Beomaster FM reception

Is there any real difference in FM reception among the various Beomasters? Rumor has it that the Beomaster 5000 is in a class by itself, but for me, that is only a rumor. (So far.)

 

Of my collection of Beomasters the Beomaster 4400 is slightly better than the Beomaster 2400, but then the BM 4400 is in a window and has a much better antenna, where as the BM 2400 has only a wire T-antenna.

 

The two stand-outs in my group are the Beomaster 4500 and Beocenter 9000 which bring in distant stations with incredible accuracy and virtually no static or hiss. (Both use the inferior wire T-antenna.

 

Just curious.

 

Jeff

I think there is an underwhelming lack of interest in this question. Shrug.

 

None the less I really AM curious as to the vast difference between FM reception within the same household.

 

The Beomaster 2400 has by FAR the most HISS bringing in KING-FM out of Seattle, and being a classical station, you really hear the constant hiss. The Beomaster 4400 is considerably better, but the hiss is there and if I turn up the volume, it is annoying.

 

In total contrast the Beomaster 4500 with only a T-type wire antenna is virtually hiss-free as is the BeoCenter 9000, also with a cheap wire antenna.

 

Am I right in guessing that the newer (but inferior) Beomaster 4500 has a digital component in the FM section that allows for more precise fine tuning? Ditto the identical FM receiver in the BeoCenter 9000.

 

If I am right, the Beomaster 4500 may well be made from less expensive to assemble components, but there is something to be said for digital progress. I also appreciate that the BM 4500 tells you what station you are listening to, in this case 98.1 on the FM dial.

 

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The biggest single determining factor in FM listening is the quality of the signal.

Until my partner decided to install solar panels on the roof requiring the removal of my 8 element FM aerial, I found it impossible to distinguish whether any differences in quality between my various Beomasters (4400, 8000, 6500 and a BeoCenter 9500) were due to the FM section or the amplifier. I would sometimes imagine that selectivity and hiss levels were better on more distant stations when using the BM 4400 and the BM 8000 but I couldn't be sure.

Using a 'rabbits ears' aerial, and with the receivers in the same location, the 4400 is marginally better in terms of hiss levels than the 6500 or the 9500, but there isn't any real way for me to objectively test it. But performance on all of them is significantly poorer without the external aerial and I wouldn't record concerts 'off air' now. If you are serious about radio listening on FM, you really do need an external aerial.

Hope that helps

Cleve

Hi,

At my place, which is 100 miles away from the nearest radio tower - albeit a very powerful one at 250 kW - I get an acceptable reception with no aerial on my extraordinary Beomaster 5000 (1967) but not anything on any other B&O tuner, or any other tuner for that matter.

With a proper aerial, the best remains the BM 5000 obviously (along with the Revox A76), the runner-up being the almighty BM 8000.

The good old Beomaster 1000 is quite apt too, surprisingly.

I'd say the 4400 is just about acceptable, but a rabbit-ear antenna does nothing at all (just hiss).

The worst is the Beomaster 1900-2, which has the same tuner as the 2400.

I am awaiting a QUAD FM3, but I am not holding my breath because it is reputedly insensitive.

I have my BM 5000 (1967) and BM 4400 both with rabbit ear antenna, standing beside each other and the BM 4400 has the best reception, so I will have to go into my BM 5000 again to check adjustments. My BM 1000 was standing in the place of the BM 5000 with the same reception as the BM 4400

Thank you Cleve, Jacques, and Søren for your input. Thank you very much indeed.

 

Apparently there is no clear answer to the FM reception question with the possible exception of Jacques’ “unbiased” preference for his Beomaster 5000. [It was Jacques’ devotion to the Beolab 5000 that got me “obsessed” with obtaining a BL5000/BM5000….. and a personal quality I genuinely admire, for the record.]  

 

There is no problem in any BM bringing in local FM stations with decent quality even with the poor quality antennas that I am using. All sound quite good on local stations.

 

One more digress, once again Jacques and Søren have “intrigued” me with their comments about the strength of the Beomaster 1000, as mine remains in deplorable shape with the FM reception barely audible. (My own 1000 is awaiting a trip to visit Benny in Atlanta….)

 

Apparently the Beomaster 4400 “should” have excellent FM reception, but anything lacking in mine I immediately attribute to its misguided restoration. That it still functions is nothing less than a miracle.

 

I suppose there is something to lean in that my worst performer is the Beomaster 2400-2, which has to be similar to Jacques’ worst performing Beomaster 1900-2. (I don’t care about this particular “defect” as my Beomaster 2400-2 is one of my favourite amplifiers and possibly the one I use the most often.)

 

Physical position should make a difference, but my stellar FM reception is from a Beomaster 4500 in the middle of the second floor (of a three story house) thus sandwiched in-between floors AND completely surrounded by a large refrigerator, range, 2 microwaves, dishwasher, and large pot filled center island cabinet.

 

I believe this is one of those situations where it is best not to question, as I truly love the programming on KING-FM, which is beyond brilliant and as the “kitchen” amplifier it gets used every day, I am just going to enjoy the music without trying to figure out how it is possible this works in the first place.

 

An outside antenna would easily end this discussion, but that is not a possibility in our present location.

 

Thanks guys for your views……and as always, it is very nice to hear from you all!

 

Jeff