24" depth, who runs t5, who runs MH?

[Myka]

First of all, as this debate goes on, as they always do when someone asks about T5 vs MH the T5 people always jump on their high horse and say there are a million T5 dominated SPS tanks out there that are AMAZING. Well no shhhht. There are a million AMAZING skimmerless SPS tanks out there too. Just as there are a million AMAZING low-tech SPS tanks. There are many ways to light a tank, BUT there are ways that improve your chances and abilities to have an amazing SPS tank, just as there are ways to decrease maintenance.

Originally Posted by gobytron

Thanks for the diatribe, I appreciate your comments.

I'm amazed so much info can be received from someone who has a 33 gallon sumpless and skimmerless tank.


I would love to see your set up Myka, do you have any pics?

I don't know if I should be offended or not?? Haha! No, I don't get offended very easily. You are assuming that the tank I have now is the biggest and bestest tank I ever did have, which isn't true. Well in some ways it is, but my biggest and bestest tanks I had back in the early and mid 90s, and I have very few pics.

I'm glad you found the pics of my 33 to your liking. You may be interested to know that tank was lit by 2x39w T5s for 2 1/2 years, and I have just recently (in last month) added a short burst of 2x250w DE MH to the tank. LPS aren't SPS though. I don't have any critters in there that require intense lighting. The clam is a Squamosa which is the least light demanding clam out there (that is easily found in the hobby), and the anemone is a Bubble Tip which is one of the least light demanding anemones out there. Both the Squamosa and the Bubble Tip are known to do well even under VHOs and CFs with enough wattage.

I have so many pieces of equipment that it's confusing and I was wondering if it were all necessary plus, I am looking to spend 400-500 on an new skimmer that I was under the impression was mandatory. I'd be sincerely interested to know about your maintenance schedule and if you have any problems with algae or organic waste build up etc...

I have troubles with Valonia, but it came with the live rock, and persisted even when I was using a skimmer on this tank. I removed the skimmer about 8 months ago I think, and the tank has never been better. I take my time to make sure the powerheads keep detritus from settling, and I do run an AquaClear with some fitler media in it to catch the detritus which I change 2x a week. I also have a powerhead in there that I turn on everyday for only a couple minutes as it creates too much flow for the LPS, but cleans out the detritus from behind the rocks. I run about 1 1/2 cups of BRS HC GFO in a PhosBan reactor which I change out every 4-6 weeks. Skimmers aren't mandatory, but I would say that they are STRONGLY urged in a SPS tank which usually does best in a lower nutrient environment.

I wonder what difference the usable light makes if my tank is only 18" wide?
wouldn't a 6 bulb fixture give me all the usable light I need where as a MH light might be spilling over the sides as i have read a MH bulb should cover about 2 square feet and thats about 6" too big?

Not really...if you have a canopy over the tank, and the light is properly reflected down so you don't get much light spill then you aren't wasting the MH light, you're actually increasing it a little bit because you're taking the same amount of light and concentrating it a bit.

I would love to see a comparison of the best and most advanced MH technology against the best and most advanced T5, regardless of differences in reflectors, ballasts and such, just a bare knuckles brawl between these two top offerings of these mainstays in this hobby.

You can't disregard the reflectors, ballasts and bulbs though. That makes the comparison a moot point. If you chose the highest PAR T5 setup to the highest PAR MH setup, then you could have a decent comparison.

Also, some links to those case studies you mentioned that set the record straight on t5 vs MH depth penetration would be really helpful, can you post the links to them please?

Sorry, I haven't saved any links. I've just read some here and there surfing the net.

[Doug]

"sigh". Nevermind

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by Doug

I have used both, and enough times on different tanks, to think I can post with some experience.

but Doug, you're really old now, and well, we gotta question your senility these days...

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Aquattro

but Doug, you're really old now, and well, we gotta question your senility these days...

[Aquattro]

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)

[gobytron]

Originally Posted by Aquattro

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....

[Myka]

Originally Posted by Canadian

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.




I agree with Brad...kind of.

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.

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

[Aquattro]

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.

[banditpowdercoat]

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.

[Canadian]

Originally Posted by Aquattro

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)

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.