No love for MH?
- Thread starter riche
- Start date
- Tagged users None
A. grandis
2500 Club Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2012
- Messages
- 4,735
- Reaction score
- 3,412
Halides are known to be the best in terms of growth and coloration for a long time.
LED companies are constantly focusing on deceiving halides' kingdom to place their products on the throne, but they can't remove it's crown (the arc tube!)!!
Go to the Coral Lab and see for yourself.
They compare the Radions to T5s and Halides to proof their LEDs are actually better (?).
Like I've said before... results will depend on the application.
The application for such comparison is wrong. Halides and the T5s were not designed to run at that distance.
Again, they could ramp up the intensity of the LEDs and make it look better to sell as a better product.
If they place the Halide/T5 fixtures where they were supposed to be placed for that comparison that wouldn't happen!!!
Does that work for that application? Yes. Will that be the case in most home systems? No.
Here is the link:
https://ecotechmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ReefWholesale_CoralLab.pdf
This is the only nice thing in the whole article:
I love that dog. Cute!
One more...
This company wants to show that their LEDs are better performers than halides in their charts.
They pretend to forget that halides are different and can offer what any LED just can't, like the UV and IR with a blended spectrum very similar to sunlight (when comparing to the other 2 artificial light source for aquariums).
Just facts. Not saying it's better. But they are facts.
See for yourself:
GHL Mitras LX 7206 Saltwater LED Light Fixture
https://www.marinedepot.com/GHL_Mit...ypa83BJxc1hwTe2uf-xp7XiN7DOCM9QBoCScYQAvD_BwE
Does that mean halides are better?
No, they are just different and will show different results.
If the results you are looking for will depend on the qualities of light that only halides will offer, then don't get LEDs!
If you are happy with the LEDs' results, all good. Your option.
Try learn more with this guy:
If we start to respect others' opinions and deal with the results and how happy people are with their purchases everything will be fine.
To try to proof that the positive results people are posting here are actually not true showing charts and graphics, then that doesn't make any sense.
Let them enjoy the positive results from their halides and post them freely! There is nothing wrong with that!
Next time say please. Be a good boy.
Last edited:
Jay Norris
Active Member
Hi, yes I have tried M/H, T5, VHO lights and every combination of these lights, and they are all good for growing and the coloration of SPS Corals, there is no denying that. I was very skeptical, just like you of LED lighting for growing corals, and the first version of the LED lights would grow coral, just not as good as the M/H light combinations. Then one or two of the LED manufactures figured out what it took to grow the SPS and other Corals just as good as the M/H manufactures did, and yes at a larger short term cost to the consumer, they preformed just as well as the M/H lights and any combination of the lights. As far as spectrum, the German lights are full spectrum, and have UV light transmission in the right NM numbers to satisfy the Corals demands, and they grow and color up just as good as any M/H combination on the market. There are light programs on the internet, that are very similar, or the same as the M/H 14K, or the M/H 20K bulbs , or any color combination of the M/H bulbs, that the end consumer of these LED's can use. What I love about the M/H lights or any combination of M/H lights with T5 or VHO bulbs, is they are so easy to use, and are cheaper in the short term. For me though, and where I live, the heat generated by my old M/H, VHO, T5 combinations was getting expensive to maintain in the long term compared to the LED Mitra Lights. The chiller and A/C fish room electrical cost could be made up in 3.5 years for me, so it seemed like a good time to change to the Mitra LED,s. Now if I lived in a cold climate, the electrical saving would not be worth it, as the heat generated by M/H, VHO, or T5 bulbs would help heat the water and house, thus reducing your heating bills. One more thing, I just love the ramping up and down of the Mitra lights, and their is, as of now no safe way to ramp up and down M/H bulbs, without the shortening of the bulbs already short life span. I get it you love your M/H lights, I really liked my M/H lights, but for me it was time to move on, and there is nothing wrong with either light type, as they both grow corals the same, with the same color spectrum to keep your corals thriving in our systems.
Last edited:
Jay Norris
Active Member
Yes M/H's are better at producing IR, but not UV with the New 1 or 2 high end LED fixtures on the market.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,963
Growth of what? Coloration of what? I assume you mean coral - does that mean all types of coral? Where has this been shown?
They are?
Thanks it was an interesting video. Of course the placement of the lights will make a difference in the results. Im not in a position to analyze whether they positioned the MH lights so as to make them perform less well.
There is no such thing as 'most home systems'. Everyone is different. Everyone has different types of coral, etc. So, IMHO you can't make that statement.
But you are trying to say they are better - your first quote above says MH are better when it comes to coloration and growth. The constant light from a MH bulb is nothing like what happens on a natural reef - where the earths rotation causes the rays to brighter, darker, more intense, less intense etc. There are clouds on a natural reef - sometimes for days at a time, etc. Saying that one part of MH lighting MAY be more like natural sunlight may very well be a non-issue. If what you're saying (now) is that MH and LED are basically equivalent based on the application - I agree. many people have been saying that for pages.
See answer above. But just curious - what are the benefits of UV in the home aquarium? Can LED's produce UV? (Yes they can). What are the benefits of IR in the home aquarium? From my reading - many types of IR don't penetrate water very far at all. Just because a MH fixture produces IR - doesn't seem to follow that it therefor becomes 'better'....
Not sure what this refers to.
Even the Atlantik V4, which I consider the best LED on the market BY A MILE does not even pop UV like MH do. There is no comparison. Does it matter? Maybe? Maybe not? Who knows for sure? Most of the rest only dabble in UV with spillover from non-UV Violet LEDs - a white lie by the manufacturer, but a common one that everybody has come to live with.
We have covered this like 50 times in these 33 pages... yes, IR and UV can penetrate at least several meters in the ocean in dirtier water than what we keep in our tanks. This is no problem since nearly all of the tanks on this board are less than 2 meters deep. Yes, just about any coral can use UV for energy AND for color (reflectance and also re-emittance). You can believe what you want with IR, but the Emerson Effect literature seems pretty convincing to me along with the fact that IR producing lights can offer twice (or more) the PPFD without harming coral that light that does not have it, which also supports Emerson Effect theories. Again, Orphek made a good choice adding in 850nm here, IMO. Do you need any of this? Dunno? Do the lights that offer both UV and IR have some advantages - it seems so. I do find it funny that the V4 chart posted above does not go to 850nm even though the fixture does have 850nm diodes. There is some smoke here that points to both UV and IR being important.
Before this gets brought up again, the two-three meters that both UV and IR can penetrate ocean water is where nearly all of the corals that we have in our tanks come from. The masses of coral collected for the hobby are done on one-breath or wading in waist-deep water. There are studies that suggest that they both can penetrate to 10 meters, but we can table this and use the charts that Data posted a week, or so, ago.
We have covered this like 50 times in these 33 pages... yes, IR and UV can penetrate at least several meters in the ocean in dirtier water than what we keep in our tanks. This is no problem since nearly all of the tanks on this board are less than 2 meters deep. Yes, just about any coral can use UV for energy AND for color (reflectance and also re-emittance). You can believe what you want with IR, but the Emerson Effect literature seems pretty convincing to me along with the fact that IR producing lights can offer twice (or more) the PPFD without harming coral that light that does not have it, which also supports Emerson Effect theories. Again, Orphek made a good choice adding in 850nm here, IMO. Do you need any of this? Dunno? Do the lights that offer both UV and IR have some advantages - it seems so. I do find it funny that the V4 chart posted above does not go to 850nm even though the fixture does have 850nm diodes. There is some smoke here that points to both UV and IR being important.
Before this gets brought up again, the two-three meters that both UV and IR can penetrate ocean water is where nearly all of the corals that we have in our tanks come from. The masses of coral collected for the hobby are done on one-breath or wading in waist-deep water. There are studies that suggest that they both can penetrate to 10 meters, but we can table this and use the charts that Data posted a week, or so, ago.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,963
I agree with everything you said - not sure why you thought it was up for discussion. Certain types of IR and UV penetrate saltwater. Certain types of IR do not.
Im no expert in MH or LED lighting - you know far more than I ever will. I was trying to ask @A. grandis a couple specific questions based on his prior post to try to figure out WHY MH may be better than LEDs.
There is a difference between MH and LED in the amount of IR and UV produced. OK. Where is the data that this difference is the significant - ie most important reason that growth and color are better with MH (if indeed they are per @A. grandis ?). The reason I'm trying to get an answer to this question - (and you seem to have answered it already that 'no one knows') is everyone keeps mentioning IR and UV as being the major difference between MH and LED - but have no evidence (but I admit I may be forgetting some) - that these are beneficial to 'coral in general' (i.e. essential)
My Opinion: Coral coloration is very subjective. The amount, intensity and spectrum of light all are important. Rather than which light is being used (other than personal preference as to how the tank 'looks', cost, heat, etc) - the most important factor is that amount of light (duration/intensity) presented to the corals throughout the day. For example - if a person uses a MH fixture for 8 hours a day - this is not the same as someone using an LED fixture for 8 hours a day at 50% intensity with an hour ramp up and ramp down. The tank with the MH fixture is receiving far more total radiation. (and by the way - in Florida the daylight period ranges between. 11 and nearly 14 hours/day - yet how many people leave their lights on that long - even with ramping.? (IDK)
I dont recall you answering this - though - back to the original poll/thread - which was not about wavelengths, etc - but instead was 'Would you ever use Metal Halide AGAIN'? 60% of people said No. 25% said yes. My point being - there doesn't seem to be a groundswell of people running back to MH. If one system were so clearly better - what is your opinion as to why so many people don't choose to use it? Advertising? Availability? Some other reason? That said - maybe people misunderstood the poll.
I hit most of this in post #5.
I think it is a matter of the convenience over performance. The form factor, adjustability, reduced power consumption and heat, as well as the bulb replacement costs are valid reasons to go LED, but at a cost in performance. Most people use phones today to take all their pictures and do not even own a camera, but I would not conclude from that that phones take the best pictures.
The parallels to photography or even music are good. Of course, there are holes in any equivalency, but these are as good as any. I also collect and like to listen to vinyl. Leaving the collecting side out of it and the massive increases in value of some records lately, there are people who just don't believe that vinyl sounds better than even a lossless digital medium or a CD. Once they get to hear it, mostly at my house, then every single one of them had to agree that they were wrong and the vinyl does sound better - not a single person did not agree. Now, most of them cannot uproot their collections and stuff and start in on vinyl, but at least they now know why I only listen to digital music when I cannot find vinyl for it (there is a lot of this). Some of them also might not have nice enough of equipment for it to matter, but at my house, it did matter.
This is similar to the people who see my tanks running MH and what they can do... and the piles of Mitras, Radios, Photon V2, Black Boxes, etc. sitting unused in my fish room. Many of them have switched to MH after coming to my house. Most have just never seen the difference before except for at a local shop and they just assume that the shop is better than them.
I am not into film photography even though I know, for sure, that it has more depth and detail than my Canon Full Frame do. I just don't have the time to mess with it.
This is similar to the people who see my tanks running MH and what they can do... and the piles of Mitras, Radios, Photon V2, Black Boxes, etc. sitting unused in my fish room. Many of them have switched to MH after coming to my house. Most have just never seen the difference before except for at a local shop and they just assume that the shop is better than them.
I am not into film photography even though I know, for sure, that it has more depth and detail than my Canon Full Frame do. I just don't have the time to mess with it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,829
- Reaction score
- 21,963
Not really - you gave some anecdotal information as to people in your area that use MH lighting. The Poll here says the exact opposite (in black and white). In any case - the part you @jda didn't answer was if one system were so clearly better - why do so many people choose not to use it? (advertising, availability, for some other reason). That was what I was asking you
. the rest was for @A. grandisYou are absolutely correct it is just like audio. Folks far more experienced in audio than either you or I have (and had the opportunity to work with or under Dr Floyd Tool at the NRC) conducted proper double blind testing and the result was ...
Unless you use a highly compressed digital source, you can't tell the difference. It doesn't matter.
Yet some people persist in saying/writing otherwise. Much the same as in these lighting debates.
If you are ever in Boulder, stop by and I will play you the difference. The dynamics, channel separation and detail will amaze you, but this is with ultra high end equipment in a room and not on headphones, computer or in a car. You can see the difference in my tanks too. I do probably think that people who might not be able to hear a difference might not be able to see the difference, but those who can do one can probably do the other. Some people just aren't capable of paying that close of attention.
I have also seen studies that people cannot tell a difference in sound quality between a Sonos System and a McIntosh with B&W, Focal, DynAudio, etc. system. These are a waste of my time too. ...like these idiots on the commercials that believe that Chevy is longer lasting than a Toyota or Honda once they pull the sheet off of the car. You can always get enough idiots to conclude anything that you want. The proof is in what you have experienced.
Can you tell a difference in Coke and Pepsi? I can... and even RC Cola. Can you tell a difference in beer brands? Lots of people can. Lots of people still cannot tell and are the ones that the companies end up using in their studies and testing. The people who laughed when they heard the claim that Chevy is the longest lasting brand did not make it on TV.
I have also seen studies that people cannot tell a difference in sound quality between a Sonos System and a McIntosh with B&W, Focal, DynAudio, etc. system. These are a waste of my time too. ...like these idiots on the commercials that believe that Chevy is longer lasting than a Toyota or Honda once they pull the sheet off of the car. You can always get enough idiots to conclude anything that you want. The proof is in what you have experienced.
Can you tell a difference in Coke and Pepsi? I can... and even RC Cola. Can you tell a difference in beer brands? Lots of people can. Lots of people still cannot tell and are the ones that the companies end up using in their studies and testing. The people who laughed when they heard the claim that Chevy is the longest lasting brand did not make it on TV.
Sorry. I think that those reflectors would be good. 20k Hammys on electronic would probably also be a good choice... not sure that you would ever need the extra power of 20k Radium on m80.
RCS82
Well-Known Member
Jda, what would be the wattage roughly on the ice cap ballasts I'm running and where would the m80 be running? I'm using the selectawatt on 250hqi. Is the m80 in that 270w range and better for the hqi bulb? And the superlumen setting better for the radium, I know single ended, at 330w?
Similar threads
