Ron Reefman
Active member
There isn't a lot of science involved. All it takes is a PAR meter. Watt for watt an led puts more light into the tank than a t5 or MH.
Lights... hit me...
- Thread starter Gweeds
- Start date
There isn't a lot of science involved. All it takes is a PAR meter. Watt for watt an led puts more light into the tank than a t5 or MH.
The simple answer is that, watt for watt, most LEDs put out more light than MH or T5.
For general purpose white light, it isn`t even close any more. We replaced all our fluorescent and HID lighting in our plant two years ago. Electricity costs were halved. Payback was 3 months. Now, that`s with the most efficient LEDs and measuring lumin efficacy (light our eyes are sensitive to.
That efficiency advantage narrows to approximately 30%, as measured by Phillips (watts at the wall vs PAR), in a marine aquarium light using high efficiency LEDs of a quality binning.
At this point, as you pointed out earlier, LED, MH and T5 all work just fine. Pick which ever you prefer and go forward in confidence.
Those of us who have been around with a wide breath and depth of experience have heard this before with each new light source. Some are quickly debunked and some live on for longer. PCs were more watt for watt into the tank too. T5 were more than VHO, but it was the reflector, not the lights. Neither of these are true - but VHO and T5 are nearly equal watt for watt once VHO got good reflectors.
It is not really true for full-spectrum lighting using a real professional tool like an Integrating Sphere for measurement... but not enough folks have access to one. Output is the same per watt for most light sources. This is only really true for an incomplete, hobby grade tool like a PAR meter... especially with some LED manfs now exclusively making fixtures to pop the PAR meter since most don't know that a PAR meter does not measure all good spectrum equally and will buy them just off of the bad advice to trust the PAR meter.
Again, saying that each "work just fine" is like saying that 1). balanced diet, 2). McDonalds and 3). Krispy Kreme all "work just fine" to keep humans alive. There are details and nuance that probably matter to most folks and you are leading people to believe that there are not any with statements like these. Something like "people are happy with each different light source for various reasons, but they are different, so do your research" is probably better advice.
It is not really true for full-spectrum lighting using a real professional tool like an Integrating Sphere for measurement... but not enough folks have access to one. Output is the same per watt for most light sources. This is only really true for an incomplete, hobby grade tool like a PAR meter... especially with some LED manfs now exclusively making fixtures to pop the PAR meter since most don't know that a PAR meter does not measure all good spectrum equally and will buy them just off of the bad advice to trust the PAR meter.
Again, saying that each "work just fine" is like saying that 1). balanced diet, 2). McDonalds and 3). Krispy Kreme all "work just fine" to keep humans alive. There are details and nuance that probably matter to most folks and you are leading people to believe that there are not any with statements like these. Something like "people are happy with each different light source for various reasons, but they are different, so do your research" is probably better advice.
Stolireef
Active member
Can you not see the differences in the light sources, or just refuse to acknowledge them? ...or do you not believe that details matter in all aspects of live and that generic statements are good enough. Either works, I guess... but some people will want to excel in one fashion or another and not just be good enough and will want to know the differences.
BTW - in you example, each of those Milk sources is healthy and/or un-healthy depending on what you want. Calling all three equally healthy and not pointing out the differences with some nuance is simpleton, just like the your last sentence or the "work just fine" argument. You undoubtedly understood the nuance in the argument about the milk when you typed this sentence, but it cannot possibly apply to lighting too? The exceptional people in this world deal in the details and nuance.
BTW - in you example, each of those Milk sources is healthy and/or un-healthy depending on what you want. Calling all three equally healthy and not pointing out the differences with some nuance is simpleton, just like the your last sentence or the "work just fine" argument. You undoubtedly understood the nuance in the argument about the milk when you typed this sentence, but it cannot possibly apply to lighting too? The exceptional people in this world deal in the details and nuance.
Stolireef
Active member
JDA:
Of course I recognize the differences in the light sources. There are differences in everything from color rendering, hot spots, general appearances, etc. What I was saying is that the differences between the quality of the lights is far less than your metaphor would suggest.
Also, by virtually any measure that I've reviewed, lumen output per watt of LED's is far greater than almost any other light source. We can certainly agree that the wavelengths of light between all three sources can be different, but I have yet to see any scientific study that indicates that one light source will grow corals better than another. What I have seen are many anectdotal opinions that one is 'better' than the other.
Right now, I think Ca1ore is running a pretty solid basic lighting bakeoff. It will still be somewhat subjective but at least we'll have a good side to side comparison.
Of course I recognize the differences in the light sources. There are differences in everything from color rendering, hot spots, general appearances, etc. What I was saying is that the differences between the quality of the lights is far less than your metaphor would suggest.
Also, by virtually any measure that I've reviewed, lumen output per watt of LED's is far greater than almost any other light source. We can certainly agree that the wavelengths of light between all three sources can be different, but I have yet to see any scientific study that indicates that one light source will grow corals better than another. What I have seen are many anectdotal opinions that one is 'better' than the other.
Right now, I think Ca1ore is running a pretty solid basic lighting bakeoff. It will still be somewhat subjective but at least we'll have a good side to side comparison.
My metaphor was not about the differences, rather the "they all work" or "have been proven to work" simpleton statements that help nobody (at best) and confuse and mislead some (at worst). Thankfully, I have not seen "a photon is a photon" in this thread, and while instantly regretted by it's author, is equally as simpleton.
I agree that metaphors are no substitute for actual differences, but the work OK for meaningless statements, since the metaphors are equally as meaningless.
I agree that metaphors are no substitute for actual differences, but the work OK for meaningless statements, since the metaphors are equally as meaningless.
Um, par meters existed long before the hobby discovered them. They are real scientific grade instruments used in research. It also happens that they can be rather useful in our hobby, your personal dislike not withstanding.
We all have our lighting biases. I personally don't like the look of T5. Doesn't mean they are not a valid light source. It just means I don't like them. I would suggest your dislike of LEDs is similar.
karimwassef
Active member
Output light per watt is not the same for different light sources.
Ron Reefman
Active member
Well stated. :beer:
Ron Reefman
Active member
Stolireef
Active member
BTW, I'm pretty sure I was the simpleton who asked a question about lighting and 'photons being photons'. The question however was asked in the spirit of understanding how light blends and whether the blending of the light say in an LED fixture (which I would characterize as digital) was similar to the spectrum of light provided by halides or T5s (which I would characterize as analog).
Stolireef
Active member
Dugless
New member
I'm not in the camp of any type of lighting. My opinions are never static and I'm always reassessing different options for what's best at the time. Plenty has changed in my 15+ years of reefing and it would be foolish to stick with what I once knew to be best, just out of stubbornness. Unfortunately, there are camps to the point of silliness in which people work towards finding arguments within another's comments. 
When it comes to lighting, I truly want the best option that results in colorful acropora coral. Acros are really the only litmus test that I find valuable as every other type of coral is generally within a limited range of color potential.
There are a few things I look for in my lighting.
Intensity
I want strong light that is capable of creating high levels of PAR throughout the entire depth of the tank. Alongside this, I want the light to be visually bright and appealing so I can enjoy my aquarium. LEDs have high amounts of PAR, but usually at the expense that they are turned down and lose out on potential visible light. It's also difficult to know what's enough or too much without additional measurements. T5s give very strong PAR evenly from top to bottom with no need for adjustment and do the best job of visually illuminating a tank completely, almost to a fault of giving a flat appearance. MHs provide strong but the least PAR, and have similar visual brightness as T5s but with added movement through shadows and glitter lines.
Diffusion
I want light bouncing everywhere, from the sides and even from underneath, especially when acropora colonies become large. I want healthy undersides and beautiful color deep into branches and not just the first few inches of the coral tips. Colonies should grow naturally symmetrical and not towards or away from strong single point light sources. I think T5s have a slight edge over MHs with their individual reflectors creating a panel of light, while LEDs struggling here and rely on inferior lenses to refract light and color spacing to blend a spectrum.
Color
This one is tricky since there are two types of color. Instant perceived color and actual long term coral pigmentation. LEDs are the big winners in the perception of instant color pop. The same coral will look different under each light source, but most flock to the blacklight-like blue LEDs. T5s follow with instant color rendition but with a more natural appearance. Lastly, MHs are similar to T5s but they require more supplementation while providing the most natural color.
However, when it comes to actual pigmentation, LEDs have struggled to give the complete spectrum provided by MHs and T5s. Every new LED generation has different color mixes still searching for a better more complete spectrum, whereas MHs/T5s have time proven bulb options with optimal spikes at the right wavelengths. LEDs are getting very close but are still experimenting with every fixture release.
Considering these points, yes, success can be had with all options. But to me it is much easier to have success with Acropora coral using the more diffuse light that is set it and forget, like T5s and MHs.
When it comes to lighting, I truly want the best option that results in colorful acropora coral. Acros are really the only litmus test that I find valuable as every other type of coral is generally within a limited range of color potential.
There are a few things I look for in my lighting.
Intensity
I want strong light that is capable of creating high levels of PAR throughout the entire depth of the tank. Alongside this, I want the light to be visually bright and appealing so I can enjoy my aquarium. LEDs have high amounts of PAR, but usually at the expense that they are turned down and lose out on potential visible light. It's also difficult to know what's enough or too much without additional measurements. T5s give very strong PAR evenly from top to bottom with no need for adjustment and do the best job of visually illuminating a tank completely, almost to a fault of giving a flat appearance. MHs provide strong but the least PAR, and have similar visual brightness as T5s but with added movement through shadows and glitter lines.
Diffusion
I want light bouncing everywhere, from the sides and even from underneath, especially when acropora colonies become large. I want healthy undersides and beautiful color deep into branches and not just the first few inches of the coral tips. Colonies should grow naturally symmetrical and not towards or away from strong single point light sources. I think T5s have a slight edge over MHs with their individual reflectors creating a panel of light, while LEDs struggling here and rely on inferior lenses to refract light and color spacing to blend a spectrum.
Color
This one is tricky since there are two types of color. Instant perceived color and actual long term coral pigmentation. LEDs are the big winners in the perception of instant color pop. The same coral will look different under each light source, but most flock to the blacklight-like blue LEDs. T5s follow with instant color rendition but with a more natural appearance. Lastly, MHs are similar to T5s but they require more supplementation while providing the most natural color.
However, when it comes to actual pigmentation, LEDs have struggled to give the complete spectrum provided by MHs and T5s. Every new LED generation has different color mixes still searching for a better more complete spectrum, whereas MHs/T5s have time proven bulb options with optimal spikes at the right wavelengths. LEDs are getting very close but are still experimenting with every fixture release.
Considering these points, yes, success can be had with all options. But to me it is much easier to have success with Acropora coral using the more diffuse light that is set it and forget, like T5s and MHs.
This is easy.
2 x ATI Sunpower T5 Pendant 8 x 54w £430 each, £860 total.
7 x A360s is lunacy. They're £325 each for a total of £2275.
4 x Hydra 52s. £529 each, £2116.
You can bang on about bulbs and power till the cows come home. You'll go broke buying LEDs before you plug them in. And just to really kick you in the guts, none of them will perform to the T5 standard.
2 x ATI Sunpower T5 Pendant 8 x 54w £430 each, £860 total.
7 x A360s is lunacy. They're £325 each for a total of £2275.
4 x Hydra 52s. £529 each, £2116.
You can bang on about bulbs and power till the cows come home. You'll go broke buying LEDs before you plug them in. And just to really kick you in the guts, none of them will perform to the T5 standard.
Ron Reefman
Active member
If you only consider AI leds as an option... sure they are expensive. But they aren't the only game in town! 860 pounds is a little over $1100 US. Plus 16 t5 bulbs to replace every year 16 x $20 = $320/year... OUCH!
Try 2 RB Photon V2 of 32" at $500 or $1000 total. Two at 32" isn't enough? Then two at 48" are $1300 and you get all the advantages of leds just like the AI fixtures, and no bulbs to buy every year. And no new bulbs to buy if you want to change the color of the system. Sorry, I'll stick with leds, they are cheaper even in the short term, way cheaper over even just a year or 2, and way more controllable.
ComforablyNumb
New member
You'll go broke buying LEDs before you plug them in.
none of them will perform to the T5 standard
Hilarious! What a load of crapp.
none of them will perform to the T5 standard
Hilarious! What a load of crapp.
Dugless
New member
Is anyone going to discuss the variable and inconsistent spectrum LEDs provide? Throughout the tank, each coral is going to receive different light based on the reliance of blending each individual LED. On many fixtures there are just a few red or ultra violet lights. Does no one see this as a downfall?
This always goes in circles...
There is only one answer in my book: best of both worlds. Not everyone can sell a kidney on ebay to afford a powermodule hybrid.... but there are options.
Have recently gone the oute of adding a diy "reefbrite style" led strip with 8 x 3w royal blues leds to my 6 x 24w sunpower.
I am bathing with t5's and still achieving great pop incolours and shimmer from the leds.
No shading, no discoball effect, full spectrum and with the added leds, i can lose two of the ati bulbs to save on both electricity and bulb replacement costs.
Considering the mass swing to leds by most reefers, availability of used t5 fixtures seem to be commonplace and you can pick one up for a steal.
Yes sure i can't simulate sunset and sunrise as gently as led fixtures, nor can i scare the life out of my fish with a lightning storm. In 13 years, i havent been able to do that and the tang i have had for twelve seems just fine without it.
Ih and yes, my corals grow like crazy, 95%++ acropora.
There is only one answer in my book: best of both worlds. Not everyone can sell a kidney on ebay to afford a powermodule hybrid.... but there are options.
Have recently gone the oute of adding a diy "reefbrite style" led strip with 8 x 3w royal blues leds to my 6 x 24w sunpower.
I am bathing with t5's and still achieving great pop incolours and shimmer from the leds.
No shading, no discoball effect, full spectrum and with the added leds, i can lose two of the ati bulbs to save on both electricity and bulb replacement costs.
Considering the mass swing to leds by most reefers, availability of used t5 fixtures seem to be commonplace and you can pick one up for a steal.
Yes sure i can't simulate sunset and sunrise as gently as led fixtures, nor can i scare the life out of my fish with a lightning storm. In 13 years, i havent been able to do that and the tang i have had for twelve seems just fine without it.
Ih and yes, my corals grow like crazy, 95%++ acropora.
Jeez... I feel like I've created a monster!! I've been away, got married and the thread continues!
Thanks for all the input... however you do the maths, Leds are the cheaper option over time... and I'm talking about running them for 10 yrs or until they die...
Anyhoo, looks like I've made the choice...
Having done a little research myself and having read everything on here the only consistency is that absolutely no one knows what's the best option for leds... so with that in mind it seems to make complete sense to go with a option that can be changed/ upgraded etc over time... something where the individual lenses and leds could be swapped out easily, where fans could be upgraded etc etc. Also, in order to keep costs down, I'd want something that was relatively cheap in the original outlay, knowing that perhaps the suggested savings in running leds vs others isn't as much as hoped for.
So, after all this, where have I ended up... Chinese black boxes, that's where... before everyone jumps on me for being ignorant (I'm not, I have a degree in biology, specifically human evolution) here are my reasons for why Chinese black boxes (I am talking specifically mars aqua here) are the best reef lighting available:
1. Initial cost - the 300w, 80cm fixture is under £140 delivered.
2. Leds supplied are cheaper epistar... just as good as Cree, but less consistent and with a more variable wavelength... a bonus in my eyes as this surely just provides more light across the spectrum.
3. Future proof... they are simple. You can change just about everything in them, from the fans to the power supply to the leds and lenses, allowing you to upgrade as and when things move forward or when parts inevitably fail.
4. Coverage. I can afford to buy 6 of the 300w units which will cover my tank completely.
5. Par readings are equivalent to the more prestigious brands.
6. Customisable... I will likely swap out the 3500k warm whites with UV leds, which looks simple as far as I can see.
7. Running costs... they are actually about 220w not 300w so are slightly cheaper to run... with not having to swap out bulbs every 6 months or so, running costs over a 10 year period should be less than t5s or mh.
7. UK stock and repairable in UK too.
8. I think they are the best option and I am rarely, if ever, wrong.
So, thanks for all the input. As I said, I think this is such a contentious subject that it doesn't actually matter what I get, people will never agree it's any good, so I'm going with what I think is the best, based on all the really useful info you've all supplied.
Cheers.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Thanks for all the input... however you do the maths, Leds are the cheaper option over time... and I'm talking about running them for 10 yrs or until they die...
Anyhoo, looks like I've made the choice...
Having done a little research myself and having read everything on here the only consistency is that absolutely no one knows what's the best option for leds... so with that in mind it seems to make complete sense to go with a option that can be changed/ upgraded etc over time... something where the individual lenses and leds could be swapped out easily, where fans could be upgraded etc etc. Also, in order to keep costs down, I'd want something that was relatively cheap in the original outlay, knowing that perhaps the suggested savings in running leds vs others isn't as much as hoped for.
So, after all this, where have I ended up... Chinese black boxes, that's where... before everyone jumps on me for being ignorant (I'm not, I have a degree in biology, specifically human evolution) here are my reasons for why Chinese black boxes (I am talking specifically mars aqua here) are the best reef lighting available:
1. Initial cost - the 300w, 80cm fixture is under £140 delivered.
2. Leds supplied are cheaper epistar... just as good as Cree, but less consistent and with a more variable wavelength... a bonus in my eyes as this surely just provides more light across the spectrum.
3. Future proof... they are simple. You can change just about everything in them, from the fans to the power supply to the leds and lenses, allowing you to upgrade as and when things move forward or when parts inevitably fail.
4. Coverage. I can afford to buy 6 of the 300w units which will cover my tank completely.
5. Par readings are equivalent to the more prestigious brands.
6. Customisable... I will likely swap out the 3500k warm whites with UV leds, which looks simple as far as I can see.
7. Running costs... they are actually about 220w not 300w so are slightly cheaper to run... with not having to swap out bulbs every 6 months or so, running costs over a 10 year period should be less than t5s or mh.
7. UK stock and repairable in UK too.
8. I think they are the best option and I am rarely, if ever, wrong.
So, thanks for all the input. As I said, I think this is such a contentious subject that it doesn't actually matter what I get, people will never agree it's any good, so I'm going with what I think is the best, based on all the really useful info you've all supplied.
Cheers.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
