Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep28_banner.thumb.jpg.b94278254f44dd38f3f7ee896fe45525.jpg

HunterHarling

Avalon M Uno vs Astrophysics Mach 1

Recommended Posts

Wondering which of these mounts would be more reliable and provide the best performance with an 8in sct.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m only familiar with the Avalon.  I absolutely love mine and use it with a C9.25, amongst others.  It’s made for SCTs, the quality and performance is superb, and there’s no need for a meridian flip.  No counterweights to speak of, and light enough to move easily if necessary.  Also guaranteed for 5 years if you get a new one.

What's not to like (perhaps just the price?)

Edit: have you seen this, possibly relevant, thread

Edited by AKB
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there, I have the MACH1GTO:icescream:, a superb mount and did never regret to buy it, only one issue could be important in your case, if you are situated in the US then I would take the MACH1GTO, since the manufacturaor is in the US,  AVALON is made here in EUROPE and you need to calculate the possible side effects /costs just in case you need to send in your mount for any service or repair or upgrade " unless servicing the mount where you are situated is also possible ".. 

OK :happy5: I did not think at time I bought mine, hence had to pay some high costs for an upgrade plus the extra costs like POSTAGE FEE and GOVERMENTAL FEES :happy9:..

Else, both mounts are great :hello2:.. 

Martin

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I've no experience with an Avalon mount I've had my AP Mach-1 now for over 6 years, and it's been a flawless performer for the demands of deep sky imaging. The engineering and attention to detail are readily apparent, and the guiding/tracking ability for imaging work has been incredible. The Mach1 just works effortlessly, I don't need to keep tinkering around with it. The Avalon could be the same, many folks also rate this highly, you probably wouldn't go wrong with either mount.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AKB said:

I’m only familiar with the Avalon.  I absolutely love mine and use it with a C9.25, amongst others.  It’s made for SCTs, the quality and performance is superb, and there’s no need for a meridian flip.  No counterweights to speak of, and light enough to move easily if necessary.  Also guaranteed for 5 years if you get a new one.

What's not to like (perhaps just the price?)

Edit: have you seen this, possibly relevant, thread

Thank for the thread.

 

The Avalon is a belt drive so there isn't much to break as compared to regular mounts, but I am in the US so that is something to think about.

How long do AP mach one mounts last before they need repairs? 10years later are they still working as new?

Thanks for all much-needed help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to say Avalon, but as Roxy music sings in the song Avalon, the party is over. With no mention, or guarantee of what to expect from the native PE on the M-uno, I would never purchase one for that price.

I’m sure it works, but seriously PE is a major factor to say something about when you manufacture and sell a mount for astrophoto at a premium price.

The “Mac cheese” does not look like it was made in this century, and design wise it does not reach up to Roxy music’s guitar. 

But, it mentions PE..a lot!!

Who said; do not take us further into darkness? Was it AP?

Latest news from the AP website:

These parts are manufactured and assembled at our facility and individually tested to meet or exceed our periodic error specification of 7 arc seconds (+/- 3.5 arc sec.) before introducing any periodic error correction.

Each mount is rigorously tested on our specialized periodic error tester. Only mounts that provide an accuracy of 7 arc seconds or better will pass this inspection.

As mentioned above, the spec of 7 arc seconds (+/- 3.5 arc sec.) is the maximum native mechanical error..

And finally in the specifications: Periodic error +/- 3.5 arc seconds or less..

Got it!? 

Anyway, for me AP wins since they actually recognize that PE exist, and it needs to be mentioned to the customer, however it can be to much..And in the dark all cats are grey.

 

Hope no mount was emotionally hurt by me joking a little ?.

BTW I have never owned one of them so my word don’t count.

 

Wow, check out that GTOCP4 Control Box, it has travelled all the way from the eighties without a scratch... ??

https://youtu.be/bpA_5a0miWk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tomvictor said:

I’m sure it works, but seriously PE is a major factor to say something about when you manufacture and sell a mount for astrophoto at a premium price.

Up to a point that is true. However to have a smooth P.E. variation is probably more important than the absolute amount of deviation. So long as that is within reasonable limits.
Even with a peak P.E. of a few arc seconds, you're still going to have to guide. So the only real questions are "how much guiding?" and "how long between corrections?"

 

But the neat thing about the M-Uno is that you don't ever need to perform a meridian flip. Is that ability better than having a small P.E. but still having to guide?

Otherwise it's just question of deciding which mount(s) can carry your load and whether the back-clearance of the M-Uno is big enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree.

Avalon are great instruments but I wish they, and others in the industry, took a definite responsibility for the product with regard to for example PE.

If they have full control of production, it should not be a problem to give the customer tangible specifications that are so important, and stand by them.  The Industry does not get better before customers demand it.

It is a lot of money!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having to do meridian flips would be wonderful!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MartinB said:

Not having to do meridian flips would be wonderful!

It is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 08:02, AKB said:

 It’s made for SCTs, the quality and performance is superb, and there’s no need for a meridian flip.

The clue is in the detail. I believe you can only avoid the meridian flip with the M-UNO if the imaging chain is short enough, like with SCTs and compact refractors. Too much back over-hang and it rears its head again. I still wish I had one though :icon_biggrin:.

Ian

Edited by The Admiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like both are amazing...

I saw many guiding images from an az eq6 that look comparable to both of these mounts. How can that be possible?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Mach1GTO way back from when the exchange rate was much more pleasant for importing and a lot of the EU mounts hadn't really been realised.  Never had a problem with it and imaged unguided using a C11 at F10 for 3 minutes.

 

Yeah pier flip is a bit of a pain, but if you get the pointing right it's not that problematic if you have large amounts of clear sky.  It's more a bit more problematic if you wanted to do photometry but not insurmountable.  It's a shame they don't do an angled eagle pier to take it out of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the M Uno and periodic error, I have well documented the large PE on my M Uno. But to be clear, unless you plan to do unguided imaging it has absolute no effect on the resulting images or FWHMs. I think that Avalon should make it more clear on their websites  that these belt driven mounts with multi stage reductions are unique, and while they do indeed have very large periodic error, it is so slow and smooth that it is inconsequential when guiding. I have taken single sub exposures of two hours duration at a focal length of 2350mm with guiding < 0.5" total RMS, with resulting round / tight stars with FWHM < 2".

So I think Avalon mounts redefine the concept of periodic error, i.e.: it doesn't matter. And those that criticize the mount because of the PE have probably never used one. They are simplicity defined. No flip, no maintenance, no worries.

Derek

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Avalon mounts are made for auto guiding and they are the kings of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.