Light Bulb CRI_Grades

I live where 765 fluorescent lights are the standard, 865 is sold as a “premium” product. 840/830’s are a rare find where the 640/530 fluorescents are everywhere. If I buy the warm white fluorescents in the supermarkets nearby, I will most likely get ones with only 50 CRI. :person_facepalming:

Pretty much anything should be an upgrade I guess (as long as the tint is not outright terrible).

I'm totally happy if we can advance together on a perfect way to compare bulbs. And as such your dedicated topic on a grade is interesting. It's just that if we have two separate tables on BLF for the same subject, with the same meaning, quite very probably the same bulbs, but just using a different ordering formula, it will mainly be confusing. And in the overall both of us will loose time maintining those, members will not know where to declare new bulbs/tests, nobody we'll be sure what's the latest, and so on. Everybody will loose energy, readers will loose exhaustivity, etc.

So if we can converge on something built together that will be perfect. For instance if you feel it, I'd be glad to grant you update rights on the sheet document initiated in the other topic. And you can add there the CRI_grade, bulbs, or whatnot. I'm sincerely opened.

My intent here is to build something greater apon all our motivations, ensure we don't "spoil ressources." I'm convinced we can build something great together for BLF, by joining efforts.

Nearly all of the lights in our house are GU10. I’ve got Soraa Vivids in a few critical locations. They fantastic and reliable but they are £29 each

Soraa Vivid is CRI 95, R9/95, Rf/90, Rg/100 7.5 and 435lm but £29 each. Soraa also have a 9W 490lm version at £32 each.

Philips Master Expert Colour 5.5W 3000k Order Code 70769200 are much better value for money. They are £8.30 each,

CRI 97 375lm 800cd. Philips do not specifiy R9, Rf or Rg but they give us a graph:

I originally created my table for personal use. To sort in interesting new finds on the internet against the 40 some meter readings I had from around my house. It worked so good I wanted to share it.
I’m sorry you feel that way, I don’t see it as a competition. Hopefully we can get them both into the same table and continue the discussion.

Wow, that’s like $37 USD per bulb! And this is the first time I seen a company smooth a TM-30 diagram too, hmm. I’m glad you’re happy with them, but the missing numbers surely pull them out of the A grade category. I would recommend getting a cheaper SunLike GU10 and comparing.

Yes, those Philips Master ExpertColor bulbs are very good. Especially because they are also available with 4000K (much better for home lighting during daytime than warm white CCTs). The 4000K ones are not perfect though, they have a positive Duv and a rather tight emission angle. I added heat resistant minus-green Filters and DC-Fix diffusion foil to mine. The warm-white models probably don't need any correction.

I would say we are on the same mindset, but you might have misinterpreted the tone of my previous message.

I'm precisely proposing in it to offer you modification access to the table. Just let's do that together!

[quote=Joshk]

I think they are primarly aimed at high end retail display lighting and art galaries.

I’m not going to be buying any more Soraa Vivids unless the price comes waaaay down. They are a bit brighter than the Philips Master ExpertColor. Other than that there isn’t much difference.

I’ll see how well the Philips LEDs hold up. I’ve only had them about 6 months.

I did a quick google search and I could only find SunLike GU10s on AliExpress. It is hard to know what is fake or safe on AliExpress. A bad one could be a fire hazard, especially here in 240V land.

They seem to be made by one man alone, and he’s not on AliExpress that I know. They are hard to order, you need to use a translator on his site to order. But they are made in 240V land, so no worries.

-Adam, if you are reading this, please create an english-language thread in the Seller section so I can link to it when I talk about your bulbs.

This is his site: http://sunlikelamp.com/

I posted all of my LED strips and bulbs test results in this thread. They are mostly LED strips.

ooh, I love ambient lighting. I’ll add everything I can. I see some don’t have R12 listed though.

Unfortunately most don’t have R12 because these were tested months ago. Going forward, I will include R12 in my measurements.

I see, sounds good. Depending on your meter, you might be able to save all your measurements to your PC for later reference too.

Here’s your posted data, sorted, SKV89. Only 3 had the R12 data needed for a proper CRI_Grade. But in an attempt to sort what was left, I created an R12 value equal to R9.

As asked, I added my “average” and CRI_Grade to fneuf’s spreadsheet so we can compare the results:

It seems both Qfactor and CRI_Grade came up with scores within 1% of each other for the most part. The most notable differences are the Qfactor boxes I highlighted in grey (in the middle). This is where the Qfactor formula bugged because Rf data is not available.

In all honesty, I think that is not very correct. If required for an average, one or two typical mean R12 values could be obtained out of a bunch of Maukka's tests from typical standard high CRI emitters like Samsung LH351B/C/D, Nichia 219B/C, Luminus SST20, maybe some Osram Oslon (like here)… should fall between 70 and 80 points, namely.

I’m not sure what you are saying.
But if I didn’t say it clear before, setting R12 = R9 is a hack you should not trust.

Joshk I mean to say that it would be better to estimate some (one or maybe two) average high CRI emitters R12 value, which should fall around 75 points (?). It would anyway be a different hack, but a bit better because only really good leds have very high R12 scores.

It’s not a bad thought, but anytime you go just typing a number you believe pulls the score in the right direction, the internet WILL accuse you of biasing the data. No matter how good your intentions.

Thanks for this work Joshk! I'll also try to add your bulbs tests results in it today.

Dealing with missing info is a tricky subject. So far on the spreadsheet I choose the strategy of not altering the results (just highlighting the unfilled cells), if the info is missing it is missing. Therefore those bulbs with missing info are left with a disadvantage and can't be "fully compared".

Toward our goal to order bulb light quality I don't see a clear better scientific strategy... Except being sure to have all the data, of course!

In both cases, the Qfactor/CRI_grade are biased, one time for missing data, one time for assuming a supposed value.