Beomaster 6000 v. Beomaster 8000

I have been able to lead extensive comparisons of the two brothers.

It seems to me that the '6000 is sweeter, with greater detail and depth. For instance, jazz hi-hats, cymbals, always seem more finely etched, with more obvious strikes and reverberation. 

Atmospheres are better rendered too. Voices do appear to be a little bit more natural, so is piano. It's as if the hammers were a little thicker with the '8000, you know why I mean, don't you?

Is it because of the '6000 simpler circuits? It looks a lot like the '4400, on paper!

I did all my tests with a Beogram CDX - what a nice player, this.

Can you share your own experiences please?

I have had both and now only have the BM6000. Yes the 8000 is top of the range, all the bells and whistles bit of kit but in my opinion the 6000 is nicer to use everyday. 75 watts is enough for most people, it's a lot less complicated and the thing I found most useful is the fact that it has the clock built in so you can use it as a clock radio or get it to turn off by itself.

The 8000 is also huge, you need a big area for it to sit in.

Personally I think the 80's Beomaster 6000 is overlooked by vintage lovers. It sits between the Bm4400 and the Bm8000 and people either seem to want the look of the 4400 or the technicality of the 8000. For normal use though, the 6000 is the best. You get the sound of a 4400 with the looks and importantly the remote control capability (if board is fitted) of the 8000. I am certainly a big fan of the 6000. Get one paired with a CDX and some Beovox Pentas and you would have to spend a lot of money on the new equipment to get something sounding better!

I had both, at the same time, in different rooms. The 8000 ran with a CDX. The 6000 with a CDX2.

The main difference was speakers used: Pentavoxes with the 8000 and MC120.2s with the 6000.

I sold the 6000 and kept the 8000. Ultimately, it came down to the fact that although the 6000 sounds nice, it's not as well executed as the 8000 (belt driven volume controls etc.) and I couldn't get over the fact that it's in the same box as the Beocord 8000 series tape decks.

Poor man's Beomaster 8000.

Yes, well even today about any remote-controlled amp has a motorized volume potentiometer, so the '6000 was in fact clearly ahead of its time!

When you inspect the '6000 in depth, the chassis is in fact different from Beocords. The top panels look much the same but that's about it.

After more listening, I still think that the lesser receiver has the edge. It is in fact very similar to my '4400, but then the '4400 is even that bit better because of its linear switch! Then the '8000 has the by-pass switch but I find I need the tone controls while I don't need them on the '4400. Ah!

 

The Beomaster 6000 sounds thin and shrill with higher volume settings as the power supply isn't too beefy. I did use higher listening volumes for the 8000 where it in my opinion sounds just as pleasant as at lower settings. The 4400 can reach clipping and sound better than a 6000 in my ears.

I like the 4400 more for it's design, but the tone stack is different (more to my liking) than the 6000 and the linear switch can be nice to have.

The 8000 is a technical tour de force - simply made to be as good as it could be. The power supply is awesome. Having said that, I agree that the 4400/6000 has a particularly pleasant sound. I prefer it but am happy to accept that the 8000 may be more accurate.

Never heard the BM6000 or BM8000 but I am with Soren on the 4400. My daily user for radio.

Søren Hammer:

The Beomaster 6000 sounds thin and shrill with higher volume settings...

The we must have different Beomasters

But seriously, do you listen that loud?

My M70s are 4 Ω speakers and the '8000 is a 4 Ω amp. The '6000 is an 8 Ω amp. So I guess it will depend on what you have.

chartz:

Yes, well even today about any remote-controlled amp has a motorized volume potentiometer, so the '6000 was in fact clearly ahead of its time!

When you inspect the '6000 in depth, the chassis is in fact different from Beocords. The top panels look much the same but that's about it.

After more listening, I still think that the lesser receiver has the edge. It is in fact very similar to my '4400, but then the '4400 is even that bit better because of its linear switch! Then the '8000 has the by-pass switch but I find I need the tone controls while I don't need them on the '4400. Ah!

 

I think we're in agreement that the 6000 is a fine receiver - it sounds great compared with virtually any other B&O produced, and I have heard a lot of them over the years.

My opinion is that the 8000 edges it on sound, build quality and the final execution. The 6000 is a cheapened 8000 to appeal to buyers who couldn't afford the flagship model, hence its homaging the 8000 in looks etc. When I tried them head-to-head using BV Pentas, BV 5000 panels and MC120.2s the 8000 destroyed the 6000 at higher volumes.

 

I am lucky in having both the 8000 and the 4400 and I like them both. I found I was listening to the 8000 most of the time , but that may be because I have the 8000 system and it is a better visual match with my CDX. Consequently, mY 4400 is on long term loan to my partner's son.

I'm not sure my hearing is good enough any more to tell the difference between the two, but my partner's son, who has very good hearing indeed, assures me the 4400 sounds better than the 8000 (at least it does listening to complex symphonic music - Schoenberg's Gurreleider, for example- on his very revealing ATC monitor loudspeakers)

Given the 6000 is based on the 4400, but with the styling approach of the 8000, if I had neither the 8000 nor the 4400, and could only have one Beomaster, I might go for the 6000.

Cleve

Back in the early days when the Bm6000 was launched one Danish review said in the headline: Better than big brother!

The BM800 is not a brother other than the design as it is more involved under the hood than the BM6000 ever was.

Anyway I have been into BM8000 and BM6000 since 2007 or so. I still own my complete original white 6000 system that came to my attention in the fall of that year mentioned. I also got a original white BM8000 with matching Beocord 9000 but not in currently in use.

In 2008 it was back and forth to Martin with 6000/8000 units but by 2009 I got into Beosystem 6500 and despite leaving the 8000 sound for a while selling it I kept the white 6000 for a reason. Original and still together still working. I got it DOA and uncomplete.

I still find the BM6000 quite nice sounding even at higher volume after 30! I currently have my Beovox 150's to it and bass is there at least. It is also a powerfull reciever indeed. 

I like the BM8000 but space is more the thing and 6000 and 6500 takes enough of it + the sound is not that different but maybe I have forgotten it by now.

The 6000 is rather overlooked and that is kind of sad I think at is a very nice sounding and owerall great reciever. The 8000 is a flagship and has its place in time which is well deserved.

chartz:

Søren Hammer:

The Beomaster 6000 sounds thin and shrill with higher volume settings...

The we must have different Beomasters

But seriously, do you listen that loud?

My M70s are 4 Ω speakers and the '8000 is a 4 Ω amp. The '6000 is an 8 Ω amp. So I guess it will depend on what you have.

Nope, Tried both receivers on my MS150.2's and again with my S75's

I'm a young musician, things ought to be a little loud sometimes - used the 4400 for my graduation party in the back garden, my classmates were impressed over the clarity and bass response at max output with the S75's; the bass rolls off a little earlier with the 6000 and it just keeps pumping with the 8000.

MS150.2's are 8 Ω speakers, as are the S75's

At sensible volumes I can't tell the difference any more - speakers make far more changes to the sound - I can tell these apart. I can probably tell 1% distortion differences - I can't tell 0.01%!

I agree mostly, but then I can hear differences that are probably not related to distortion, such as a deeper soundstage with more reverberation etc.