VHO thoughts & pics

[phenom5]

Hey all,

I'm going to be setting up a 75g in the near future. I've inherited my father in law's tank, and he was running VHO's. Personally, I would probably go in a different direction with the lighting, but for now, I'm on a pretty tight budget so I'm using what I've got.

I'll be running 2x48" Actinic Whites, and 1x48" Super Actinic on a IC 660 ballast. I figure I can swap out for a T5 retro down the road.

I'd love to see pics of any VHO reefs out there. I'll be focusing mainly on LPS & zoas for this tank, largely because of the lighting.

[Mindcage133]

I ran VHO's for many years and kept most eveything in my tank long term. The 660 ballast is capable of running one additional 48" 110 watt bulb. I just recently incorporated two of my old VHO's into my 180 to supplement the MH and T5 lighting. BTW I HATE the t5 blue. VHO's look so much better.IMO
I wouldn't change a thing if unless you are wanting SPS or Clams.

Derrick

[thebradybunch]

If you don't have your bulbs yet check out the URL 454 VHO bulbs. It is twice as bright as the Super Actinic and brings out the colors of your corals better than the actinics, especially the reds. I have 2 6 footers I am running with MHs. I switched out 1 of the Super Actinics last week with the 454 and after seeing it I quickly decided the other one has to be changed out as well.

[phenom5]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15535978#post15535978 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mindcage133
I ran VHO's for many years and kept most eveything in my tank long term. The 660 ballast is capable of running one additional 48" 110 watt bulb. I just recently incorporated two of my old VHO's into my 180 to supplement the MH and T5 lighting. BTW I HATE the t5 blue. VHO's look so much better.IMO
I wouldn't change a thing if unless you are wanting SPS or Clams.

Derrick

VHO's are definitely better for actinic supplement then T5's. I have T5's over my tank right now, they're okay, but personally I prefer MH.

I'm an SPS guy, so I'm sure I'll be making some changes down the road.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15536141#post15536141 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thebradybunch
If you don't have your bulbs yet check out the URL 454 VHO bulbs. It is twice as bright as the Super Actinic and brings out the colors of your corals better than the actinics, especially the reds. I have 2 6 footers I am running with MHs. I switched out 1 of the Super Actinics last week with the 454 and after seeing it I quickly decided the other one has to be changed out as well.

I've heard the 454 VHO's are the way to go, I'll definitely check them out.

[cdbias2]

IMO swapping from VHO to T5's is not getting much bang for your buck.
I'd look into supplementing the VHO's with some MH's when the cash becomes available.
The T5's are good with lots of bulb colors but it just seems the old pro's are still using VHO's.

[phenom5]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15538252#post15538252 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cdbias2
IMO swapping from VHO to T5's is not getting much bang for your buck.
I'd look into supplementing the VHO's with some MH's when the cash becomes available.
The T5's are good with lots of bulb colors but it just seems the old pro's are still using VHO's.

Interesting. From what I've heard, T5's are a much better option because you can run more of them, and run them on SLR's.

One reason why I mentioned T5's is because I'll have the 660 ballast, so it's just a straight swap for a 4x48" T5 retro w/o a ballast.

So I suppose my next questions would be...

Would a 4x48" retro be that much of an improvement (or any improvement) over 3x48" VHO's?

If little to none, and I would have to go to 6x48" T5's then the cost of doing that vs. the cost of going with 2x250 MH becomes about the same. In which case, I'd go with the MH every day of the week...


Also, if anybody knows, what's the PAR like out of the 454 VHO's?

[cdbias2]

I'm not trying to start a T5 vs VHO war.
I just never hear anyone talking about how good a T5 is without a SLR and you never here that with a VHO.

[phenom5]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15538299#post15538299 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cdbias2
I'm not trying to start a T5 vs VHO war.
I just never hear anyone talking about how good a T5 is without a SLR and you never here that with a VHO.

Yeah, but that's the advantage of the T5's. You can use SLR's because they're so skinny. You could use SLR's for VHO's, but they'd have to be ridiculously wide to get the right shape. And if I'm not mistaken, VHO's have internal reflectors.

I don't know, this is all stuff that I'll be dealing with down the road. Right now I'm more concerned about the VHO's.

[cdbias2]

A VHO bulb with an internal reflector takes up less room that a T5 with a SLR. But everyone always fails to mention that.

[phenom5]

This is starting to sound like a VHO vs T5 war. ;)

A T5 reflector is far better then an internal VHO reflector though...

[Lotus99]

We started our 125g reef with a 4x48 VHO setup (we had it lying around from an auction). It did OK for softies, LPS and zoanthids for the first year or so. We even had a bubble-tip anemone do OK with that lighting.

We've since switched to a 8-bulb T5 fixture, which is definitely better.

[thebradybunch]

Also, if anybody knows, what's the PAR like out of the 454 VHO's?

I am not sure what the PAR ratings are but it is unbelievable how much brighter they are compared to the Super Actinic. It washes out the Super Actinics so much I can't even tell it is on.

[Mindcage133]

interesting. I'm going to look the 454's up! thanks for the tidbit

[thebradybunch]

I am not sure how this is going to come out but I tried to get a picture of the difference between the Super Actinic and the 454. The Super Actinic has been running since this past December and the 454 is only a couple weeks old. It's pretty easy to tell but the 454 is the front bulb

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/thebradybunch1/009.jpg

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/thebradybunch1/010.jpg