4x E21A 9080 CRI output test by Texas_Ace - Amazing tint and good output

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 26 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2423
Location: Bali - Indonesia

Texas_Ace wrote:
Very nice, I would even use one of those. this should not have issues with donut holes.

No donut, just faint cross Flat Stare . But frosting the back of the lens fixed it.

- Clemence

jon_slider
jon_slider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 53 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
Posts: 2573
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Here is a rough illustration of the beam progression from stock single NW, to warm quad, to frosted

all photos originally from Clemences build progress reports..
the light is still in its Tropical Paradise Incubator, pending the birth of a sibling quad E21A w 4000k complexion

Pavlo
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 12/13/2015 - 10:37
Posts: 632
Location: Canada

I have been using one of Clemence’s custom Armytek Tiara’s with 4xNichia e21a in 4000K for over 1 month now.
Thought I’d provide some feedback on this LED.

The tint is absolutely amazing, closest thing to perfect I have ever seen. It makes Nichia 219C 4000K seem very yellow in comparison. There is absolutely no tint shift, and both tint and CCT is perfectly even across the entire beam of light (*under stock Armytek TIR).
With regards to CRI, its also the best I have used to date. Everything pops but in a very natural way. Almost like what a good light source should be, something you don’t really notice or think about. With all other LED lights I have used to date, I always feel like what I see feels less saturated, and with less contrast then real life. Not with the E21a. When I turn it on, it feels like sunlight quality light but at night, quite surreal actually.

In sum, I am very impressed and looking forward to the potential that this caliber of LED can bring. As I am a fan of both throwy, floody and everything in between, looking forward to see something with this quality in a light designed for more throw.

I caution those that are thinking of trying this LED, because it may make all your other lights feel inadequate. I was happy with the tint on my Zebralight H600fc MK4 as it was quite similar to my 219c lights, but now this Tiara blows it out of the water.

A big thank you to Clemence and all of his amazing work developing a quad mcpcb for these LED’s, and for his quality work.

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5579
Location: Ślōnsk

E21A slowly gains ground, there are more and more lights with it coming.
But there’s one property of this LED that I haven’t seen measured.
Throw. Or more precisely – surface luminosity.

Does anyone have any data on whether this LED can get some reasonable throw or is it purely a flooder?

Ryzbor
Ryzbor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 01/21/2018 - 10:52
Posts: 303
Location: Poland

Someone, maybe Clemence, did put a quad E21A board in a Armytek Viking Pro, even without using dc-fix in the end I think.
SKV89 has modded some lights with quad E21A’s. A Nightwatch IRA (C8+ op. ref.), Convoy S11 and Olight R50 pro seeker and used dc fix.

virence.com rosy 3500K R9080 Wizard Pro, MF01 Mini 4000K to be modded with FA3 SST20, super rosy 3000K E21A Tiara and super warm 2000K Wizard Pro on it's way

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

This is not a thrower led because it does not have a small enough die, and it can not be overdriven like the dedomed XP-G2 and the Black/White Flat, it starts overheating between the solder pads when driven over 3A, the output reduces and at a certain current the die burns.

From my test 3 years ago:

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5579
Location: Ślōnsk

Overall I wonder if this is a fair option for a high CRI thrower.
It is not a throw LED…but no CRI90+ LED that is well tested by BLFers is a throw one.

How does it compare with SST-20? Die is larger. Output is slightly lower. But it has no dome which should make the throw comparable. But which one would throw better? Probably SST-20. But how much? I don’t know. This one has the advantage of widely loved tint.
I’d love to be able to quantify the tradeoffs. I lack the data to do this….

Frankenquads…will have a donut hole. And fighting the hole will make them floodier than a single LED. So they are not for people desiring throwers…

Pavlo
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 12/13/2015 - 10:37
Posts: 632
Location: Canada

I have a single E21A LED in a Fenix HL50 headlamp modded by Clemence.
Obviously not a thrower by today’s standards, but a significantly tighter beam than your typical headlamp.
What I like about it having the tighter beam on a smaller AA light is that I don’t have to use a very high setting to get the light where I need it, and I can use it around others without blinding them.

I would imagine that if you want a thrower out of a quad e21a, you would need to use a very large reflector or TIR.

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5579
Location: Ślōnsk

TA, I need clarification.
At some point you calibrated your setup with Maukka lights. Results from after and before this point are not directly comparable.
But I wonder about 2 tests which I think are both earlier than the calibration. XM-L2 and 4xE21A.
Can we directly compare the lumen outputs in these tests?

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8649
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

I have not posted any LED tests from after the maukka calibration (mostly due to the issues you speak of). So while the numbers themselves are not that accurate they are all comparable.

I have thought about how to go about posting more tests but there have not been a lot of need for more LED tests recently so I have not bothered.

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5579
Location: Ślōnsk

Thanks for the answer TA.

I don’t agree there’s no need for LED tests. Just today I’ve been thinking that maybe I could offer a bounty to have one of the interesting emitters tested (Oslon Pure). Though I failed to come up with something that would be affordable enough for me yet valuable enough for someone capable of doing so.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8649
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

True, there might be some LED’s coming out that could use testing. I have not had time to keep up with the latest LED’s. Last “mainstream interesting” LED’s I saw were the Boost HX and SBT90.2.

I can obviously still take measurements, just not sure how to handle the new calibration without making things really confusing.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

I understand. I keep my old calibration while knowing it is high, because it keeps my tests comparable over the years. Because it is not too much different from reality (luckily just 7-11% high), sticking to the djozz-lumen does not give a grossly wrong idea of the led performance.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8649
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
djozz wrote:
I understand. I keep my old calibration while knowing it is high, because it keeps my tests comparable over the years. Because it is not too much different from reality (luckily just 7-11% high), sticking to the djozz-lumen does not give a grossly wrong idea of the led performance.

Yeah, if mine was only 10% high then I would dot he same but at closer to 30% that is just too much of a difference to keep the same calibration for me.

I considered changing all my old readings by 30% and updating the old threads but that is a LOT of work and still not totally comparable.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

Hey Agro, you like numbers, how about McGivering some stuff together and start doing emitter tests?? Me I am certainly not motivated enough to test every new emitter that comes out, and it sounds like TA feels about the same about it. And koef3 posted some tests for a couple of months but stopped after that. I think BLF is big enough for an extra led tester. Innocent

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8649
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Tiss an option, it is really not that hard, just time consuming. A bench power supply, lumen tube / sphere, PC heatsink (stock CPU heatsinks work fine for most things) with some holes drilled and tapped to fix the MCPCB and an excell spreadsheet is basically all you need to take the measurements.

Then just some testing to figure out the best testing methods, figuring out the voltage drop in the wires etc.

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5579
Location: Ślōnsk

djozz wrote:
Hey Agro, you like numbers, how about McGivering some stuff together and start doing emitter tests?? Me I am certainly not motivated enough to test every new emitter that comes out, and it sounds like TA feels about the same about it. And koef3 posted some tests for a couple of months but stopped after that. I think BLF is big enough for an extra led tester. Innocent

I’ve been thinking about it. But I really lack all the essential items except for wires and DMM. No sphere, no PSU, no cooling setup.
I intend to buy the first and the second eventually but not this year. This year my focus is to upgrade my main EDC light and it will cost me a lot. Sad
djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 6 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

Fair enough, but I could always try to convince you! Big Smile

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5579
Location: Ślōnsk

Close to 30% is a big error Sad
I do believe that all these tests deserve a warning label telling the readers to apply a certain correction factor, like djozz tests do.
You could add a joke that everything is bigger in Texas.

I wouldn’t suggest calling these Texas Lumens and using them in future tests though, the name “lumen” would be confusing. You could call them something rlse, f.e. likeable measurements and keep them.
Or I would suggest abandoning them. That’s what I would do, serms that in a long term it would be more usrful.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 3 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8649
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Yeah, that is basically what I have one at this point, If I do any more tests they would be with the new calibration.

I was not aware of the issues with the accuracy until long after most of these tests were posted. Only found out about it due to the muakka calibration lights.

iamlucky13
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 09:18
Posts: 662
Location: USA
djozz wrote:
I understand. I keep my old calibration while knowing it is high, because it keeps my tests comparable over the years. Because it is not too much different from reality (luckily just 7-11% high), sticking to the djozz-lumen does not give a grossly wrong idea of the led performance.

I appreciate both that you report with the same calibration, and share what you know about its accuracy. It makes the data very useful.

Pages