I’ve always thought XML2 were brighter than XPL other than XPL using a smaller footprint than XML2
I’ve always thought XML2 U4 were the brightest but the BLF A6 claims 1600 lumens which is 400+ lumens higher than any XML2 claims I’ve seen so far.
I do not own any XPL lights yet so I’m not sure.
I do have a Convoy S2+ with XML2 U2 1A driven by BLF A6 driver. Nasty bright and gets hot fast. I should really consider switching my aluminum to noctigons.
I was planning on purchasing an XML2 U4 but also considered the pricier XPL V6
I could say I kinda failed a few parts where I’ve melted my one and only 30 degree TIR Optic with the blf a6 driver heating the single xml2 up so I’m wondering if I should also consider XPL HI triples with carclo optics on my Convoy S2+
I guess I asked too much because I couldn’t decide
XP-L is essentially an XM-L2 dye on an XP-G2 pad, with the footprint of the latter.
Output and behaviour of an XP-L is similar to the XM-L2 and essentially can be considered the same for output, performance and beam profile. There are some minor differences, but nothing that really makes a huge difference visually.
XP-L HI is essentially a de-domed emitter from Cree. It still has a silicon coating, but is flat rather than dome like.
By the way, once you discover nice tints and high CRI, you’ll tend to care somewhat less about PEAK lumen output. On ‘any’ light, I’d much rather slightly lower output if it is a nice tint and has good CRI.
The XP-L has the same die as the XM-L2 and the performance has proven to be in the same category. Theoretically because of the smaller package the heatsinking of the XP-L could be worse but I did not see much of that in practice. For obscure reasons the brightness binning of the XP-L is chosen different to the XM-L2 binning by Cree, so you can not compare the given bin numbers.
A top bin XM-L2 will give the same output with the BLF-A6 driver. There is some variation in Vf of individual Cree emitters so the actual current and output is a bit of a gamble.
An XM-L2 on an aluminium board combined with the BLF-A6 driver is a recipe for disaster, the emitter will get way too hot and will fry over time, and it may well be the reason for the melted optic.
A triple XP-L Hi under a Carclo with a BLF-A6 driver in the Convoy S2+ is the dream-pocketrocket in my opinion, go for it but make sure your heatsinking is well done (really flat surfaces where the heatsink/spacer meets the ledboard and the pill, tiny layer of thermal paste in between)!
djozz, you stole my thunder. I would guess that the melted optic was due to the low heat transfer of the star that the emitter was mounted on. I currently run a BLF A6 with spring bypasses with a 10 degree TIR and have not melted it yet. Mind you, the light will get very hot! Although I did melt a tail spring in a C8 that I forgot to bypass last night. Love that smell… not
I have been sticking to domed and dedomed XM-L2’s, they are easier for me to handle and mount versus the smaller package. Gotta say, I built a triple S2+ with XP-G2’s and I am not sure how the triple XP-L HI could be any better. But, I doubt I will build any more triples in small packages. They get so hot that the driver does not mode switch properly and it is very well built for heatsinking. Gotta say, it is my brightest tube light and also my lowest output tube light. I got ML perfect on this one!
We have a user at MTBR (has posted at BLF too) that has seen that Bike Lights swapped from XM-L2’s to XP-L’s run significantly cooler (cool enough not to trip thermal protection so easily with airflow). We’re talking dual emitter lights running about 2.4A to 3.0A per emitter (like the Yinding and NiteFighter BT21). I’ve never heard anyone at BLF say that XP-L lights run cooler. I guess it’s possible that the XP-L’s swapped in were on copper DTP boards and being compared to the stock XM-L2’s on aluminum. Any thoughts?
Thank you…I’m glad someone else has mode switching problems from hot triples too, lol. I’ve built a few XP-L HI S2+ triples with BLF A6 drivers and fet+1 drivers with Toykeeper’s fw from mtn and all have had mode switching issues but only when trying to switch to the previous level.
Max lumens are not as important as tint and CRI to me now either. I doubt many people could see a 300 lumen difference on a 1600 vs 1300 lumen same tint light. Put another tint in the 1300 lumen level and you may actually enjoy the light more… NW to WW have many more advantages to me than the CW and Max lumens…
Edit: Not saying CW is obsolete or anything, still use them in my throwers like the B158, you do want max lumen sometimes. For EDC and worklights, warmer and high CRI rule in my book…
Not necessarily… I have made a few high-CRI good-tint lights, but still prefer a good CW Maximum POWER ™ output in the majority of my lights. It’s a personal preference thing…
My high CRI lights are:
1. A P60 I built for grilling outside after it gets dark… CW tints make it difficult to assess the condition of what I’m grilling, and the high CRI really shows the condition of the food.
2. A Convoy S2 high CRI triple… That never gets used. I still prefer the CW output of my Convoy S3 XP-G2 triple.
3. My headlamp: a high-CRI light is nice for up-close detailed working, so it excels in this application.
I am not sure about CRI once I started to work with wires in hotels. I’ve exposed to multicolored lighting of many event and the nichia 219b I had always gave an ugly green tint when I’m surrounded in warm white hotel lightings.
Yes the nichia always impressed me outdoors but it seemed unpractical in identifying multiple colored cables as my common xml2 u2 1a does equally same to my tired eyes.
That should not be happening. I have bunches of triple XPL/XPL-HI small lights that run around 15 amps and they are bulletproof. Even when they get too hot to hold the drivers still work like they should.
I think this is and was an issue. My BLF A6 does also (have seen other reports). I bought some extra drivers and they do the same. It’s not a major issue, but it definitely exists as an issue.
I’m late to the party but if the XP-L is the same size emitter as an XM-L2 but on an XP-G die should not the HI perform like a dedomed XM-L2? I remember seeing the Who uses XP-G2 when you can get XP-L HI, though i never read it beyond the first few replies.
I got 30 pcs U4 1C and U4 1a on a way here, also i already got V6 1A, 1C and 1D ” in stock”: so far V6 wins again U4 simplycause those U4s that i had before were capable of max 4.5amps tops, but i saw post things changed lately
The XP-L HI is a dedomed XM-L2. The XP-L is the same size die as an XM-L2, but on an XP-G sized package (hence the XP prefix).
I use XP-G2 in certain lights, rather than the XM-L2/XP-L/HI, as the smaller die of the XP-G2 results in greater surface brightness at the same current level. Great for mid-sized zoomies!
Some people have said that Cree puts their best dice in XP-Ls and they have lower forward voltage at high current than XM-L2s.
The smaller footprint may be compensated for my a better internal insulating layer, thinner or of a different material. An XM-L2 must cool better on a non-direct MCPCB star than an XP-L does, because the larger area will transmit heat faster through the insulating layer of the star.
Although I did melt a tail spring in a C8 that I forgot to bypass last night. Love that smell… not 
