View Full Version : VHO versus T5
ccradr
10/06/2008, 09:02 AM
I was thinking about scrapping my T5 lighting..tell me what you think. I have 4 39watt T5 actinic plus running on 2 icecap 660 ballast. Im gueesing it overdriven by about 12 watts per bulb. That gives me 204watts. Im thinking about going with 2 UVL bulbs with 160 watts per bulb to equal 320watts. No reflector needed since they have internal reflectors...but would my corals POP?????
AZDesertRat
10/06/2008, 09:58 AM
Nothing beats UVL VHO Super Actinics for pop. What combination of bulbs are you looking at?
ccradr
10/06/2008, 10:09 AM
Im thinking both ULV being Super actinics....thoughts?
fijiblue
10/06/2008, 10:20 AM
I agree with AZDesertRat. The VHO SA's seem to make things pop much better than the T5 SA's do.
AZDesertRat
10/06/2008, 10:21 AM
Do you have MH too or just the T5s? Two Super Actinics alone will be very purple, maybe an Actinic Day and a Super Actinic?
gh0st
10/06/2008, 10:24 AM
In my experience, regardless of wattage, a VHO vs a T-5 bulb on an icecap ballast...
One T-5 overdriven with a quality reflector is about twice as bright as a VHO bulb of the same size on the same ballast with an internal reflector.
To get a good color balance you may need two VHO actinics for each T-5 daylight lamp.
I had two T-5 daylight lamps (one 10k one 50/50) on a Icecap 660 and three VHO actinics on a Icecap 430. I just switched to two t-5 Actinics instead of the VHO's and the color is much more balanced, before the actinics got washed out by the daylight lamps.
BigJay
10/06/2008, 10:50 AM
Funny, I'm looking at moving in the exact opposite direction.
I have a pair of superactinic 72" VHO bulbs that I'm looking at replacing with 4 X 39 watt T5's (not overdriven) with quality individual reflectors.
My primary lighting is three 250 watt halides in lumenmax reflectors, and they do wash out the VHO's. I'm spending a lot of wattage IMO for very little return. I figure technology has advanced a bit since VHO was popular, and the T5's have a better overall look and output.
Comments anyone?
Can someone point me to a good retrofit kit?
ccradr
10/06/2008, 11:14 AM
WOW...so now we have two sides....anyone want to make it 3? just kidding. Does anyone out there have both that can comment?
kronan
10/06/2008, 11:44 AM
I have been running UVL VHO lights for over 20 years and have tried T-5, I have a large tank and for the POP value and growth nothing seems to beat the VHOs ,granted I have 3-250w hamilton 14000k MH and 6-6ft VHO (3actinic,2-50/50, 1aqua sun)I have lots of acropora(over 65 colonies) and plenty of zoos and soft corals. I would go with the VHO.. tried ,true and proven over time. I run all my lighting on icecap ballasts I have never been let down by this combo.
ccradr
10/06/2008, 12:27 PM
Another 1 for ULV.......
ccradr
10/06/2008, 03:28 PM
BUMP
My light rack was made so that I could use either VHO or T5 as supplemental lighting. I am running Icecap 660 ballast.
I have two T5's as supplemental lighting to dual halides.
I went with the T5's because it was NOT EVEN CLOSE. The approximate 160 watts of T5 (two 4 ft Super actinic T5 bulbs on 660) obliterated 210 watts of VHO UVL Super actinics with internal reflector in terms of the impact that the two different types of flourescents had on color supplementing the halides.
I could not get enough output from the actinic VHO's to color up the halides satisfactorily. But the T5's easily supply loads of supplemental color to the halides.
I ran VHO for a dozen years. I am NOT saying that the T5 super actinic looks better than the VHO super actinic in terms of color. What I am saying is that the super actinic T5 looks very good on 660 ballast and that the superior output easily trumps the better color of VHO super actinic vs T5 super actinic. This is in my situation where I only have room for two supplemental bulbs, and for my tank and in my opinion. If I had room to run atleast 4 VHO's and I didnt mind the extra wattage and heat, then it may be a different choice for me. Again, I do think that VHO super actinic looks better than T5 super actinic. And eventhough the T5 super actinic still provided more output than the VHO when I drove the T5 at standrad ho wattage (54 watts) I do personally find non-ovedriven super actinic T5 to be a bit anemic looking.
But personally, I think that UVL Super actinic T5 (and some other brands) is a better than decent 420nm lamp when overdriven.
To summarize my point ... if you can get enough output from VHO super actinic to supplement your halides adequately (IOW ... have room for enough bulbs to get the output you want/need) and you dont care about the extra energy they use and heat that they produce to achieve the same impact in terms of output then I agree that VHO SA's are a better 420nm lamp, color wise. But you do need to consider whether you can get the output that you need from the VHO because T5 with individual reflector, especially overdriven, easily supplies more output than VHO. Again, this is comparing the 4 foot versions of both bulb types.
Just my own perception and opinion based on my experience with both types.
Bowman
10/06/2008, 04:16 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13493736#post13493736 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
WOW...so now we have two sides....anyone want to make it 3? just kidding. Does anyone out there have both that can comment?
UVL is coming out with T5 lamps with internal reflectors and by January will have 7 spectrum offerings. The first ones will be available the 15th of this month. I currently run VHO's and am planning on switching to T5's. Icecap 660's will run 4 - 48" T5 lamps by the way. Cheers
hansmatt
10/06/2008, 04:21 PM
hmmm...I've got 4x110 vho on icecap (two 50/50 and 2 actinics) and have had good growth etc, but am going to switch to a powermodule 6x54w fixture. I'm interested in the lower profile fixture, quiet/cool running, with low power and nice color selection....I'll keep on thinking :)
RonMidtownStomp
10/07/2008, 03:50 AM
How many hours do you run the VHO's? The MH's? Does anyone cycle the actinics off when the MH's come on to save power and turn them on if they want to view the tank with more pop? I have UVL super actinics and I'm considering setting it up that way. I figure I'll save $15/month in electricity unless I find that corals will be happier or grow better with the actinics on the whole time.
Ron
fijiblue
10/07/2008, 07:40 AM
ccradr - perhaps you should start a poll to see what is used more and why.
The Grim Reefer
10/07/2008, 08:10 AM
A combination of the two is the way I would go. The VHO actinic cannot do what the Blue T5's can do and while the T5 actinic are a lot better now than when they first came out but still cant match the VHO.
I bought a "semi green" Staghorn a guy had under halides and VHO's. The halide lamps were old so the color wasn't great. Kind of a greenish brown but decent looking green on the base. Other coral I got was a purple acros he said had browned out under the old lamps. Within the first couple weeks the Purple coral started getting some violet color but the green staghorn's green color hasn't really improved much. Damnedest thing is the new growth coming in is the most incredible baby blue you can imagine. Didn't expect that. I had heard that some SPS guys were dumping VHO actinics because they caused corals to blue up. I always assumed they meant blue corals but maybe this is what they meant.
fijiblue
10/07/2008, 08:20 AM
I had heard that some SPS guys were dumping VHO actinics because they caused corals to blue up
Interesting.
HaroldT
10/07/2008, 11:21 AM
I would go with the VHO.
HaroldT
10/07/2008, 11:21 AM
I would go with the VHO.
BigJay
10/07/2008, 01:21 PM
I had no idea that VHO would get this many votes. Thanks for saving me $200.00 on a retrofit setup.
Any particular reason for this though? I thought that a T5 setup would have much higher output, color choices, and better looks than a VHO.
AZDesertRat
10/07/2008, 01:35 PM
T5 colors still are not comparable to VHO, getting closer but still not there yet.
The Grim Reefer
10/07/2008, 02:48 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13499752#post13499752 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fijiblue
Interesting.
Gads, I didn't read what I wrote. They were dumping VHO Actinics in favor of T5 Blue Plus lamps because they cause corals to blue up, the T5's I mean
Sorry.
The Grim Reefer
10/07/2008, 02:52 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13501519#post13501519 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BigJay
I had no idea that VHO would get this many votes. Thanks for saving me $200.00 on a retrofit setup.
Any particular reason for this though? I thought that a T5 setup would have much higher output, color choices, and better looks than a VHO.
If you are talking stand alone lighting VHO cant touch T5's.
I think some here are assuming you are talking about actinic supplimentation for Halide lighting.
BeanAnimal
10/07/2008, 03:08 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13493736#post13493736 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
WOW...so now we have two sides....anyone want to make it 3? just kidding. Does anyone out there have both that can comment?
There is not really 2 sides the the argument.
T12 and T5 bulbs are very similar with regard to their function and phosphors. The big difference is the diameter of the bulb. That dictates the surface area of the bulb that can hold phosphor and the shadow that the bulb casts.
To make a long story short, the T12 bulb has the advantage of better heat dissapation and lumen maintenance over the T5 bulb. The problem is that the T12 bulb casts a very large shadow compared to the T5 bulb. Where the T5 shines (no pun) is in the fact that a 2.5" wide SLR can be used to move most of the light into the desired focus (the tank). The T12 bulb could also do the same thing but the SLR would need to be 7"-8" wide.
You can get more 2-3 T5s with SLRS in the same space you can get 1 VHO with an SLR. Without an SLR the VHO wastes at least 60% of the light it creates (remember it shadows itself and the light from the other bulbs that bounce of the big overhead reflector).
The result, less wattage nets you more useable light over the same area, even of both generations of bulbs are about even watt for watt in TOTAL light output.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13492866#post13492866 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
I was thinking about scrapping my T5 lighting..tell me what you think. I have 4 39watt T5 actinic plus running on 2 icecap 660 ballast. Im gueesing it overdriven by about 12 watts per bulb. That gives me 204watts. Im thinking about going with 2 UVL bulbs with 160 watts per bulb to equal 320watts. No reflector needed since they have internal reflectors...but would my corals POP?????
No offense here but how many members who replied actually read the OP's question above?
The OP is running 4 overdriven 3ft actinic plus T5's. He wants to switch to two 160 watt UVL Super actinics.
Is this supplemental lighting for halides? One would assume it is.
If not, he will be running VHO super actinic as his only lighting. Hmmmmm, that ought to work great :D
Regardless, maybe a switch to T5 super actinic bulbs would be a better solution before swithching to a different lighting system. VHO SA may look better than SA T5 but atleast the OP would get a much better look at what 420nm lamps look like before buying the endcaps and all new bulbs. Also, he is making an assumption that the extra wattage when switching to VHO is going to give him a boost in par assuming that the internal VHO reflector is as effective as the T5 slr's.
Were not even talking about apples and apples here. Were talking about actinic plus T5 versus super actinic VHO. Not SA T5 versus SA VHO. Blue T5's versus 420nm "purple" VHO's. We are ignoring the wattage issue and ignoring the reflector issue.
Im as guilty as everyone else with my first reply.
Maybe Im missing something but I dont think that the OP is getting the best responses here in general. More info on his part would help and more attention to the question on "our" parts would be much more helpful to the OP. Again, unless Im missing something.
microbubbles
10/07/2008, 03:19 PM
seriously! in my last setup, i ran 2x400 xm 20k halides and 2 110w vho's and while i was extremely happy with the sps color, i absolutely HATED my energy spike from the lighting setup ( a 90g, mind you).
after being out for 2-3 years, i recently got back in this summer (still not running salt water yet) and was planning on going 2x250hqi + 2xhot5 until i realized i didn't have the room under my hood to fit everything. i loved the idea of saving a few bucks every month w/ the more efficient t-5, but realized that i can fit the vho's w/o blocking out much of the halide light coming out of my DE lumenbright 3's running phoenix 14k. anyway, even though i hate backtracking and changing my plans, i went back to the vho's. all i can say is the combination of the 2 lights are INTENSE and the spectrum is what i always dreamt about.
what a bonus to hear that so many here think the vho's help the color more, which is #1 to me.
The Grim Reefer
10/07/2008, 03:29 PM
By the way, You can run a 160 watt VHO and 2 36" T5s on the single Ice Cap ballast if you want to use both.
fijiblue
10/07/2008, 03:39 PM
Another factor that wasn't touched upon is that a T12 bulb is more random in the way it projects the light. The T5 is more focused due to the SLR's. In my experience, this is what fluoresces more coral in a given area and looks better, regardless of output. (my opinion, of course).
No offense here but how many members who replied actually read the OP's question above?
From what we posted, it sounds like everyone took it as supplemental lighting since he asked if his corals would "POP". I do see what you mean with the actinic plus and super actinic difference.
ccradr - please elaborate;)
BeanAnimal
10/07/2008, 03:58 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13502378#post13502378 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fijiblue
Another factor that wasn't touched upon is that a T12 bulb is more random in the way it projects the light. The T5 is more focused due to the SLR's. In my experience, this is what fluoresces more coral in a given area and looks better, regardless of output. (my opinion, of course).
I did touch on it :) The SLR moves most of the generated light into the desired focus. The large T12 bulb and a standard reflector end up wasting (scattering) most of the light. So Watt for Watt, an SLR equipped bulb moves more light into the tank than a non SLR equipped bulb. You can't get enough Watts worth of T12 equipped SLRs over a tank to be beneficial. You may notice it as better "pop" but it is just more focused light :)
fijiblue
10/07/2008, 04:07 PM
Oops! I should rephrase that. I feel the VHO "pops" more due to the scattering effect then the more focused T5's with SLR's.
BeanAnimal
10/07/2008, 04:14 PM
That may very well be. It may also explain why people prefer the T12 UVL VHO over the T5 sibling.
JRechcygl
10/07/2008, 04:26 PM
I have a customer here that uses 48" VHO and loathes them. He notices considerable spectrum shift and output degradation at approximately 6 months. He is planning on switching to t5 to not only gain the ability to tweak the spectrum more(more bulbs) but save him serious $$ on bulb replacement. Even buying GMan bulbs or similar bulb he would replace 8 or whatever at a comparable price to the VHO he is replacing now.
Just my two Lincolns....
Not considered as well is that the OP is going to lose supplemental output going to SA VHO compared to blue T5's. And he would lose supplemental output if he were currently using SA T5 and switched to SA VHO. The VHO SA may be better colorwise but if the OP ends up not having enough output from the two VHO's, the nicer color is not an advantage. Its only of benefit if he still has enough supplemental output from the VHO's.
Exactly the reason why I went with T5 over VHO as mentioned in my first reply.
The OP is focused on wattage and also does not realize that the internal reflector of a VHO doesnt touch an external SLR for T5 in terms of throwing light into the tank.
Hope he checks back.
ant1k
10/07/2008, 07:36 PM
so with all that said and done, Im assuming that VHO would be better at supplementing MH when par is not an issue. ? of course when power consumption is not an issue.
ccradr
10/07/2008, 07:48 PM
Thanks DarG: Here is the deal. Im ok with the T5's currently and yes I use them for supplementation. I was figuring if I went with VHO SA I would get more par and maybe a better color for my corals.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13503977#post13503977 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ant1k
so with all that said and done, Im assuming that VHO would be better at supplementing MH when par is not an issue. ? of course when power consumption is not an issue.
That's a matter of opinion if you are talking about VHO in general. Personally, aside from the Super actinics, VHO are essentially obsolete. So in my opinion, if you can get enough supplemental lighting from VHO Super actinic and it is super actinic that you want to run for supplemental lighting, then yes, VHO super actinic still has it over T5 super actinic. But also, I think that overdriven T5 super actinic is pretty good. Good to the point that I personally wont bother with VHO because of the shorter bulb life and lower efficiency and increased heat (for the same output levels) due to the additional wattage required to equal T5's par.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13504055#post13504055 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
Thanks DarG: Here is the deal. Im ok with the T5's currently and yes I use them for supplementation. I was figuring if I went with VHO SA I would get more par and maybe a better color for my corals.
Right, because you are assuming that the extra wattage means extra par. But the T5 individual reflectors are the key and so superior to putting light down into the tank compared to the internal reflectors of VHO. Its not the additional wattage that matters in this case. Its the small diameter of the T5 that allows the reflectors to be so effective.
These are some of the things you need to consider. Plus, the bulbs you are using now are NOT 420nm super actinics. They are blue bulbs, around 450nm or close. Super actinic peaks at 420nm. You may want to consider trying some super actinic T5's to atleast see what the effect is before considering the other factors and making the switch to VHO. The differences in super actinic and your actinic plus lamps are signifigant. In addition, you lose par just going to super actinic in either T5 or VHO. They are the lowest par bulbs. You would definitely lose par going from your blue T5's to the Super actinic T5 and then again going to VHO super actinic (not the wattage, the reflectors). That is assuming that you are using individual reflectors for your T5's now.
Just things you should consider before making the jump. It just isnt as cut and dry as it can seem to be. Many factors to consider.
So just consider them before you leap. Make sure you are making the right decision. If after that you feel that VHO super actinic will give you enough supplemental output, then it may be worth it.
Just the way i look at things and my opinions on the subject.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
grigsy
10/07/2008, 08:39 PM
I have used both VHO and T5 as suppliment to halides. Hands down, go with VHO. MUCH better color from an actinic blue URI VHO than ANY other T5 actinic blue bulb I have tried. It's not even close.
miwoodar
10/07/2008, 10:59 PM
I like my VHO's for MH supplementation. I was going to switch to T-5's on my recent tank upgrade but found too many threads in which people went from MH+VHO to MH+T5 then back to MH+VHO.
BigJay
10/08/2008, 09:12 AM
So the consensus is:
T5 = Better PAR and supplemental lighting.
VHO = Better color and better spread of the lighting.
I thought that a VHO bulb lasted about a year before it needs to be replaced. They should be replaced sooner?
AZDesertRat
10/08/2008, 09:14 AM
VHO super actinics for me can go a year or more, Daylights and others about 9 months.
africangrey
10/08/2008, 09:58 AM
I recently switched from T5 UVL to VHO Superactinic 03 to supplemented my 2x 400w Halio 20K, let me tell you the color of the many sps previously not seen under T5 SA are showing up either instently or over time. I have to say nothing can touch the coloration effect of VHO superactinic 03, not Geismen nor ATI, and best of all they are made in U.S.A
miwoodar
10/08/2008, 10:05 AM
This hobby is ever changing. I remember about a decade ago when a few of my friends went from VHO's to PC's believing it to be an 'upgrade'. I think we're going to see a push back towards VHO's in the next few years for MH supplementation. Actually, come to think of it, apparently the push has already started. I think it's going to get bigger though.
grigsy
10/08/2008, 10:29 AM
I thought that a VHO bulb lasted about a year before it needs to be replaced. They should be replaced sooner?
That depends on the ballast being used. For example, most VHO bulbs you will get a year out of on an Ice Cap ballast or another electronic ballast. On a magnetic VHO ballast, they generally need to be replaced every 6 months or so.
ccradr
10/08/2008, 11:18 AM
Maybe I should just remove 2 strip of T5 and get connectors for VHO and try a mix......... But would that be the same of using T5 super actinics?
BeanAnimal
10/08/2008, 01:02 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13507143#post13507143 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by miwoodar
This hobby is ever changing. I remember about a decade ago when a few of my friends went from VHO's to PC's believing it to be an 'upgrade'. I think we're going to see a push back towards VHO's in the next few years for MH supplementation. Actually, come to think of it, apparently the push has already started. I think it's going to get bigger though.
That was a FAD with new technology that had no advantage over the old. PC bulbs suck for many reasons :)
miwoodar
10/08/2008, 01:17 PM
Agreed Bean. PC's are junk and should only be installed if the reefer has no other choice or is only keeping low light organisms.
ccradr
10/09/2008, 05:39 AM
Does anyone think I should go with half VHO and half T5?
hottuna
10/09/2008, 05:47 AM
someone said earlier -"nothing beats a vho super actinic for pop "
well I have some of the original philips actinic "03" lamps overdriven by an icecap ballast and I have to say - we had it right ...back in the day...nothing beats those bulbs..
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13512623#post13512623 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
Does anyone think I should go with half VHO and half T5?
If you have the room, thats your best option. VHO for superactinic and T5 for other color supplementation. The only possible issue is that the T5's will likely have a larger impact on the color than the VHO. But the SA VHO should still have its color "pop" effect. You just may not notice it's overall color effect on the tank as well depending on what T5s you run.
If I had the room for 4 rows of supplemental flourescents, I would run two VHO's and two T5's myself. I dont, I just have the two bulbs. In my case, I cannot get enough color supplementation from running two VHO super actinics with the whiter halides that I prefer to use. The Two 4ft T5's (super actinics or other) have WAY more impact on coloring up the halides than the two VHO's. It wasnt even close. So for me, the trade off was well worth it. The higher output of the super actinic T5's to me is easily a bigger advantage than the superior color of the VHO super actinics because I cannot get enough output from them. But it may be different if I made different halide bulb choices (like a lower par and/or bluer halide) . Besides, I like the run a fiji purple as one supplemental bulb as well. Whatever the case, it's a very individual choice. Personally, I think that super actinic T5 is a pretty good 420nm bulb (overdriven 4 foot UVL's). VHO super actinic is better but I dont feel that the T5 is as bas as I get the sense that some posters here do.
Anyway ... I would go for the mix. I think thats your best option. Thats what I would do anyway if I had room for 4 rows of flourescents.
ccradr
10/10/2008, 06:39 PM
So why the Figi Purple? Is it close to the Geissmann true actinic?
ccradr
10/11/2008, 07:52 AM
BUmp
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13523581#post13523581 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
So why the Figi Purple? Is it close to the Geissmann true actinic?
No, its a unique bulb and its more of a red/purplish rather than a blue/purplish like that of the 420nm actinics. I simply like the addition of color that it provides in combination with a super actinic and the halides.
Also, I prefer the UVL T5 super actinics over the Giesemanns. I have both. To my eye, the UVL T5 looks closest to the VHO super actinics. But it's a pretty subtle difference and the Giesemanns are good bulbs. Thats just my personal opinion.
Also, at last check the UVL T5 super actinics has the most par of the T5 super/true/pure 420nm actinics.
ccradr
10/12/2008, 06:51 PM
I guess I will stay with the T5's over driven by the 66 icecap.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13533889#post13533889 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
I guess I will stay with the T5's over driven by the 66 icecap.
You can always swap out two T5's for Two VHO super actinics and run them all off of the Icecap 660 ballast. It will run up to 16 feet total lenght of lamps, T5 or VHO or a cmbination of VHO and T5. If I remember, you have a total of four 3ft. T5 so you would be fine with a 12ft total length combination of both lamp types in the future if you decide to. Do try a T5 420nm super actinic though ... so you can get an idea of what it looks like. You have 4 T5 slots and you may really like the look and your corals may look good under a couple of them added to your other T5's.
ccradr
10/13/2008, 08:10 AM
Do the super actinics look like the pure actinics from geismann?
bimmerzs
10/13/2008, 09:58 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13533889#post13533889 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
I guess I will stay with the T5's over driven by the 66 icecap.
Hi,
I recently switched over from VHO SA's to T5's for actinic supplementation. I have 4 39W T5's on Icecap 660 and decided to run 2 Giesemann actinic plus and 2 Giesemanns pure actinics. I staggered them from front to back, pure act -> actinic +-> pure act -> actinic + and am really pleased with the look. I also mounted 2 24" fiji purples, one between each set of actinic's being pushed by icecap 430, it looks pretty neat with the fiji purples and actinic's on at the same time.:cool: You can play around with bulb placement to see if it changes up the look if you go with 420nm/460nm or blue + bulbs.
Cheers,
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13536467#post13536467 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
Do the super actinics look like the pure actinics from geismann?
Yes, the two look very close. I think that the UVL's are slightly more purple, very slightly. Another poster a while back said that he thought that the Giesemanns were more purplish. So it's a case of how different people perceive colors differently. I just that that the UVL's are the best 420nm T5's as in the closest to the VHO's. But if you have a Giesemann pure actinic then you know what the actinics look like. I thought you were running all actinic plus bulbs which are not the same as the pure/true/super actinic. The VHO super actinics give off a "richer" color than the super actinic T5's for lack of a better description. But because of the T5 reflectors, the T5's have more output. And I think that the T5 420nm actinics look better colorwise, not just brighter, when overdriven compared to at standard HO output. But that could just be my perception as well.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13537016#post13537016 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bimmerzs
Hi,
I recently switched over from VHO SA's to T5's for actinic supplementation. I have 4 39W T5's on Icecap 660 and decided to run 2 Giesemann actinic plus and 2 Giesemanns pure actinics. I staggered them from front to back, pure act -> actinic +-> pure act -> actinic + and am really pleased with the look. I also mounted 2 24" fiji purples, one between each set of actinic's being pushed by icecap 430, it looks pretty neat with the fiji purples and actinic's on at the same time.:cool: You can play around with bulb placement to see if it changes up the look if you go with 420nm/460nm or blue + bulbs.
Cheers,
I also agree with the Bimmerzs. You can change up the look by moving the different bulbs around. If I move the fiji purple to the back of the halides and the super actinic to the front then I get more of a blue/purple dominant look. With the Fiji's in front, the look is more red/purple dominant. The colors of the different T5's still do blend and you cant tell that there are two distinct different color T5's, even with the halides off. It just focuses more of the front bulbs color in the front of the tank and changes the perceived overall color of the tank a little bit. It will also focus more of the color of the particular bulb that is up front on the corals that are up front.
So, as suggested, experiment with different positions for the different color bulbs. All T5 users also do the same thing. Many of them are very particular about what position each different bulb in the fixture is placed. You can see this if you read some of the long T5 threads.
ccradr
10/14/2008, 08:58 AM
I am running all actinic + bulbs, but i put in 2 pure actinics...but didnt really like the color.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13543407#post13543407 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ccradr
I am running all actinic + bulbs, but i put in 2 pure actinics...but didnt really like the color.
Well, then it probably would be best saving your money and not going to VHO's.
But 1 question ... you didnt like the color, but what about the corals? Did any of your corals look better colorwise with the Giesemann Actinics?
Also, you probably wont like the Fiji Purples. They also are a purplish bulb but more red-purple. They dont look like the actinics but if its the purplish look you didnt like then they probably wont be for you.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.