It is beautifully made and with care will certainly last a lifetime. If you like Direct Drive tables go for it. The Plinth is rather basic and you will have to do some work to isolate it.
43 responses Add your response
The Plinth is rather basic and you will have to do some work to isolate it.
What do you mean? Additional isolation platform under a turntable?
I like the idea of almost no plinth, it's basically a frame, but:
"The three large insulators of the DDX-1000 form a unique absorber mechanism that not only eliminates entirely the hazards of external vibration, but also serves to isolate the arm from the turntable."
"The power supply and transformer are completely isolated in a separate control unit, thus eliminating any feedback or hum interference."
I actually looked at one localish to myself and it looked cool.
However close inspection showed it was not truly that high end and sort of insubstantial compared to some of its Japanese competition in weight and apparent build quality.
That said I did not hear it play as the seller was a flipper who had bought at an estate sale and there were no carts mounted and no system to plug it into.
I was not impressed enough to go to the trouble of further testing.
Chakster, the real problems that a turntable faces in regards to isolation come from out side forces that are not controlled by special feet. These outside forces are of three basic types. Low frequency input from stuff like foot falls and very low bass. Airborne vibration affecting the plinth, tonearm and cartridge directly and higher frequency vibration passed on form the platform to the turntable directly. This last one is the only type that might be controlled by special feet. So the Micro Seiki is subject to at least low frequency and airborne vibration. A turntable like an SME 20/3 is subject only to airborne vibration. It overcomes this by being massively heavy. The SOTA overcomes this by being heavy and enclosed by the plinth and the dust cover. Dust covers are an advantage because they isolate the record from dust and airborne vibration.
Dust covers are a strict nono for use during play. They’re fine for protection against dust when one is not listening to vinyl. They don’t protect against airborne vibration, rather, they amplify airborne vibration by vibrating themselves and then re-radiating the energy into the closed chamber where the LP is playing.
I forgot to mention, as long as the dust cover is isolated from the turntable. If you have a turntable like a Rega or Project and attach the dust cover directly to the component to which the main bearing and tonearm are attached you will transfer airborne vibration from the dust cover directly to the stuff you want to isolate. In the case of the SOTA the dust cover is attached to the plinth but the turntable platform is suspended (isolated) within. The way I deal with my SME is the turntable sits on a 1/2" acrylic base to which the dust cover is hinged so the turntable platform is suspended within and remains isolated. This is the best method to use with most turntables. If you have an isolation platform you would put the dust cover base under it. With the SME I could hinge the platform to the bottom plate but I just can not get myself to drill holes into it. Properly isolated turntables sound better and they sound even better with a properly designed dust cover.
Not sure why a DUST COVER is a subject of this post, i don't use any dust covers on any turntables. Object like that is not good for room acoustic just like glass and must be avoided.
I assume Micro DDX-1000 is probably lower level TT compared to what i have, so it will be deleted from my wantlist. It's a shame, because i like those Micro tonearm brackets.
It was a mediocre table built for the convenience of multiple arms. Its design is flawed having arms mounted directly above and on top of the feet.
A material added to muddy the vibrations the arm saw is not a brilliant design. Its a bandaid for a design flaw . The material also breaks down and degrades . Its convenience and flash over sound principles.
I have owned the DDX, it's brother the DQX and I have an RX 5000. They all share this basic flaw and require help to attempt to lesson a serious flaw in design to optimize playback.
In my opinion, based on ownership and first hand experience when they were actually more current. ... a mediocre table albeit interesting in looks vs the box plinths of the Era. Many like to oversell their actually ability now , vs the sales hype and glory of the past. If you just want something to have a mm, mc, and a mono cart to enjoy a record collection for the music and get a deal, why not.
If it is to post endlessly how it is better than everything else and makes all belt drives toys...move on...biased ownership doesn't change reality.....
Actually i was inspired by this idea of using Micro Seiki bracket/armboards for other turntable, i also have Victor TT-101 (actually two of them).
This is not new because i’ve seen something similar before on Verdier turntables.
And then OMA turntable with similar arm boards too.
Pretty good idea ? I am not interested in anything but a Direct Drive, a turntable in the middle of this kind of "plinth" can be anything, like Victor tt-101 or Denon DP-80.
Long time ago i’ve seen a custom made plinth by Steve Dobbins, the arm board also cab be rotated and fixed by one bolt, just like on his Kodo The Beat turntable.
After all these i realized that Micro Seiki arm boards designed for DDX-1000 and related turntable is ideal solution and with an appropriate custom bolt cab be fixed to a custom plinth. Not bad, right ? Worth to ask about DDX-1000 turntable ?
Micro Seiki made several turntables for use with those nice brackets, the DDX-1000 is the cheapest among them. DDX-1500, very expensive SX-8000 and this monster also designed for the same bracket/armboard.
So i believe this method has been approved over the years not only by Micro Seiki engineers, but also by next generation of enthusiasts and custom plinth makers?
And there must be a better Direct Drive from Micro, which one ?
Others made the point that attaching the arm board to an outboard footer, as was done in some M-S belt drives, is not a good idea, because any energy delivered into the footer will make its way up into the tonearm. I think that's a good point of criticism, but I have never owned any turntable built that way. On the other hand, I respect Steve Dobbins very highly. You can see that his arm board is really attached to the plinth, with a considerable amount of material between the arm board and the foot, such that the armboard is only subject to the same vibrations that also would affect the bearing/platter. So perhaps he has foreseen the problem and taken steps to ameliorate it. The arm board on the Verdier is very problematic, IMO. But I cannot deny that the Verdier and M-S approach is convenient in many ways, as it allows for easy P2S adjustment. I just don't think its structurally optimal. If you want to try out a turntable built that way, maybe you can find a DQX1000, or better yet a DQX1500. Those are theoretically "better direct drives from Micro". Especially DQX1500.
What a timely post as I to am looking at the Micro Seiki DDX-1000 and DQX-1000 TT with those arm mounts. So the general consensus is that they are more about looks than function.
I do have a friend that has an Oracle Delphi MK1 with an SME 3009 SII improved tonearm that he wants to sell. My main issue with that TT is if the motor fails. Replacement motors and drive electronics are VERY pricey. Aside from that issue it seems to be a very highly ranked turntable. He also has a Micro Seiki MA-202L tonearm that will need to be rewired, would seem perfect for my Denon DL-103 cart. I would have to machine a custom tonearm base for the Delphi to fit it.
Lots to consider...........
A friend had 2 MS DDX 1000 bought used a few years ago, had both problems with the correct rotation and also problems with the rubber of the feet which in all MS tends to crack and split; frightened he did not want to take them to repair and sold them without any regret.
He was very disappointed with these turntables.
@Chakster You answered your own question with your 12-20/4:07 pm post. The Denon DP80 is a much better move.
I have both the DP80 and the Micro DQX-1000. The Denon is clearly better — and the same can be said of the DQX-1000 vs its older, bigger, uglier, more famous and worse brother, the DDX-1000, which you were briefly interested in.
A friend had one, and it was his pride and joy. When I got my DQX I took it over for a comparison. I regretted it — neither of us knew it would be so much better than his DDX, and I left him very depressed.
The DQX is wonderful, a joy to listen to, and it puts a smile on my face just looking at it while putting a record on. And I use its multiple arms feature. It’s far less known than the DDX because it was introduced just as the world changed to CD. A shipment of DQX-1000s arrived in the Port of Los Angeles, and the distributor didn’t even bother to pick them up. They sat in a warehouse for years; a dealer I know bought a few for his regular customers who’d stayed with Vinyl, and and I was one of them.
But though I love it, and the Denon isn’t as sexy, the DP80 is simply in a higher realm.
The Luxman PD-444 (and 555) are some of the best “vintage” tables available. I am moving on acquiring both at the moment. My two current tables are a MS-91L and a Luxman PD-350. I have a PD-310 and my first born JVC QL-Y5F.
I had to move my Nakamichi Dragon CT and importantly for this post was a MS DDX-1500 with 2 arms. It was one of my best performers. Maybe I happened to get a good one from Germany.
The best acquisition I am on to is a MS SX-111FV or a 777. It’s hand wringing time with my beautiful wife looking at the price figures. One or two of my current tables will need to move. But with the current exchange rates poorly, I may just sit and wait. 😟
Yeah, Luxman 444 is like a Cutting Lathe for me, the engineering is so nice that in terms of usability this is definitely the best turntable, because i use so many different tonearms and cartridges and only this turntable allow me to swap whatever tonearm quickly. Here is a pair of mine.
I could sell all turntable, but not Luxman, it is a keeper.
It became my favorite so quickly, so i even sold my Technics SP-10 mkII after i bought my second PD-444.
Designed my custom rack especially for PD-444 and now nothing can compete with it in my system.
When i will make racks for Victor TT-101 and Denon DP-80 i wish i could use them all together, but it's crazy idea. I love vintage DDs, but PD-444 is what i like the most.
Chakster, nice setup.
thanks, been working on it for a long time
You have to be careful with CU-180 for LUX platter, because there is a slight tolerance (+/- 0.2mm) between different samples of CU-180 in diameter (this is stated in the original manual). One sample can fit, another can’t. The problem is that LUX platter is like a round frame, look at the edge, the mat must be inside the round frame on the platter and a tiny difference in diameter is critical.
Sadly mega rare my CU-500 is too heavy for LUX motor and i can’t use it, it was my best mat on SP-10 mkII
SAEC SS-300 and The Mat (Sakura System) is what i use too.
What tone arms do you have in use?
I tried so many, right now i have in use my FR-64fx with W250 and N60, Lustre GST-801, Denon DA-401. Before there was SONY PUA-7, Victor UA-7045/7082, Luxman TA-1, Technics EPA-100
Ikeda IT-345 is waiting here, FR-64s with B60 too
I have only one tonearm that is impossible to mount on LUX, this arm is EPA-100 mkII
Hello. I am new to Audiogon and this is my first post. I have owned the MS DDX-1000 since it came to market. I am the original owner of this turntable. I am seriously considering selling it. I see that billwojo had some interest in one of these. If so, or anyone else, please let me know. I can tell you a few details now. It is in impeccable condition, including the feet. The rubber is like new because I have always had a sorbathane disc under each foot. The entire unit looks as if it just came out of the original factory packaging. I have the Micro Seiki MA-505 tonearm mounted to an armboard. That tonearm is a very good performer, especially with medium compliant MC phono cartridges. I also have two additional armboards, both new (1 in the box and the other without the box), one for an SME mount and the other is the standard mount. I never had any acoustic feedback issue with this turntable. Maybe because of the sorbathane and also because I have always had it on a 1" thick granite platform. It performs quite well and is a pleasure to use. Anyway, if you should wish for pictures or any further details please let me know.
FWIW: I own a DDX-1000 for many years and so far have experienced the following issues:
1. Strobe light failed (needed to fix internal circuit, this is not (!) the line (50/60Hz) frequency
2. Speed adjustment: The pots needed cleaning once
3. Bearing noise: Disassembled motor and serviced bearing.
4. Replaced the rubber foot insulators with Vibrapods
The above is the summary of issues I encountered over 15 years, so not bad in my opinion and I am very happy with the unit. I have two arms installed (Dynavector DV507/Goldring Eroica and SME 3009/2/Denon DL 103.
Most of the above was already mentioned in this post. Annoying is the missing dust cover. I need to clean the rubber mat prior to each use.