sources are broadly similar though the casstte and CD are more highly specified in the 6500. The 4500 can be two way though it depends on the software fitted. If you are using Beolab speakers then the amplifier differences are minor.

It sounds as though you want the 4500! It is to all intents a BC9500 made into separates so I can understand why you like it. I swapped from a 5000 system to a 9500 many years ago and never regretted it. The amplifier in the 6500/7000 is however quite a bit better if you plan to use passive speakers especially in a link room. The MCP5500 will not work with the 4500 system

 

Ray
(Soon to have no room to move past all the B&O :)

Know the feeling Ray!
I have had latent Beovirus for a while but since my visit to Frede in Struer it seems to have emerged as strong as ever.
We're all doomed! Bank balance spiraling downwards etc

Andy T.

You could always follows Andy's example and just win it! - Saves you a fortune

I have both 

Between the two, I would say without a shadow of a doubt that the 4500 is simply better in everyway.  Its elegant, stunning and a pleasure to use.  Mine has served me well for near 8-9 years or so now ( I think!) and still wows people.  I have thought about selling the 4500 a number of times but I still have it and doubt very much that I will ever part with it even more since I came into ownership of some vox 3000s which match it superbly!  I maybe selling the 6500 soon, simply have no need for it and would probably be better off with someone who can use it instead of just sitting there and looking pretty!

You are on a winner for both to be honest but my vote would be for the 4500.

Not sure it's better in every way! Try driving some passive speakers with both systems, or even really comparing the output from the PowerLink connections. The 6500 is sonically better in both situations (although when driving active speakers, the difference is minimal).

Dont be so pedantic!

All this techincal malarky means nothing to me, its all about the sound and I have always favoured the CD mech on the 4500 over a number of cd players including the 9000.. just sounds so much brighter in comparison.
 

The CD mechanism in the 4500 is the same as the 9500. Very similar to the 5500 but not such a well specified D/A converter and no digital output. Very neat and matches the rest of the system well.

The 4500 does have digital output. My 3500 does

Completely correct! I do have a CD4500 but had forgotten it too had a digital output! It uses a Philips TDA1541 DAC whereas the 5500 uses a 1541A or P. (Usually!)

For timeless elegance, and as a design expression that will become a talking point whenever you have a guest: 4500.
I have a friend who will never part with his.

Personally, for some reason, I've ended up being a 6500/7000 guy -- I just like the extreme quality of those.
 

Well it seems I have really started something here - thanks to all for your input, and I hope it will continue - I really value your help while I try to decide.

The only things counting against the 4500 as I see it are the output not being so good for driving big passive speakers (not that I am planning to..) and supporting link rooms (though if my "connection stuff" contains Beolink Passives then I guess that won't matter either ...) and the real pain in the bum for me is that the 4500 won't talk 2 way to MCPs.  This is a major siliness IMHO, as an MCP in the bedroom and possibly the kitchen was certainly in my plans. 

I cannot see the sense in this from B&O - surely it is only logical that if the Beomaster 4500 receives infra-red in the same language as the Beomaster 6500 etc (which it must do to be Beolink 1000 compatible) then it should transmit in the same language too...  what's the point in the Beomaster 4500 (and the Beocenter 9500) not being compatible with MCP5500/6500?  Surely I am not the only person who has wanted to use a MCP with one of these systems! 

More to the point, if the Beomaster 4500 and Beocentre 9500 are capable of 2 way (depending on software) then what were they going to talk to if not MCPs?  The Beolink 7000 wasn't invented at the start, and surely the Beolink 5000 would use the same langage as the MCPs?  I am a bit confused by this one, so if anyone can shed some light - please remember I am very new to B&O, so if I have got myself confused somwhere please point me in the right direction... :) )

Ray

Ray, don't look for sense when it comes to B&O!

Just trust your insticts & go for the 4500 which you are obviously inclined towards. It's a really weird world out there when it comes to 2 way compatability - an area where the Beomasters 6500/7000 come into their own as they are compatible with ALL of them - BL5000/MCP5500/MCP65000 & Bl7000.

Chris.

Please keep in mind if you are wall mounting the 4500 that the glass panels should be reglued, as they have a tendancy to fall off and are no longer available as spare parts! I don't trust that foam tape at all!

If done properly with a neutral cure silicone adhesive, they will never part company with the system again.

 

The two way infrared protocol has a header packet which identifies the type of remote control, it was simply a software decision on B&O's part as to which models could communicate to which remote controls. MCP 5000 uses a different protocol, although in theory all the later two way systems could have addressed the MCP5500 and 6500. Shame really!
 

Medogsfat:

Ray, don't look for sense when it comes to B&O!

Chris.

  OK, that's a keyboard threatening statement - good thing I was only holding my coffee cup, and not drinking any.

I agree! Ignore us and go with your instinct! The 4500 is for you by the sounds of things.

And to think I met someone who threw their entire 4500 (perfect condition) in the skip because they thought it was worthless. Heartbreaking!

Medogsfat:

Ray, don't look for sense when it comes to B&O!

Just trust your insticts & go for the 4500 which you are obviously inclined towards. It's a really weird world out there when it comes to 2 way compatability - an area where the Beomasters 6500/7000 come into their own as they are compatible with ALL of them - BL5000/MCP5500/MCP65000 & Bl7000.

Chris.

Hi Chris

Well, I have decided to get the 4500 (a week tomorrow in fact).  I just love the look of it.  I will not be wall mounting it - I know they look good, but IMHO look even better flat, though I will be checking for things like loose glass.  I did the ones on my (now ex) Beocenter 9500 when I got it with a hot glue gun, and it did the job quickly, cleanly and solidly.

I get the feeling B&O are their own worst enemy sometimes with things like the 2 way incompatibilites.  I can't see any reason for wanting to restrict compatibility within their own products...

I will be *much* happier if everyone follows sense in the future and equips everything with TCP/IP.  This would eradicate incompatibilities at a stroke and open up a world of possibilities.  I can only hope I guess. :)

Ray

 

Alex:

I agree! Ignore us and go with your instinct! The 4500 is for you by the sounds of things.

Yes, I have decided to do just that.  Whatever it is that "touches me" the 4500 has it in spades. 

That's the thing with B&O... when I was 17-18 I was working for one of UK's biggest HiFi retailers, I was lucky enough to listen to everything from cheap midi-systems from the likes of Pioneer, Technics, Kenwood, through the mid-range separates from NAD, Rotel, as well as some exotica (Krell, Linn, Nakamichi, Koetsu, Quad) to name but a few. I learned to listen critically to all manner of stuff (setting up auditions for speaker cable, DACs and that kind of thing). 

Doing so taught me that there is more to it that simply all the numbers on the specifications sheets. I have heard turntables that make CDs sound soul-less and clinical, beautiful sounding valve amps that are hopeless on paper,  and technically excellent stuff that has just not moved me at all.

We never stocked B&O (another shop in our parent chain did), although we could order it. I remember once we got in a some B&O for a customer, and I was spellbound by it.  Sure we had better sounding stuff for less money, and I was criticised for liking this "primitive Philips in a party frock", but there was something that it had that none of the other stuff did.

I have a good ear, have been a semi-pro musician in the past, and work from time to time with location recording and also studio sessions and CD mastering.  But some of the guys we used to get in the shop were taking things too far - having your ears syringed fortnightly? blobs of blu-tac on the wall to break reflections? where's the enjoyment? It was all about pursuit of some unreachable audio nirvana for them.  They wanted accuracy ad infinitum.  I wanted something that "sounds good". For me, the looks of the B&O made the trade off worth it.

I do hope that B&O will be improving the tech of some of its stuff so that it is not left behind and outperformed by much cheaper alternatives - of course the design and looks come at a price, but when a much cheaper box is technically and sonically superior, it is time to wonder how much we're willing to pay for looks and brand loyalty alone... </rant>

 

Alex:

 

And to think I met someone who threw their entire 4500 (perfect condition) in the skip because they thought it was worthless. Heartbreaking!

Hi Alex

I agree - totally heartbreaking. I only hope someone fished it out and gave it a good home.

Ray