XM10k vs AC14k 250W DE galaxy ballast

kwirky · #1 03-31-2008, 06:05 AM

I'll be running a galaxy 250W electronic ballast and I'm debating between the XM 10k and the aquaconnect 14k. I currently run an AC14k 150W on a coralife ballast and I find it too blue and not quite bright enough for SPS. (hence the 250W upgrade). I'm using one of the new galaxy ballasts cuz the price was great

(staff discount lol).

I like picture of the XM10k vs the AC14k on cnidarianreef and the par difference on sanjay's lighting sight but sanjay only has the XM bulb tested on an icecap and a pfo hqi. It's unable to compare the results of the bulb on various electronic ballasts to get a feel for how it might perform on the galaxy.

Anybody know more about the galaxy ballasts and how some of the bulbs run on them? I'm guessing they'd probably be similar to an icecap (not as much output as say a blueline or the likes). The aquaconnect supposedly performs the worst on the icecap (almost half the PAR of the xm on the icecap). So if i'm to assume the cheap made in china galaxy ballast to perform the same i might as well go with the XM.

Mik_101 · #2 03-31-2008, 06:11 AM

I curently hav 2x175w 10k xm and thair fairly yellow but with actinics its a nice crisp white. I wiuld go with th XM's

albert_dao · #3 04-03-2008, 05:37 AM

If you aren't concerend with color, the XM should be fine. They turn UBER yellow after four months on the Galaxy IMO.

kwirky · #4 04-04-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albert_dao

If you aren't concerend with color, the XM should be fine. They turn UBER yellow after four months on the Galaxy IMO.

wow it's alive! lol

yeah i picked up the XM. for photographs I can just swap out the light with my 150W aquaconnect then put the XM back when done. I'm going for growth for the first 6 months at least. I can fill the other 12" of space on top with T5's too if I need to down the road.