fluffygrrrl
- Posts
- 47
- Reactions
- 28
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Points
- 18
Mag uses more power = FALSE
Digi produces more light = TRUE
Digi is quieter = FALSE if it's a quantum
FACT, "they" know you have a digi ballast in your house. Go mag. Or, I'll sell you a TWO DAY old Quantum after two guys came knocking on my door yesterday asking to come in and "troubleshoot" my house.
I've gone through 4 digital ballasts this year. 2 were under warranty (1 year old), I bought them at plantlightingsupply, so it took awhile to get them back. The other 1 was a quantum I bought on ebay, and the other one was a no name chinese knockoff from ebay. No warranties on either one. I'm done fooling around with digitals until they get better at fixing their overheating issues. I need to buy 10 new ballasts, I wish my hydro store sold the mags for $100. My store charges $210 for them! Im looking at the cap brand that has a lifetime warranty $175 each on plantlightingsupply. They also sell a cheaper model for 115 plus shipping, but I kind of like the idea of a lifetime warranty. Does anyone have any better prices or know of a place that gives discounts for multiple purchases?
I use mag ballasts. I dont' care what anybody says about the efficiency advantages are from digital. I think the whole digital thing is just marketing to make bucks..
I have 16 ballasts running 24/7 and they cost me 10 bucks each used. There are tons of used parts for 1000 watt mag ballasts around where I am, so we have anything we need standing by if a cap or something needs to be replaced, which has only happened once. (capacitor failed) They are so simple to fix/replace/mount, plus I don't have to deal with warrantee BS and waiting for the store to send it away.
This is coming from someone who needs a bunch of them to keep rolling, if your only buying 1 and your super low key, a pretty red or purple digital ballast would do the trick just fine if ya wanna drop 250+..
what’s considered a crappy product? so we can all avoid it in the future.There's no reason for a holy war over this issue. Not too surprisingly, they're different technologies, with different benefits. If you want greater reliability, but lower efficiency, go electromagnetic. Greater efficiency with less reliability, digital. Crappy products aren't exclusive to either.
Note that heavier electronics aren't necessarily better built. I've worked with computers since the 1970s and the days of punch cards. I've seen enough overly heavy crap to last a lifetime. Here's why we see differences in the performance of these products. The anticipated pattern of failures should be quite different.
A significant proportion of electronic failures will occur during the first 90 days of operation, so it can lead to impressions of short product lifetimes. Mechanical failures usually fall at the product's anticipated service life, usually measured as MTBF (mean time between failure). Of course, this assumes uniform product quality. And we all know there are just some crappy products out there, but usually they cluster at the low-cost end of the spectrum.
If you ever can get your hands on actual MTBF information, you can make well-informed purchasing decisions. There should be an expressed MTBF target used when designing and testing the product. Sometimes this is expressed in a products documentation or can be obtained via contact center.
Ive used both over the years, and used digis from different companies, Lumateks to Phantoms and about to switch to Solis Tek 1K'ers. The difference between the mag and digis can be seen by the naked eye IMO. Id never go back to mag ballasts.
diff can be seen with a simple cell phone camera, tha digi's clear while the mags kinda look like light shining threw mini blinds.....lots of lines going thru
o no shit thats why those pics look like that interesting, kush
digi ballasts give off interference... I heard there are rippers who will drive around and look for this interference.
digi ballasts wont run the hortilux super blues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?