Radicalsteve--thanks for the acrylic mat link. Since none on their website seem specifically made for Micro Seiki platters, which model did you choose?
Micro SX-8000 II or SZ-1
Does anybody know if there is a mayor difference between the Micro-Seiki SX-8000 II and the "flagship" SZ-1?
A friend told me I should look for a SZ-1 because it offers a better motor. Having a SX-8000 II I am not shure whether it is worth looking for a SZ-1 or only for another motor-unit?
A friend told me I should look for a SZ-1 because it offers a better motor. Having a SX-8000 II I am not shure whether it is worth looking for a SZ-1 or only for another motor-unit?
121 responses Add your response
*** I would never use a belt - not on a Micro Seiki nor on any other "belt drive" TT. A belt is always a source of instability and in worst case much more than a filter. Come on, it acts as filter equivalent no matter what you do and an no matter what coupling topology you use between two axis. Also, I disagree with your comments about belt. Starting with some palter mass it become irrelevant what you use if the tension of your drive is properly applied with respect to marital of the belt/string. I used what imaginable to drive heavy Micros: magnetic tapes, all possible string, many different types of belts you name it. If methodologically properly each of them used then with the proper mass of palters there is no difference what drives the platter. I might talk about some VERY negligible differences but it is so minor that absolutely discard it as contrived differences and I have a firm believe that no one would recognize them in practical trims. *** The RX-5000 and SX-8000 were designed by Micro Seiki to be used with string for best results. It was not what Micro Seiki designer told me . **** With a string, fairly low tension and symmetrical positioned inertia unit we are looking at a kind of slip regulated drive. In other words - the inertia providing the speed stability and the low tension string applied without horizontal force is just preventing the platter to get slower. Its a tricky idea and it only works with fairly heavy platter (= high inertia) and force free low tension string drive. No belt - no tape - no high tension and no horizontal force vector. There were papers in japanese magazines floating around by Micro Seiki engineers in the early 1980ies addressing this principle. And there was zillion pares advocating opposite as well. All those people who write those papers know very little about sound. If you so love the Japanese magazines then go to Japan and listen their funny rice-paper sound. I hate the Japanese sound, it derives from non-morphemic tone of Asian language and I do not value it too much in my reference scale. I wrote about it a lot in past. The Japanese magazines write the same as the US magazines do. Our writers say that on their tonearms they can clearly hear sound of tide on Atlantic Ocean but they have their paper-made TT sitting atop of TV or hoods of working car. Do I need to pay attention to the writers or to my own experience and my own definition of success? |
"...by far the best comination to be a light but hard vinyl/acrylic mat from a source in Germany Probably from DeltaDevice" ........ Syntax, not only are you correct, but if memory serves me well, you were the person kind enough to give me that lead a few months ago?! The store on ebay is acryteller. If anyone is interested the link is: http://stores.shop.ebay.ca/acrylteller-de-shop__W0QQ_armrsZ1 Steve |
Its not about using a belt at all. I would never use a belt - not on a Micro Seiki nor on any other "belt drive" TT. A belt is always a source of instability and in worst case much more than a filter. The RX-5000 and SX-8000 were designed by Micro Seiki to be used with string for best results. With a string, fairly low tension and symmetrical positioned inertia unit we are looking at a kind of slip regulated drive. In other words - the inertia providing the speed stability and the low tension string applied without horizontal force is just preventing the platter to get slower. Its a tricky idea and it only works with fairly heavy platter (= high inertia) and force free low tension string drive. No belt - no tape - no high tension and no horizontal force vector. There were papers in japanese magazines floating around by Micro Seiki engineers in the early 1980ies addressing this principle. And yes, - there were top-class set-ups with SX-8000 and RX-5000 w/inertia units and mats dead quite already in the early 1980ies - this is nothing the US-audiophiles discovered. Some of the japanese audiophiles were already enjoying this when the majority in the western hemisphere still thought a scottish TT would be the very pinnacle of analog set-up. Setting up precisely a RX-3000, 5000 or SX-8000 that way will provide you with the utmost speed stability and an extremely low noise floor and outstanding low level dynamics. I know it - I've done it a few times. Despite what some people may say otherwise, anyone in the position to try should do so and find out for himself. I know that some here have already done so and know that there is much truth in what I've said. |
*** What is here disputed about the Micro Seiki skeleton TT's was already done so widely and brought to conclusion by the later 1980ies. Micro Seiki introduced the Hs-20 and HS-80 to further improve the performance of the RX-1500, RX-3000, RX-5000 and SX-8000. There is no such a thing as conclusion was reached in later 1980ies. Do you remember your setup in the later 1980? Would you go beak to that sonic result? Leaving aside on psychological moments of being younger Besides whatever Micro Seiki or any other manufacture produces it is just what they produce. Micro Seiki is just a machine shop and they will cut anything they want you to buy. To make a final judgment about sonic benefits is not Micro Seiki responsibility by my responsibility, and yours I made my experiment and I concluded that there is a certain patter mass after which any further increase of inertia moment becomes irrelevant in practical terms. The conversations about the minimization of wearing I juts discard as completely off the wall. **** The improvements with inertia units by Micro Seiki or custom made devices are sonically apparent to all audiophiles who care, whose set-up is capable to show it and whose hearing isn't deafened by dogmatic prejudice. I do not know. I do not hear well after my surgery a few years back and I do not have the capable set-up. After my wife and I had 6 childrens she does not allow me to pay music loud. But I have my amplified Radio Shake headphones that I think make me able to hear a lot. I did not hear any inertia improvements with 8000, but might be my hearing aid had weak butteries that day . *** This - for once in our audiophile world of often nebulous results and experiences - is fully backed up by applied science and simple mechanical laws found in every middle high-school physics book. It you care about the applied science, not the lever that people like to demesne at those internet forums then look for papers that represent of belt simulation as filtering devises, what the horizontal force on the palter acts the modification of the filters Q. The free-standing, or the latitude-neutral platter acts as the second ordered but the properly belt-biased palter more move the filter to the Bessel Q. You need to get a proper relationship between the patter mass and bias from belt and if you hit it then there is not father improvement, you might have twice more mass and inertia but it will just reset the need for different tension, nothing else. Sure it works staring from a certain mass of the platter. The 8000 is in the Zone of the right mass . It is possible to do the same with lover mass but then you will need to make the shaft longer, the way how it is done in EMT 927 but this is a whole another story . |
**** As some know here, I am shortly moving to the SXC-8000 Mk1 with vacuum platter, and so it will be interesting to hear the differences. Radicalsteve, so you were apparently the person who got the 8000 MK1 from this site a few days back. Congratulations, it was very good setup and it was not overly expensive price. You will need to re-service it and then pretty much forget about TT to the rest of your life. That TT will easily succeed over many todays TT that are being sold for 7 times more then what you paid. The MK1 is considered less desirable then MK2 and cost less but I like MK1 more it more flexible with organization of space. You got the best deal of all as you have the white platter. Most of the MK1 come with yellow platter and most of the MK2 comes with white. The only thing that you would need to decide for yourself is if you willing to use the vacuum hold down. The vacuum hold down is tricky you might play with it. If you decide to use then you can make a very-very thin but hard cut of leather that you would place between the Micros levees. It will not screw up the vacuum but it will create a decupling layer between record and metal platter. |
We all seem to be aligned then on our experiences of using a mat to dampen the ringing. I tried a variety of mats and materials on my previous RX-5000, from heavy gunmetal mats, passive vacuum platter from Audio Technica, other metal mats, ceramic, etc. and found by far the best comination to be a light but hard vinyl/acrylic mat from a source in Germany, along with the ST-10 stabilizer. This gave a dynamic, detailed and controlled presentation, holding the famous Micro characteristic accuracy of timbre and the ADSR envelope. As some know here, I am shortly moving to the SXC-8000 Mk1 with vacuum platter, and so it will be interesting to hear the differences. |
What is here disputed about the Micro Seiki skeleton TT's was already done so widely and brought to conclusion by the later 1980ies. Micro Seiki introduced the Hs-20 and HS-80 to further improve the performance of the RX-1500, RX-3000, RX-5000 and SX-8000. This enhancement in performance was founded on increased inertia and decreased noise and wear in the lateral bearing because - proper applied and aligned (no problem at all - belt or string, you just need balanced distance, equal length or a decent spring-tension-gauge) - the lateral bearing is force free. This - BTW - works on most if not all (direct TT's are an obvious exclusion and Idler-wheel-drive needs some different treatment) TT's, as it is a simple mechanic principle of force vectors eliminating each other. Each and every bearing with a shaft - i.e. with a lateral bearing - being addressed by a string pulling towards the motor in order to apply any tension on the medium (string, belt, tape) spinning the platter will benefit from the elimination of that one-side force. Lesser noise - lesser friction - lesser wear. Its obvious - a simple sketch on a sheet of paper does illustrate the point and principle very nicely. The dampening of the "bell-platter" of the big Micro Seki's was addressed by Micro Seiki's copper-mat and in the early 1980ies by several soft and hard platter mats introduced by japanese manufacturers to better or lesser results. I have too seen Micro platters damped inside (not easy done with good mechanical results, as the coating has to be done very precisely and homogenous so to not ruining the inertia force of the platter) with very good results, but these were all further damped with acrylic-mats (glued to the platter...) on top of the platter. The improvements with inertia units by Micro Seiki or custom made devices are sonically apparent to all audiophiles who care, whose set-up is capable to show it and whose hearing isn't deafened by dogmatic prejudice. This - for once in our audiophile world of often nebulous results and experiences - is fully backed up by applied science and simple mechanical laws found in every middle high-school physics book. And yes, - I have used the RX-5000 too and am currently using a highly modified RX-Micro Seiki ( 4 inch double platter with isolated spindle (no contact to bearing) and 38 lbs highly dampened platter - gun-metal and PVC) and will soon incorporate an inertia unit similar to the HS-80. |
Radicalsteve, applying a damping material inside the platter does not work, I have tried it. Using different TT mats do work very fine, try a sorbothane mat atop the Micro with a layer of very hard rubber atop of sorbothane. I cant give you specific as too many variables involved but even a basic hard rubber later atop 5000 will do very fine. The 5000 is very simple and extremely good performing TT as is. People invent the false differences about turntables presuming that many logical concussion about TT design leads to sonic differences. In reality the methodologically properly to evaluate the differences in sound between two turntables is a quite complicated task
Anyhow, to ask for intellectual honesty and rational sense is mostly too much to ask from audio people. |
Dertonarm, I passed the period in my life when I was trying to educate people. You stopped react because you lost your anger, I stopped to educate when it not worth it because I got wisdom and experience to deal with currently angry or formally angry audio people. I shared the facts, now to interpret them it is totally up you and others who have interest Micros. I would be worth to mention that I shared them not because my desire to argue with you or because my interest to educate you but rather to prevent you and you-like to spread disinformation and urban legends. If you have no sonic or mechanical insight on the subject then you probably shall not make the statements where you put yourself in a position of being a faulty authority on the subject. |
Fm_login, sorry, but I am way past that period in my life when I was young and angry enough to react to a comment as sophisticated and throughout displaying deep audiophile and mechanic insight as yours. Sorry that basic vector geometry is BS to you. But that is certainly not mine nor Micro Seiki's problem. |
Kipdent, I had HS-80 flywheel a few years back. A friend of my got it and you used it with SZ-1. He also reported an improvement, but he (how ironic it is!) reported absolutely different improvements. So, I got HS-80 and tried to use it with 5000 and 8000 and with all my desire I was not able to recognize any single difference beside making the Micros motor to run a bit hotter. Now, Kipdent, let me to give you some points that you might consider before recognition of impotent of ambience and transients from flywheel. You use threads, I use belt. There is nothing wrong with threads but threads are very sensitive to proper tension. 1 mm different with threads is the same as 10mm difference with belts. The tension is important and to be able to say anything further I need to know what the tension you use. How long your platter will spin after you stop the power on the motor? Another point you lay records directly on the metal platter. This way of doing the things has A LOT of problem. The yellow platter was made by Micro to accommodate the very cheap, bad sounding, SS amp from 70s. The yellow platter if it played with no proper TT mat has a LOT of colorations. You might want to review and then reevaluate you feelings about ambience and transients. |
Thuchan, I am not preconditioned by anything and partially by any church. I based my judgment upon my experience, it well known. Dertonarm, I am sorry but you are wrong. There is no such a thing as proper aligned flywheel in opposite position and there is not such a thing as free of horizontal force. The situation when the horizontal bearing is free from any force is the worse situation as the microscopic bearing beatings become the subject of belt slipping or wind blowing. The best configuration in belt drive is the situation what the platter with its microscopic horizontal bearing beatings is biased by a small belt force. Here is no minimization of bearing noise if you remove the belt bias. You might accustom to light plastic TT but in case of Micro the belt bias is absolutely negligible coals to the platter momentum. If you once try to hold the 8000 platter then you would not daydream about its impact by a few milligrams of belt tension. Also, Dertonarm , your comment about the result in sonic terms: increase low level detail, ambience and dynamic transient resolution is a celebration of typical audio BS. I can give you $10.000 if you will be able to increase the low level detail, ambience and dynamic transient resolution with any of my Micros by applying the flywheel. Now, how you are you willing to bet? How about to put your actions behind your mouth? |
My personal experience reflects Dertonarm's statement: with my HS-80 flywheel in place (and now in a line with equal tension on the threads), ambience and transients--already wonderful--has improved. So, my ears disagree with Fm login's statement that the HS-80 has no benefit on Micro turntables. But, that's just me! |
FM Login, I am very happy with the bass reproduction by the SS-design provided by the Classè Omegas, the Stealth Dream and the Wilson LS (not to mention the 1812). It produces a very warm but stable sound. If you have the chance drop in and you might change your opinion quickly. I mean - if you not preconditioned and belonging to a church of SS-design refusers. Nevertheless there is always room for improvement. |
No matter if you use the RX-5000 or SX-8000 II- the advantage of a proper aligned flywheel in opposite position to the motor drive is in the fact that the bearing will be free of horizontal force. This will minimize bearing noise to the lowest possible - in any bearing. The result in sonic terms will be increase low level detail, ambience and dynamic transient resolution. Important factor is, to bring the string/belt tension to equal level (as close as possible) on both - flywheel and motor. So - the advantage has nothing to do with bearing type - its a simple force vector model of two forces eliminating each other. |
Thuchan, the mater is not in the bearings type but in the self-damping characteristics of platter. The 8000 has fine platter that is good enough itself, particularly if you have white platter. The 5000 has very ringy platter. It might be addressed by many ways (I did it is quite successfully with my 5000s) but the flywheel has absolutely no benefit for elimination of the 5000s problem. The fly wheeling helps with stabilization of speed but it never was Micros problem. The moment of inertia with 5000 relative to the torque (if the belt it properly hangs) is very good with those tables and stability is never an issue. Micro use to make a very own flywheels for 8000 but looking deeper into the subject I recognized that was all BS and it more serves the owner ego then the purpose of sound reproduction. Anyhow, I do not think that flywheels are a fruitful direction to get improvement with Micro tables. If you are looking for improvement then work with your speaker and amplifiers. The Micros are one of the most bass-capable turntables ever made but your bass is severally compromised with your SS amps and with 4th orders band-pass woofer in your speakers. Addressing it will produce more result then attaching Jupiter to your Micron as a flywheel. |
Fm login, agree. That´s why I changed my approach. It makes sense with a bearing of a RX 5000 but not with the air bearing of the SX 8000. I installed a flywheel using a VPI double motor, the SDS fine & precise speed and power controlling and an original Micro Seiki wire. You my have a look at my page. |
***************************************************** I am considering now buying a second SX 8000 II because it should be the best solution for the inertia function. Means: the RY-5500 II motor unit drives the first SX-8000II, and the SX-8000 II drives the other SX-8000 II as shown in the system of Syntax on the two RX-5000. Based on the platter if it is 1:1 (same size) the speed should be no problem and the SX-8000's platter (or 1500, 5000) is heavier then the HS-80's small plate -this should lead to a more stable and wider sound stage. Also another four tonearms could be mounted on the second SX 8000 II. The first SX-8000 II absorbs variations from the motor then driving the second SX-8000 II. Sound will have an 30% improvement in comparison to the one set SX-8000II + HS-80. ***************************************************** Thuchan, had the configuration that you proposed with 6 arms and used a second platter as inertia buffer. I can testify that it did not make sense. The 8000 is fine-enough itself and the actions-result ratio with what you willing to do it very low, in fact there is none. I do not know what you are trying to accomplish (OK, I know) but I assure you that I was there and it was not worth it. Sure, you can do whatever you wish... |
Steve, you´re right. The Micro Cu 180 platter brings a lot more dynamics and clear details. I don`t use it on my Micro (because of the lips!) but on my Nakamichi. Nevertheless using the Cu platter you might need an additional very fine and light mat to give additional stability for the sound. Both are worth a try! |
Kip, cograts on that vibraplane - I looked it up on ebay, you got a great deal. I would only make one change at a time in a system, so let me now if you want to think about a mat later. BTW, I heard from Asian audiophiles that the Micro-Seiki Cu-180 copper mat does not elevate the performance of the RX series, but does have a positive impact on the SX series as an alternative to using the suction on the platter. I hope to have that SX up and running in a couple of weeks and will report back. Steve |
I would love to learn all I can about fine tuning the RX-5000. I just was a very lucky ebay winner by scoring an UNUSED Vibraplane 2210 for pennies on the dollar--it even has the original manual, air pod wrench and blank warranty card! What else should I be thinking about? I have to say I have not felt like pursuing a mat--I've never heard music like what I'm hearing now right off the platter. But, I suppose I could be convinced... :-) |
Thanks Kip. The reason I sprung for the SX-8000 was really down to recently great results I finally got from my fine tuning the RX-5000 set up. In particular using the Machina Dynamica spring system and a special vinyl table mat I found in Germany to damp the gunmetal platter while retaining the inherent qualities. I had gone thru all types of mats previously and this is the best by far! I can send an ebay link but you have to work in German. Cost was around 50 euro plus shipping. |
I decided to get that SX-8000 - wait 'till my long suffering wife finds out - may cost more in legal fees or a trip to the shop that sells the smallest rotational movements! LOL Anyway, this will be the uber ultimate step up from my RX-5000 and as a result I will have to let my prized Oracle SE Anniversary go up for sale and my SP-10 Mk2 shortly. The RX-5000 has already been sold. Wish me luck! Steve |
With this kind of air-bearing turntable, you may care to experiment by using the motor to drive the flywheel, and driving the turntable platter with the flywheel. In this arrangement the flywheel will function as a filter for motor irregularities, and in my experience this may give you a smoother yet more detailed sound. The experiment will require that you exchange the locations of the flywheel and turntable, but won't cost you anything, so why don't you try it as a Saturday afternoon project? hth and cheers, |
there are not so may units of the SZ-1M around here. Frankpiet if you ever find one pls. let me know. I will give you a present, honestly. I do think that Kipdents arrangment should work pretty well. Let me try a suggestion: Why do you display this fantastic arrangement in the lower compartment - if you put it on top of a wonderful table like from Copulare or HRS or one made by a good carpenter you might love it much more. Any obstacles? Thanks for the knotting advice, very helpful. |
There currently is an SX-8000 I on Audiogon for sale. Our state's Lotto is tonight--with luck, maybe I will be able to purchase this 'table! ;-) As pointed out earlier on this thread, my original arrangement of my RY-5500, RX-5000 and HS-80 flywheel was less than ideal. Last weekend I rearranged the equipment as suggested by knowledgeable members here, and you can see this realignment at: http://web.me.com/kip/micro Make sure you scroll to the bottom of this page to see it. I have also tried to post updates here to a few pieces of Micro Seiki literature with some difficulty, but the moderator tells me I may post this interesting tidbit: The Micro Seiki thread drive instructions with a knot-tying graphic. I have uploaded both a Japanese and English version. It's fun for historical purposes, too: http://files.me.com/kip/3s264f Finally, I wish to let everyone know I have posted an updated and cleaned-up ENGLISH version of the RY-5500 / RX-5000 manual, but am not allowed to post it here. Please visit the Vinyl Engine and search for it there. |
I promised to tell something about the flywheel concept I have choosen. You see it under my system pics. After one week of testing I regard the VPI flywheel double motor and the SDS (Synchronous Drive System) as a real support for the Micro`s drive. I realize some more dynamics when running both motors at the same time - but I hear a more stable sound picture too. Believe me it did not sound bad before. The fine speed control provided by the SDS is a nice feature. |
Yes Quiddy, The Micro product is well designed. But regarding prices they are quite on the same level. The latest HS-80 in Japan was sold for Yen 140.000 and the VPI double drive goes for around US$ 1.500. If you use the VPI dual motor flywheel in connection with the Synchronous Drive System (SDS) for additional US$ 1.000 do you think it might be a good solution for a big Micro? Has anybody else experience with the VPI system? |
Good! You answers make me rethinking the whole approach and maybe returning to the HS-80 solution. The percentage thing is just to give a clue via distance what it could be about, it is personal and vague. I myself had the opportunity to have the SX 8000 II as well as the RX 5000 in my chain, the latter for a very short time because it was promised to go to a friend. As the RX 5000 is an excellent big Micro and even better than most of its modern copies the air bearing concept brings a bit more smoothness and brilliance in the picture - in my opinion. |
I'd like to confirm T-Bone's opinion. Two sx8000s chained together would be about 1/10th as effective as the high inertia motor assembly of the SZ-1, from the point of view of inertia alone. The two platter solution would however result in far less belt creep. There is no solution for this dilemma within the compliant belt drive paradigm. Mark Kelly |
Thuchan, I'm still thinking about it, but I think Quiddity's earlier point was that the high speed of the flywheel in the SZ-1 motor (and therefore, probably similarly, the HS-80) offers more theoretical inertia than a (second) heavy platter does if the second heavy platter is spinning at 33.3rpm. I cannot deny that the second SX 8000 would be able to mount 4 tonearms, but then again, so could an SX1500, SX5000, or SX8000 without the "II." I don't know where the 30% number comes from or how one would calculate it. Personally, I've never been able to compare a table to another and come up with a 'percentage improvement'. Best of luck in your quest. |
I'm flattered pictures of my Micro Seiki RX-5000 system ended up on this thread! I'm not nearly mathematical enough to place a percentage on the improvement I hear with the HS-80 inserted, but it is noticeable, particulalry in the nature of the lower octaves. Also, I am keenly aware its position in my system is severely compromised, and I am working on a rearrangement of my gear to allow the in-line layout of the motor, platter and HS-80. If accomplished, I will post more pics. I'll reiterate that I have not had as much fun listening to vinyl in my entire life than with this Micro system. Yes, I could dream about an SX-8000 series 'table, but I'm not itching for one. I'm extremely happy with the RX-5000. |
I am considering now buying a second SX 8000 II because it should be the best solution for the inertia function. Means: the RY-5500 II motor unit drives the first SX-8000II, and the SX-8000 II drives the other SX-8000 II as shown in the system of Syntax on the two RX-5000. Based on the platter if it is 1:1 (same size) the speed should be no problem and the SX-8000's platter (or 1500, 5000) is heavier then the HS-80's small plate -this should lead to a more stable and wider sound stage. Also another four tonearms could be mounted on the second SX 8000 II. The first SX-8000 II absorbs variations from the motor then driving the second SX-8000 II. Sound will have an 30% improvement in comparison to the one set SX-8000II + HS-80. Syntax, is that true, can you prove those assumptions? Regarding the question what is the difference in sound quality between the air-bearing and non air bearing big Micros some people and me too think that it is an improvement of around 15-20%. A realistic price for a SX-8000 II in a very good condition is around 25.000 US$. But I have seen offers of 40.000 US$ too, just recently. Everyone has to decide on paying such an amount... |
Syntax, thanks for pointing out the 'local' photos. Should have remembered that system. Lewm, the photos appear to be the reviews of items which different people have brought into the system. The top photo is a set of Ale Acoustic compression supertweeters. About a quarter of the way down there are some Goto supertweeters. I didn't see any other Goto stuff (the super big horns near the bottom are DIY efforts, as are a bunch of the brass supertweeters). |
I have always been intrigued by the HS-80. I believe the recommended way to set it up is so that it is directly opposite the motor. In this way the forces on the platter due the belt should cancel each other out and there should be minimum force, and thus noise, on the platter bearing. The disadvantage, as I see it, is that you have greatly reduced the contact area of the belt with the platter. With a thread the contact area with the platter is already very small and with the HS-80 it is further reduced. The "HS-80 MS" illustration avoids this but does not minimize the forces on the platter bearing. It is an interesting choice of trade-offs. Set up would be critical. There are variety of formulas for pulleys, belts, contact area, wrap angle, coefficients of friction, and so forth but they were a bit overwhelming to me. |
Here are two Pics from this HS-80 (from Kipdent System) HS-80 in Action HS-80 MS it is passive or that way RX-5000 special those Micro Seiki are rare now, the 5000 model is more common and sought after, because it is very reliable and easy to go. The 8000 series was always rare, sometimes you can find them in Japan. The later ones were made in a time when Analog Business was reaching the End, not many around. |
