Cadence/ebay Question

[jstutman]

Sometimes, aften rare. you see a new cadence amp. speaking of "Z" series or newer listed, But almost all the time you see thes"A" series cadence amps show up. Were are these amps coming from (claiming its new) i have never even seen these amps before. maybe there new and i dont know it?

The A7HC is a pure class D amplifier, and boasts the highest rated efficiency of any class D amplifier on the market. The A7hc pounds out incredible 1400 Watts/RMS at 1 ohm! Best of all, this power is available with less then 80 amps of current draw per amplifier! MSRP 899.00!

Now why would they be able to sell the "A" series for 285$ but anything like "Z" or "RS" are no where to be found and hard to purchase. Another, why are "A" sold on ebay but "Z" and "RS" Not?

[The_Ancient]

you know the use of the word Ebay here is a Bann Offense???? :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

[sandt38]

The A series is an old line of Cadence amps. The ZRS series was the replacement for the A line. A7s are very highly regaurded in SPL circles, but they boast an impressive list of options for daily bumping and SQ circut use. 24Db slopes, strappable, clipping indicators, variable phase, variable bass boost, and nice crossovers are just a few. I have heard of some guys strapping them (2 ohm stable) and running them at 1/2 ohm. Rated initially at 1200, they commonly dished out 1480 something. Ratings were boosted to 1400 for the last 6 months of their run. $285 is a bit hard to swallow though, since wholesale was close to $400.

Spacemonkey has an A7. He even did a review in the review section of CAT here.

Also of note... if you find an A4, snatch it up. Quite simply one of the nicest 4 channel amps for under a grand.

[jstutman]

Ebay Ebay Ebay Ebay Ebay Ebay EBay




so for 285$ the A7HC is a steal?

Then i could beat the z9000 and the A7 just like spacemonkey

[The_Ancient]

Originally posted by jstutman@Jul 13 2004, 09:33 PM


so for 285$ the A7HC is a steal?

Quoted post

I think you have just nailed it.................


did you get the underlying meaning of that