Peter:

I forgot - it's Wednesday! I thought you would be too depressed after last night!

Not to bothered as its only the Carling Cup. I was at the temple on Sunday when we won 3-1 (not sure how though - we didn't seem that good)

I thought they had targetted the Carling Cup as no-one else wanted to win it!

Peter:

I thought they had targetted the Carling Cup as no-one else wanted to win it!

Sshh!

That was before we drew Arsenal boys - I'm playing the "concentrating on the Leagure" card!

Well we had great fun playing with speakers - I am pleased Andrew brought his 3800s as the midrange on one of mine was distorting. As thought, very good speakers and we compared them to a good collection of B&O stalwarts. I will not steal Andrew's thunder as he has said that he would do a write up!

Where to start, well it was nice meeting you Peter, thanks to your efforts I'm pretty sure I won't be disappointed with the Pentas, I think, no wait the M.......

We started by hooking the 3800's to my little T-amp. I was surprised by the lack of bass compared to my installation back home (turns out you need the 3800's backed up near the wall). Otherwise they sounded clear with good dynamics. But I was after better.

The Penta's are quite different. Having 150w against 25w certainly helped but they were able to sound much warmer and bigger in the room. The sound came across as dispersed while the 3800 was all one directional. The 3800's had better detail but were, I now believe, too harsh.

We soon moved on to the uni-phase models introduced a little later to the B&O range and what I thought would be gimmicky turned out to be very good. The S120 in particular stood out as a really fine speaker, it's ability in the mid-range overcame it's lack of bass. A really fine speaker with a somewhat unique ability to produce such wide dynamics.

The M100 "beast" is stunning. This speaker produced extremely controlled bass that was really punchy, the mid and high were warm yet taut, and the dynamics were equal to the 3800 if not better. This speaker outperformed the Penta in the lower frequencies if not in all. Like the 3800 it is pretty directional.

Peter has lots of other goodies and B&O toys, I was impressed by the way things link up and "just work" - it was very Apple Mac like.

In conclusion the M100 speakers, when listening to audio probably can't be beaten. They are grossly oversized but they are grossly over-performing to boot. Absolutely stunning control and definately, without doubt, a speaker I will now look out for.

The Penta works better at "blending in". It's a good speaker, not outstanding in any respect but it manages to work well at generating the sound-stage. When Peter integrated these with the rest of the equipment for a DVD I was quite taking aback by just how good B&O equipment is. For me, the myth that B&O is all looks is just that. When you can beat the sound from a Cinema you know it's good!


So the 3800 has been beaten by the uni-phase models,and the best of them is the M100. M100 verse Penta is a tricky choice but I have a solution. Buy both!

Cheers,
Andrew

PS) Peter and I seemed to agree on everything (I think). We must have good ears!
 

I must thank Andrew for coming as it made me have a good listen to some speakers that I have not listened to for some time. We used the following:

Initially Beovox 3800s with Andrew's switching amp - I thought this was a very pleasant detailed sound but lacked a bit in low bass. We compared them to Pentas, initially with a Beolab 2, which sounded overblown. We switched off the Beolab 2 and a far more balanced sound resulted. We managed to get the same track playing on both systems - we swapped Andrew's amp for a Beomaster 5500 which had more bass oomph with the 3800s and then started playing. Both reproduced the sound to good volumes - the Pentas go a lot louder if required but the 3800s went easily loud enough. The Pentas had the better bass and were, as Andrew describes, well balanced across the range with perhaps a little softness at the top end. This is less marked if sitting down than standing (position of tweeter) but still probably the weakness of the Penta. We went and had a listen to my LS3/5as at this point which don't have the ultimate bass but do have a lovely way of reproducing voice. We had a quick tour around some B&O speakers playing N.Music through the system and took in Beolab 3000s, Beovox CX100s, Beolab 3s, Beovox CX50s and some B&W DM12s. Andrew seemed to be impressed by the 3000s , surprised by the CX100s and felt the 3s to be quite bright. I agree with him!

We compared the 3800s against S120s - the S120s were superior with maybe a little less bass - i don't think I have really played them enough since changing the bass drivers - but better imaging and a little less shouty than the 3800s. Also tried the S45-2s which were up against it as they were by far the smallest B&O speaker  but they acquitted themselves well with reduced but accurate bass.

We then settled down to listening to the main system and compared the Pentas attached to a BC2/Avant with M100s attached to a BM5500 using the same track from Andrew's computer. Equal loudness and to be honest the M100s strolled it. Better top end and very very controlled bass and masses of it. Both imaged well but again I would say the M100s were superior though to be fair they were better placed than the Pentas.
 

To finish off, we played the M100s against the 3800s - not fair really.

I then showed Andrew the Avant DVD system with Pentas, BL4000s  and once again reactivated BL2 in DVD mode. I think he is saving up!

A good end to a most enjoyable afternoon!

What did I learn?

1. One midrange unit on my 3800s needs replacing - the bass units are the same as Andrews - polypropylene covered paper we think.

2. M100s are indeed blooming brilliant - you all need to hear these in action! Or get a pair. I think they would have been better still with the 4400 receiver but the 5500 sufficed admirably.

3. Pentas are not perfect but offer a very good compromise in space and power and work well as both audio and surround sound speakers.

4. I can't get anyone to take the S120s!! Everyone likes them  - but not as much as something else!  

In light of other posts it would be interesting to hear the M100's from the 5500 and the 5000 to see if the 5000 is genuinely a better amp (I'm biased as I've had the 5000 from new and love it to bits albeit only ever through RL60's)..

I am afraid I don't have a 5000 at home. I could have used an 8000 or a 4400 but both were wired in elsewhere. Tim is convinced it is superior and I have little reason to doubt him.

Looks like I've bought some Pentas! Now to work out a tripath amp to power them! 

I also noticed an error on my behalf a little way up the thread where I said the tweeter was the weak speaker in the 3800's, I got mixed up and agree it's the mid-range that tends to blow.

Sounds like an interesting night! Thanks for sharing it with us.

How did the Beolab3's and the Cx's fare when compared to the various flavours of uniphase speaker?  Are the Beolab 3's clearly better than the offerings of yesteryear or simply a more aesthetically pleasing and linkable package?

 

Simon

The Beolab 3s are set up as my computer speakers and so are not that easy to audition properly. Andrew described them as very bright sounding - which they are compared to the CX100s next to them. We didn't do an A/B comparison as it would have meant unmounting them but I certainly would not say they were superior at all. The M100s were the best speaker on test by some margin. They have been fettled with new capacitors and the phase link driver has had the surround replaced in both of them. They are very large though!! Aesthetics are a personal thing - I happen to like huge pieces of rosewood ! - but obviously the 3s are more linkable.

What did surprise me was that at higher volumes, the BL2 detracted from the sound of the Pentas by sounding overblown. At low volumes it is fine and this is how I normally listen. But at higher volumes, switching it off was far preferable.

What a fascinating thread! Fascinating for me as I've recently bought a pair of 3800s (awaiting crossover refurb) and I've got a Beosystem 6500 with CX100s + Cona.

Peter - I have one or two questions 

1. Do you think the midrange units are repairable in the 3800s?

2. Are the M100s better than the MS150s?

Cheers

Nigel 

 

It wasn't a fair test but the 3's sounded far too chemically processed to my liking, they were nothing compared to the M100's which were the best speakers in the house (for listening to Stereo, Penta for DVDs).

The coils blow in the mid-range units I've not heard of them being repaired before. I have a spare crossover if yours is damaged. Don't listen to the 'capacitors are rubbish' lark, the ones installed are audiophile grade and work just fine.

h1npw:

What a fascinating thread! Fascinating for me as I've recently bought a pair of 3800s (awaiting crossover refurb) and I've got a Beosystem 6500 with CX100s + Cona.

Peter - I have one or two questions 

1. Do you think the midrange units are repairable in the 3800s?

2. Are the M100s better than the MS150s?

Cheers

Nigel 

 

1. Probably though it is the same midrange unit as the 3700 so is quite common.

2. I prefer them - I think as with most speakers it depends on what you like. I have had both and have also played them side by side. The MS150s are probably more accurate but I find the top end a little fatiguing compared to the M100s. They are also in my opinion not as good looking and the general fit and finish of the M100s is superior. I have however had many comments about how good the MS150s sound - one even from a manufacturer of another make of speakers so they clearly are good speakers as well. He didn't comment on the M100s which he also repaired!

Hi snoopy!

Thanks for the offer - very kind - I'll let you know. I haven't heard anyone say the caps are rubbish - but what I have heard often is that all caps do "go off" over time.

Cheers

Nigel

 

The older caps seem pretty resistant! The 70s ones in the M100s were getting tired so Tim measured them and replaced the lot as they had departed from spec quite substantially. The later uniphase range - S80s etc - do seem to have a problem that is more pronounced and replacing these capacitors is almost always a good idea. The actual capacitors in most B&O equipment are usually high grade - the red capacitors famed for failing in the 70s audio equipment were very highly specified but the problem of degradation was not anticapated at the time. Things do age of course! Even moderators!

I have two pairs of s45-2s.

Until very recently on pair sounded clearly better than the other.

I replaced the capacitors on the older pair using a kit supplied by Martin (Dillen) and now the two pairs sound the same.

The capacitors replaced were small silver cylinders with red writing on.

 

Simon

Well I found some Pentas in really good condition. I opted for the Beovox because I prefer newer Class-T technology to A/B amps. I've bought two 41Hz Amp 10's and are in the process of bridging them for 150W per channel.

Overall I prefer the Pentas to the 3800. The bass-reflex makes them a little less precise (as is always the case with bass reflex) but the bass is thunderous at volume! They are certainly warmer and less coloured, and overall I believe more accurate - especially with the treble. They also are less directional in throwing the top and mid range about.

 And then there's the retro look...

PS) Can anyone tell me how to take the covers off? 

 

The Pentas have plastic catches which hold the frets on. It is a question of depressing them through the fabric and them pulling the frame forward. I broke two of mine doing this so am probably not the best person to give advice though!!

The Beovox 5700s, by the way, are very similar to the Celestion Ditton 66s in that they both use the Celestion HF2000 tweeter and Celestion's large dome midrange.  The 5700, however, has a 10" passive radiator and a 10" stamped woofer ( Phillips AD 1056 - W8 ), whereas the Ditton 66 has a 12" cast woofer, and a 12" passive.  The other difference between the two is that the 5700 crosses over at 600 & 6000 hz, and the Celestion 66 crosses over at 500 & 5000 hz.

Puncher:

In light of other posts it would be interesting to hear the M100's from the 5500 and the 5000 to see if the 5000 is genuinely a better amp (I'm biased as I've had the 5000 from new and love it to bits albeit only ever through RL60's)..

 

How do you like your rl60's?    I am really tempted to get rl60 for its design (iconic 80's), but the sound has be decent.

 

sba2:

The Beovox 5700s, by the way, are very similar to the Celestion Ditton 66s in that they both use the Celestion HF2000 tweeter and Celestion's large dome midrange.  The 5700, however, has a 10" passive radiator and a 10" stamped woofer ( Phillips AD 1056 - W8 ), whereas the Ditton 66 has a 12" cast woofer, and a 12" passive.  The other difference between the two is that the 5700 crosses over at 600 & 6000 hz, and the Celestion 66 crosses over at 500 & 5000 hz.

 

I've found out recently that is the case.    I actually like the sound of Ditton 66, but after extensive listening, found that just like Peter said, a bit "ponderous", but non-fatiguing.

 

 

Peter :

You need to have a chat to Tim. He has been comparing the Beomaster 5000 against the 5500 and reckons the 5000 blows the only slightly later 5500 into the weeds. It would appear the pre-amp is the weak link as this is very different between the models.

 - I am going to use a 4400 which I find to be flatter than the Beolab 5000 (gorgeous though this is!! - and mine is in Bellac anyway!) and I still prefer the sound to that of my 8000.

 

Do you mean you prefer the sound of 4400 and/or 5000 over BM8000?