AP1200 versus Paramount MX

[gregbradley]

Which do you think would be the better mount?
I know the MX is not in the field yet but assuming the mount matches the promo and the PME then it should be very good.

AP1200 is a bit stronger, comes preloaded with Pempro PEC curve, can image many hours past the meridian, cables go through the mount and has super low PE. It has pulse guiding which I believe is better than other types of guiding.

MX has similar PE and comes with the SkyX and Tpoint (worth about $500 by itself). It images past the meridian 2 hours and can be setup (as can the AP1200) to do a meridian flip using software and plate solving.
It is cheaper, it is fully integrated with the Sky and CCDsoft (something I like with the PME) and has direct drive which gets rid of an autoguiding cable.

It comes with 2 counterweights and I think a versaplate whereas the AP1200 is bare and needs a saddle and counterweights. So the AP1200 would end up being something like $2500 more expensive I imagine.

Is anyone in this group using an AP1200?

Thoughts?

Greg.

[bert]

I have worked at an Observatory that has an ap1200. And I am currently setting up a remote observatory with a pme.

Both have amazing tracking, to the point that pe is lost in the seeing. The ap1200 at the observatory I worked at, its main purpose is to take 4 min exposures at 2.6 meters unguided with a c14, which it is doing well. They had some issues setting it with software for remote use, whereas the bisque software is very well supported. As for the mechanics of both mounts: they are both sensational.

If I was setting up remotely the PMX would be my choice. But if it was in my backyard, I'd take the ap1200.

Brett

[rally]

Greg,

I think you answered your own question !

What is the application ? - What is the use you intend it for, what is the OTA you intend to use what travel considerations etc etc

Do you want to operate it remotely and robotically ?

At this level - software integration is more the issue.
But do you want it to mount it on the same piers as your exiting P-ME or be able to swap them about ?

Stability will count for something if you intend to use a big heavy and/or long focal OTA - and that is yet to be determined. There must be something they are having problems with to take this long for the final release.

The P-ME is surprisingly portable, the MX should be even more portable so that adds to the equation.

Finally if colour is important to your observatory decor - do you prefer Red or White !!

Not enough info to answer your question really.

Rally

[Doomsayer]

My pick would be the PMX based on my experience with the PME, so if remote-style automation and full software control is a priority, then the PMX wins. I like the idea of both mounts to be honest though, and of course the AP can cope with heavier payloads.

guy

[Mighty_oz]

See this thread at cloudynights
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4551190/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/1
and it has a link in it to another thread with lots of pics info etc, should help u decide. Happy reading :)

[pmrid]

Greg, OPT tell me as at last week that the lead time for the PMX is still 2nd quarter and I'm #5 in their list so I will probably be able to get up close and personal with it this winter. I'll do a review (within the limitations of my inexpert status) as soon as I can.
Peter

[gregbradley]

Thanks for the replies and I see I did not post enough info. I am keeping my PME for my home observatory. This mount I am thinking of using to travel to my dark site observatory. I already have a metal pier there but it would simply need a pier adapter plate for the PMX or AP1200.

Its purpose is to mount the TEC180 or FSQ and perhaps the AP140 I use. Mostly wider field imaging up to 1260mm focal length (TEC180).

I do not intend to use it remotely as my dark site observatory runs off a generator and has no power connected. Phone is on the site and could be connected easily but power connections in the country can cost $40,000 easily.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Well that's interesting as the Bisque site states all the orders for run 1 are filled and now taking orders for run 2 for 3rd quarter delivery (Sept/Oct that would mean).

I am leaning towards the PMX because it is better bang for your buck, it comes with more accessories plus it comes with extra software.

I also love my PME. But then AP are amazing also but more expensive with no accessories and less software compatibility.

Greg.

[Octane]

Get both, Greg. If you don't like one, I'd be happy to take it off you as a gift. :whistles:

H

[gregbradley]

Good post Humi, that had me laughing.:rofl:

Looking it over the deal on the PMX is unbeatable. The AP1200 has a higher load capacity but the PMX can handle 90lbs (TEC180 weighs about 20kgs).

I am in no rush either. My NJP seems to have improved with age. I think the gears wear in over time and get smoother. Guide error numbers these days can get very very low even with PA a tad off.

Greg.

[sadia]

Hi Greg,
I am in the process of setting up my AP1200. I don't think you can ran cables through the mount (unless i missed something). Pulseguiding is a separate free software that supports AP mounts to take unguided exposure. I am not too sure how good it might be for longer subs. Any additional extras will be extra cost. They have a precise rotating pier adjustment plate which will be a must for portable setup in my opinion. Though MX PE might be slightly higher I don’t think it will be an issue for your requirement.

Sad

[sadia]

MX is not out yet J, so should you wait to see some user review first is the other question.

[gregbradley]

I'd like to hear your review of your AP1200 with your TEC160FL.

Its a similar setup.

I don't think it will be too much of a gamble with the PMX though. Bisque has built a reputation over the years with the PME and they have a lot to lose if the PMX is substandard. They will be making sure it delivers.


Greg.

[gregbradley]

I placed an order for a Paramount MX.

So hopefully that will arrive in June.

Thanks for the advice guys.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

Hi Greg
I would like your opinion on the MX and why you went with it instead of the AP 1200. My CDK 12.5 comes in July, I have ordered a Losmandy Titan to put it on. I am having second thoughts about the Titan there seem to be a lot of software issues to be sorted out. I would like a PME but my budget will not stretch that far and I don't need that much capacity. I have looked at the specs of the MX it seems to be very light and it does not come with a hand controller. (but it is Mac compatible) I am wondering if it will be to light for the 12.5 with a bunch of imaging equipment hanging off it. I will also be using it for visual. I want a mount to work well out of the box I don't want to get a degree in software engineering just to run my mount.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Cheers
Phil

[gregbradley]

Hi Phil,

Well the reasons are:

AP1200:

A great mount, fabulously sorted and heavy duty. You won't find anyone who doesn't like it. But for my purposes probably a bit heavy for portable setup, is about $2500+ more expensive, doesn't do home position, it doesn't come with any software, it may not be as well integrated with the Software Bisque software I am so familiar with. It does not come with any counterweights and saddle. These are expensive add-ons.
So I figure it'd be around US$12,500 and is more a competitor for Paramount ME but is not as sophisticated in the software department as the PME.

Paramount MX:

I already use a Paramount ME for my CDK17. Fabulous mount. I like direct drive (no need for an autoguiding cable), I like its home position
at startup which means you can move the mount around manually, and then tell it to go home position and it knows where it is and go-tos work again. Home position is a great great feature. The mount also works seamlessly with the Sky and CCDsoft. PEC is easy to setup, Tpoint is a fantastic piece of software (it works on other mounts as well). It is cheap at US$8500, comes with The SkyX, Tpoint and I think something else. It is very easy to polar align with exact numbers of turns of its knobs given by Tpoint. It holds up to 90lbs. A CDK12.5 weighs nowhere near that. It should handle one with ease. It comes with 2 counterweights also. It is quite portable. The next generation electronics. Is robotic and can be controlled remotely if you want.
Clutchless design so one more thing that can slip is out of the equation.

Losmandy Titan I have heard good things about. Its a high end mount. How would it compare with the MX? I don't know much about Titans so hard for me to comment. I imagine the main points would be:

Home position in the MX none in Titan. That means you move it or bump it and you lose your go-tos and have to redo it.

Direct drive in the MX none in the Titan. That means the computer drives the mount without needing an autoguiding cable.

Clutchless and switches that disengage the gears making it easier to adjust manually.

Superior control electronics. Bisque are highend electronics and operate at an extremely high level of accuracy. Gears and PE is smooth and really well mapped and understood. After PEC PE goes below 1 arcsecond which is as good as it gets with any mount.

Highend machining and fit and finish.

Easy to use. It integrates really easily and seamlessly with the Sky. Titan would work fine with the Sky but not as fully.

I don't want a hand control personally but you can control Paramount Mounts with a joystick (PME uses one - not sure if one comes with MX, probably not). You need to use a computer anyway if you are imaging so no problem there for me.

Remote control ability if you want to control it over the internet for a remote site (I don't plan to).

A shallow reason but it looks sexy. The AP1200 does not. I also did not like the cable for the motor sticking out in the AP1200. PMX seems to have all cables hidden inside.

Basically it seems AP and Bisque and Takahashi are the 3 top mount makers and I was incredibly impressed with the professionalism of the Bisque PME. As I say I don't know a lot about the Titan. G11s are popular and probably are rated as a midquality mount that needs upgrades to work really well (ovision worm etc). G11 would be too light for a CDK12.5. PME would be overkill as you say. MX would be perfect in my opinion. AP1200 would be plenty also. You'd probably get away with an AP900 for a 12.5.

I am sure I would be happy with an AP1200 as well. I got a lot of responses about it from this and other groups. It was both ways. Some for the AP1200 and some for the PMX. Probably a few more for the AP1200 but in the end for me it was cost, cost then portability, software compatibility and the fact I love my PME!! and am familiar with their mounts now (I also love my AP140!!).

How much is a Titan?

Greg.

[Terry B]

The Titan is about A$7200 including GST etc quoted yesterday delivered in July at that price. I chose not to get one for reasons you know.

[CDKPhil]

Thanks Greg.
The Titan is going to cost about 8.5K plus 1.5k for the tripod 10k all up.
I would imagine it would cost about 10k for the MX delivered to Australia.
Plus I would have to allow an extra 2K for a tripod, so only an increase of about 2k to my overall budget, this I can handle. I just want to make the right decision.
Your results with your PME look outstanding, if the MX performs like the PME well I guess it would be a simple decision.
I am A Mac person, Sky X, T Point and Camera are all Mac compatible, this makes me very happy. Most of the other mounts are windows based. Like you said Sky X will run on the Titan but the ProTrack plugin will only work for the PME and the MX.
I looked through the Specs of the MX again and it seems to include a hand paddle that is backward compatible with the PME as well. This would suit me for my visual observing.
The MX is a Sexy looking mount very refined and very glossy. It makes you feel good parting with all that hard earned money. hehe

Thanks again for your feed back, I have a decision to make I will let you know what I decide.

Cheers
Phil

[Moon]

I'm not sure if 'Camera' is ready for prime time use. I would strongly recommend using a PC, even for a 'mac person'.
James

[stevous67]

If you are interested, this is a very interesting [and long] thread with images on quality mounts, and goes beyond the subjects mounts discussed:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4327606/page/8/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1

Little on the MX, but it helped me make my decision on what mount to buy.

Good luck

Steve

[CDKPhil]

I have made my choice.
I have cancelled the Titan and I am going to go with the PMX.

cheers
Phil

[Bassnut]

Excellent decision. Proven system, no bother. Gemini is great, but the SB way is a different level altogether.

[gregbradley]

I think you will be happy with the PMX Phil.
In my situation I just got perfectly round stars with unlimited exposure time with my
Tak NJP and TEC180 (a very large APO scope with a huge bunch of gear hanging off the back of it).
The key is using a MMOAG and ST402 (Lodestar also works but ST402 is most sensitive). So a PMX has
big shoes to fill. I think mounts improve with age as the gears wear in more perfectly and little micro abrasions
smooth out.

Who did you order with?

Opt offered no money down deposit and possibly still in the June run of deliveries although that needs to be confirmed.

A pretty good deal eh?

Greg.

[h0ughy]

I bought my Titan just recently but in a way i am lucky - i will use my G11 L1 brains and controller until they get the handbox softeware to a workable stage with the G2. I am dissappointed with the G2 for the reasons mentioned but i am sure they will be sorted very soon. As for TheSky - i can take or leave that (nothing positive has happened with that piece of software in my hands :( ) If i had a little bit extra i would get the AP1200 - simply because you can image well past the meridian without having to do a flip, and it has a hand controller - especially if the laptop goes south

[CDKPhil]

That does sound like a good deal.
I have ordered my PMX through Bintel. It was easier for me to go through them. I had purchased the Titan, so instead of getting a refund they are organising it all for me. I am also am getting the CDK through Bintel.
When the OTA ships hopefully the MX can be put with the same shipping consignment, this should save a few dollars. The guys at Bintel have been great.

Thanks for the tip, the MMOAG looks like a great piece of kit.

Just in reference to David's post, I like the Idea of the Sky X because of its Mac compatibility. There are not many other choices out there for Mac. Software Bisque seem to be pushing the Mac frontier which is great to see.
As far as having to cart a laptop around I don't see this as much of a problem. If you are imaging you need to have one anyway, and if you go to the Apple website you will see the Mac Book Air, not much bigger than a hand control but a lot more powerful and a lot more reliable. The PMX does come with a had paddle.
I guess the thing that put me off the Titan was the problems with Gemini 2.
I think a product should be well developed before it is put on the market. I hope the PMX is because as of tomorrow it will be to late.
As Greg has said the PMX has some big shoes to fill.

Cheers
Phil

[gregbradley]

The PMX goes 2 hours past the meridian. With that also it depends on where the scope is. No mount will allow going past the meridian more than say an hour if the scope is parallel to the pier or tripod as the camera will hit the pier or tripod. So it depends on the angle you are imaging at. But if it can miss the pier or tripod being able to image all night without a flip would be a bonus as often that is at 2am when an object needs to be flipped! As far as no hand controller if my laptop goes south then the night is a writeoff as I image and its all totally computer dependent. But if you are using a DSLR with its portability then yes that would be an advantage. Although you probably can run the PMX off a tablet type computer.

Greg.

[PRejto]

I've had my PMX on order now for a couple of months. I'm curious as to why you have gone through a dealer when SB will ship the mount directly?

I'm in the first group to get the mount when it finally ships, hopefully soon. In case you are not aware of this, SB will ship the software in advance of the mount if you request it.

[gregbradley]

Only reason is OPT did not require a deposit and SB did and also OPT said they may still be able to get in the first run (not confirmed though, SB site indicates first run is sold out).

Greg.

[PRejto]

In case anyone is looking for an MX Tripod:

http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=717189

[gregbradley]

Thanks Peter,

I bought a counter weight shaft extension piece from him and it was very well made.

Greg.

[CDKPhil]

Those tripods look real nice. They look very similar to the tripod that Bisque is selling for the MX. Good to see some photos of the MX with the ME.

I placed a post on the Bisque web site asking about Mac compatibility. Daniel and Tom both replied and said the MX was the most Mac friendly mount that they had ever used. You don't need any extra drivers, port assignments, adaptors or IP addresses, you just plug the USB in to your Computer and into the mount and away it goes. Precision PEC was also being integrated into Sky X so you would be able fit a PE curve to the tracking log and apply it to the MX, all Mac Compatible.
This for me is one of the main reasons I chose the MX over the Titan, and I would choose the Mx over the AP1200 as well.
The ease and simplicity of using a Mac far out ways the abundant amount of windows based software that is available.
Software Bisque is on the right track as far as making a mount that is hassle free. I know it has not been tested by the masses yet, so far it is looking good. I cant wait to get it.

cheers
Phil

[PRejto]

I'm fairly sure that the tripod is the same tripod SB is selling....I think I saw that at Cloudy Nights in a post about the MX which led me to the Astromart ad.

[frolinmod]

Ahem, please ask Rob Miller if they are the same and report his response back here. Thanks.

[DavidTrap]

I don't know that being "Mac friendly" would be high on my list of priorities (and this is coming from a Mac fanatic). I found using a Mac for imaging to be so limiting in terms of software availability and advice from other users, that I started using XP under bootcamp, and then bought a PC laptop for the purpose.

I realise that a direct USB interface is nice, but personally have found no problems setting up a Keyspan USB-Serial adapter - I suspect most problems related to such adapters are caused by using the cheaper one, the Keyspan ones just seem to work.

I'm not trying to put down the MX or wave the flag for AP - I'm just not sure that what you say above would be a deal breaker for me.

DT

[CDKPhil]

Well it is not just the Mac compatibility, the fact that Software Bisque have a great reputation, they are quick to respond to e-mail, they are always on the ball updating their software and their proven track record with the PME is outstanding. Dollar value against the AP is good also. I must say having a mount that works with a Mac out of the box is quite appealing to me.
Yes I understand that there is limited software for the Mac but the more people demand Mac software the more will be created, and the less frustrations there will be. This is a discussion for the software and computer forum.

For me the PMX came out on top over the AP 1200 and the Titan.

Cheers

Phil

[RickS]

I have one of Rob's tripods on order for my AP900. He told me that Software Bisque will be selling his tripods, at least until they come up with their own design.

[gregbradley]

Gee there's a lot of high end gear coming into the Aussie astro community these days.

Greg.

[pmrid]

I was looking at the differences between the PMA and the PMX and in particular at the levelling mechanisms on both.
The schematic for the PMX says that it is not fitted with micro-levelers like the PMA. So I'm wondering a little about the best way to adjust the mount base/pier top plate so as to get the best level I can. HAve any of you who are going down the PMX road figured this out yet. Mine is #5 on OPT's list for delivery and they still say next month.
Peter.

[CDKPhil]

Hi Peter
I wish I was number five on the list. I don't think I will be getting mine till after July.
For the moment I will be mounting my MX on the tripod that Bisque is selling. The tripod has adjusters on each leg so it should be quite easy to obtain a good level. I will use a engineers precision level which is accurate to .01 mm.
I am going to make my own pier and I will incorporate micro adjustment into the pier top plate. I have not started on the design yet. It is still a concept in my head.

Cheers
Phil

[gregbradley]

I wonder if you can buy those microlevellers as an accessory.

They are nothing special just a knobbed bolt inside another bolt. As I recall its not actually part of the PME just screws into it. So if the thread sizes for the mounting holes are the same you could get 4 of those and use them.

Otherwise 2 pier plates with adjusting height bolts would do similar as long as they are strong.

Greg.

[Moon]

Not sure if you plan to use the mount in an observatory or in the field, but this is relevant (from the PME manual, but applies to any EQ mount):

James

[pmrid]

I wrote to OPT about this and got a reply that said essentially the same thing. I found that a bit curious.
I'm planning on having a new pier made and am about to "put pen to paper" to get that started but am held up with the design of the top plate. I think I'll have to go for a separate adjustment plate - adds to the cost but I just can't go ahed without being able to get a proper level.
What heights were you guys thinking about for this rig. My present thoughts are that keeping it down to about 600mm above floor level (for the top plate) will be about right. Any thoughts?
What sort of height does the tripod offer?
Peter

[pmrid]

It occurs to me that my last post was diverting this thread a bit away from the original AP vs PMX direction so I was going to suggest that a new and perhaps sticky thread entirely for the PMA/PMX mounts might be worth considering since all of us who are waiting on a PMX will want to be pooling ideas and experiences. A semi-permanent thread in the Equipment section might be useful - even if it is only for a finite period - 12 onths or so.
Mods? Any thoughts?
Peter

[gregbradley]

Pier height is a good question. I got a pier made in Qld by I think it was Sirius or was it Pegasus Piers. They did a super job and it is superbly well made.

I would answer about height it depends on a few factors.

What mount, what scope, height of your observatory wall. Then you've got wind protection versus sky coverage.

Generally I prefer to only image between 30 degrees up or down and in between. Less than that and it generally isn't worth it.

My pier is 1 metre tall. When I installed the PME (by the way the mount is called PME not PMA) on top and then the CDK17 I thought it was too high. But it has worked out well with good wind protection (never lost a night due to wind) and good coverage.

Wind protection also comes from planning the observatory position and orientation. You need to know the prevailing wind directions.

My obs wall is 2.3 metres tall and it is located in a fairly windless part of the property.

Greg.

[pmrid]

I also have a Pegasus pier courtesy of Sirius Optics. I agree they're well made. I just had a look at it for both height and also placement of mounting holes for the PMX.
Height: My gut reaction was that it was a bit high but I've decided to run with it for now rather than lose money selling it and have another one built. I'm encouraged by what youy say about finding the height of yours worked well for you. I'm undecided which scope to put on this at the moment. I have a choice between an EdheHD 14", a plain C14 or a 10" F3.8 astrograph newt. I've also just bough an 11002-size chip camera and matching that to focal length etc is my next mission.

Top Plate: the existing holes in my Pegasus are 4 x 13mm unthreaded at 148mm centers whereas the base of the PMX seems to have it's bolts at 7.45" centres (189.23mm). So I am deciding whether to try to tap new holes in the top plate of the pier (not the adjustment plate) and do away with the adjustment plate altogether (levelling by smimming the base instead) or to have a new adjustment plate made with holes at 189.23mm for the mount but also using the existing 148mm holes in the top of the pier. What are you planning on doing Greg?
Peter

[Moon]

Why? What are you trying to achieve? It will add cost and might make it less stable. If the mount can be secured by passing bolts down into a captive nut, this is the best way to go. Keep it simple. It won't help your polar alignment at all.
If you want to make life easy for a portable setup, then yes it makes sense. Also you might need a top plate if the mount requires a bolt to go up into the base of the mount, like the EQ6 does. Otherwise, forget it.
James

[gregbradley]

Hi Pete,

The PMX I ordered is for my dark site observatory that I travel down to and setup when I get there. It has an 8 inch steel tube buried 800mm in a hole and concreted in.

I will need to get an adapter plate with the PMX and attach it to this pole.

I may need a 2 plate system like the Pegasus Pier as it will be very hard for me to get a single plate level. The Pegasus one is very strong with quite a few large stainless steel bolts locking the top plate in place.

So I intend to get an adapter plate. I assume SB sell one or perhap Rob Miller does or could make a custom one.

As far as 11002 chip. It has 9 micron pixels and seems to work well with long focal length scopes. So the HD14 or C14 would be good. The F3.8 10 inch maybe not as well but experience will show it make great images. F3.8 and 10 inch Mak Newt - is that the Intes?

Make sure the focuser is OK, mirror shift etc. F3.8 is going to be pretty intolerant of mechanical issues but Mak Newt is probably an excellent format. It would be good for widefield images and a bright image fast. Depends on what type of image you want. An AP 67 reducer works on these HD scopes so that could make it F7 or so. HD14 would be great for galaxies and closeups. The reducer would be handy and it may just work with an 11002 chip. Not sure now. I had one once. I don't think I used the AP reducer with an STL11 I had though.

Greg.

[frolinmod]

Are you joking? If deep space astrophotography is your passion, go for the 10" F3.8 astrograph newt! It's a no-brainer decision, is it not? I say that as a current C14HD owner/user and former C-14 owner/user. My C14HD is on a Paramount ME, so I'm referring only to the OTA, not the mount.

[gregbradley]

There's also this:

http://astrotroniks.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=27

Greg.

[pmrid]

The pier-top and adjustment plate on my Pegasus are separated by 4 lengths of 1/2 SS rod at 148mm centre-to-centre. I imagine yours is the same Greg.
As the PMX bolts are at 189mm centre-to-centre, an adjustment plate will need to have both threaded holes to receive the 1/2 rod coming up from the pier top and also 3/8 24 TPI threaded holes to receive the bolts coming down from the mount wedge and base.
There is a 74x25mm section of the base that is the base for the azimuth adjustment mechanism on the wedge/base assy and this sits outside the basic square of the mount base/wedge assembly.
The easiest design for a top plate would be a circle of 360mm diameter compared with the existing circle of 250mm for the standard Pegasus adjustment plate.
There is a minor problem then with sections of that circular plate protruding outside the basic square shape of the base/wedge assembly because of the risk that the mount and dec weight shaft may foul it in some configurations. So it would be better if the adjustment plate was actually shaped to fit the square (plus azimuth block) base/wedge assy. That would probably mean starting with a circle of say 1/2 steel and cutting it back after the mounting holes have been drilled and tapped.
I'm going to take this basic design to a local machine shop next week and have one knocked up. It doesn't sound too complex or expensive.
Have I missed anything?
Peter

[Bassnut]

Well geez, is it?. Depends what yr after doesnt it?.

Not to say a 10"f3.8 isnt great, if you like that kind of FOV thing.
But.

A 10" f3.8 950mmFL with an ST11k at bin 1 gives a 1.95 arc/secs image scale.

A 14" C14HD at f11 3850mm FL with an ST11k at bin 3 gives a 1.44 arc/sec image scale.

A nice large 14" (over 10") with a very tasty close up FL and low noise, big signal bin3 sub might strike some as somewhat preferable perhaps ? :D :P :thumbsup:.

[frolinmod]

You guys who already have an ME and who are getting an MX to go with it, please do us a favor and once you've settled in, give us your impression of the MKS-5000 electronics. Software Bisque may offer an MKS-5000 electronics upgrade for us ME owners at some point and so it would be good to know if it'll be worth doing.

[PRejto]

I started a thread about this at SB MX site, having not seen the discussion here about the micro levelers. Here is a reply from Dan Bisque:
PRejto:
I'm in the process of building a concrete base
The top surface of a properly mixed and proprely floated concrete pier will be level. Make sure your concrete person clearly understands this goal before the job is started.

PRejto:
. My question concerns the amount of error (hopefully none, but I know that's impossible) that is workable at the pier/mount interface.
A Software Bisque pier mounted to the top of a horizontal pier surface should be sufficiently level so that no adjustments or modifications are necessary for optimal performance.

PRejto:
Does the MX mount have the same sort of micro-levelers as the ME (and same tolerances of 3 mm)?
No. We've had to repair too many micro levelers on Paramount MEs caused by misuse and minunderstanding of how this system works that microlevelers were intentionally left out of the MX design.

Note that an "absolute horizontal orientation" of the mount's base is not critical to the Paramount ME or Paramount MX's performance. In the case of level, "close enough" is generally good enough.

Daniel R. Bisque Software Bisque

[gregbradley]

Thanks Peter. Most informative.

Greg.