Who is a Cactus Sounds dealer? AKA AMP Ratings Arguments LOL

First topic message reminder :

Will a CS dealer pm me, please.

Thanks.

Jeremy's final finals run was on 3 d5's ..but ..

sanman wrote:

whats hard to udnerstand is you guys come on here 2-3 years after the fact and bring this crap back up again when its already been squashed

there was posts showing that amps were sent in and rated according the the findings of congent labs out of arizona the manu then had the opertuninty to take the rating or knock off 30% accroding to usaci (that was there arangement) in order to procure sponsors for finals ill assume.

use to be threds on here about all of this, but seems they have been removed because i have been looking for them

according to the amplifier certification according to usaci this was the deal the published rating int he manual didnt matter at that time.

kinda like you tlling me the pyramid 3000 watt amplifier will actuall do that safely lol.


to blame here for all this confusion is??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Hard to say at this time, but wasn't the PF600 rated for 600 watts when it came out? Thus how it could be protested? If it was rated for more than 600 right off the bat, there couldn't even be an argument.

Ralph just posted in this thread that the highest rating of the two is the one they go by. In two separate manufacturer pamphlets the amp is rated at quite a bit over 600 watts, this is where the problem lies.

Both of them SHOULD say 600 watts in order for it to qualify as a 0-600 amp. What it actually did in testing is irrelevant because the manufacturer rates it for higher. The only way an amp can be protested is if people BELIEVE IT DOES MORE THAN RATED BY THE MANUFACTURER. Problem is, it's already rated for 770 or 800 by the manufacturer, already disqualifying it from 0-600.

Frankly I don't care either way as I don't own one of these amps or compete in USACi SPL classes, but i think some of you guys (who probably own this amp) are misinterpreting what others are saying. Can't say I blame you because I'd be pretty pissed if I just dropped $2k+ on amps only to find out that you can't use them in the class you want, but rules are rules and according to USACi they go by the highest rating.

once again your going off of what you are reading now , and not what was written back then

the amplifier wasnt protested it was usaci certified to be 600@4, and according to the certification process it could not be rerated unless it came out with a v2 then it the v2 had to be retested to maintain the current rating.

the brochure is Cow poopy the bench is the onlything that matters because its factual real world power.

like i said the pd2000/m3 and some other amplifiers were certified in the same manner, and thats how they currently have there ratings as well

sanman wrote:

once again your going off of what you are reading now , and not what was written back then

the amplifier wasnt protested it was usaci certified to be 600@4, and according to the certification process it could not be rerated unless it came out with a v2 then it the v2 had to be retested to maintain the current rating.

the brochure is Cow poopy the bench is the onlything that matters because its factual real world power.

like i said the pd2000/m3 and some other amplifiers were certified in the same manner, and thats how they currently have there ratings as well

Yes, but if you look at the information on those amps, they both have posted 4 ohm ratings of less than 600 watts. That's the part that is misleading.

Why send in an amp to be tested for 0-600 and then rate it for 770? Doesn't make any sense. I understand that 770 is within the 30% rule for 0-600, but following the rules it's supposed to be within 30% of the RATING, not what it actually does on the bench. The rating SHOULD be 600 watts, then it could do 780 watts and be legal for 0-600.

Right now it's 770 or 800.

Following USACi rules it would have to be rated for 770 or 800, regardless of what it did on the bench.

not originally they didnt i tried both when they first came out man the books didnt say current ratings at that time this was all brought up then prompting the certification process

i wouldnt even buy a pf600.1 before i knew it was certified to be 600@4 and could not be rerated

the publishing was out before the amp was rated thats why

also look at the amoutn of thd it was tested at in the manual and usaci standars is 1%


lread this carefully and try to comprehend it

USACI TOLD THEM THEY COULD DROP 30% AFTER BEING TESTED

now you should have no more answers period i have answered everything there is to be answered pertaining to this subject

So according to you, essentially every amp can qualify for 0-600 regardless on what the manufacturer rates it for?

I really do not understand this part:

"USACI TOLD THEM THEY COULD DROP 30% AFTER BEING TESTED".

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that CS could publish a rating that's 30% higher than what the amp was supposed to be rated for because it already passed a 0-600 rating?

tommk90 wrote:

So according to you, essentially every amp can qualify for 0-600 regardless on what the manufacturer rates it for?

Thats my problem. This would allow me to run whatever amp I want to in whatever class I want to.

they took the pf600.1 sent it to congent labs like usaci told them to do it was benched at 1% thd/14.4v/at 4 ohms on a fixed compacitor and got 770 watts usaci told them now you you can rate it at 600@4 because according to our standards you dont exceed the 30% we allow for tolerance


now what part of that said jeff sanford told them they can rate it as such to you??????????


i dont know what else to do i have explained it time and time again in this fornicating post that you guys dont want to comprehend


USACI IS THE ONE THAT ALLOWED THEM TO DO THIS NOT ME BITCHES

YOU ARENT THE ONE MAKING THIS DECISION USACI IS ALONG WITH THE MANU ACCORDING TO THE RULES THAT WAS STATED AT THAT TIME.

it also said once they certified the amplifier it could not be rerated period

sanman wrote:

YOU ARENT THE ONE MAKING THIS DECISION USACI IS ALONG WITH THE MANU ACCORDING TO THE RULES THAT WAS STATED AT THAT TIME.

it also said once they certified the amplifier it could not be rerated period

now if you can find that in writing, that will definitely shut these guys the fuckup.

sanman wrote:

they took the pf600.1 sent it to congent labs like usaci told them to do it was benched at 1% thd/14.4v/at 4 ohms on a fixed compacitor and got 770 watts usaci told them now you you can rate it at 600@4 because according to our standards you dont exceed the 30% we allow for tolerance


now what part of that said jeff sanford told them they can rate it as such to you??????????


i dont know what else to do i have explained it time and time again in this fornicating post that you guys dont want to comprehend


USACI IS THE ONE THAT ALLOWED THEM TO DO THIS NOT ME BITCHES

Jeff, do you not see the manufacturer's ratings? They didn't rate it for 600, they rated it for 770. They published the 30% over rating. This is not what they were supposed to do.

While the D5 and M3 are both legit amps as well, they follow the rules and published ratings that keep them legal for 0-600.

But in the end it doesn't really matter much anyways because everybody knows these amps do WAY more power than at their (completely pointless and stupid) 4 ohm ratings.

tommy do you not understand what i wrote

the d5 is legit because i told steve not to rate it before they tested it most companise dont bench there Dung Pile before they rate in the case of the m3/pf600.1 THE ORIGINAL M3 MANUALS ALSO SAID 770@4 GARUANTEED BECAUSE WE HAD 4O OF THE FIRST ONES EVER MADE IN KC BABAY



matter much anyways because everybody knows these amps do WAY more power than at their

bingo the companies found ways around the rating process not there fault


as far as finding this in writing anymore you cant its gone i soent 2 hours searching for it just reminds me why i quit the rules change from day to day according to how the money is flowing in i think and thats sad

RALPH YOU KNOW WHAT IM SAYING IS TRUE TO EVERY WORD, AND YOU SHOULD BACK THIS UP.

Ralph will, no doubt, be back in here during the week.

lol im talking to ralph now junior

ive know this guy for ever homie relax

i will also post pix tomarrow of the m3's original booklet showing 770@4

lol thats funny.

Just goes to show how ancient this rating system is. All it takes is a sticker in a pamphlet and you can change your amp ratings.

M3 ratings found here also:
http://ddaudio.com/Archives/amp_archives.aspx

also according to ralph the original pf600 is should be still honored at 600@1 ohm as oer our conversation on f.b. just now

quise i know you know better than this man the original manula for the m3 before they tried to hide the 770@4 was exactly that 770@4

for all those that think im always lying please get a grip its not really like that at all i tell the truth more than most of yall will ever ever know

tommy its not really the rating system thats flawed its actually following it and publishing the findings fr everyone to see that is

quise i know you know better i brought you m3's to finals in dallas to run for your sb run man come on bro

that is highest rated power, DDM3 equal the same as the PF600, so that means Chad who won stock 601-1800 has to turn his championships in. Sorry thats what these stupidass rookies are asking for. That is just dumb.

sometimes you have to slap a young one down before they learn man

but thats how we all learn lol

daddy_j wrote:

that is highest rated power, DDM3 equal the same as the PF600, so that means Chad who won stock 601-1800 has to turn his championships in. Sorry thats what these stupidass rookies are asking for. That is just dumb.

I know the website at one time read the same rating you gave and my box for mine still has it. But the only difference is digital designs changed there rating for the better

lol they tried to change them did you see the manual i posted you call that a change lol

remember that published and thats all that matter evidentally to some

you can't change the ratings with a sticker, you have to rebuild an amp and then rate it. Once its printed its printed. Thats what the rules read remember, highest published ratings either today or yesterday. Published is published.

according to these young punks, the only amp that legally can be in 0-600 is the RD D5 and its probably the stongest out of all of the other 0-600 amps.

sanman wrote:

also according to ralph the original pf600 is should be still honored at 600@1 ohm as oer our conversation on f.b. just now

You said "original" pf600.1 would be honored does that mean the new colored one is deemed not a 0-600 amp?

DO
SB.
problem solved.

are you asking by changing the color of an amp it gets stronger?