ericvv wrote:

Brendan, we know that you do have a slight preference for the Nolden, but to keep continuously making these apples with pears comparisons when it comes to light output is not really useful.

When it comes to lumen numbers, Nolden and Speaker do not use the same language, so comparing numbers of one with numbers of the other makes no sense whatsoever. It really is a case of comparing apples with pears.

Nolden give the following numbers:
Lumen/Lumens (LowBeam/HighBeam) 1880lm / 2400lm (calculated) ~1550lm/~1700lm (measured)

Speaker for the EVO2 give these numbers then:
Raw Lumen Output: 2,610 (High Beam); 1,770 (Low Beam)
Effective Lumen Output: 1,150 (High Beam); 750 (Low Beam)

So Nolden speaks about "calculated" and "measured", Speaker about "raw" and "effective". (Speaker used that very same terminology for the first EVOs too)

By my knowledge, the question to put these light output numbers for both of them under one common denominator, so the same type of lumen, be it calculated/measured, or be it raw/effective, has been asked here on the forum several times, but nobody ever was able to answer that question apparently. Nobody ever gave a real explanation how you can translate one terminology into the other to get to level playing field....

Until that happens, we should not give too much credibility to any lumen numbers people use on here to show that one is better than the other.

Sofar the only thing which is a fact is that we did a real down to earth side by side eyeball test of the previous generation Speaker EVO and the Nolden. The result is that as far as light output I think we can say with confidence that any difference was hard to notice between those two.

Eric

Sorry Eric, but it is not an apples and pears comparison and is an effective and recognised manner of indicating the numbers, whichever terminology is used! ...

Calculated is raw is calculated and they mean the same thing, likewise, measured is effective is measured, in either language...

To simplify the reasoning and add substance...

Raw Lumens
The "Raw Lumen output" is calculated by multiplying by the theoretical rated output of the LEDs by the number of LEDs in the lamp. Hence, it is also a calculated value.

Example:

8 LEDs rated at 100 Lumens per watt
8 x 100 = 800 Lumen

Effective Lumens
The "Effective Lumen output" is a measured number that takes into account real world losses (ex. thermal, optical, and assembly). Therefore, this output gives a measured value.

Example:

Raw Lumens = 800
Less - Thermal, Optical & Assembly Losses = 40%
Effective Lumens = 480 Lumens

I hope that does clarify, adequately, for your purposes, comparison, or otherwise?

And I also apologise to Brendan for the further slight digression away from the OP, but hope it serves to assist with future discussion on this new and confusing technology...  Rog...
The GREEN One...

MY2016 Urban Truck Build Thread - http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic40548....al[/color]

Venomator wrote:

ericvv wrote:

Brendan, we know that you do have a slight preference for the Nolden, but to keep continuously making these apples with pears comparisons when it comes to light output is not really useful.

When it comes to lumen numbers, Nolden and Speaker do not use the same language, so comparing numbers of one with numbers of the other makes no sense whatsoever. It really is a case of comparing apples with pears.

Nolden give the following numbers:
Lumen/Lumens (LowBeam/HighBeam) 1880lm / 2400lm (calculated) ~1550lm/~1700lm (measured)

Speaker for the EVO2 give these numbers then:
Raw Lumen Output: 2,610 (High Beam); 1,770 (Low Beam)
Effective Lumen Output: 1,150 (High Beam); 750 (Low Beam)

So Nolden speaks about "calculated" and "measured", Speaker about "raw" and "effective". (Speaker used that very same terminology for the first EVOs too)

By my knowledge, the question to put these light output numbers for both of them under one common denominator, so the same type of lumen, be it calculated/measured, or be it raw/effective, has been asked here on the forum several times, but nobody ever was able to answer that question apparently. Nobody ever gave a real explanation how you can translate one terminology into the other to get to level playing field....

Until that happens, we should not give too much credibility to any lumen numbers people use on here to show that one is better than the other.

Sofar the only thing which is a fact is that we did a real down to earth side by side eyeball test of the previous generation Speaker EVO and the Nolden. The result is that as far as light output I think we can say with confidence that any difference was hard to notice between those two.

Eric

Sorry Eric, but it is not an apples and pears comparison and is an effective and recognised manner of indicating the numbers, whichever terminology is used! ...

Calculated is raw is calculated and they mean the same thing, likewise, measured is effective is measured, in either language...

To simplify the reasoning and add substance...

Raw Lumens
The "Raw Lumen output" is calculated by multiplying by the theoretical rated output of the LEDs by the number of LEDs in the lamp. Hence, it is also a calculated value.

Example:

8 LEDs rated at 100 Lumens per watt
8 x 100 = 800 Lumen

Effective Lumens
The "Effective Lumen output" is a measured number that takes into account real world losses (ex. thermal, optical, and assembly). Therefore, this output gives a measured value.

Example:

Raw Lumens = 800
Less - Thermal, Optical & Assembly Losses = 40%
Effective Lumens = 480 Lumens

I hope that does clarify, adequately, for your purposes, comparison, or otherwise?

And I also apologise to Brendan for the further slight digression away from the OP, but hope it serves to assist with future discussion on this new and confusing technology...

ericvv wrote:

Interesting. So are you saying that the measured 1550 lm of the Nolden low beam is an absolutely equal denominator value to the effective 750 lm of the new Speaker EVO2 low beam, or to the effective 650 lm of the Speaker EVO? Measured and Effective are really one and the same common denominator?

If that would be correct, then the Speaker EVO and EVO2 should be giving much, much less light than the Nolden. And they are not as we have seen from our comparison test...... Not sure we can take that explanation for its face value.

And then, you also say that raw and calculated are one and the same. That and your above assumption that measured and effective are also the same give the following interesting result.
Taking low beam as example, the drop in lm with Nolden from 1880lm calculated to 1550 measured is give or take - 18%
While the drop from Speaker EVO2's 1770lm raw to 750 effective is give or take -58%

That seems to indicate both producers use very different language when talking about lumen.

Any electric/lights experts who can clear up this mistery?
Eric

You really should not try and fill in any blanks, or put words into my response, which are clearly not there, Eric!

I was simply trying to clarify the confusion caused by the terminology, which you seemed to be having difficulty with.

There is no difference between 'measured' and 'effective', they both refer to the same end result; a physical device reading the output of the finished product in its realised end form. In an ideal world this would be achieved utilising a recognised international standard, using a calibrated photometric device, in controlled laboratory circumstances! However, with LED being a new technology, this methodology may not yet be so perfected.

The secondary issues here are:

The apparent disparity, as you see it, between the manufacturer's quoted outputs and what your eye sees on the ground in a somewhat unscientific visual experiment, which is fine if that is what you want to use to justify a personal choice.

And the seemingly significant difference between the manufacturer's published numbers.

The first is relatively easy to dispel, on the basis that the human eye is easily fooled, combined with both the fact the colour temperature of the two light sources is clearly different, together with the less than laboratory conditions your test was carried out in, may easily fool anyone's visual interpretation of the results, into convincing you one, or other light output is better, or the same, as another. That may well account for you (and your friend) being unable to tell the difference between the two light sources you were trying to differentiate between; in effect, your eyes are, potentially, deceiving you!

The difference, between the two sets of numbers, from the different manufacturers, is not so readily explained. That is, quite simply, because there is no reference to an international standard, which would serve to indicate they have both used the identical photometric equipment, in the same, controlled, laboratory circumstances.

What I would say is that one manufacturer hails from the USA and the other from Germany and we are supposed to believe they are identically E marked. Make up your own mind whether there is any significance in that fact.

Interestingly, the USA manufacturer is based in a place called Germantown...

That aside, as a consumer, we should really only start our route to preference using the manufacturer's quoted data from their specification sheets. Their methodology has to be taken on trust, where no international standards are quoted and we, as consumers, must then apply a common sense approach to our choices.

In Europe, where standards are, historically, very high and demanding on manufacturers, my money would certainly favour a European based manufacturer in such circumstances, for many and various reasons, not just the obvious.

I hope this helps to clarify the content of my earlier response and also dispel any mystery regarding this topic in the current discussion...


By the by - one should not automatically assume respondents are totally clueless about the topic under discussion...
 Rog...
The GREEN One...

MY2016 Urban Truck Build Thread - http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic40548....al[/color]

Venomator wrote:

In Europe, where standards are, historically, very high and demanding on manufacturers, my money would certainly favour a European based manufacturer in such circumstances, for many and various reasons, not just the obvious.

As to whether I can agree depends purely upon 'The Jury' if they get the chance to return to deliver their verdict in a few months time perhaps? The first JW Speaker 8700s that were released for the UK market were a vast improvement over standard lighting and the quality and intensity of the light unquestionable for MY needs. JW Speaker were also the first approved LED replacement at that time. As for intensity of the new versus anything else I don't really care as I don't need any more candellas, lumens or Swan Vestas. For me there are only two types worth considering, both contained within this thread. The Noldens haven't been around as long and feedback will naturally be limited and customer base smaller at this time.

Irrespective of light output comparability.....IP69K is better than IP67 in any damp environment.....

Time will tell if the Noldens can hold their own and if the JW Speakers have indeed been able to improve on what was already a good product.

Taste or functionality?........

a13x wrote:

All that said, I do not like the look of the Noldens and so are not for me.