Micro RX 5000 Renaissance?

@chakster, the CU-500 is definitely on my radar, but unfortunately  the asking price is usually off my radar :-(.
I certainly would like to use it on the RX-1500 and move my CU-180 over to the BL-91. I assume it's not allowed to negotiate on the forum, but is there a way to engage in private communication? Perhaps a (part) trade might also be possible? 

@amg58, getting older too so I recognize this memory thing, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the designers responsible for the last mega Micro tables (SX-5000 mk2 and SX-8000 mk2) is now responsible for the TechDas tables, which clearly build on the design principles of those big Micro's. Unfortunately I never heard either, so I have no idea how they compare and how much science has progressed. Or not. Basically this is the same as my original question, albeit on a much higher plane. Anyone made this comparison?

BTW, I just ran across this quote: "just buy a used Micro Seiki and don't worry about turntables anymore; built like a tank and sounds better than TTs costing over 30K USD", supposedly made by Mr. Ikeda himself. I can't verify the authenticity or the date of this quote, but it makes perfect sense to me. Mr. Ikeda designed tonearms and cartridges decades ago that still put many of the current high priced 'luxury trophies' to shame. 

For some reason I value Mr. Ikeda's judgement higher than some of these self proclaimed experts on this forum.......

touché

You mean the self proclaimed expects who are more worried about null points than platter mass. Oh and don't forget that the arm can not have it own stand. The fun never stops.

Enjoy the ride
Tom

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.

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.