Micro RX 5000 Renaissance?

millercarbon, Your story about organ transplantation in China is certainly horrifying.  Why haven't we read about this practice in the free American press?  Even Chinese political dissidents who have successfully escaped from China have not described the practice of stealing organs from live people that you outline.  Just wondering.

 Opus, I respect your opinion, but you do realize that you are the one who is in the minority in your dislike of the M – S tonearms. The value of the tone arms in the used market place is a testimony to the fact that both of them are very highly sought after. This is not to say you are either right or wrong in your opinion of them. Because I have never heard either. Just based on hearsay evidence accumulated over many years of reading these online forums, I would venture to say that the goodness of the M – S turn tables is a more controversial topic than is the question of the merits of the tonearms.

At least the arguments keep the thread up front for a longer time, which leads to an opportunity for more arguments, which leads to lengthening the life of the thread and the number of posts, which is kind of entertaining. And sometimes informative. Raul is a contrarian. He stirs the pot.  Otherwise, this thread would be nothing but an ode to Micro-Seiki. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Tom, I respect your knowledge and your opinions, but you cannot have it both ways with respect to others' opinions.  Do you believe that null points are LESS important than platter mass? And when it comes to platter mass, is more always better?  Why?  You've evidently read the debates about outboard arm pods.  I was a staunch proponent of the theory that the tonearm must be subject to the same external energy as the bearing/platter, so the two always respond in unison, and I still prefer that approach.  However, there are good arguments to the contrary, and I've come to believe that outboard pods done very well can also work very well, provided at least that the pod rests on the same surface as the turntable and is massive.  So, what's the point of your sarcasm on that subject?  Are these subjects simply undebatable gospel?  Part of the fun of this hobby is making these sorts of choices for onesself.  Halcro and I are on opposite sides of the pod discussion, but I consider him a friend, and his arguments have moved me a bit in his direction.  If you look at changes he's made in his system, it appears he too was affected by these discussions.

AMG56, Thanks.  I have learned something.  The DDX1500 looks like a typical belt-drive M-S, from the view shown in the VE photo, but apparently with no need for the belt.  I like it.  I heretofore thought that the DDX1000 and later the DQX1000 were the top of the line for M-S DDs.  Moreover, your DDX1500 appears to have a coreless motor AND quartz referenced motor control.  Very cool.

The DDX (which is direct-drive) is a totally different animal from the massive M-S belt-drive turntables, one of which carries the "1500" numeric designation (RX1500, or some other alphabetical prefix depending upon price point).  In fact, isn't the M-S DD turntable called "DDX1000", not DDX1500?  Also, the later quartz referenced version was called DDQ or DQX, IIRC.  Anyway, if there really is a DDX1500, I'd like to see a photo.  Thanks.

Raul, without commenting on most of what you wrote, I would only say that I think you’re wrong about the price of the NVS turn table. I think most of these micro seiki  copies are less expensive than the NVS, which I think is about $40,000. Of course, correct me if I am wrong. Good point about the mounting of the tonearm in direct connection to the foot of the turntable which is certainly not the best idea.

I'm a little confused by the fuss over the Chinese business practices, since the M-S copies seem to come from Germany or Austria.  Anyway, the new copy of the RX5000 seems to retain one feature of the original that has been criticized: apparently the tonearm has to be mounted on a platform that attaches to the main plinth via one of those nubbins at the corners.  Some say this is not the most stable way to mount the tonearm.

Errr...  Are the "Chinese" the only ethnic group that ever made a copy of anything?   Sixty years or more ago, the Japanese were derided for doing the same.  Since then, we've come to appreciate their homegrown skills and the quality of their products. I think it's fair to criticize those who outright steal intellectual property for their own profit, and in some areas of technology, the Chinese are guilty of this, particularly with respect to foreign businesses that choose to operate or sell in China.  That's a risk they take.  But, come now, M-S turntables have been out of production for decades.  Copying something that long gone is hardly similar to stealing brand new ideas that have just come to market.  By the same token, maybe we should get mad at all the US companies that make reproduction AC Cobras, as well.  Not.  Anyway, with the new tariffs, these M-S copies might be priced out of the US market.  I suppose you'll like that. 

The one URL you did provide takes me to a site written in a Germanic language, and none of those URLs go anywhere interesting.  Can you provide reference to actual photos of the turntables to which you refer?The "technology" of a belt drive is quite simple.  One would imagine that modern motor speed controllers might be superior to the original M-S parts.  My second hand knowledge of M-S always suggested that their speed controller and maybe their motors were a weak link that is often upgraded. So, any of these new products might outperform a stock M-S RX5000, for that reason alone. You probably know more about that than I.