Phoenix Bulb vs. Ushio Bulb
- Thread starter moevilla
- Start date
luther1200
Premium Member
I also have 150w MH. And my next bulb will either be the Radium's, ot the 14000K Ice Cap bulbs. Both are on the top end as far as PAR, and blue but not really blue. And most people who have both seem to like them. I have the Pheonix right now. I had 20000K XM's which I liked. I think the Pheonix and 20000K XM have similar color, but the Pheonix is brighter. Although I am only getting slightly more grow with the Pheonix than I was getting with the XM's. And the Pheonix is supposed to have a good amount more PAR. Some say the Pheonix is flat, but I don't think it really flat.
Here is a FTS of my 65 with the Pheonix, (but I do have 2-65w PC for actinics)
Here is a FTS of my 65 with the Pheonix, (but I do have 2-65w PC for actinics)
jpndave
New member
I just went from a 15K 175W Iwasaki to the 175W Phoenix and the difference in color and how happy the coral is was amazing! I have seen the 250W SE and DE. They all seem about the same. I don't have any actinics on my tank (yet) but have seen the 250W with 420nm T5 actinics and they look wonderful, just brings the color out even more. I am building a 210 and it will absolutely have Phoenix bulbs on it. I have Lumenarc reflectors and will run 250W SE phoenix with UV T5 super actinics.
The only experience I have with Ushio 14K is the 70W DE bulb that I use on my refugium/frag section. I definately prefer the Phoenix. The 70W 14K Ushio is more blue than the Iwasaki. I haven't compared it to the Phoenix yet.
The only experience I have with Ushio 14K is the 70W DE bulb that I use on my refugium/frag section. I definately prefer the Phoenix. The 70W 14K Ushio is more blue than the Iwasaki. I haven't compared it to the Phoenix yet.
Skeptic_07
New member
luther, try the icecap lamp. You might be pleasantly surprised! I just got it and I really like the color and the output. Having tried both, I really think this lamp may give phoenix a run for its money. BTW the radium is nowhere close to the icecap in PAR. Sanjay's test puts the radium, unshielded at 58 and the Icecap, shielded at 69, unshielded at 86, both tested on m81 ballast. The radium does have great PAR for a 20000k lamp but in general its till on the low end.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2004/review.htm
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature2/view?searchterm=None
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/may2004/review.htm
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/8/aafeature2/view?searchterm=None
jpndave
New member
This is just my opinion/observation so take it for what it is worth and please no one take offense.
That said, I have not heard good things about the IceCap bulb. I have a good friend that is WAY into high end LE corals of all types that tried it and wasn't impressed. I have not seen it in person yet, but I trust his judgment. I won't put out any names but most would probably recognize him or his company.
Sanjay's tests are wonderful/amazing! Kudos to him for doing it. However, PAR is important but not everything. My Iwasaki was the "PAR King" having more than most 250W Bulbs and probably half of the 400W bulbs. This Phoenix bests it in every way that I have seen. Both driven by an IceCap ballast and in the same Lumenarc Style (my own manufacture, but professionally done) reflector. The coral are brighter, more colorful and seem to be much happier under the Phoenix. There may not be as much PAR but the results are proof (at least in my particular application) that PAR isn't everything! This would also hold true in comparing my friends set up to mine. I have taken multiple identical (or as close as they can be) frags of the same coral and the growth is at least double in his tank. Certainly there are other factors but the lighting is definately one of those, same reflectors, IceCap ballasts, similar pumps, same salt, etc. His actinics are a new addition so until just recently that wouldn't come in to play either. I am sold on that bulb both with my results and all of those I have seen. I think the ideal combo is the Phoenix bulb, GOOD reflectors, IceCap Ballast with the 420nm T5 Actinic. I don't care for the Deep blue tint at all. The Phoenix does look blue compared to the Iwasaki, which I would call pure White, but it is not objectionable at all and the coral (and fish too) colors are well worth it. I would call the Phoenix white with a slight blue tint.
One more thing, the 420nm bulbs don't seem to make a big difference in the overall look of the tank. Some difference can be seen but mostly just in making the colors "pop". The spectrum is so low that it really isn't visible much at all.
That said, I have not heard good things about the IceCap bulb. I have a good friend that is WAY into high end LE corals of all types that tried it and wasn't impressed. I have not seen it in person yet, but I trust his judgment. I won't put out any names but most would probably recognize him or his company.
Sanjay's tests are wonderful/amazing! Kudos to him for doing it. However, PAR is important but not everything. My Iwasaki was the "PAR King" having more than most 250W Bulbs and probably half of the 400W bulbs. This Phoenix bests it in every way that I have seen. Both driven by an IceCap ballast and in the same Lumenarc Style (my own manufacture, but professionally done) reflector. The coral are brighter, more colorful and seem to be much happier under the Phoenix. There may not be as much PAR but the results are proof (at least in my particular application) that PAR isn't everything! This would also hold true in comparing my friends set up to mine. I have taken multiple identical (or as close as they can be) frags of the same coral and the growth is at least double in his tank. Certainly there are other factors but the lighting is definately one of those, same reflectors, IceCap ballasts, similar pumps, same salt, etc. His actinics are a new addition so until just recently that wouldn't come in to play either. I am sold on that bulb both with my results and all of those I have seen. I think the ideal combo is the Phoenix bulb, GOOD reflectors, IceCap Ballast with the 420nm T5 Actinic. I don't care for the Deep blue tint at all. The Phoenix does look blue compared to the Iwasaki, which I would call pure White, but it is not objectionable at all and the coral (and fish too) colors are well worth it. I would call the Phoenix white with a slight blue tint.
One more thing, the 420nm bulbs don't seem to make a big difference in the overall look of the tank. Some difference can be seen but mostly just in making the colors "pop". The spectrum is so low that it really isn't visible much at all.
Last edited:
I assume you are referring to the Icecap "14000K" ? ...
The lamp has a measured color temp of around 6000K !!!
Of course the par is great for a 150 watt lamp. The spectral plot looks like it is right in line with the measured color temp.
You are in reality comparing the par of a true 20000K plus lamp in the Radium to that of a 6000K lamp with the Icecap "14000K". Of course the Icecap has higher par.
That lamp has to be THE most unnaccurately color temp rated lamp I have seen, period. The Ushio 14000K measures close to 10000K but the Icecap 14000K measures around 6000K !!! Talk about K ratings being marketing tools ... the Icecap 14000K is the poster child.
Skeptic_07
New member
I was responding to luthers post and was saying that the icecap was better than the radium in terms of PAR, not the phoenix. I haven't seen tests of the phoenix in terms of PAR so i can't make much of a comparison. I liked the phoenix and IIRC it was similar in color to the icecap 14000k and I would guess that they are close in PAR.
That said your friends opinion means nothing and it doesn't matter what types of corals he is into. Lights are personal preference no matter how you slice it. I should tank a photo of my tank and post it here so that people can decide rather than just going on hearsay. Same with your PAR isnt everything comments. I realize its not everything but to some people it is more important than color. Not everyone is the same as you.
That said your friends opinion means nothing and it doesn't matter what types of corals he is into. Lights are personal preference no matter how you slice it. I should tank a photo of my tank and post it here so that people can decide rather than just going on hearsay. Same with your PAR isnt everything comments. I realize its not everything but to some people it is more important than color. Not everyone is the same as you.
Skeptic_07
New member
LMAO darG . Yes i wasreferring to the 14000k. If you think it looks like a 6500k lamp then either you have never actually seen it working or you have no idea what you're talking about.
jpndave
New member
I wasn't aware of the "actual" temp. on this lamp. That would explain things a lot. It sure would be nice if the rated temps more closely aligned with the actual. My Iwasaki 175W 15K being much more "white" than the 14K Phoenix is a good example though not as extreme as the IceCap.
I haven't heard of anyone that has used (or possibly even seen) the Phoenix bulb that didn't like it. I have been a slow convert. Mostly because of the PAR numbers game/high rating of the iwasaki. Well that, and the fact that the Phoenix was only available in a double ended bulb until very recently.
I havent seen it ... you linked to the article and stated Sanjays testing as the source of information for par. That same source of information that you site for the lamps par shows the lamp to measure around 6000K with a spectral plot consistent with that measurement !!!
Sanjay could have gotten a bad lamp or a mislabeled lamp but if thats the case, the par of the correct lamp or a good lamp would not be as high as it is for the 6000K lamp which he measured. It is clearly not a misprint of the color temp measurment because the spectral plot backs it up.
Please dont insult me by stating that I have no idea what I am talking about when I am referencing the information in the link that YOU provided as documentation for the lamp.
I dont like the Phoenix in either 250 or 150 watt DE and have owned both of them. Havent seen any of the newer mogul based versions.
By the way, it is the Phoenix 14K DE in both those wattages and that are not truly rated. They both measure over 20K. The Iwasaki 15K 175 watt measures very close to a 15K lamp.
It doesnt take much of a blue tint at all for a lamp to measure over 20K. If it has just a hint of noticeable blue it is probably 20K plus. But color perceptions can vary ... some claim they see some blue in the Ushio 14K ... I dont see any blue at all, I see it as a warmer lamp (it is too). Some may not see any blue in a lamp at all and it still may be a 20K lamp. The Iwasaki 14K DE 250 watt measures over 20K and most perceive it as either a crisp white with no blue or just barely a hint of blue. Same with the newer 20K Iwasaki 150 watt DE ... crisp white lamp, looks very similiar to the 14K 250 watt DE ... crisp white with very no or very little perceptible blue tint but it really is a 20K plus lamp.
Perception is everything when lighting our tanks and reefers like different looks and get different results that other reefers using the same lamps. But what color people relate to certian K ratings is often off by a good margin and I think that's because the misleading K ratings of so many lamps have been taken for granted as being the true color temp. when they very often are not.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15529569#post15529569 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jpndave
I stand corrected!
Popular lamps but not everyone is a fan of the color. It's not just me, there are more than a few reefers who dont like the lamps color. Different strokes for different folks
Skeptic_07
New member
My intention was never to insult you but I do find it funny that you would make that statement without ever having any first hand experience with the lamp as you have just admitted. Going purely on some CCT rating will not tell you exactly what the lamp will look like when its burning. All the CCT rating is, is a measurement taken by a sensor and compared to some ridiculous scale defined as the color of a black body when its heated to that temperature. It has nothing to do with how the light looks to the human eye and actually, the manufacturers labels are probably a better description, for the most part.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/sj/index.php
I'll just cut right to the meat and potatoes. "The color theory can mathematically represent color and provide a mathematical specification of color, yet there is still a difference between color specification and humans' color experience." So in essence there is nothing wrong with the manufacturers 'lying' about the color temperature of their lamps as long as they're doing it to give the customers a better idea of what the lamp will look like.
I am not going to argue this with you ... but if you see the Icecap 14K as a crisp white/blue tint lamp, it is NOT the same lamp that Sanjay is showing as the one he tested in the link that you provided. That lamp would look NOTHING like a 14K. It would be [perceived as a very warm, yellow looking lamp, period.
CCT actually does correlate with what we see here ... all you have to do is compare the spectal plot of the 6000 CCT lamp that Sanjay tested as the Icecap 14K with another 6000 or 6500 or even 7000 CCT lamp that Sanjay has tested and you can see enough similarity in the sprectral plots ... Your argument is that Icecap magically found a way to create a halide lamp with the spectral plot of other 6000 CCT lamps that he has tested and that we see as very warm ... but yet appear white/blue to our eyes and produce 2 - 3 times the par. Why not do the same magic with their 20K then? Why does the 20K tested plot like a 20K would be expected to? I realize that two different looking spectral plots may actually measure the same in terms of CCT. But we are talking about very similiar spectral plots here which will be perceived as very similiar in color. Icecap did not pull a magic act with these lamps. The lamp Sanjay is showing in the link you provided is not a crisp white or white/ blue looking lamp ... You have a different lamp. Either he received a mislabeled lamp, the wrong lamp or the plots and measurments for the Icecap 14K are for another lamp and a mistake was made in the article or he mixed up the data after the testing (most likely because he would have caught it otherwise).
Are you really that dead set on needing to believe that you have a 14K white/blue lamp that has mind blowing par that you cant see that an error was made ?
luther1200
Premium Member
I think I will give the Ice Cap's a try next time I get bulbs. Thanks.
Similar threads
