General Forum

Re: Beovox C75's vs CX100

Peter — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:52:22 GMT

C75s do rot as well - and the disadvantage is that the drivers are quite a lot more expensive.

Re: Beovox C75's vs CX100

Stonk — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:56:47 GMT

Same on my c75's Simon - no foam rot or indication that it's likely to appear. I guess the change in drivers for the Cx's were part of the cost reduction.

Re: Beovox C75's vs CX100

wirralsimon — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:43:42 GMT

Pristine C75's for £15 is one of the bargains of the year, congratulations!

I have the C40 and the CX50 which I guess is a similar comparison. The C40's have the edge but not by a huge margin. . Despite being 20+years old they are showing no signs of foam rot so I am wondering if the old drivers are just a bit better in that respect?

Simon

Re: Beovox C75's vs CX100

Stonk — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:24:55 GMT

Thanks guys.

Puncher, I did read that thread but it didn't provide me with the conclusion that Peter has provided here. I don't have any CX's to do a direct comparison and always thought the C75's were a lesser version of the CX100. Glad to know that now I own a pair of C75's it turns out they are just as good - if not better.

Re: Beovox C75's vs CX100

Peter — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:16:13 GMT

Agree - C75s are possibly a little seeter. they are far more complex than C100s - C75s are of Logline construction and have more expensive drivers. It is however amazing just how little the sound changes if you realise how completely different the CX100s are! A bit like the Beogram 4000 and the 4002 - the later model is much simpler and cheaper to make but at relatively little cost to the sound.

Re: Beovox C75's vs CX100

Puncher — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:00:21 GMT

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/p/27926/218271.aspx#218271

Beovox C75's vs CX100

Stonk — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:08:48 GMT

For fun I decided to re-commision an old Beomaster after many years of storage recently but unfortunately I didn't have any passive speakers to use it with. A casual glance in our local paper the other week I saw an ad for 'B&O speakers £15". Of course I called and was told they were sort of silver in colour - good enough for me. I went there thinking at worse they'll be CX50's but they turned out to be pristine aluminium C75's without a scratch or mark on them plus no foam rot or signs that there could be in the future. Although very happy with the deal I did leave wishing if only they were CX100's.

In the past I have had CX100's and these C75's sound very good too and from this and other sites I understand that CX100's superseded the C75's.

My question is; are C75's inferior to CX100's, the same or better? I ask because having read up on them it is mentioned that CX's used cheaper bits inside to reduce the manufacturing costs! That may not be correct though.

Steve