Micro RX 5000 Renaissance?


It may be just a coincidence, but looking through the various reports of the recent Munich high end event I've noticed no fewer than four (!) different turntables that all look suspiciously like the Micro RX-5000.

TW Acoustic and Kuzma launched new models visually 'inspired' by the RX-5000 design, Acoustical Systems showed a table that looks like an exact copy and DB Systems (www.micro.nl) also showed an exact copy, leaving no doubt of its objective by simply calling it 'The Tribute'. And then of course there already was the TechDas AirForce 5.

Does anyone know more about these newbies and what's under their bonnets? It would be interesting to compare their performance vis à vis the original and hear how much technology has moved forward. Or not.

While I'm a happy owner of the RX-1500G, the RX-5000 has been on my radar for quite some time. So with this Micro Renaissance going on, should I wait for a mint original to cross my path or should I go for one of these new tables? It seems Micro enthousiasts are now spoiled for choice........

edgewear
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.
Guys, sorry for perhaps stirring this pot (or should that be ’pod’?) unintentionally. I’ve learned over the years that just about everything in audio has an effect on sonic quality, especially in analog. Arm pods, turntable mass, null points, the list is endless.

Taking an agnostic position is probably wiser than a dogmatic one, in audio as much as life in general. Trial and error is what amateurs like myself have to go by. In that journey I’ve recently learned much from the members of this forum, which seem(ed) to include some real experts kind enough to share their knowledge.

However, some dogmatic characters on this forum have a real talent for being obnoxious, by accusing everyone with a different opinion of being ignorant (in capital letters just in case we miss the point). I suppose veteran members of this forum have learned to ignore these ’contributions’, which is probably what I should have done as well.....