XP-L vs XM-L2 OTF Tests

86 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia
XP-L vs XM-L2 OTF Tests

I know a lot of you are interested in the XP-L as a replacement for XP-G in multiple emitter setups, but I tested the XP-L against an XM-L2 in a P60 setup to compare the OTF performance.

The flashlight setup:

XM-L2 U2-1D with P60 XML smooth reflector
XP-L V5-2A with P60 XPG smooth reflector

16mm noctigon
3.8A FM driver
p60 drop in -potted and copper wrapped
LG E1 4.35v battery
Solarforce L2P host

Two of each lights were built and all test results were averaged.
The overall output tests were powered by a lab power supply set for 4.2v at the driver and the lights were fan cooled.
The throw tests were performed using an LG E1 battery.

! photo xml2vsxpl3a_zps0fd7667f.jpg!

Surprisingly, it appears the XP-L is slightly better thermally…maybe due to it’s slightly better efficiency. (the XP-L had a output drop of 60 lumens vs the XM-L2 drop of 80 lumens)
As expected, the throw from both emitters was nearly identical -even though the XP-L had greater output.
I like the XP-L for the 2A color bin, but I’ll take the extra 60 lumens.

leaftye
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2012 - 17:43
Posts: 4275
Location: San Diego, CA

Thanks for the test!

The low mode should be lower.

Reviews: Efan IMR18350 700mAh 10.5A, <a href="http://

JohnnyMac
JohnnyMac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/2011 - 16:03
Posts: 8863
Location: Eastern PA

Good to know.  Thanks for sharing that info! Smile

Would you mind repeating throw using the XM-L reflector on the XP-L pill?  Many who do this will have XM-L reflectors since they are far more common and easier to get.

Old-Lumens
Old-Lumens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 11/04/2011 - 11:39
Posts: 7478
Location: Tyler, TX, USA

Great! Yes, please do the XP-L with the XM-L reflector, as many of us will not use the XP-G reflector, especially in larger reflector lights. Everything I have done with XP-L, tells me I like it better than XM-L for a thrower, even though there should be no difference, there is.

My PayPal address: oldlumens (insert the @ sign here) gmail.com

My YouTube Flashlight Video Channel

The BLF Modding Links Thread 

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/1374/jQ2wdL.jpg

 

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia

I copper wrap and glue my reflectors on, so it will be easier to build another to test the xm-l reflector -give me an hour or so.

Ledsmoke
Ledsmoke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 9 hours ago
Joined: 08/08/2011 - 16:05
Posts: 1995
Location: Denmark

Way cool tests. I always look forward to your finds. TY.

But I think there is something I am confused about. 

You say that "I like the XP-L for the 2A color bin, but I’ll take the extra 60 lumens."

So you like the XPL. But you will take the extra lumens. But if I am reading your graph right then the XPL HAS the 60 extra lumens... And the least thermal drop @ 30s.

So you will take the XPL... right?

~ Ledsmoke ~

Dutch humor:

[quote=djozz]

 I do not think that the BLF-community ben

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia

Sorry, I worded it wierdly:
The xpl has the tint I want and I also get 60 more lumens with it.

Clairification: ‘thermal lumen drop’ was the amount of light decline from 30 seconds to 5 minutes

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia

Here’s data for the XP-L with an XML reflector:


xpg reflector 248m
xml reflector 241m

The hot spot from each is almost identical in size…the XPG reflector gives the hot spot a hard, well defined edge. With the XML reflector, the hot spot has a softer edge. Both hot spots are good, but the XPG reflector has a little more throw than the XML reflector.

ryansoh3
ryansoh3's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/04/2012 - 08:21
Posts: 3890
Location: US

Thanks for the tests, are XM-L2’s being outdated with the advent of the XP-L?

BLF ≠ B-grade Flashlight Forum

 

Bort
Bort's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 17:15
Posts: 7460
Location: Holding the proverbial flashlight

JohnnyMac wrote:

Good to know.  Thanks for sharing that info! Smile

Would you mind repeating throw using the XM-L reflector on the XP-L pill?  Many who do this will have XM-L reflectors since they are far more common and easier to get.


I did not know there was a reflector difference, what is different about them (other then the opening on the bottom)

The Journal of Alternative Facts TM

"It is critical that there is a credible academic source for the growing and important discipline of alternative facts. This field of study will just keep winning, and we knew that all the best people would want to be on board. There is a real risk in the world today that people might be getting their information about science from actual scientists"

 

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia

My guess is: if they can fit an xml emitter on a 3.45×3.45mm xpg platform by clipping the dome edges, then they can put something larger on the xml’s 5×5mm platform and keep the xml footprint. I think the XP-L will kill the xpg since they share the same footprint…remember, the vast majority of the led market is not looking for throw like the xpg delivers…they’re looking for output. The differences between the xpl and the xml aren’t drastic.

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia
Bort wrote:
JohnnyMac wrote:

Good to know.  Thanks for sharing that info! Smile

Would you mind repeating throw using the XM-L reflector on the XP-L pill?  Many who do this will have XM-L reflectors since they are far more common and easier to get.

I did not know there was a reflector difference, what is different about them (other then the opening on the bottom)

I never thought there was a difference either. When I built the xpl, I just naturally use the xpg reflector because it fits the isolation pad I use for centering. I really didn’t expect a difference when I put on the xml reflector. Keep in mind, the difference isn’t huge…just noticeable.
When the xml smooth reflectors were backordered from all my suppliers about a year ago, I drilled out some xpg smooth reflectors an they looked good on the xml.
The real difference may be who they were bought from and what day of the week they were made.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20638
Location: Heart of Texas

The difference, is of course, in the binning. Like a U2 is brighter than a T6, the V series binning is the next step up from U. These new XP-L’s should be in the 18-20% brighter range, as we’ve seen before with a new bin.

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia
DBCstm wrote:
The difference, is of course, in the binning. Like a U2 is brighter than a T6, the V series binning is the next step up from U. These new XP-L’s should be in the 18-20% brighter range, as we’ve seen before with a new bin.

It will be a sad day when they have a ‘Z’ bin…if they use up all the letters…they can’t get any brighter…

Why I’m impressed with the XPL V5…they managed to generate a 2A tint…not a 1A or 0D like you would expect.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20638
Location: Heart of Texas

When I had the light in my Avatar built, it came to me making 135 lumens. Now, with a de-domed XP-L and a driver of my own build (BLFTiny10) it’s capable of 921 lumens. Smile Radical difference, I’d say! The bigger XM-L2 die wouldn’t fit in this light without major alterations. The die size of the XP-L did indeed still require opening up the emitter hole in the reflector.

I also like these XP-L for a triple configuration. Big step up over the previous XP-G2.

I’m finding the tint shift upon de-dome to be much less and of a better quality overall. Seems that the dome is concave on the die side, not actually in contact with the die face or phosphor so there is less effect removing the dome from the adhesive strip around the outer edge. Win win.

Milan
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 25 min ago
Joined: 05/08/2012 - 12:13
Posts: 306
Location: Czech Republic

pflexpro wrote:
Sorry, I worded it wierdly:
The xpl has the tint I want and I also get 60 more lumens with it.

okay now it makes sense, made me thought the graph legend was wrong

btw its smaller and still better cooled? weird

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20638
Location: Heart of Texas

Milan, the die is the same size it’s just put on the substrate of an XP footprint.

I think Cree’s intention was to allow the higher powered XM class die to fit together tighter in arrays for street lighting and such, so using the existing compact XP size base and cramming the big XM-L2 die on it made a lot of sense. Notice that the dome has flat sides to allow these to nest together without gaps, this is ideal for array use where multiple dies fit into one light.

Sure we use em in our lights, but I doubt Cree gave us much thought when designing these.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 13419
Location: LI NY

This is interesting, different results from other tests done and posted here, that showed the output about the same (think myself included Smile). XM-L2 U2 1D's I've used tested a little lower than XM-L2 U2 1A's. Also the XP-L is not the highest bin available - the V6 is available from Illum.com.

Did you use copper DTP stars on both?

Also the interesting result of the XPG reflector throwing better than the XML reflector is also true for C8 reflectors.

Thanx for doing these tests!!

pflexpro
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 6 days ago
Joined: 12/26/2013 - 10:49
Posts: 171
Location: Georgia
Tom E wrote:

This is interesting, different results from other tests done and posted here, that showed the output about the same (think myself included Smile). XM-L2 U2 1D’s I’ve used tested a little lower than XM-L2 U2 1A’s. Also the XP-L is not the highest bin available – the V6 is available from Illum.com.

Did you use copper DTP stars on both?

Also the interesting result of the XPG reflector throwing better than the XML reflector is also true for C8 reflectors.

Thanx for doing these tests!!

After I test more lights, I will be more comfortable with the accuracy of the outcome…this test was merely 2 of each…but I think it’s a good start.
I’m not sure the xpg reflector has a different geometry than the xml -the contact ring on the bottom of the reflector -the part that presses against the isolation pad, it holds the xml reflector .46mm higher -this could change the focus enough to affect the throw 8 meters. Also, my xpg reflectors are .5mm larger at the top…so there could be a difference. For the little difference in throw, I will use the reflector that gives the best beam pattern.
One thing to note: the OP xpg reflector looked terrible on the XPL.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 13419
Location: LI NY

I think your tests are better/more thorough than my own for sure... Using qty 2 of each is one more each than most of us use Smile. Maybe those V5 2A's are pretty good. Think I and djozz used V6 2C's. I truly believed the cooler tints in the same bin will perform better, but after djozz's light meter tests, I'm not so sure now. His test results indicate cheaper light meters (maybe Extech included) measure cooler tints higher than neutral and warm tints.

djozz's here: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/32522

Actually in looking over the results, they are actually pretty similar to yours. His lumens are higher but he's not using any reflector or glass, just bare emitter I think.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 6093
Location: Johnstown, PA

Thanks for sharing your tests. I'm new to this whole XP-L business and have only scanned the old threads.  Am I correct that the XP-L can't be used with XP-G optics? I have a bike light coming which has 4 XP-G's and was going to swap them out for XP-G2 NW's, but should I consider the XP-L instead? 

Thanks,

-Garry

My Bike Lights Thread, Optics (TIR) Comparison Beamshots, Diffusion Techniques

, MTBR’s Lights & Night Riding Forum
NOTE: Now hosting my photos from my Google account. Post up if you can’t see them. Older photos hosted on Photobucket or Flickr may disappear (PM me if you want access to them).
AlexGT
AlexGT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 06/07/2012 - 17:39
Posts: 4432
Location: Texas
DBCstm wrote:
I’m finding the tint shift upon de-dome to be much less and of a better quality overall. Seems that the dome is concave on the die side, not actually in contact with the die face or phosphor so there is less effect removing the dome from the adhesive strip around the outer edge. Win win.

DBCstm, in your eyeball experience, what tints are you getting with the XPL dedomes? Original tint to approximate dedome tint? What method of dedome are you using? By the pic I would say Hot dedome but want to confirm…

Thanks!
AlexGT

downlinx
downlinx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/09/2014 - 09:38
Posts: 1292
Location: Indiana, USA

I am starting to buy more xp-l over XML and xml2. I am really liking xpl

BLF Community Battery Pull Thread http://budgetlightforum.com/node/32720

nitroz
nitroz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/11/2012 - 16:57
Posts: 206
Location: Monroe
garrybunk wrote:

Thanks for sharing your tests. I’m new to this whole XP-L business and have only scanned the old threads.  Am I correct that the XP-L can’t be used with XP-G optics? I have a bike light coming which has 4 XP-G’s and was going to swap them out for XP-G2 NW’s, but should I consider the XP-L instead? 

Thanks,

-Garry

Garry,

I dedomed the XP-L so that it would fit under the triple XP-G optic that I modded for someone. He created a video running at 3 amps. Skip ahead to about 1:25.
DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20638
Location: Heart of Texas

Alex, not sure what to call it on tint but it’s definitely a more pleasing color than the de-domed XM-L2’s I’ve been doing lately. Many of the 1A’s even have a greenish hue, so I’m pleased with the XP-L’s compared to those.

Pleased enough to use one in my Texas Poker, which should say it all right there. Wink Swapping from the de-domed XP-G2 at 552 lumens with no other changes, the XP-L gives me 921. Major difference with a 3.3A pull. When you consider that the smaller die was being driven at double it’s recommended amperage, and the XP-L is just barely over it’s max, I’d have to think it’s more efficient with it’s power consumption vs. output but don’t know how to figure all that out. Mind you, this is a 3” long light with a head diameter barely larger than a penny. It runs on an Efest IMR10440 cell. Yes that’s right, from a AAA sized Li-ion it’s making 921 lumens! I call that a win! And this is why it’s a beast in a triple. :bigsmile:

I first started only doing gas de-domes, they come off much quicker on these new ones. The one in the pic is my first hot de-dome and it went pretty well. Wasn’t sure, lol.

freeme
freeme's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 39 min ago
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 22:00
Posts: 8870

Finally got my hands on XP-L recently. It feels like much brighter version of XP-G2 rather than XM-L2. XP-L is definitely the LED that I am going to stock up right now.

The only dislike right is the "XM-L to XP-G reflector converter" (gasket for centering) cost more XM-L model.

comfychair
comfychair's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 05:39
Posts: 6198

XP to XM adapter: http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/7-5MM-Insulation-Spacer-for-led-...

The flat ring the reflector sits on is VERY thin, around .012". No sanding required for those reflectors that need the LED up as high as possible.

Hikelite
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 07/13/2011 - 16:18
Posts: 3804
Location: RO

Is this the first test showing that CREE was not exaggerating their ratings for the XP-L LED?

They have never done that, so that is why my question was, why would they do it now?

Nice test pflexpro!

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 6093
Location: Johnstown, PA

Thanks nitroz! I'll check it out for sure. Guess after awhile we'll start seeing XP-L optics. 

-Garry

My Bike Lights Thread, Optics (TIR) Comparison Beamshots, Diffusion Techniques

, MTBR’s Lights & Night Riding Forum
NOTE: Now hosting my photos from my Google account. Post up if you can’t see them. Older photos hosted on Photobucket or Flickr may disappear (PM me if you want access to them).
fellfromtree
fellfromtree's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 11 months ago
Joined: 07/25/2014 - 15:14
Posts: 470
Location: spelunking

You guys are talking over my head again Smile I have to wait on emitters but your talking throw with dedomed or not dedomed? What about the XP G2?

comfychair
comfychair's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 05:39
Posts: 6198

XP-L and XM-L2 have the same size die (the semiconductor chip covered with the yellow phosphor, the part the light comes from), throw will be the same. XP-G2 has a much smaller die. The dome makes the apparent die size larger (like a magnifying lens). Remove the dome and the die, as the reflector/optics see it, gets smaller.

Pages