So seeing as this thread talks about the immovable opinions of high horse riders, I'll modify my previous statements on the board.

Ok, you don't NEED MH, you can run a successful SPS tank, or any other tank, with T5s. I wouldn't, and it's not about color or growth. I've never used them other than for actinic supplementation, but for me, the value in MH is the point source lighting. This gives my tank a sparkle that is not possible with T5, at least not to a degree I'm happy with. I've been to real reefs, and want mine to look real, and for me, only MH can give me that. If you're happy with a flatter (less contrasty ?) look, then T5 will probably work just fine. I also don't need to tune my color, I want the color to look like a reef at noon, and mine does with 14k AC bulbs. I've never been to Fiji, so I'm not sure if Fiji really is purple, but boasting a lighting system based on Fiji purple or Tonga Tourquiose, to me, is not keeping a natural look. Again, not everyone is looking for the "look" I am, so use whatever you want.
Growth? Who cares? The coral is going to grow under any sufficiently bright light, and really, I've always tried to slow my growth, makes for more room on the picnic table.
As for coral color, there are so many factors beyond lighting, that most people ignore, it's not even worth discussing in a lighting thread. I don't care what kind of light you use, if these other items are not addressed, you're going to have brown coral. If these items are addressed, you're going to have colorful corals, regardless of whether you use T5 or MH. Sure, there appear to be some pigmentation differences between the two types, again falling to personal preference.

So sure, you don't NEED MH, but I do. It gives me what I want in a tank, regardless of any other concern (power, heat, cost, etc). The end point in this hobby is me coming home to look at my tank, with the look I want, and for me, this can only be done with MH. I need MH.

(oh, and Greg, you need MH too)

Nice....

I don't think any of the T5 advocates get on a "high horse" - we simply defend against unsubstantiated claims and general ignorance. You rarely see a T5 advocate claiming that T5 is better than MH. T5 users recognize that it is simply another type of light capable of producing good results. We also acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both MH and T5. And yet MH advocates make blanket ignorant statements over and over again based on use of a substandard (at best) T5 fixture (Tek).

I can't get over the ignorance about T5 lighting on this site though - there seems to be a relentless use of a Tek light as a gold standard for T5 lighting. This comparison simply speaks volumes about the ignorance about T5 lighting. Holding a Tek light up as a model for comparison in the T5 debate would be like using a Coralife pendant to compare MH to other lighting.

I'm pretty sure Brad was making fun with my comment about "high horse". T5 users don't claim T5s are better because they aren't, and they know that! That's like comparing a Ford to a Cadillac...the Ford will probably get you there, but the Cadillac will do it so much more comfortably. Oh, and a Coralife pendant would probably still out PAR a Tek provided they were compared fairly. :D




I agree with Brad...kind of. :lol:

T5s can definitely improve the look of all corals whether they are colorful or brown. BUT, that's just the look of the coral, not the color it actually has. Just like you can ue a 20000K MH bulb to "improve the color"...why do you think coral merchants use 20000K??? Because it instantly improves the look of coral no matter how nice or how brown it may be. I'm with Brad in that I like my tank to look fairly natural as well, although I do like a slight blue tint to improve the color of the corals, but not much blue. I think a blue tank (like 20000K) is like fluorescent pink lipstick on a 70 year old. It makes me cringe. :eek:

Oh ya, and shimmer. T5s get some shimmer, but nothing comparable to MH.

Ya, the horsie comment was just in jest, people need to relax a bit and enjoy a debate that will never end. In the end, use what you like, if it makes YOUR tank something YOU are happy with, screw all the other opinions. If I say you NEED something, who the heck am I to say anything about your needs? Zactly. What I like is what I like, if it's different than what you like, great, when I'm bored with my tank I'll come look at yours, cause it's different. Not better, not worse, just different.
I like shimmer, others like softer light, I like contrast colors, others prefer pastel. This is like arguing about what the best color to paint a living room is, and what type of roller is best. Really, if you like the color, and I really don't care how it got there, good for you. I like my colors and light, so good for me. Nobody NEEDS to be right here, there is good and bad in everything in life, not just lights.

Shimmer, I'm liking the shimmer I am getting from the 175. Only run it one night so far, but I think there may be a 4 tube, 24w TEK for sale soon.

I got a 14000K bulb from ebay. I know... But it was $19.99. Couldnt pass it up for testing. Couldnt see paying $80 for a bulb that I wasnt sure if I was going to keep. But, I do notice the difference. The lack of Actinics, I guess. Not quite blue enough for what I am used to. Might try to build a canopy for it, but the tnk is curved. I cant bend wood worth a crap LOL.

Steve,

From what I have read the MC-E is overkill for aquarium lighting unles you have an extra deep tank. The XR-E whites are more than up to the task and are a fraction of the cost. You will also get a better balance between white and blue if you stick to all XR-E emitters. You can probably get similar PAR using all XR-Es with 40 degree optics at lower cost. With 40 degree optics you will need to keep the LED spacing between 1.5" to 2" apart. Going to 60 degree you are only increasing the spacing to maybe 2" to 2.5" so you won't save much in number of LEDs but given the 4 to 5 fold greater cost you will save alot going to XR-Es instead of MC-Es.

One thing that people don't realize is that PAR is not directly dependent on lumen output in LEDs. LEDs emit their light in a fairly narrow spectrum compared to other lights so from my understanding they produce more PAR per lumen (a crude description). in other words, they may not look as bright as some MH but they are producing as much, if not more, PAR.

As for the heatsink, I have no idea what it came from. It is 5 inches wide and it was something like 15 feet long. I had them cut some off and I will run two strips side by side so it will end up being about 10 inches wide and I'll probably go around 40 inches in length.

Anyhow, this is all a bit off topic to the MH vs. T5 debate. We can keep it going if others are interested to or just PM me if you have some more questions etc.

Cheers,

Ron

You're correct Brad. Its to bad some others dont see it the same way.

Anyways, I edited mine for that reason. Tired of banging my head on a wall and then seeing posts that are just plain wrong and dont make any sense.

LOL!!!! Brad, That still gives me a chuckle, It never gets old :p


My two cents - I've used both MH and T5, I've read all the threads here and otherwise and everyone good experience and bad in both forms of lighting.

Why do I run T5's?

1.) Variation in colour, it's nice to fine tune the spectrum to find something that is pleasing to the eye
2.) Cost of the unit vs MH
3.) Cost savings in electricity
4.) Heat.. I won't burn myself on T5's like I did with MH


But this is just my own opinion.

I was planning on building a bigger tank but my current one is ****ing me off so much right now that I'm not even sure if I am going to keep doing this hobby..... but that being said if I do go with a larger tank I think I am going to run MH with a little T5 to tune the colour.... I like the way that T5's colour up my coral and fish... but I am just finding that I get very slow growth... then again is that just part and parcel of the lighting I am using or a combination of my other reef keeping practices? Tough to say really.

I think some users of each style of lighting sometimes come off as preachy. I thought long and hard about leaving the shimmer behind and after seeing enough T5 lit tanks my mind changed regarding it. I sit like 3" from the glass and peer in...watch my tank for hours each night without exaggeration. The shimmer starts to hurt my eyes after a while. Yes it looks more natural tho.

One thing I've noticed (in my empty tank) is that my fixture gets stove-top hot on its top. I'm pretty excited about all that heat that's not entering my tank directly. My experience with mh leads me to believe that T5 has the edge for heat but I did have an enclosed canopy before.

I also think with T5s that having a properly designed fixture/unit is a lot more important than with mh. And the TEK isn't that and everyone uses it as a comparison.

Brad I do like how you said you use what you like. It's my tank and I spend WAY too much time staring into it to use something I don't find ideal.