Vintage Products

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

RedGrant — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:18:53 GMT

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?

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

RedGrant — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:11:25 GMT

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.

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

RedGrant — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:03:36 GMT

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.

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

sba2 — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:53:27 GMT

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.

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

Peter — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:37:39 GMT

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!!

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

snoopy — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:10:47 GMT

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?

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

wirralsimon — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:38:16 GMT

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

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

Peter — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:29:07 GMT

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!

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

h1npw — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:13:25 GMT

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

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

Peter — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:11:38 GMT

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!

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

snoopy — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:30:31 GMT

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.

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

snoopy — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:28:35 GMT

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).

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

h1npw — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:26:27 GMT

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

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

Peter — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:05:57 GMT

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.

Re: Beovox 3800 v 5700

wirralsimon — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:14:19 GMT

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