Best digital hps ballast 2019?

My old magnetic 400w hps needs upgraded.
I’ve been researching digital ballasts.
It looks like most of them on ebay are garbage, high rf interference, high failure rates.
The quantum 400w is supposed to be stable but real picky about what bulbs it will strike.

I’m stumped.

  1. What are the best ballasts available for the price? RF interference and high failure rates are unacceptable.
  2. Once I’ve got the ballast how do I connect it to my old hps socket? I can identify the transformer, cap & igniter wires but don’t know how to connect them to a hydrofarm or Brand S female connector on the new ballast.

Galaxy grow amps are pretty good but i just use ipower,Apollo and vivosun on my 600w hps mh lights and get great results averaged 550 grams a plant wet bud weight
As for your connection you can get the bulb part with the plug you need you will have to remove the old one from your hood

1 Like

I would stick with old school magnetic…
$120 for a 600 watt and $150 for a 1000 watt with 5 year no question ask return policy …
I never have issues…
Only problem with them , is they run a little hotter… if you can keep the ballist’s out of the grow room then your golden… also I would suggest a vented hood… :wink:

I’ve got one now. It’s delivering 400w and gobbling up 1,000. The bill is through the roof.
A good digital ballast will deliver 99% efficiency. There are other factors too.
I’m not interested in a magnetic ballast.
I was hoping to find information on good digital ballasts.
Thanks though.

I’ll have to look back on some info for you , but I believe that there are only 2 on the market that don’t cause RF interferences…
I’ll have to get back to you… but I think one is called galaxy…

You must live where electricity is expensive…
I run a crap load of equipment and dont even come close… :thinking:

Do you have a link? Most aren’t anymore than 5% or so more efficient.

dbrn32: Thanks for your help.
Could be I’m dealing with false advertising???
“When compared to magnetic ballasts, the digital ballast offers 30% savings in power in addition to up to 7% increases in light output.”

I can’t really find what I’m looking for here. I don’t know what PF stands for.
I like this ballast though. What do you think?

"Modern digital ballasts are as much as 30 per cent more efficient than their magnetic predecessors. "
A lie??

"Nearly all e-ballasts have a considerably higher output than the comparable wattage magnetic ballasts do, sometimes putting out as much as 30% more light. "
“maximum efficiency; Up to 30% more lumens” I know par, not lumens.
“99% Power factor.”

I could go on & on. I keeps seeing efficiency ratings in specs @ anywhere between 94$ & 99%
I can’t count how many times I’ve read ‘up to 30% more’ efficiency, lumens, power, etc.

So, in view of the flood of false advertising, what is the truth?
Are digital ballasts really NOT worth buying?

1 Like

Not necessarily, but power factor is not end all be all in efficiency. Power factor is term used for how far out of alignment the voltage and current are. Something with a higher power factor should always be more efficient, but that’s not the only power loss in a digital ballast. For instance most of the led drivers I use have power factor of about 99-99.7, but the data sheet will specifically list overall efficiency somewhere between 90-95%. They’ll even go as far as to give you a chart to show you efficiency at different input voltages and loading percentages.

I wouldn’t call any of those posts false advertising, but I would settle for misleading. If I had to guess, based on my experience, here’s where they come up with “up to 30% more efficient”. My magnetic ballast pulled about 440-450 watts from wall after warm up. I found an example of digital

That lists 430 watts as running power. Since the bulb is taking 400ish watts give or take, what’s the difference in waste power? 30 watts waste vs 40 watts waste is technically a 25% reduction in efficiency losses right? So you see how things could be easily taken out of context there pretty quickly.

However, if you have a 400 watt bulb pulling 1000 watts from wall, I would say you have an issue.

I can’t give you charts and data spread sheets… but I can give you real world experiences…
I’ve been using magnetic ballists for a little over 10 years… only had one issue with one ballist , one time and they replaced it with no questions asked…
My bulbs always last as long as there supposed too…
Only problem I have with them is they run a little warm… but I’m running 110 volt… my friend runs his at 220 volt and his are cool to the touch… when I build the new flower room I’ll be running at 220 volt…
Everyone that I know using digital ballists is constantly changing bulbs and there ballist don’t seem to live longer then 3 years… granted they are usually under warranty still… but what a pain in the @$$ to be dealing with when your running a perpetual grow… that’s why you always have a backup for your backup…
But either way… I can’t see myself spending that kind of money changing bulbs all the time…
I know 4 different people using digital and they all pretty much say the same thing…
I know 2 others that use magnetic like myself and we never have issues…
Hope my 2 cents helps…


I have the Quantum Digital Dimmable 1000 watt ballast. It’s practically silent, runs cool and emits no RFI. It can run at 50%, 75% and 100% power.
When I first got it, it took a couple of tries to find the right HPS bulb that would run at less than 100% power. MH was no problem.
For what it’s worth, these are the bulbs that I am using now:
Metal Halide: Ultra Sun 4200K 1000 watt
High Pressure Sodium: Hortilux 1000 watt Super HPS

Now that the bulb issue is sorted out, I’m very happy with this ballast.

1 Like

The iPower GLBLST1000D 1000 watt digital ballast is one of the more affordable options on the market. It has a built-in microprocessor that automatically detects MH and HPS bulbs, negating the need for an additional switch or ballast and keeping your lighting system simple.