selfbuilt
Flashaholic
Re: Tiablo A9 "Throw King" XR-E R2 & "Flood" XM-L U2 Review: ASPHERIC BEAMSHOTS, RUNT
Of course, the exact position of the LED within the reflector has a huge impact on the beam. It would not be surprising to see no real difference between a given Q5 and R2 model driven to the same level.
That brings up another thing to consider - there is natural variance in how much power any given circuit provides. So while all the lights may be rated at 1A, there is bound to be some natural variation in that number.
When you combine all that together, it is even possible that a given R2 model would throw less well than a given Q5, depending on the sum of all those relative variations. But logic dictates that - all other things being equal - an R2 version is likely to out-throw a Q5 version, on average. The question is whether or not all things are equal (e.g., has the circuit changed providing more or less power, etc.?).
Again, the mistake people make is in assuming that any given comparison holds for all possible comparisons. As always, my measurements are based on n=1 sample of each. But my measurements of my Q5 and newer R2 model are taken at the same time, which at least removes the operator variability.
That's quite possible, as there is not a big difference between the Q5 and R2 output bins. Cree binning charts show that the Q5 is rated for 107-113 lumen flux @350mA, while the R2 is rated for 114-121 lumen flux. So while the "average" R2 should be ~7% brighter at this drive level, the reality is that you could be comparing two samples anywhere within this range (i.e. any two Q5-R2 comparisons could be between to 1-13% different).
Of course, the exact position of the LED within the reflector has a huge impact on the beam. It would not be surprising to see no real difference between a given Q5 and R2 model driven to the same level.
That brings up another thing to consider - there is natural variance in how much power any given circuit provides. So while all the lights may be rated at 1A, there is bound to be some natural variation in that number.
When you combine all that together, it is even possible that a given R2 model would throw less well than a given Q5, depending on the sum of all those relative variations. But logic dictates that - all other things being equal - an R2 version is likely to out-throw a Q5 version, on average. The question is whether or not all things are equal (e.g., has the circuit changed providing more or less power, etc.?).
Again, the mistake people make is in assuming that any given comparison holds for all possible comparisons. As always, my measurements are based on n=1 sample of each. But my measurements of my Q5 and newer R2 model are taken at the same time, which at least removes the operator variability.
