He used a custom built sphere. Maybe it’s more accurate. 
I need to change the sensor in my tube because it’s not accurate over 1500 lumens.
Thank you for this review Matt. As usual it was very Instructive and enlightening!
Your reviews are a good mix of facts and visible impression. Apart from being fun to look at, they help me a lot when choosing a new flashlight.
Yes. I also got greasy fingers the first time I used it, but the second time I just kept my hand on the body when I plugged in the charger. Hands down I prefer not having to carry a charger with me. I can take the cable from my phone or anything else and charge it even if the brick is at home.
Glad you asked 
For the video I was trying to keep it simple and not get the general public bogged down in too many details. Here I’m happy to go full blown rabbit hole.
.
What I did was actually more like “calibrating” off the acebeam X75 5000k which is 75000 lumens. Saying that IF acebeam is correct about their numbers Then these are the numbers I get from Imalent. Doing this brings the numbers for both companies very close to being in line with the claims they make on paper. I thought it made for a simpler A to B to C comparison.
.
Here at BLF the general consensus is that we’re right and they’re wrong, and everybody gets all dug in on both sides. I still want to acknowledge that I’m using a PVC pipe and most of the big manufactures in China are likely using a $15k integrating sphere. Clearly they have financial motive to keep the numbers high, but I also like to remember that this entire forum including myself calibrated off one guy. My core belief is that Maukka is right and therefore our numbers are closer to being correct.
.
I’ve had backlash from different companies in the past over this, and a number of other things, and I’ve always stuck to my guns (unless some actual mistake was pointed out). I feel confident about the integrity of my reviews for this reason (I didn’t take anything here as “questioning” that.) I try to deliver the most digestible content to my audience a large % of that on youtube are not forum members, hence the deviation from tradition.
Hey Matt,
I just heard from Marco at 1Lumen, who has a sphere, he measured close to the Acebeam rating. He hasn’t mentioned exactly what he got, but said it was much closer than what he expected.
Everyone using a tube is getting a low result which brings me to the conclusion that Maukka’s calibration, in a tube, is only accurate to a certain point. I think we should be building a sphere, I just don’t know where to get a Styrofoam ball at 50cm in NZ to make one.
Large balloon + wood crate + mold making liquid latex? Anchor balloon to crate somehow, pour liquid latex, let cure, remove and shave off excess?
Thank you for the suggestion, but it looks like liquid latex isn’t cheap. Marco said he could ship me one, I just don’t know whether it would arrive intact since it is hollow
That makes sense. It was not clear to me when I watched the video and I was thinking “why would we assume that the lux reading is lumens?”
China user measure much lower throw number of 244kcd although Acebeam claims to have 330kcd. That explain why X75 has unimpressive throw(Someone posted beamshot saying disappointed with the throw of X75 in this forum, but later edited it because of unknown reason.)
Is this promotional review to boost sales of X75? Why hiding all the short coming of X75? If it is promotional review, please be frank.
Stop lying, I gave the reason for editing my thread. You couldn’t stop talking about issues with the X75 so I requested the admin lock the thread.
I measured 932m range, but I have the 5000K version, so naturally the range and lumen output is going to be less.
Yes, I was initially upset at the range because at the time I didn’t realize I was sent the 5000K version. This is my own fault for not checking.
I hope you note that China user also is using a cheap lux meter and shouldn’t be used to claim Acebeam were providing false numbers, The lux meter is the UNI-T UT383BT which isn’t certified. My measurement of 932m is also only measured with a $20 lux meter.
1Lumen has measured the X75 and said their lumen result is very close to the 80,000 rating. Marco used a calibrated Sphere, not just a PVC tube that myself, Matt, and Cheule used in our reviews.
You better learn to respect your own words. I don’t trust you’re neutral anymore as you keep defending Acebeam and hiding X75 shortcoming. I know Acebeam gave you discount, so what? Do you really need to defend Acebeam so much even forgot your own disappointment.
X75 5000k claims to have 75000lm
X75 6500k claims to have 80000lm
You really trust Acebeam saying that the throw can deviate so much between them? You better don’t be reviewer anymore.
I am sure you will be disappointed with X75 6500k too because it is only 5000lm more, about 6% more lumens but spread across VERY VERY wide area.
Please read my above comment.
Sure. Let’s wait for 1lumen review.
China users and reviewers are more straight to the point nowadays. Those lux meters are cheap, but it is done at the same condition and same night. It sure can be used to compare throw performance among flashlights.
Your measurement of 932m means 217kcd. It is even much lower than the spec of 330kcd.
Ceiling bounce done by China user/reviewer, at the same time and same night. Just for comparison.
My calculation based on the data.
[quote=DENGOH]
Ceiling bounce done by China user/reviewer, at the same time and same night. Just for comparison.
You shared this Lux picture the same as you did the removable cooling fan. You don’t understand Chinese, but you have a purpose to share/against ACEBEAM X75 from a Chinese flashlight forum. You forget there are many members who are good at picture synthesizer.
Personally, I am jealous of the Acebeam X75 high power flashlight which covers all the necessary functions I need.
It is not strange at all there are competitors who have the same thoughts/behavior as you.《Who Moved My Cheese》
That person who shared the broken fan seems to have other Acebeam flashlight. Of course you still can believe in your conspiracy theory, and spread the theory here too. Before you, two persons say that was just disassembly of fan on purpose.
Good luck trusting affiliate “reviewer” who deliberately say 932m instead of 217kcd(very far from 330kcd spec), of course his sample is 5000k tint, but that is just 5k lumens short of 6500k tint according to Acebeam.
The official specifications says 1150m for the XHP70.2 6500K.
sqrt(217,000 x 4) = 932m
He had to go to the effort of converting it from lux to candela, and then convert it into the beam distance.
The beam distance is 218 metres less than expected. You might not expect the same 1150m distance with 5000K.
You can watch his review. It’s not all “Acebeam is awesome!’. He mentions quality control issues, room for improvement with the user interface etc:
Yeah, I actually never mention the candela in my reviews because the range is basically the same thing imo. Not many viewers pay much attention to the candela spec, I certainly don’t, I always look at the measured range.
Btw, my light meter reads slightly too high, well I think it does, so my actual measured range was 981.8m or 241,000 kcd. I always minus 5% in every review.
[quote=Funtastic]
My UNI-T UT383BT reads 10% lower than my UNI-T UT383S so I use the 383BT. This highlights the importance of calibrating equipment.
I did few tests on mine and I manage to get an average of 220Kcd for the 6500K.