Rerated amps has been updated in the announcements section

Rerated amps has been updated in the announcements section.... Looks like the Z1 is re-reated.

DD
----- DD M1 400 watts 07/18/2006
----- DD Z1 1725 watts 09/21/2007

wowzas

i dont have a z1, but wasn't it rated at 1250@4ohms. doesn't that still make it legal for 601-1800? or am i thinking the z1a? just wondering.

never mind i was thinking of the z1a. man thats a big difference in what its rated at and what it did! good street beat amp though.

Good ole DD missed it bye 1000 watts this year... I tell ya..... Ohhhhhhhhhh well on to the next ones .. Next year.

Above Average Contributor Number of posts : 747 Registration date : 2007-06-23

Once again the use of 4 ohm power ratings screwed the consumers that bought the z1. I have never agreed with the way that usaci rates it's amplifier "highest published 4 ohm rating or division back from 1 ohm" again proven not to work and the consumer is the one that suffers.

Ouch on the Z1. Good thing we didn't look too hard at getting one.

bumpin s-10 wrote:: Once again the use of 4 ohm power ratings screwed the consumers that bought the z1. I have never agreed with the way that usaci rates it's amplifier "highest published 4 ohm rating or division back from 1 ohm" again proven not to work and the consumer is the one that suffers.

Our rating system is the same the CEA has set for the industry standard. We must have been doing something rihgt for the past 20 years...

I suggest the individuals building the amps use the CEA system and no one will be dissapointed.

PS: who do you blame.... the ones who set the guidlines or the ones who ignore them?

Stingraysevenout wrote:: Good ole DD missed it bye 1000 watts this year...

you mean 475? They claimed 1250 at 4ohm. What kinda math do they teach in Texas? Razz

USACI wrote:: PS: who do you blame.... the ones who set the guidlines or the ones who ignore them?

you mean like when you ignore us thru all this Pro-stock issue?

SPL2K wrote:

Stingraysevenout wrote:: Good ole DD missed it bye 1000 watts this year...

you mean 475? They claimed 1250 at 4ohm. What kinda math do they teach in Texas? Razz

That is the z1a not the z1. I believe the z1 was 800 or 850.

That's just insane.

SPL2K wrote:

Stingraysevenout wrote:: Good ole DD missed it bye 1000 watts this year...

you mean 475? They claimed 1250 at 4ohm. What kinda math do they teach in Texas? Razz

hey....

That Z1 rating is obsurd. That amp is no where near that strong at 4 ohms. It's barely that strong at a 2 ohm reactive.

So who has one that is now going to be looking for new amps before finals ? LMAO Wink

How about the M3 now Razz

TIMMY......now on to MMATS i guess and the Z1 was 750 @ 4 ohm.......and it does do more than some above stated i will say that atleast in my application it did............oh well

BillGass wrote:: TIMMY......now on to MMATS i guess and the Z1 was 750 @ 4 ohm.......and it does do more than some above stated i will say that atleast in my application it did............oh well

yes, you are correct, the Z1 was rated at 750@1ohm...

So 1000 watts.... Difference MIKEY.... HEHE Your still my boy even though im better at math... LOL Get to work man..

ehh...Z1, Z1a, Z1z. they all sound the same to me. This is why i just stick to the "+" classes.

Jeremiah25 wrote:: That Z1 rating is obsurd. That amp is no where near that strong at 4 ohms. It's barely that strong at a 2 ohm reactive.

true that...takes one more step towards...

Anyone know if this amp was tested by the aforementioned new testing facility and power technician? Just curious if things have already started being sent to this facility or if they are still not completely converted yet.

Did Ralph ever say if amps that were formerly rated by usaci would be allowed to be retested by the new agency?

Above Average Contributor Number of posts : 747 Registration date : 2007-06-23

With results like the ones on the Z1 and what I know of them "real world" power... I would bet that most every amp out there would be pushing it's rating.

I gotta say to not be able to run 2 z1's in 1801-3000 is crazy...I'm sorry but the rating givin to them seems far higher than any real world output at 4 ohm. Hmm lets see, 1 z1 vs. 2 40.1's or 1 Z1 vs. 3 pd2000's...the list could go on and on but I think we all know which amps would be better. LOL

Don't get me wrong tho, I don't think Jimbo, Bruce etc. where wrong in protesting the amp, it's rating did seem a bit low, and the playing field needed to be leveled. But there is a difference in leveling the playing field and totally rendering an amplifier useless in this organization. There has got to be some kind of compromise. I'm interested in seeing the exact test results and could we be filled in on what was used to test the amp? How close is it to the setup used by USACI to previously test amps?

bumpin s-10 wrote:: With results like the ones on the Z1 and what I know of them "real world" power... I would bet that most every amp out there would be pushing it's rating.

I gotta say to not be able to run 2 z1's in 1801-3000 is crazy...I'm sorry but the rating givin to them seems far higher than any real world output at 4 ohm. Hmm lets see, 1 z1 vs. 2 40.1's or 1 Z1 vs. 3 pd2000's...the list could go on and on but I think we all know which amps would be better. LOL

Don't get me wrong tho, I don't think Jimbo, Bruce etc. where wrong in protesting the amp, it's rating did seem a bit low, and the playing field needed to be leveled. But there is a difference in leveling the playing field and totally rendering an amplifier useless in this organization. There has got to be some kind of compromise. I'm interested in seeing the exact test results and could we be filled in on what was used to test the amp? How close is it to the setup used by USACI to previously test amps?

I've seen test results of a Z1 on an Audio Precision system 1. All I can say is that if a Sony Xplod 600 watt amp were tested on whatever test bench USAC used to test the Z1, it would fail and be rerated.......

Yea I would have thought the amp to be between 12 and 1500 at 4 ohms. Can we get a response as to where the amp was tested, USACi or the new test facility?

Who tested the amp?

an amp does not have to be benched if there is literature out there that supports the fact that the amp does more than its rated power since we in usac go by highest published ratings

I learned this on the 400.1 when they dug so much to find what it was expected to do before it eve had came out.

here is what ya can do suck it up and get over it thats what I did

TECH114 wrote:: Who tested the amp?

I DID RIGHT HERE AT MY HOUSE WITH MY TRUSTY RADIO SHACK $12 VOLTMETER.

sanman wrote:: suck it....thats what I did

I heard that before. Glad you came out and confessed. cheers

nice work on editing but mine still shows i said suck it up foo