Old school amp
06-04-2006, 11:25 AM
#11
well here is how I figure, bench testing is no more than mathematical calculations:
there is 180amps worth of fuses
Say you are pulling 180amps and I am running an 18v system, with 100% efficiency that would come to 3240watts but everyone knows it won't run 100% efficient so figure only 55% efficiency (which is about right) would yield 1782wattsRMS.
there is 180amps worth of fuses
Say you are pulling 180amps and I am running an 18v system, with 100% efficiency that would come to 3240watts but everyone knows it won't run 100% efficient so figure only 55% efficiency (which is about right) would yield 1782wattsRMS.
06-04-2006, 12:45 PM
#12
Originally Posted by ShonBesharah
Back in the day the HCCA stuff was extremely hi-end! IASCA use to run power classes, all classes were rated at 4ohm. The HCCA line would run down to .5ohm (HCCA 225 would do .25ohm) each time you split the impedance the amp would double in power. Manufacturers would under rare there products back then to give there customers an advantage. Many products today do the opposite for sales advantages!
I dont remember hearing the expression dynamic power back in 1993. We would run entire cars off 30 watt amps.And they sounded loud! I believe full power output on a HCCA 250 (2x50 watts) was arround 650 watts.some of these old amps had huge damping factors, a spec that was proudly advertised.I dont think I've seen any big manufacter do that in a while.
I dont remember hearing the expression dynamic power back in 1993. We would run entire cars off 30 watt amps.And they sounded loud! I believe full power output on a HCCA 250 (2x50 watts) was arround 650 watts.some of these old amps had huge damping factors, a spec that was proudly advertised.I dont think I've seen any big manufacter do that in a while.
So, HCCA 250 by your own admission did about 650wrms.
HCCA should do about 50% more than that. So, about 1k wrms.
No way would that amp do 1800 WRMS, period.
06-04-2006, 12:47 PM
#13
Originally Posted by 03rejo
well here is how I figure, bench testing is no more than mathematical calculations:
there is 180amps worth of fuses
Say you are pulling 180amps and I am running an 18v system, with 100% efficiency that would come to 3240watts but everyone knows it won't run 100% efficient so figure only 55% efficiency (which is about right) would yield 1782wattsRMS.
there is 180amps worth of fuses
Say you are pulling 180amps and I am running an 18v system, with 100% efficiency that would come to 3240watts but everyone knows it won't run 100% efficient so figure only 55% efficiency (which is about right) would yield 1782wattsRMS.
55% efficient into 0.5 ohm? Maybe in theory but I really doubt it in reality. You seem to forget how hot those amps ran at low impedance...
06-04-2006, 12:53 PM
#14
To answer a few questions:
1.The HCCA275G4 was rated at 1200rms at lowest recommended load. This is a 12v, full bandwidth rating. Efficiency was not this things strong point but if you could keep the voltage up in the 13.5-14.4v you were rewarded with 1600wrms+.
2.Damping factor was rated as >500 on the HCCA's. Sure that seems like a great number if a high-damping factor number is what gets you hard but also consider this is a high-current amp so with that rating at 4ohm and the amp designed to run at 1ohm or less your precious damping number is going to be much much lower.
3.Orion's 1w amp was the Concept 97.3. It was a rebadged XTR2250/HCCA2100. The Concept 97.1 was a HCCA225 and 250 in the same heatsink (later introduced as the HCCA150) with the third Concept piece being the 97.2 which was later introduced as the DEQ30.
1.The HCCA275G4 was rated at 1200rms at lowest recommended load. This is a 12v, full bandwidth rating. Efficiency was not this things strong point but if you could keep the voltage up in the 13.5-14.4v you were rewarded with 1600wrms+.
2.Damping factor was rated as >500 on the HCCA's. Sure that seems like a great number if a high-damping factor number is what gets you hard but also consider this is a high-current amp so with that rating at 4ohm and the amp designed to run at 1ohm or less your precious damping number is going to be much much lower.
3.Orion's 1w amp was the Concept 97.3. It was a rebadged XTR2250/HCCA2100. The Concept 97.1 was a HCCA225 and 250 in the same heatsink (later introduced as the HCCA150) with the third Concept piece being the 97.2 which was later introduced as the DEQ30.
06-04-2006, 01:02 PM
#15
Originally Posted by Hardwrkr
To answer a few questions:
1.The HCCA275G4 was rated at 1200rms at lowest recommended load. This is a 12v, full bandwidth rating. Efficiency was not this things strong point but if you could keep the voltage up in the 13.5-14.4v you were rewarded with 1600wrms+.
1.The HCCA275G4 was rated at 1200rms at lowest recommended load. This is a 12v, full bandwidth rating. Efficiency was not this things strong point but if you could keep the voltage up in the 13.5-14.4v you were rewarded with 1600wrms+.
thank god for someone who knows about old school!!
06-04-2006, 02:06 PM
#17
Originally Posted by Newb
HCCA275G4 is hardly old school...
06-04-2006, 06:10 PM
#20
Originally Posted by ShonBesharah
are you saying Im not old school?
