I just checked out Soraa’s bulb. The flashy webpage and professional marketing had me excited, until I saw the spectrum distribution and TM-30 data on the spec sheet. Bummer.
If you do start making a new lighting product, I actually think BLF might not be a bad launchpad. The feedback from some of us with spectrometers and experience will be far more insightful than the average Amazon customer that only has experience with hateful 1-star feedback that simply reads “JUNK!” or “DO NOT BUY!”.
give me results please. of SORAA.
I don’t own any Soraa, but from what I see in their datasheet, their spectrum is quite wobbly, and this is verified in their TM-30 as under-saturation and tint shift.
but they call it healthy. It is for eyes, not for colors.
Yeah, the compression is pretty bad. Tomorrow I can check the original footage and also export the mean brightness of each frame.
Ah, you clicked on “SORAA HEALTHY A19/A60”. I clicked on “SORAA VIVID A19/A60”. They don’t even have the balls to post color rendering data for that “healthy” bulb, other than to say CRI=80 R9=90. I would never buy a bulb with no blue rendering. If I want less blue light in my life, I will dim the lights.
Nothing personal just business :money_mouth_face:
You mean I won’t get 1-star reviews for being “too bright” or “too dim?”
Well if you do, there will be data to back up the claim 
When I was talking about Soraa as a comparable for building high-CRI (etc.) bulbs, I was really referring to the Vivid line.
But since Soraa Healthy is more comparable to BB, of course I have tested it. It's a cool idea and technology, but I don't agree with their approach. Especially because it ignores the "green" half of melanopic light.
Basically, they eliminate all blue light, but green is just as stimulating from a melanopic/circadian perspective. Read more here.
Bedtime Bulb still has a slightly lower melanopic input despite having blue, and with far superior color quality.
Here are the specs I have on Soraa Healthy, taken with my UPRtek CV600. I heard they may have tweaked it slightly, but even in this version, CRI is worse than advertised:
Spectrum. Note that the gray hump is the full melanopic area spanning blue and green, not just the "blue" hump that Soraa shows in their graphics:
Holy he, that’s 10 MacAdams tints from BBL/White!
And yea, CRI 74 with R12=9, eesh.
You already have a bedtime bulb, why not make this the best daytime bulb and not worry about melanin suppression?
Not sure I understand the question.
BB is a special-purpose product focused on a consumer sales channel. High-CRI general-purpose lighting will mostly sell in the B2B sales channel. Not saying consumers won’t buy it, but it’s much less differentiated from a consumer marketing perspective.
I guess I just don’t see a use case for a 3500K bulb with no blue or green color rendering.
If you made a high CRI 3500K bulb, that would be differentiated, but it wouldn’t take much investment for the other high CRI players in the market to adjust their spectrum to 3500K. I can’t really recommend putting in the effort if that’s the case.
Oh I see. To be clear, we intend to only make the Bedtime Bulb products in a low CCT, as that is part of what most people find pleasing at night.
The general purpose bulbs wouldn’t have melanopic reduction most likely. Although we may consider some of the new “flat” SPDs (in the style of Seoul SunLike).
Hey! I tested them last night and I like them very much, the tint is very nice and cozy, they replaced my 2200K edison led bulbs in my bedroom :+1:
There was no visible fluctuation but my house is not that old (1881) so… I can’t speak for the others… 
overall i’m happy with my purchase and I hope they last for years BUT I would love to have a 60w equivalent version or even 80-100 for my living room :sunglasses:
Cool, thanks again! Enjoy, and let me know if you have any more feedback after continued use.
This is interesting guys. It seems ANSI has a C78.376-2014 standard that accepts 3500K as the neutral. I always thought it was odd to call 4000k neutral, as it looks cool to me. It seems this standard lines up with our opinions.
https://www.nema.org/Standards/ComplimentaryDocuments/C78-376-2014-Contents-and-Scope.pdf
It’s interesting for sure, but many (most?) manufacturers still define their spec sheets based on a 3000 K nominal. Despite this, a lot of lighting designers like 3500 or 4000 K.
I think our natural tendency toward round numbers is to blame. I believe if 3500 were a round number, and the next increments were 2500 or 4500 there would never have been any doubt.
since we have read that the bulbs have a flicker problem in USA, and maukka reports they also have a flicker problem in Finland
where in the world are you located?
you did what kind of test?
did you look through a camera, was there any banding?
did you test for flicker, some other way?