How much testing do the aquarium lighting manufacturers really do?

[Brian_68]

If they did test extensively they would want to talk about it but they do not give details. That is because they do not test a lot. Think they run them for 10k hours to see intensity drop, no they rely on mfg data and hope their design is similar. For example clearly the prime hd was not tested since the lenses turn dark in a matter or weeks to a couple months.

 

[oreo54]

Sometimes these posts of yours are as helpful as if I chimed into a LED build discussion with bin rates, wattages, drivers and all of that. I stay out of what I don't know and don't come on there asking for proof of stuff that happened 10 years ago when I did not build a LED then. I could search, link and suppose in all of those too, but that would not be helpful.

Sure it would.. Outside opinions are always helpful.
That is where you and I differ.
I don't downplay your experience either.
I just don't see it that way and that is using "real peoples" data/experience on a collective level.
I know you respect thermans abilities..
Now in all honesty would you have him move to MH's?
Maybe you would based on you.. but pretty obvious he won't.
works great "for him"
If you listened to his last presentation on reefbums at the very end you will find something interesting..
He is not the only "exception" afaict.

Only thing I see is very little difference between any of the light sources.
Oh again, if you ever heard me say any one is superior 100% than another.. well that was NEVER intended and you know that.
It is OBVIOUS each has something the other doesn't have.. Bottom line.

 

[Nonya]

They test them out on you... mostly. Then, you test them out by turning up or down channels that don't work.

CoralLab stuff was widely panned as propaganda. It was not accurate nor unbiased. Complete garbage.

I definitely agree with the thought that manufacturers use the consumer to do a lot of their beta testing.

Panned by who, exactly? What kind of lighting were the "panners" using? Or it was unbiased and that's what they actually determined to be a good compromise between growth and coloration?