Am I crazy for thinking MH + t5 ?

[A. grandis]

You'd be hard pressed to prove that the pure actinics were the cause of new colors in corals vs. long term stability.

Well, tank was set since 2008 and there was absolutely nothing changed to it's maintenance besides that bulb since December last year. Has been about 10 months now. Around 4 or 6 months after that bulb was installed, I've noticed those new pigmentations changing. They still changing and the "morphing" is clear to me and the kids...
Tank is really stable and more than mature for the past 8+ years, and that's the only explanation to me.
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

There is no reason you NEED to use Actinic bulbs and if you really don't find the look appealing I don't suggest you use them. Enjoying the look of your tank is a large part of what this hobby is all about. Personally, I like the richness they add to the spectrum and especially the glow they bring out in certain corals without creating heavy 'blue' look in the tank.

That said, I encourage you to do some independent research into spectral ranges for chromoprotein activation as well as photosynthetic activation curves for various clades of zooxanthellae. I think you'll find the 390-430nm range has a lot more action going on the current dogma would have you believe. It hits right at the heart of why a metal halide that churns out less lumens/watt than a given LED/array of LEDs will smoke the diode(s) in terms of spectral quality and resulting coral health. It's very tricky to quantify a lamp's efficiency with regards to its effectiveness for coral reef tanks when using metrics such as lumens or PAR. There's far too much info out there to even cover in a cursory manner in a forum post, but you seem quite passionate about lighting and for that reason I trust you'll have the initiative to go seek that knowledge out - especially since metal halides seem to be your point of interest and they are quite effective at generating photons in the nm range targeted by the True Actinic bulb.

Thanks for the tips! I'll spend some time doing that!
Grandis.

 

[BoomCorals]

Boom, your tank is way too shallow and 2 X 250W would take care of most regular shallow (18") water tanks easily.
800W of halides isn't necessary there... There is a limit for photosynthesis anyway.
Technically, with 2 X 400W you should let them on for less time than with 2 X 250W bulbs.
My halides were 2 X 250W over my 55gal. ;Wideyed Way overkill!!! LOL!
I could have 2 X 175W over that 55gal. and the tank would still be more than lit!
And my tank was about 18" deep.
Please don't let the blue Radiums make you think you have little wattage there... hehe...
And you still have the T5s... ha!!
Grandis.

Right but you also have your light mounted much closer to the water level of your tank. I have this light 20" above the water. I've used the PAR meter and a lux meter to verify that I'm getting what I want out of the lights. As I mentioned I have some coral that will turn complete brown if they get anything less than 350 PAR. Not every acro has the same photosynthesis requirement for coloration. I know my corals, trust me. I'll know in short order if I need to downgrade, but right now I have a handle on it.

Use the True Actinic, man! That makes difference!

Before I forget... one thing I suggest is to keep the same corals you have there under the same lights you were keeping before.
Most likely your corals will change some of the colors due to the new light. Would be great to see the results side by side.

Back to the lights... I don't think you need to worry about it. You can run the 250W Radium and have the T5s on only before and after the MHs...I think it would be enough... specially because of the height of the tank.

Talking about True actinic... here is that blue video:

Grandis.

I have identical frags of several corals I'm putting under the halide/t5 and another staying under the LED. I'll be doing comparisons. My goal here is what gives me the best looking and fastest growing.

 

[Centerline]

Where can we find them?
I thought they went out of business or something..
Grandis.

The URI T12 UV bulbs are apparently still being made. I never would have guessed it after all of these years but apparently so.

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=21435

My first tank, a Marineland 72 bowfront in 96 had 6 of these over it and aside from crazy amounts of coraline I had three BIG carpet anemones (blue, green and red) and a 10" elegance that I managed to somehow keep alive for two years. Thanks to URI I have always had a baseline to measure the look of every other lighting system I've owned against. And I still like them best,

 

[A. grandis]

Right but you also have your light mounted much closer to the water level of your tank. I have this light 20" above the water. I've used the PAR meter and a lux meter to verify that I'm getting what I want out of the lights. As I mentioned I have some coral that will turn complete brown if they get anything less than 350 PAR. Not every acro has the same photosynthesis requirement for coloration. I know my corals, trust me. I'll know in short order if I need to downgrade, but right now I have a handle on it.

Oh, I thought you would bring it down a little after a while. I thought that the fixture was that high because of the adaptation process... You could aways lift the fixture up to work in the tank if you place it lower after adapting the system...
Alright then..

I have identical frags of several corals I'm putting under the halide/t5 and another staying under the LED. I'll be doing comparisons. My goal here is what gives me the best looking and fastest growing.

Great!
Grandis.

 

[Centerline]

I know...
It's just to show the blue lights that I posted..
I'm not sure if actually his Actinic Blue are Blue Plus per say, though.
Jason Fox's 400g cube. He has 5 Reef Brites and 6 actinic blue T5s over this one:
... and the 700 gal with the 20K/ 250W halides, Blue actinic T5s and some blue Reef Brites too.
Jason uses a combination of metal halides, T5s and LEDs. He doesn't run LEDs only.
The LEDs are supplemental, but for longer periods of time. His main lights are the halides and T5s.
He says that he likes the T5/LEDs, not only LEDs.
The 250w 20K halides are on for only 3 or 5 hours a day.
The blue actinic T5s are on for 10 hours a day.
The blue LEDs are on for 12 hours a day.
But he does use some "white" approach couple hours a day, he says.
One of the vats has a Hydra 52 that he runs with whites, greens and reds for like 5 hours a day.
He didn't say anything about using true actinic bulbs, but blue actinics instead.
He does uses some "pink" bulb in one of the vats, I guess, but I'm not sure what bulb that is.
Grandis.

Blue plus and true actenic really don't look the same. My guess is that he runs them as the par numbers on the Blue Plus are higher but the peaks are still reaching for the UV range. I have scored from him several times and the corals have all been seriously colored up.

 

[Potatohead]

Yeah, that's another reason for my one star on that review. People used to say that they give the "pop" and I actually saw dimmed. LOL! I think the thing is that Pure Actinic a special light and the corals can "see" that difference, but our eyes can't.



I would like to see that thread! Link, please?
Grandis.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/g...son-pics-par-and-a-whole-mess-of-data.200357/

The PAR readings and spectrum charts are in the second post

 

[A. grandis]

Blue plus and true actenic really don't look the same. My guess is that he runs them as the par numbers on the Blue Plus are higher but the peaks are still reaching for the UV range. I have scored from him several times and the corals have all been seriously colored up.

I know the True Actinic and Blue Plus absolutely don't look the same, cause I've got them on my fixture now..
I was referring to the visual differences between Actinic Blue and Blue Plus.
They can look almost the same, but Actinic Blue looks darker than the Blue Plus to the naked eye.
Well, I guess one can say that it depends on the brand of the Actinic Blue. My latest comparison that I remember was with Giesemann Actinic Blue and ATI Blue Plus. That's what I was referring to..
So I would prefer to think that Jason uses a Giesemann Actinic Blue (420 nm) instead the Blue Plus from what I heard on one of the videos. I would think he would say actually "ATI Blue Plus", if he meant that.
Could you please post the link of that video here?
Thanks!
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/g...son-pics-par-and-a-whole-mess-of-data.200357/

The PAR readings and spectrum charts are in the second post

Thanks, I appreciate!
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

Interesting... I found there a picture that shows the difference between the colors of the Actinic Blue and the Blue Plus, side by side, confirming the Actinic Blue to be darker than the Blue Plus bulb in visual appearance.
Quote:
"Left to right
Coral Plus, Actinic Blue, Blue Plus, Aquablue Coral"

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/g...son-pics-par-and-a-whole-mess-of-data.200357/

Grandis.

 

[rockskimmerflow]

Yeah, that's another reason for my one star on that review. People used to say that they give the "pop" and I actually saw dimmed. LOL! I think the thing is that Pure Actinic a special light and the corals can "see" that difference, but our eyes can't.



I would like to see that thread! Link, please?
Grandis.

You misinterpret what people say when they mean pop. The gentleman you replied to said he was surprised his light got dimmer and did not have any more 'blue' when he added an Actinic bulb. That is the point of the True Actinic. Your eyes do not detect that spectrum well, so it appears dim. The 'pop' is referred to because when viewed under pure Actinic corals fluoresce in the visible range that our eyes pick up better and when contrasted to the seemingly dim light that's in the tank they seem to pop out more. Think of it as increased contrast between ambient observed brightness and the corals' fluorescence.

Now, in regards to the thread the previous poster mentioned in which True Actinic PAR increased as the bulb aged, I can explain that briefly here. It is a MIRAGE. The PAR, as is spectrally weighted by any given meter, was measured as increased as the bulb aged simply because of the phosphor degradation. The bulb lost it's UV and deep violet spectrum punch and started putting out more visible light in a spectral zone more heavily favored by the PAR meter's predetermined weighting bias. People are so fixated on PAR it's laughable. You don't want a lot of PAR from your true Actinic bulb. It's just the nature of their aging spectral output that causes the effect. I love how much confusion and misinformation there is in the modern reef scene around a phosphor blend that was considered one of the finest fluorescent light types back in the golden age of Metal halide reefing. The most poignant commentary on that, I think, is the fact that ATI doesn't even have a single recommended bulb blend that includes True Actinic - and I think it's likely because of this modern fixation with bluer, brighter, highest PAR possible setups. Much of the finesse seems to have been lost in the art of selecting reef lighting bulb combinations.

 

[Potatohead]

You misinterpret what people say when they mean pop. The gentleman you replied to said he was surprised his light got dimmer and did not have any more 'blue' when he added an Actinic bulb. That is the point of the True Actinic. Your eyes do not detect that spectrum well, so it appears dim. The 'pop' is referred to because when viewed under pure Actinic corals fluoresce in the visible range that our eyes pick up better and when contrasted to the seemingly dim light that's in the tank they seem to pop out more. Think of it as increased contrast between ambient observed brightness and the corals' fluorescence.

Now, in regards to the thread the previous poster mentioned in which True Actinic PAR increased as the bulb aged, I can explain that briefly here. It is a MIRAGE. The PAR, as is spectrally weighted by any given meter, was measured as increased as the bulb aged simply because of the phosphor degradation. The bulb lost it's UV and deep violet spectrum punch and started putting out more visible light in a spectral zone more heavily favored by the PAR meter's predetermined weighting bias. People are so fixated on PAR it's laughable. You don't want a lot of PAR from your true Actinic bulb. It's just the nature of their aging spectral output that causes the effect. I love how much confusion and misinformation there is in the modern reef scene around a phosphor blend that was considered one of the finest fluorescent light types back in the golden age of Metal halide reefing. The most poignant commentary on that, I think, is the fact that ATI doesn't even have a single recommended bulb blend that includes True Actinic - and I think it's likely because of this modern fixation with bluer, brighter, highest PAR possible setups. Much of the finesse seems to have been lost in the art of selecting reef lighting bulb combinations.

To be clear, what I said was I was slightly surprised the overall look of the tank was not very much more blue after replacing a coral plus with a true actinic and that I was not surprised it was slightly dimmer (my actual words were "makes sense").

 

[A. grandis]

You misinterpret what people say when they mean pop. The gentleman you replied to said he was surprised his light got dimmer and did not have any more 'blue' when he added an Actinic bulb. That is the point of the True Actinic. Your eyes do not detect that spectrum well, so it appears dim. The 'pop' is referred to because when viewed under pure Actinic corals fluoresce in the visible range that our eyes pick up better and when contrasted to the seemingly dim light that's in the tank they seem to pop out more. Think of it as increased contrast between ambient observed brightness and the corals' fluorescence.

Oh, ok. But in my first trial with the True Actinic I believe I couldn't see much of it's effects because it was in an 8 bulb fixture (?). When I used in my 6 bulb fixture changes were more evident with the cell pics.

Now, in regards to the thread the previous poster mentioned in which True Actinic PAR increased as the bulb aged, I can explain that briefly here. It is a MIRAGE. The PAR, as is spectrally weighted by any given meter, was measured as increased as the bulb aged simply because of the phosphor degradation. The bulb lost it's UV and deep violet spectrum punch and started putting out more visible light in a spectral zone more heavily favored by the PAR meter's predetermined weighting bias. People are so fixated on PAR it's laughable. You don't want a lot of PAR from your true Actinic bulb. It's just the nature of their aging spectral output that causes the effect. I love how much confusion and misinformation there is in the modern reef scene around a phosphor blend that was considered one of the finest fluorescent light types back in the golden age of Metal halide reefing. The most poignant commentary on that, I think, is the fact that ATI doesn't even have a single recommended bulb blend that includes True Actinic - and I think it's likely because of this modern fixation with bluer, brighter, highest PAR possible setups. Much of the finesse seems to have been lost in the art of selecting reef lighting bulb combinations.

I agree with you on the fact that people think that everything is PAR. I aways say that PAR is just past of the equation.

I remember when I started getting some reef light bulbs, around 1995, we had only Blue actinic, not True actinic. We had only Coralife NO T12 Blue Actinc and I think Hamilton VHO T12 Blue Actinic. At least here Honolulu. We didn't even know about online orders much back then...
So...
My questions are:
1) What exactly does the True Actinic bulb do to corals' health?

2) Am I right when I think that the new pigments on my polyps could be generated by the presence of the new ATI True Actinic bulb in the fixture? Would that be a possibility?

3) What is the difference between the 3 following light bulbs in regards to the actinic effects on coral health:
a) ATI True Actinic.
b) ATI Blue Plus.
c) Giesemann Actinic Blue.

4) What exactly is the actinic per say in nm? 420nm? Range?

5) Is it correct to affirm that the "ATI Blue Plus bulb has plenty actinic", or that the "Giesemann Actinic Blue has plenty actinic", like some still do ?

Thanks so much!
It's a pleasure to have us all reading and sharing our thoughts here!!
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

To be clear, what I said was I was slightly surprised the overall look of the tank was not very much more blue after replacing a coral plus with a true actinic and that I was not surprised it was slightly dimmer (my actual words were "makes sense").

So you meant that visibly you couldn't see the "pop" when added the True Actinic, right?
In my 8 bulb fixture was basically impossible to notice any single visible change and I decide to totally ignored what people aways talked about in regards to that "pop"...
I actually see more "pop" with Giesemann Actinic Blue than any other bulb.
By "pop" I mean fluorescence of the blue reflected on certain pigments on the polyps.
The Blue Plus also gives some.
The True Actinic shows more when we take pictures with the cell phones..
I would think the cell phone" gives an extra credit" to the "pop" because of the nature of the camera.
I'll try 2 bulbs this year and see what happens...
Grandis.

 

[rockskimmerflow]

To be clear, what I said was I was slightly surprised the overall look of the tank was not very much more blue after replacing a coral plus with a true actinic and that I was not surprised it was slightly dimmer (my actual words were "makes sense").

Ahh yes you are correct, not sure why I combined the dimmer aspect in with your surprise at the lack of blueness- you did say the dimmer aspect made sense. The blueness expectation was certainly misplaced, but that seems to be the norm for most reefers these days as there is generally little understanding of what to expect when introducing a true actinic bulb into the mix.

Oh, ok. But in my first trial with the True Actinic I believe I couldn't see much of it's effects because it was in an 8 bulb fixture (?). When I used in my 6 bulb fixture changes were more evident with the cell pics.



I agree with you on the fact that people think that everything is PAR. I aways say that PAR is just past of the equation.

I remember when I started getting some reef light bulbs, around 1995, we had only Blue actinic, not True actinic. We had only Coralife NO T12 Blue Actinc and I think Hamilton VHO T12 Blue Actinic. At least here Honolulu. We didn't even know about online orders much back then...
So...
My questions are:
1) What exactly does the True Actinic bulb do to corals' health?

2) Am I right when I think that the new pigments on my polyps could be generated by the presence of the new ATI True Actinic bulb in the fixture? Would that be a possibility?

3) What is the difference between the 3 following light bulbs in regards to the actinic effects on coral health:
a) ATI True Actinic.
b) ATI Blue Plus.
c) Giesemann Actinic Blue.

4) What exactly is the actinic per say in nm? 420nm? Range?

5) Is it correct to affirm that the "ATI Blue Plus bulb has plenty actinic", or that the "Giesemann Actinic Blue has plenty actinic", like some still do ?

Thanks so much!
It's a pleasure to have us all reading and sharing our thoughts here!!
Grandis.

As I mentioned before it is too complex to really touch on in a forum post, but independent research of known coral chromoproteins and their excitation wavelengths will explain much of what you noticed in your polyps coloration when you added the actinic bulb.

You really need to put 2 actinics on their own channel and run them as standalone to fully appreciate the overall tank dimness combined with the vibrance of the coral colors. Until then you won't be able to understand the 'pop' reference and appeal of a pure actinic bulb effect. It has to be seen in person, as cameras will not properly pick up the look. It has nothing to do with the typically bright blue light hitting corals and making them 'pop'. It's a totally different effect.

Actinic is a colloquial term used to describe nearly any purple to blue lighting in the reef hobby. In the general sense it refers to violet and near ultraviolet light. I don't think there is any technically standardized wavelength range. I usually think of it as the 390-430nm range with the peak of that falling in the 405-420 region. The word has become bastardized by the widespread use of it as a marketing tool to sell lighting products. Originally the 03 phosphor UVL bulbs produced that 420nm light we knew as 'actinic'. Since then the use of the word has become less defined.

The bulb comparisons are easy. Google the spectral distribution charts of each lamp. They are available from the manufacturer. You'll find the Giesemann 'Actinic' and the Blue Plus are more alike in output than either is to the True Actinic. Both of the other bulbs do include some true actinic spectrum, but neither focuses most of its output in that region.

As far as health of coral, how much is enough, and does a given bulb have plenty - Those questions are unanswerable due their vagueness and potentially numerous case specific answers. I suggest everyone who wants to answer those questions for themselves simply spend some time researching the topic. Often times there is no right or wrong answer, and therein lies the fun of blazing your own trail and experimenting with your tank until find what's best for you.

 

[A. grandis]

Ahh yes you are correct, not sure why I combined the dimmer aspect in with your surprise at the lack of blueness- you did say the dimmer aspect made sense. The blueness expectation was certainly misplaced, but that seems to be the norm for most reefers these days as there is generally little understanding of what to expect when introducing a true actinic bulb into the mix.



As I mentioned before it is too complex to really touch on in a forum post, but independent research of known coral chromoproteins and their excitation wavelengths will explain much of what you noticed in your polyps coloration when you added the actinic bulb.

You really need to put 2 actinics on their own channel and run them as standalone to fully appreciate the overall tank dimness combined with the vibrance of the coral colors. Until then you won't be able to understand the 'pop' reference and appeal of a pure actinic bulb effect. It has to be seen in person, as cameras will not properly pick up the look. It has nothing to do with the typically bright blue light hitting corals and making them 'pop'. It's a totally different effect.

Actinic is a colloquial term used to describe nearly any purple to blue lighting in the reef hobby. In the general sense it refers to violet and near ultraviolet light. I don't think there is any technically standardized wavelength range. I usually think of it as the 390-430nm range with the peak of that falling in the 405-420 region. The word has become bastardized by the widespread use of it as a marketing tool to sell lighting products. Originally the 03 phosphor UVL bulbs produced that 420nm light we knew as 'actinic'. Since then the use of the word has become less defined.

The bulb comparisons are easy. Google the spectral distribution charts of each lamp. They are available from the manufacturer. You'll find the Giesemann 'Actinic' and the Blue Plus are more alike in output than either is to the True Actinic. Both of the other bulbs do include some true actinic spectrum, but neither focuses most of its output in that region.

As far as health of coral, how much is enough, and does a given bulb have plenty - Those questions are unanswerable due their vagueness and potentially numerous case specific answers. I suggest everyone who wants to answer those questions for themselves simply spend some time researching the topic. Often times there is no right or wrong answer, and therein lies the fun of blazing your own trail and experimenting with your tank until find what's best for you.

This thread is getting better and better...
When I place the 2 new True Actinic bulbs in December, I'll put them in the same channel and use them for the dusk.
Right now I've got 2 Blue Plus in that channel.
I understand about the cell phone camera now...
Main thing is to know the numbers: 390 - 430 nm and the peak at 404 - 420.
When I look at the charts they give only an idea of the peaks. I wanted to actually know what the range is. Thanks!
Once more, thanks very much!
I better go sleep now. I'm very tired! Good night, my friend. ;Dead
Grandis.

 

[jda]

It can take quite some time for proteins that excite under 400nm to redevelop if they were not under lights that had this spectrum already. Most LEDs do not - even though they say UV, most use violet in the 410-420 range, and not true UV (marketing lie/trick). You need a MH or florescent bulb to get a lot of of real UV unless a panel has sub-400 diodes in enough places to make a difference and not just one or two that are spread out. This is one of the ways that T5s add more color when added to panels.

The "pop" might take some time to redevelop - be patient if this range is new to your tank.

Remember that light not only shows off coral, but is also develops proteins that use high energy light and spit back out lower energy (these will usually come back if absent under a certain kind of light), and lastly develops pigments that act as sunscreen to reflect certain kinds of light. It will take a full range from 350 to 720nm to get all of this out of a diverse tank of inhabitants.

 

[bif24701]

There is no reason you NEED to use Actinic bulbs and if you really don't find the look appealing I don't suggest you use them. Enjoying the look of your tank is a large part of what this hobby is all about. Personally, I like the richness they add to the spectrum and especially the glow they bring out in certain corals without creating heavy 'blue' look in the tank.

That said, I encourage you to do some independent research into spectral ranges for chromoprotein activation as well as photosynthetic activation curves for various clades of zooxanthellae. I think you'll find the 390-430nm range has a lot more action going on the current dogma would have you believe. It hits right at the heart of why a metal halide that churns out less lumens/watt than a given LED/array of LEDs will smoke the diode(s) in terms of spectral quality and resulting coral health. It's very tricky to quantify a lamp's efficiency with regards to its effectiveness for coral reef tanks when using metrics such as lumens or PAR. There's far too much info out there to even cover in a cursory manner in a forum post, but you seem quite passionate about lighting and for that reason I trust you'll have the initiative to go seek that knowledge out - especially since metal halides seem to be your point of interest and they are quite effective at generating photons in the nm range targeted by the True Actinic bulb.

You hit it! When comparing or evaluating a lighting system it is far more important to look at the wavelength of the light it produces first and foremost. If you look to the quality of that spectrum is too ensure that the light it produces is of quality for the corals health. Secondary is to look at amount of photons produced and this can be in PAR, most common in the hobby, or lumens, less useful.

So let's look that the most popular and/or most know bulbs for producing healthy corals.

MH Radium, produces a very broad spectrum however most is in the 380nm-460nm.

ATI Blue Plus, another bulb that had a general broad spectrum however most light is also in the sweet spot of 400nm-460nm.

Now, let's look to the Kessil AP700 as a known and quality light. It also is capable of a broad spectrum with majority of light produced in the 380-460nm wavelength. You can also see that no matter then spectrum you choose, with Kessil Logic, it will still produce the majority of correct light for coral health. Also at the bluest settings the spectrum is really hitting that 380-460nm well.

So as you can see what all these have in common is that key spectrum 380-460nm range of light for coral health.


Now let's compare PAR, that's the easy bit. With any number of T5 bulbs you can produce as much PAR as needed/wanted.
The Radium MH is well know to produce high PAR number with either the 250 or 400 watt light as long as you choose the wattage needed for the depth and size of the tank.
I am here to say that the Kessil AP700 has no problem producing PAR numbers of 4-500 in the middle level of 12" depth and minimum of ~150-300 PAR for a 36"x24" area and 24" depth depending on mounting height and even more of you use more fixtures. For me I also use two T5 Blue Plus and I don't have a place in my tank I do not get 300+ PAR.

So each light can produce the amount of photos we generally see are required for SPS and even acros.

I see no real value in even determining the "Best". They all are equally capable and the bottom line is personnel choice.

 

[Potatohead]

So you meant that visibly you couldn't see the "pop" when added the True Actinic, right?
In my 8 bulb fixture was basically impossible to notice any single visible change and I decide to totally ignored what people aways talked about in regards to that "pop"...
I actually see more "pop" with Giesemann Actinic Blue than any other bulb.
By "pop" I mean fluorescence of the blue reflected on certain pigments on the polyps.
The Blue Plus also gives some.
The True Actinic shows more when we take pictures with the cell phones..
I would think the cell phone" gives an extra credit" to the "pop" because of the nature of the camera.
I'll try 2 bulbs this year and see what happens...
Grandis.

When I think of "pop" I think of the corals themselves fluorescing as well, not the overall look or color temp of the tank. I can definitely notice a difference in pop with the new bulbs when I run my dusk/dawns (one TA and one B+). I don't really notice much difference when all eight bulbs are on even with a second TA in the mix now. After leaving the tank for a day, letting my eyes "reset" and looking at it again yesterday, it is definitely more blue than before but it's a very minor change. I actually prefer the slightly lower brightness as well. In hindsight I probably should have just gone with a six bulb unit (Sunpower) but running an eight with two TA's will work too. I may try running two TA's as my dusk/dawns and that will probably pop more but I imagine my fish wouldn't look very good either.

 

[Centerline]

I know the True Actinic and Blue Plus absolutely don't look the same, cause I've got them on my fixture now..
I was referring to the visual differences between Actinic Blue and Blue Plus.
They can look almost the same, but Actinic Blue looks darker than the Blue Plus to the naked eye.
Well, I guess one can say that it depends on the brand of the Actinic Blue. My latest comparison that I remember was with Giesemann Actinic Blue and ATI Blue Plus. That's what I was referring to..
So I would prefer to think that Jason uses a Giesemann Actinic Blue (420 nm) instead the Blue Plus from what I heard on one of the videos. I would think he would say actually "ATI Blue Plus", if he meant that.
Could you please post the link of that video here?
Thanks!
Grandis.

Here is a link where he walks around and gives the rundown on his systems and lighting. Great video.
It's funny as I'm trying to make up my mind about running my Specra ( 2 250 radiums and 4 true actinic T5s plus 2 XHO leds) or a new 8 bulb ATI unit over my 525. I really want to run the Spectra but the Spectra is so bright, the tank is very high and the room is so small that I'm afraid Ill blind myself when sitting there working and looking at the tank. I may move the Spectra to my office as I have a 450 with 3 Ration G4 pros over it. Those may go over a 300 I'm having built for our new shop that have much more office space. That video really is making me consider the ATI for my 525 reefer at home.