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.
Yea I agree, posting estimates is just a bad idea. I won’t be doing that anymore.
But that comes at the loss of now not knowing which unknowns are the best candidates to buy and test. So as a compromise, I may keep using the R12=R9 hack during my sorting step, but then deleting that and the score before posting. That will at least give a hint, without actually giving a score.
As I said before, the R12 = R9 hack isn't really good because R9 scores still vary greatly among high CRI leds and in no way are linked to R12, whereas R12 is fairly predictable. As far as I know any decent led scores above 70 points in R12, even low CRI ones. See what I said above.
For led emitters or bulbs without R12, use an asterisk and a footnote to clarify the sorting dilemma. You could also divide the table listing between emitters/bulbs with R9 and R12 on top, and the rest below (so no need for estimates or hacks).
Yea. I’ll just call them r9080 or whatever when they are missing the R12.
I'm working on integrating your results. Two questions:
Yes, if the R9 is negative, that’s still the number I use. I’ll add some more brand/model info when I get time.