I love incandescent flashlight much more than LED flashlights,how about you?

[SemiMan]

Interesting - it is not always wise to deal in absolutes. And calling one's opinion "nonsense" in a friendly, spirited and enjoyable discussion won't make many friends here... just sayin'.

As the sampling rate of CDs continues to increase, they will continue to more closely approach a true analog of the audio sine wave, but they aren't there yet.

As the tint of LEDs continues to be improved and refined, it may someday replicate the warmth that so many enjoy from an incan. As has been mentioned, technology marches on and we all benefit. But many prefer the warmth of the incan.

Don't misunderstand - I haven't played an album in (literally) decades - and out of my 80 or so lights, only 3 of them are incandescent. But those who prefer EITHER deserve the respect of not associating a description of "nonsense" with their choices...

Being an audio guy, I just can't resist weighing in on the audio analogy with CDs and the comment about sampling rate and analog waveforms.

Both CDs, and turntables (or analog master tapes) have errors that make neither a perfect copy. Mathematically ... and yes mathematics DOES matter, a CD, at least one created with modern recording equipment is a far closer copy of the original than a turntable is. Sure back in the old days of phase-locked loops around mechanical processes for timing, analog brick wall filters due to the lack of oversampling, etc. the CD could be rather "coarse", but again, with a modern recording and a tolerable CD for playback, the CD is a closer copy. Perhaps it does not have that poor separation of audio that a turntable has that can create a "sound" that some people like, but you could always mix that back in. Then again, with 24/96 or 24/192 available now, it is really not even close and almost the most staunch "audiophiles" would agree. They would probably agree also, especially if not told, that some of the latest in Class-D amplifiers, especially with all digital paths, are better than their favorite class-A amp.

 

[run4jc]

Being an audio guy, I just can't resist weighing in on the audio analogy with CDs and the comment about sampling rate and analog waveforms.

Both CDs, and turntables (or analog master tapes) have errors that make neither a perfect copy. Mathematically ... and yes mathematics DOES matter, a CD, at least one created with modern recording equipment is a far closer copy of the original than a turntable is. Sure back in the old days of phase-locked loops around mechanical processes for timing, analog brick wall filters due to the lack of oversampling, etc. the CD could be rather "coarse", but again, with a modern recording and a tolerable CD for playback, the CD is a closer copy. Perhaps it does not have that poor separation of audio that a turntable has that can create a "sound" that some people like, but you could always mix that back in. Then again, with 24/96 or 24/192 available now, it is really not even close and almost the most staunch "audiophiles" would agree. They would probably agree also, especially if not told, that some of the latest in Class-D amplifiers, especially with all digital paths, are better than their favorite class-A amp.

Hopefully we won't be 'slapped' for taking the thread off topic - and I'm the guilty party if we do!! Thanks for weighing in. I've been an "audio guy" for the better part of 36 years, I've enjoyed watching the evolution of audio - kinda like watching the evolution of LEDs.

Neither I OR you are absolutely right or wrong on this. I'll tip my hat to your technical explanation. And you'll find some audiophiles who agree with what you say, and some who vehemently disagree.

That's the beauty of the discussion - everyone has an opinion, and whatever is right for each person is what matters. It's about preferences, and I violated my own words and threw an "absolute" out there. Apologies.

There's little doubt that technically a solid state amp is 'better' than a tube amp, yet tube lovers (especially guitar players - I'm guilty) love the 'sound' of a QUALITY tube amp, even while recognizing that digital processors and solid state variants come oh, so very close.

And while I will agree with you that a quality CD, recorded properly, going through a quality path, will produce a sound that most might pick over an LP, some still might surprise you.

Back in the days when my listening buddies (two of them very opinionated engineers) had these discussions, it was tons of fun. Incidentally, the engineers conceded that the digital recordings and solid state electronics were superior, but oddly they preferred listening to music on an LP (as long as it was clean and had minimal clicks and pops) - some through a partial tube path - others not.

Regardless, lest anyone misunderstand, I was in FAVOR of the LED, and as mentioned, I haven't listened to an LP in decades. Most of today's recordings are so technology enhanced and digitally processed that you aren't really listening to the 'original' performance. I would guess that few have (as I have) sat in front of a real symphony orchestra and participated in the recording of the performance, then listened to that exact performance's recording playback in a listening room with no parallel walls, no "standing waves", etc.

Back to the flashlight, LED and Incan lights are both enjoyable to me. LED technology has advanced so much - the quality is SO good - and the improved run times, reduced heat, etc., are appealing. From a technological standpoint, the LEDs are (arguably) "better" than incandescent. Still, just like the old LP and Tube Electronics, there is just something about that warm, glowing incandescent that some people prefer.

I'm not trying to have the last word on this. SemiMan made great, accurate points. Just keeping it real - this is such an enjoyable discussion. And SemiMan, great to hear from a fellow audio lover! These days most people hear their music primarily through ear buds and and iPhone or MP3 player!

MY APOLOGIES TO THE OP FOR TAKING THIS ON A SLIGHT DIVERSION!

 

[LuxLuthor]

There are so many intangibles in discussions like this. Yes, digital CD and SACD can be more accurate as sampling rates and algorithms have improved, but frequently it comes down to how the transfer is done from the best available masters....or if they even still have high quality masters.

In any case, it is not a perfect analogy to Incand vs. LED because of EM spectral distribution that LED's cannot provide. LED Jockeys know the Kelvin output rating has human eye shortfalls of light, color, contrast, & realism perception compared to bright white incands, so they sidestep that heart of the issue for Incand Jockeys, and focus only on efficiency, runtime, and emitter life.

Most Incan Jockeys have a number of LED's for appropriate uses and scenarios, and are not threatened. The converse does not seem to be true where many LED Jockeys seem to be less tolerant, or even consider the possibility that on the aspect of light spectral output, they are using inferior products. Incand Jockeys have no problem being able to manage our battery charging and cell supplies to meet out needs, while being sensible enough to bring an LED for a long camping trip.

 

[Quest4fire]

Most Incan Jockeys have a number of LED's for appropriate uses and scenarios, and are not threatened. The converse does not seem to be true where many LED Jockeys seem to be less tolerant, or even consider the possibility that on the aspect of light spectral output, they are using inferior products. Incand Jockeys have no problem being able to manage our battery charging and cell supplies to meet out needs, while being sensible enough to bring an LED for a long camping trip.

Well said LUX.

 

[SemiMan]

There are so many intangibles in discussions like this. Yes, digital CD and SACD can be more accurate as sampling rates and algorithms have improved, but frequently it comes down to how the transfer is done from the best available masters....or if they even still have high quality masters.

In any case, it is not a perfect analogy to Incand vs. LED because of EM spectral distribution that LED's cannot provide. LED Jockeys know the Kelvin output rating has human eye shortfalls of light, color, contrast, & realism perception compared to bright white incands, so they sidestep that heart of the issue for Incand Jockeys, and focus only on efficiency, runtime, and emitter life.

Most Incan Jockeys have a number of LED's for appropriate uses and scenarios, and are not threatened. The converse does not seem to be true where many LED Jockeys seem to be less tolerant, or even consider the possibility that on the aspect of light spectral output, they are using inferior products. Incand Jockeys have no problem being able to manage our battery charging and cell supplies to meet out needs, while being sensible enough to bring an LED for a long camping trip.

Here here! I will agree with that. I work in lighting and make all my money from LEDs, but still have to slap coworkers upside the head when they try to convince people involved with art or similar products that they "must" switch to LED without giving any consideration to the fact that even most high CRI LEDs do not render some colors well and may fail on color balance. Hence why I have been playing with the Xicato modules.

Of course, if you are not looking for that level of critical color, then I believe there are LEDs that are for the most part, more than good enough for almost any application. Unfortunately, Sharp high CRI Zenigate LEDs seem to have become almost unobtanium. For a reasonable cost product, they can replicate incan very well and you can get cooler temps. Not a throwing product though.

As I have access and knowledge to create whatever I want, I have been able to pretty much eliminate the need to ever use and incan though I still have some Surefires, Mags, and the requisite stack of 10-100w incan spots. They just rarely if ever get used any more ... other than as parts for the next test/project.

Semiman

 

[LuxLuthor]

Since I have never heard of Xicato modules or sharp high CRI Zenigate LED's before, I cannot comment intelligently, except to say that I have always been open to LED's or some other form of new lighting (i.e. organic chemical reaction "firefly" hybrids) achieving optimal lighting for the human eye. Effective illumination for professional movie and photography is a whole other field distinct from direct "live" human eye scenarios.

You can be sure that I will google those two technologies to learn about them--always love learning about new developments.

 

[blasterman]

I cannot comment intelligently

Basically what I'm reading here is straw horse arguements and straw horse rebuttals knowing that the LED crowd won't show up, and the thing is, I could care less about flashlights. A couple of years ago I watched two cops patrol a parking lot, one carrying some triple LED power torch with horridly purple color temp and a CRI likely in the 60's and the other cop carrying an incan . Both of them called in dispatch with a suspicious vehicle description and gave totally different colors for the same car. Pretty obvious the cop with the incan gave a more accurate description. It was pretty funny.......

For years I worked in commercial photography, video analysis, and then digital reproduction, so I had to know more about color science and light sources than I ever wanted. In my field the only true 100 CRI lights source were things like Solux and some pretty expensive HID packages. The Solux are still to this day the reference standard for museums and critical displays. Basically a Solux uses neodymium or some other similiar coating in a reflective rather than transmissive package to correct the CCT up to 3500 or 4000k. They are stunning to look at, but crush efficiency even worse than typical halogens. I've never seen a Solux based flashlight even though there's nothing preventing you from using a 12volt MR-16 in such a fashion. It's about the only thing I'm impressed with in terms of Halogen technology and yet I've never seen a flashlight running a 4000k Solux conversion. Guess you guys prefer 2700k and a yellow world.

If you could produce the color and spectral quality of a 3500-4000k Solux in a package that got at least 75 lumens per watt I'd own it. Actually, that's something that plasma can do, but were a few years off from seeing those get more popular in commercial and there will of course be some silly CD -vs- vinyl analogy as to why a glowing tungsten filament does a better job spitting out quanta.

Which currently leaves incan -vs- LED, and given I don't care about Cree stock and hate multiple soldering I stick to Bridgelux for interiour lighting. At a minimum 800lumens and a CRI no lower than 80 at 3000k the Bridgelux arrays are pretty stunning for interiour lighting. While an incan bulb compared has a higher CRI, the spectral gaps that are missing or mostly depreciated in the LED actually improve visual acuity, which is why everybody I've shown the side by side prefer the Bridelux light source over the Incan. The reason being the human eye is not linear in terms of color response. This is also why I own a spectrometer. The LED mostly lacks the gap between 460-490nm, and then far red as it typically tails off around 620nm. The loss of red isn't such a big deal, but the blue gap could be fixed in an array style package by using different bin LEDs. The thing is, lighting engineers have learned this really doesn't make that much difference, so I fail to see why it's such a big deal with flashlights. Except...if you prefer the color yellow. Then again Cree, Rebel etc., don't have flashlight divisions.

I just finished a major lighting upgrade at a restaurant where we built our own custom spots using 3000k XP-Gs. My Bridgelux arrays at home have a tad better color to my eyes, but the Cree heads deliver crystal clear light and are pleasantly warm. Again, I fail to see how walking through the woods with an incan flashlight requires a higher CRI at a low color temp. Keep your hands warm if it's cold I guess. No customers complain about the loss of spectrum between 460-490nm.

Power issues are what's keeping LED's from displacing HID in video and cinematography - not some absurd belief that tungsten sources are better. A 92 CRI- 20,000 lumen light source isn't exactly something you drop and replace with LED retrofits or 10mm beehive lights.

In short, I agree the 70-75 CRI flashlight zealots are clearly being visually impaired. When you get into the 80-85 CRI world though I fail to see these magical improvements with Incan. The spectral components of the LED that are elevated are occupying those parts of the visual spectrum that have the highest visual perception. The incan has a wider spectrum, but it's wasting energy with IR, UV-A, and other junk that has little visual benefit. If I suddenly aquired an interest in flashlights, and wanted the highest possible color quality in a portable package I would certainly choose the 85 CRI Rebels ES's and hover around 4500 CCT. Chances are if I strapped a 81C tungsten conversion filter over that Rebel it would be indistinguishable from tungsten.

I always find the audio analogies funny, and a bit irrelevant. A friend of mine used to sell high end audio, and with my back to the audio rack I could identify what digital souce was used based on the quality of the DAC involved. That's pretty much why some audio snobs prefer analog sources, and that's because they don't want to invest in a good DAC. It's the conversion of a digital recording to analog that really matters, and the difference is night and day with a good DAC. If vinyl records were such a great medium then recording engineers would master to them. They don't - they typically sample directly to digital (sometimes using tube based mikes to smooth out microphone deficiencies). However, it's almost always a digital master in the process, or a few hold outs using 1/2 inch tape.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Basically what I'm reading here is straw horse arguements and straw horse rebuttals knowing that the LED crowd won't show up, and the thing is, I could care less about flashlights.

Typical insulting blasterman comment, and why I ignored the rest of the post. Hopefully the enjoyable and respectful previous interchange can continue despite the turd in the fishbowl.

 

[scout24]

Plenty of the "LED crowd" did show up, not sure what thread you've been reading. I'm thrilled for your technical expertise. The level of innovation in incan lighting certainly does not match that of LED's, but perhaps it doesn't have to. It works, and is enjoyed by those who use it for what it is. The mostly polite discussion and point/ counterpoint/ comparison in the last five pages points to that. I'm pretty sure the thread was intended as appreciation for what incan brings to the table and the enjoyment thereof, not a "mine is better than yours" argument. Comparisons to other technologies just provides a basis for comparison. If you'd like, we can discuss relative merits of carbs vs. fuel injection and open up another entire can of worms. Sometimes there's joy and advantage to getting your hands dirty and tinkering instead of the sterility and appliance like reliability of not having to, despite the technical merits. There are plenty of other sub-forums here if you're not a fan...

 

[Brigadier]

Typical insulting blasterman comment, and why I ignored the rest of the post. Hopefully the enjoyable and respectful previous interchange can continue despite the turd in the fishbowl.

+1

 

[fishndad]

I liked his rant. It was a little over my head,ok alot,but he was into it.
His opinions were followed up by alot of numbers and examples,yea i dont understand them.
like watching Carl Sagan as a boy.I tend to think the incan croud is a proud one and i admire that.
But i dont think Blastermans post was insulting.

I actually think there is some very closed mindedness on this issue.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I liked his rant. It was a little over my head,ok alot,but he was into it.
His opinions were followed up by alot of numbers and examples,yea i dont understand them.
like watching Carl Sagan as a boy.I tend to think the incan croud is a proud one and i admire that.
But i dont think Blastermans post was insulting.

I actually think there is some very closed mindedness on this issue.

That's because you have not seen his posting style over the years at CPF. His selective quote of my response to semiman as "I cannot comment intelligently" was his abusive way of attempting to insult my posts in general, and believe me it goes way back into many other threads with many other members. That followed by his false accusations to diminish thoughtful comments by people on both sides of the long running Incand/LED discussions as straw man, and saying he could care less about flashlights is all designed to demean and insult individual people. It detracts from the enjoyment here at CPF, since we are now dealing with a turd in the fishbowl. In the past, the mods have stopped LED proponents from coming into this incan subsection to do some version of what he just did. In any case, I'll report it to the mods, but it reminds me why I stopped coming and contributing to CPF over the last year. There have been some really great people here, but there are too many like him that ruin it. Look what the thread has become about now--and believe me it is exactly what he wants.

 

[fishndad]

Fair enough.

Lux thats one handsome little fella you got for an avitar.Looks like a Taylor Made cap, cant really tell.
King Cobras myself.

 

[Brigadier]

That's because you have not seen his posting style over the years at CPF. His selective quote of my response to semiman as "I cannot comment intelligently" was his abusive way of attempting to insult my posts in general, and believe me it goes way back into many other threads with many other members. That followed by his false accusations to diminish thoughtful comments by people on both sides of the long running Incand/LED discussions as straw man, and saying he could care less about flashlights is all designed to demean and insult individual people. It detracts from the enjoyment here at CPF, since we are now dealing with a turd in the fishbowl. In the past, the mods have stopped LED proponents from coming into this incan subsection to do some version of what he just did. In any case, I'll report it to the mods, but it reminds me why I stopped coming and contributing to CPF over the last year. There have been some really great people here, but there are too many like him that ruin it. Look what the thread has become about now--and believe me it is exactly what he wants.

Well said.

 

[run4jc]

I do hope that the thread will resume with the original tone. Maybe I should apologize for throwing out analogies and stirring up 'trouble'. Still, this thread has brought me personally more enjoyment than any other in a while.

It's a good topic, with a good start, and a good level of input. Let's keep it going.

 

[fyrstormer]

LEDs can achieve higher color temperatures than any solid filament can withstand, and plasma bulbs have interrupted spectra worse than all but the cheapest LEDs. So a neutral-to-cool-white Hi-CRI LED is in a class of its own and impossible to compare to any light source other than the sun. In that respect, since artificial lighting is generally only used where and when sunlight isn't available, if one wants artificial light closely resembling sunlight, there is no other option besides neutral-to-cool-white Hi-CRI LEDs.

I don't much care about the debate over which produces "nicer" warm light, LEDs or incans, because I have very little use for warm light anyway. In the few cases that I do want warm light, the 90%+ efficiency of LEDs trumps all other factors I personally care about.

Neutral-to-cool Hi-CRI LEDS are, of course, the hardest to make and therefore the most expensive. However, since all discussions about the benefits of incandescent lighting revolve around spectral quality these days, I'll go with the flow and only talk about Hi-CRI LEDs.

Of course, there is no accounting for taste or usage criteria. Some people like old technology simply because it is old (hence why I carry a mechanical pocket watch), and some people have legitimate needs for the few benefits that old technology has (diesel engines don't produce EM interference from sparkplugs, incan bulbs output a lot of far-infrared light, my fountain pens are refillable without cartridges, etc.). There is no reason to argue with people who have aesthetically-driven preferences or special needs. For people with pragmatically-driven preferences and no special needs, my earlier analysis applies.

 

[Brigadier]

. So a neutral-to-cool-white Hi-CRI LED is in a class of its own and impossible to compare to any light source other than the sun. In that respect, since artificial lighting is generally only used where and when sunlight isn't available, if one wants artificial light closely resembling sunlight, there is no other option besides neutral-to-cool-white Hi-CRI LEDs.

A very uneducated opinion, in my eyes. I have used cool white, neutral white, and warm white LED's in flashlights outdoors - none throw as far or illuminate detail as well as a good incan. Not even close. When I attend the Seattle area CPF get togethers with my incan SureFires and Mag74, the LED guys are always amazed at the amount of detail and 3D rendering the target tree line shows vs their LED's.

 

[fyrstormer]

A very uneducated opinion, in my eyes. I have used cool white, neutral white, and warm white LED's in flashlights outdoors - none throw as far or illuminate detail as well as a good incan. Not even close. When I attend the Seattle area CPF get togethers with my incan SureFires and Mag74, the LED guys are always amazed at the amount of detail and 3D rendering the target tree line shows vs their LED's.

It's not an uneducated opinion, you just didn't bother to think about what I said before you "corrected" me. I'll try again to explain the part of my post you quoted.

Mid-day sunlight is 6000-7000K. There are no 6000-7000K incandescent bulbs. No known electrically-conductive material can get that hot without quickly suffering permanent damage. So if you want 6000-7000K ARTIFICIAL LIGHT, your choices are plasma-arc lights (HID, metal halide vapor, etc.) or LEDs. Plasma-arc lights have interrupted spectra by the nature of their operation. LEDs do as well, but the effect is less-pronounced because most of the light gets reprocessed by a phosphor before being "released". So a premium cool-white LED with a good phosphor will produce higher-quality 6000-7000K ARTIFICIAL LIGHT than any other artificial light source.

2000-4000K light I don't care about 99% of the time, because the lack of blue gives me headaches. If incans "win" in that category, good for them.

3D rendering has nothing whatsoever to do with the light you're using. You can get 3D rendering using single-color lights. It has to do with how your eyes work, and there is no way to account for that without a battery of medical tests.

FYI, nobody is uneducated in regards to incandescent light. We all grew up with it, and the Sun produces it. Everyone is an incan expert. Get off your high horse.

 

[scout24]

I'm beginning to think Lux had the right idea. The tone has changed , and I'm not a fan. Civility has dropped like a stone, and I've had enough. Scout24 out. Time to find something new. :shakehead

 

[run4jc]

I'm beginning to think Lux had the right idea. The level of civility has dropped like a stone, and that was one of the things that kept me here. Scout24 out... :sigh: :shakehead

Yeah, it's turned into a long winded, "I know more than you do" you-know-what ing match. I ain't into it any more

run4jc - out