Which is better? Icecap HO Retro or Aquatinics Tx5?

waterpologirl · #1 10/22/2007, 06:32 PM

I'm talking about the 48 inch 6x54W Icecap retro vs the Aquatinics Tx5 5 bulb fixture. Also, how do you cover a tank to keep jumpers in and keep water away from the bulbs without reducing light penetration?

shelburn61 · #2 10/22/2007, 06:42 PM

aquatinics uses the workhorse ballasts which some say decreases the life of T5

waterpologirl · #3 10/22/2007, 06:54 PM

Icecap ballasts also reduce the life of T5's, because their overdriving the bulbs. So doesn't that mean all good fixtures reduce the life of T5's?

Any other opinions?

crossi92 · #4 10/22/2007, 07:13 PM

The Icecap SLR HO retro from Reefgeek's does not come with the Icecap ballast. They don't use Workhorse either. I would go with the Icecap, that's what I am ordering from Reefdeek's.

waterpologirl · #5 10/22/2007, 07:24 PM

Wow. Confusing. Where do you get Icecap retro's WITH ballasts?

aninjaatemyshoe · #6 10/22/2007, 07:25 PM

I would think that really depends. I have only used the Icecap retros so I'll comment on them. First off, they need to be actively cooled along their lengths. This is an absolute must; if you don't do it the output will drop dramatically quick. Secondly, I think the IC should only be used on longer bulb setups. I've used them on 4' and 2'. They blasted the 2' way too much and they just didn't last long at all. The 4' was doing well for much longer, but again they needed fan cooling on each bulb. Since you want 4', you're fine on this front. You must really put into consideration the active cooling. You'll most likely need to build your own hood with excellent ventilation for such a setup. For simple ease, I would just go with the Aquactinics.

crossi92 · #7 10/22/2007, 07:30 PM

It comes with a ballast just not either of those. They don't say what exactly it comes with...

"Ballasts engineered specifically to run T5 high-output bulbs for optimal performance and longer lamp life. (Don't settle for inferior T5 electronic ballasts, like the Workhorse, that are commonly sold with other T5 retrofit kits.) "

crossi92 · #8 10/22/2007, 07:32 PM

http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/T5_...Retrofit_Kit_w!_Bulbs_by_IceCap

waterpologirl · #9 10/22/2007, 07:35 PM

Ok, I'm confused. If aquatinics uses inferior ballasts, why was it recommended to me and as one of the best T5 fixtures for a decent price?

luke33 · #10 10/22/2007, 07:40 PM

Workhorse ballasts are fine. Most people don't need to overdrive the bulb's anyhow. Only if your tank is around 24" deep imo. If you need to save the money, the workhorse ballasts are fine. The aquacintics or IC retro's are both very good and will work. Do what you are most comfortable with ; )

waterpologirl · #11 10/22/2007, 08:08 PM

Aquatinics then. Its not that I don't think I can handle the DIY aspect. Its cheaper, so thats important.

shelburn61 · #12 10/22/2007, 08:15 PM

Reefgeek sells HO setups with standard electronic T5 ballasts as well as VHO T5 setups w/ icecap ballasts. Icecap claims their ballasts compensate over the life of the bulb by raising the frequency so that they get higher output without drastically sacrificing bulb life. I think the jury is still out on how much difference the 3 ballasts actually make in bulb life...

celano · #13 10/22/2007, 10:01 PM

Does anyone know what kinda ballast the standard HO kit from Reefgeek uses?
Is there really that much differance between an IC ballast and say a Workhorse?

luke33 · #14 10/22/2007, 10:13 PM

WIth IC your overdriving the bulbs and you have great CS. With a workhorse your geting regular output and no CS.

celano · #15 10/22/2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luke33
WIth IC your overdriving the bulbs and you have great CS. With a workhorse your geting regular output and no CS.

Ok now I'm a bit confused. If I go to Reefgeek and look at there t5 retro's I see that there 48" HO retro's put out 54watts and there 48" VHO put out 54watts. One uses an unnamed ballast and the VHO uses the IC but they both put out the same amount of watts.....54. So whats the differance? I'm not sure what CS means but is this the differance?
Sorry for the repetative questions I wanna put t-5's over my 75 but I'm still confused over all the different choices out there.

db_triggerfish · #16 10/22/2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by celano
Ok now I'm a bit confused. If I go to Reefgeek and look at there t5 retro's I see that there 48" HO retro's put out 54watts and there 48" VHO put out 54watts. One uses an unnamed ballast and the VHO uses the IC but they both put out the same amount of watts.....54. So whats the differance? I'm not sure what CS means but is this the differance?
Sorry for the repetative questions I wanna put t-5's over my 75 but I'm still confused over all the different choices out there.

The icecap retro with the IC 660 or IC 430 will give each bulb 80 to 85 watts. I plan to have my new 75g up this weekend with 2 IC 660 for a total of 6 x54w overdriven to about 510watts (6 x 85). For me it is IC overdriven or MH for SPS and Clams. If you plan on getting SPS then go with Icecap.

I also don't know what CS means.

OneDayMatt · #17 10/22/2007, 10:45 PM

Well, confusing as it may seem, IceCap chose Aquactinics to showcase their T5 products with the Solar Flare. Both companies make good products, but if you want the best of both worlds, get the Solar Flare. It's, arguably of course, the best T5 fixture you can possibly buy. I've got an order in for the TX5 right now, but if I feel like it's not enough, I'll try the Solar Flare next year.

shelburn61 · #18 10/23/2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by celano
Does anyone know what kinda ballast the standard HO kit from Reefgeek uses?
Is there really that much differance between an IC ballast and say a Workhorse?

They use electronic ballasts meant specifically for T5. An icecap will overdrive the 54w at 80w IIRC. The workhorse will also run the bulb at standard output but doesn't have the softstart mechanism in "true" T5 ballasts.

oct2274 · #19 10/23/2007, 05:31 PM

like the above said:

icecap ballasts overdrive the bulbs greatly increasing heat, also increasing output, also decreasing life.

Workhorse ballasts do not overdrive, do not have softstart which decreases bulb life

If you are worried about bulb life the triad ballasts are the best cause they do not overdrive, are made specifically for T5 lighting, and do start the bulbs correctly.

The worst ballast out of the three is definitely the workhorse ballast - there is really no reason to use it over the other two besides the fact it might possibly be cheaper, but the triads are pretty cheap

here is a link to the triads and the icecaps
http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/Par...5_Fluorescent/

shelburn61 · #20 10/23/2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oct2274
like the above said:

icecap ballasts overdrive the bulbs greatly increasing heat, also increasing output, also decreasing life.

Workhorse ballasts do not overdrive, do not have softstart which decreases bulb life

If you are worried about bulb life the triad ballasts are the best cause they do not overdrive, are made specifically for T5 lighting, and do start the bulbs correctly.

The worst ballast out of the three is definitely the workhorse ballast - there is really no reason to use it over the other two besides the fact it might possibly be cheaper, but the triads are pretty cheap

here is a link to the triads and the icecaps
http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/Par...5_Fluorescent/

From reading through the big T5 thread, it seems the truth is somewhere in between... you can't get unbiased info from manufacturers or their retailers.

Many who have run the icecap and workhorse say they experienced negligble decrease in bulb life with good cooling. The aquatinics fixture is widely considered one of the best, yet it uses workhorse ballasts?

My choice would be to run fewer bulbs at 50% more output on Icecaps and replace a little more often...

oct2274 · #21 10/23/2007, 09:05 PM

you don't get 50% more output on icecap ballasts, its around 30%

shelburn61 · #22 10/23/2007, 09:56 PM

I guess T5 produces less light/watt on icecap than on triad?

oct2274 · #23 10/23/2007, 10:51 PM

yes, the icecap combination is a bit less efficient, but if you don't have space for more bulbs it is a good alternative. I personally like to have more bulbs so that you can really get that perfect color with a good bulb selection

oct2274 · #24 10/23/2007, 10:57 PM

48" bulbs
triad - 6 x 54 = 324 watts
icecap - 4 x 80 = 320 watts

you would get more output from the triads with 6 bulbs and be able to better tune the color with more bulbs

db_triggerfish · #25 10/23/2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oct2274
48" bulbs
triad - 6 x 54 = 324 watts
icecap - 4 x 80 = 320 watts

you would get more output from the triads with 6 bulbs and be able to better tune the color with more bulbs

But the 4 x 80 will have a higher par right over your expensive light demanding corals. You are correct can't tone your color as nice or easy with 4 vs a 6. But i will take the higher par levels. I look at this way if you buy a 42" plasma TV then the 46" which looks better and you say to yourself maybe i should had gotten the 46" or if you get the 46" then the 50" for only $ 300.00 looks much better. (that's me) so i am very happy i picked the combo with the most par for a T5 setup and right now it is Icecap, and if i have to change the bulbs at 12 months vs 16 months it is not a big deal T5 bulbs are not that expensive online.