I think those LEDs in the new Cree bulbs look a lot like a XPL HI with a taller dome.
@pflexpro: thanks for the testing and sharing, really helpfull!
Yes, I would LOVE to see a throw/Kcd comparison test between dedomed XM L2, XP-L and XP-L HI.
I’m planning on swapping the old dedomed XM L2’s in some of my throwers with XP-L HI.
(And I am hoping and dreaming to see the birth of an XP G2 HI…………)
Cheers
Nico
Looks like an XQ-B in the house bulb. Or one of the XB models. Probably the XB-E or XB-G because they’re high voltage at some 23V. 
I have some of the XP-L HI V2 1A coming from Cutter to use in a Quad for the Welight Titanium Ti-Rey or Ti-Ten or whatever he ends up calling it. The Titanium version of an X6. It’ll be interesting to see if throw is improved under the Ledil CUTE-4 optics and what kind of output it makes on an FET +1 driver.
Thanks for this review, very nice indeed.
Quick and dirty test.
I have some XPL HI in 5000K U5-NW but not binned for tint. I did a primary (RGB) spectral analysis of a few of them and found that they would plot somewhere around a 3C and 3D…a little closer to a 3C.
I loaded an xpg2 R5-3C in a host and put the XPL HI 5000k in a host and compared them. Both used an orange peel reflector to blend the light and make tint comparison easier.
The XPG2 R5-3C is in a P60 @ 3.04A and the XPL HI 5000K is in an M1.
I feel very comfortable using this emitter as an XPL Neutral, since it matches the 3C so well.
This photo is Auto white balance:
!
!
This photo is White Balance set at 5000K. This one looks more like what I saw:
!
!
So XPL HI in neutral is a reality today.
Really good comparison testing. Thanks for posting. Excellent setup with that sphere that you built.
I’m upgrading my Cypreus this week from de-domed XP-L to XP-L HI, to fix its tint. Also upgrading the driver from FET to FET+1 to get better low modes. Maybe in a year or two I can upgrade it again to get a higher output bin. 
I wonder how much the output will drop, going from a de-domed V6 to a factory-de-domed U5. And I wonder how its lumen output compares to a high-bin domed XP-G2. Think you might be able to test that in the original host?
The old emitters are XP-L V6 2C dedomed, new ones are XP-L HI U5 5000K … and what I’d ideally like is XP-L V6 (or higher) 3D with domes and with large enough optics.
Also, I want your integrating sphere. My current solution is an “integrating milk carton”, which is a bit less than ideal. 
Are these pictures on the side of your milk carton?
No, I’ve got an older model. The missing-person pictures on mine look like this:
Thanks pflexpro/everybody for the tests and for the information!
TK: “My current solution is an “integrating milk carton”
.
Really? - If I’m not mistaken, isn’t that how selfbuilt got started?
Truth be known, He’s probably still using it, as he says that this or that light was too large for measurement, so lumens are estimated:-)
Hey! - More power to ya!
-Chuck
Well, at least it’s better than an “integrating bathroom!”
The integrating milk carton method works well, as long as the luxmeter sensor does not receive light directly from the lightsource, integration should at least be better than the bended pipe things. It helps integration if the shiny inside is sanded to flat with very fine sandpaper. Do you have a range problem? Or is there a grey filter before the light sensor?
Reference: https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/6918 for the bent pipe things 
. I agree, science does not back up our pipes. I find if I slightly tip a light so the business end points towards the inside of the pipe, it increases readings quite a bit, whcih leads me to believe flooders may be over estimated. Might explain some of our (the bent pipe club members) unexplainable high readings on flooders. manxbuggy1/rdrfronty abd TurboBB did extensive tests of high quality lights with the pipe light box, and can show consistency, but I'm pretty sure vast majority were reflector based, not flooders, maybe all were reflector based. There weren't many off the shelf high end TIR optics or aspherics around at the time.
By design, integrating spheres and even milk cartons should have better integration than pipes, but what really just is needed in practice is 'good enough' integration, if the pipe does not significantly favor throwers over flooders, all is ok.
TurboBB never did a direct test on integration though. Tom, for my curiosity, would you mind sometime taking a zoomie zoomed to spot and shine it as far into your pipe as possible, and then again tilt it a bit and shine it to the side of the pipe close to the light entrance hole, and one more time halfway, and see what is the difference? My integrating spheres tested this way show a few percent variation shining a zoomie in different directions, so they do not integrate perfectly either, I wonder how the pipe responds to this.
Well, @work now (working??), but I know the results will be bad doing that. From just a slight tilt of a C8 or HD2010 type of light, the differences are dramatic. I'll try it this eve - if I remember .
Thanks!
(working???? You're not spending your life on anything but BLF, are you?)
I'm knocking my head against the wall in a forever loop, trying to get this stupid C# .NET app to get a JSON stream working to talk to our PIC based, USB/virtual COM port plug-in Dose Calibrator (nuc med device) simulator. Goin on a day+, with lots of interruptions. Frustrating as hell right now, so I'm distracted very easily...
Cool Tom, my wife is back in school to get her LVN and is complaining that that they aren’t spending ANY time on dosage calculations. She’s gonna throw fits at the end of the semester, as, of course, that’s life and death stuff that they breezed over like it was nothing.
She would love your app, for sure! (gonna be spending some hours this afternoon with fellow classmates, off the clock, working on dosage calculations)
Since she’s burning the candle from both ends, I think maybe it’s a good time to upgrade her P1D that she previously wouldn’t let me touch. It’s only doing 567 lumens for crying out loud!
Ahhh - that's probably dosage calc on real meds, our equipment is used only for radiation/nuclear meds - decay calculations is a big part of it though, but we are one of only a handful of manufacturers in the world making a gas chamber to measure radiation dosages, either in needles or vials - one unit for a doctor's office all the way to the nuclear pharmacies. Actually from yesterday, I was work'n with a mech engineer on a LED flashlight he wanted to use on a isokinetic machine (rehab) for the clinicians to properly align the machine's attachment with the limb joint (shoulder, knee, etc.). Funny, he actually bought 3 cheap zoomies, one being a SK68, so today, I brought in a "small" collection of zoomies to show him. Apparently people freak (regulators too) when the word "laser" is mentioned, even low powered. A laser is a better solution, but a focused beam from a LED he is saying would be good enough. I got a collection of slim AA zoomies and found the best to be a gold one - don't think it's a XP-E, looks like a smaller dye and has a nice small hot spot. The SupFire F3 with an XP-E and another with a de-domed XP-E2 performed as good or little better, but it's bigger size might count it out. Weird in that he wants something real cheap, off the shelf rather than custom - forecast is only bout 20 pieces/year. Was think'n of the XP-L HI, but think an XP-E or XPR is tighter - brightness not much of a factor.
Yep, meds in OR and such, and on the floor.
Cool story about the pinpoint light source, XP-E2 probably perfect for that in a small aspheric. Up close and personal it’ll be an intense beam hot spot right? lol Mech Eng cheaping out, tsk tsk tsk.