Hortibloom Mega plus VS Geekbeast 630 Pro. Help me decide

D

DukeFluke

Well-Known Member
Ok people, I've built a few Bridgelux fixtures and just pulled a GPW from a not even completely full canopy. Needless to say I'm all in on LED after that. So, there's a space left, plus I'll be doing another area in the future but for now I'm gonna pull the trigger on one of the kind of higher end China brands and have narrowed it down to these two bad boys.

I've seen the Migro ratings for the Geekbeast Pro and it looks legit.
Hortibloom also looks the part but without any real independent testing that I can find.

What do you fellas reckon? And in this price range for this type of bar fixture, are there any others worth considering? Gonna put my order in tomorrow am so your opinions are much appreciated.

Thanks very much
 
Rocket Soul

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
DukeFluke said:
Ok people, I've built a few Bridgelux fixtures and just pulled a GPW from a not even completely full canopy. Needless to say I'm all in on LED after that. So, there's a space left, plus I'll be doing another area in the future but for now I'm gonna pull the trigger on one of the kind of higher end China brands and have narrowed it down to these two bad boys.

I've seen the Migro ratings for the Geekbeast Pro and it looks legit.
Hortibloom also looks the part but without any real independent testing that I can find.

What do you fellas reckon? And in this price range for this type of bar fixture, are there any others worth considering? Gonna put my order in tomorrow am so your opinions are much appreciated.

Thanks very much
Click to expand...
Gpw, over whatt wattage and area? Also, hortibloom comes in various different configs, even the 650 version. I think im with the geekbeast unless youd be adding uv to the hortibloom
 
D

DukeFluke

Well-Known Member
Rocket Soul said:
Gpw, over whatt wattage and area? Also, hortibloom comes in various different configs, even the 650 version. I think im with the geekbeast unless youd be adding uv to the hortibloom
Click to expand...
I got 34oz (952g) off 880w over 2 full and one half full trays. I used 2 of my 320w fixtures and one 240, and to be honest for most of the flower period they weren't even on full power. Plus the plants were all former mothers and got really leggy in bloom.

I think 1.5 gpw is easily possible based on that, which is beyond my expectations going into it. I'm really really impressed and appreciate the help you all put in with the builds and stuff. Thanks again for that.

I was gonna add UV to the Hortibloom and get the one with Sanan diodes if I went with them.
But the Geekbeast has been independently reviewed which is a major factor in buying anything obviously so kind of swayed me towards that.

Definitely think @HortiBloom should send a unit to shane at Migro to review for them. That'd be a load of good publicity if it's as good as they say
 
pulpoinspace

pulpoinspace

Well-Known Member
It’s gonna seem like I didn’t read the thread and I’m just an hlg shill but I promise that I did and I’m not but you should really get an hlg scorpion r spec for 999 with the Riu code that is the play over anything in that price range especially lights from China. That’s all. good luck cheers!
 
D

DukeFluke

Well-Known Member
@pulpoinspace

The ppfd and efficiency readings on the HLG site don't quite match those of the Geekbeast, but it's a decent chunk more expensive. Where's the flip side? Bear in mind I'm in the UK so returns would probably be awkward either way
 
pulpoinspace

pulpoinspace

Well-Known Member
DukeFluke said:
@pulpoinspace

The ppfd and efficiency readings on the HLG site don't quite match those of the Geekbeast, but it's a decent chunk more expensive. Where's the flip side? Bear in mind I'm in the UK so returns would probably be awkward either way
Click to expand...
I haven’t looked at the specifics. but never trust a ppfd chart unless it’s from a third party. Just like the light those charts are made in China. Migro tested their light and it did pretty well but I don’t think he’s tested the scorpion yet so we can’t really compare apples to apples there. They are similar diodes and drivers aren’t they? so it would just be a diode count in terms of efficiency.

The main reason I recommend it is because of the shape. Having the 6 super bright light sources spread over the canopy with no diodes in the center to create a hotspot. Its better than the geekbeast missing bar design imo. I believe in having multiple points of light, but not so many that your point sources are weak and don’t provide enough radiant intensity to penetrate stacks of thylakoids. think a bunch of DE 1000w HPS in a warehouse. Scaled down to a smaller size it would look like a cob fixture. that’s why I like cobs and pucks. in my opinion these bar lights are better suited for growing something else.

all that could just be bro science tho and I’d still recommend the hlg just because they have been in the industry and a lot of forum members have done business with them and they’ve proven to be a reputable company that is sticking around. Nothing against geekbeast, or whatever their company is called, but they just haven’t been around long at all and the Shenzhen factories that have come before have not always proven to be a good investment.
 
D

DukeFluke

Well-Known Member
pulpoinspace said:
I believe in having multiple points of light, but not so many that your point sources are weak and don’t provide enough radiant intensity to penetrate stacks of thylakoids.
Click to expand...
I hear you. That's a bar vs board argument. Have you ever used a bar fixture? If so weren't you happy with the results vs the boards? I was initially gonna get boards to compare but never did in the end. I was surprised at how low down the buds stayed tight with my Bxeb builds. To be honest I couldn't quite understand how they were that tight

Have a look at those pictures I posted and see how far down there are nice solid little nugs.
The crossover effect of the lights is mad too. I'm getting roughly 760 umol in the 8 inch gap between the two fixtures at about 10 inches down.
 
pulpoinspace

pulpoinspace

Well-Known Member
DukeFluke said:
I hear you. That's a bar vs board argument. Have you ever used a bar fixture? If so weren't you happy with the results vs the boards? I was initially gonna get boards to compare but never did in the end. I was surprised at how low down the buds stayed tight with my Bxeb builds. To be honest I couldn't quite understand how they were that tight

Have a look at those pictures I posted and see how far down there are nice solid little nugs.
The crossover effect of the lights is mad too. I'm getting roughly 760 umol in the 8 inch gap between the two fixtures at about 10 inches down.
Click to expand...
Your buds look good and dense for sure. There is no disputing that. The only concrete advantage the scorpion has over bar lights is the lack of a center hotspot. The rest of this could easily be argued is bro-science or my flawed understanding, or simply academic, but I will put my source below so anyone can feel free to jump in and explain it better to me, in fact I'd appreciate it.

I have never used a bar fixture or built a strip light. I've actually never used full sized QBs either. Only cobs/pucks. I don't dispute that they will create a higher PPFD but what I was trying to get at is that 800 PPFD =/= 800 PPFD necessarily. plants evolved to get all their radiation from a single point light source. phototropism allows them to orient their leaves during the day time so that the radiation from the sun hits the leaf 90 degrees perpendicular. This is how the structures in their chloroplasts evolved and as such it allows for the most efficient photosynthesis. Indoors a single light source has obvious drawbacks. But I don't think taking it to the other extreme is the answer. I think 4-6 points of light nearer the corners makes more sense. Of course there are plenty of people who disagree with me there have been long threads about this, i'm just rehashing it again. Most of my way of thinking comes from my boy everest fernandez. Give this video a watch tell me if you think i'm off in my understanding. He starts talking about this specific topic around 9:00 but the whole video is good.

 
Last edited:
hybridway2

hybridway2

Amare Shill
I like what Hortribloom is trying to for but it appears Geeklight has its advantages. Standard ppfd bar layout reduced hot spot & spectrum all in one bar with controls. No suplemental purchasing to get less then decent spread imo. Do it right the first time.
 
Bosgrower

Bosgrower

Well-Known Member
pulpoinspace said:
I haven’t looked at the specifics. but never trust a ppfd chart unless it’s from a third party. Just like the light those charts are made in China. Migro tested their light and it did pretty well but I don’t think he’s tested the scorpion yet so we can’t really compare apples to apples there. They are similar diodes and drivers aren’t they? so it would just be a diode count in terms of efficiency.

The main reason I recommend it is because of the shape. Having the 6 super bright light sources spread over the canopy with no diodes in the center to create a hotspot. Its better than the geekbeast missing bar design imo. I believe in having multiple points of light, but not so many that your point sources are weak and don’t provide enough radiant intensity to penetrate stacks of thylakoids. think a bunch of DE 1000w HPS in a warehouse. Scaled down to a smaller size it would look like a cob fixture. that’s why I like cobs and pucks. in my opinion these bar lights are better suited for growing something else.

all that could just be bro science tho and I’d still recommend the hlg just because they have been in the industry and a lot of forum members have done business with them and they’ve proven to be a reputable company that is sticking around. Nothing against geekbeast, or whatever their company is called, but they just haven’t been around long at all and the Shenzhen factories that have come before have not always proven to be a good investment.
Click to expand...
Before you extol the virtues of the scorpion or the diablo look at their published ppfd reports. The PAR map for these things is awful.
HLG is a good company, but the quantum model, which was ahead of it's time when they developed it simply can't compete with bar style fixtures for even canopy coverage.
 
pulpoinspace

pulpoinspace

Well-Known Member
Bosgrower said:
Before you extol the virtues of the scorpion or the diablo look at their published ppfd reports. The PAR map for these things is awful.
HLG is a good company, but the quantum model, which was ahead of it's time when they developed it simply can't compete with bar style fixtures for even canopy coverage.
Click to expand...
re-read my posts. I would love to continue this discussion.

"but what I was trying to get at is that 800 PPFD =/= 800 PPFD necessarily"

you could also watch the video i posted. a par map is made using a quantum sensor. a quantum sensor doesn't have chloroplasts, cytoplasmic streaming, or thylakoids arranged in grana due to thousands of years of evolution. pretty interesting stuff.
 
Last edited:
D

DukeFluke

Well-Known Member
pulpoinspace said:
re-read my posts. I would love to continue this discussion.

"but what I was trying to get at is that 800 PPFD =/= 800 PPFD necessarily"

you could also watch the video i posted. a par map is made using a quantum sensor. a quantum sensor doesn't have chloroplasts, cytoplasmic streaming, or thylakoids arranged in grana due to thousands of years of evolution. pretty interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
That is interesting actually. How a plant "sees" light and uses it. I had tight sizeable buds growing in between the fixtures on the run pictured in the OP, where if you put a meter facing directly upright it would register a number which shouldn't be able to grow anything except fluff.

This is not an exact science by any means. A lot of what we do is trial and error which is why documenting the details of it is important.
 
Bosgrower

Bosgrower

Well-Known Member
pulpoinspace said:
re-read my posts. I would love to continue this discussion.

"but what I was trying to get at is that 800 PPFD =/= 800 PPFD necessarily"

you could also watch the video i posted. a par map is made using a quantum sensor. a quantum sensor doesn't have chloroplasts, cytoplasmic streaming, or thylakoids arranged in grana due to thousands of years of evolution. pretty interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
Discussion continued :)
First and foremost ... he can never have another cup of coffee or energy drink again.
Now to the comments on LEDs and photon spread, and and canopy penetration.
I will preface my comments with the fact that using a Fluence 2P in a 5x5 tent with no CO2 I had a fixture height of between 6 and 12" at all times and pulled 1.4g/w with 4 plants on a regular basis (granted yield is somewhat pheno dependent). I expect the new larger flower space I'm building will give me better yields since I'll be able to control the humidity within the space and be able to add at least 1 more plant in each 5x5 "tray".
He looks at the benefits of the super spreader diffuser for HPS and talks about the benefits of eliminating hot spots ... which is my primary complaint with HLG style fixtures relative to bar style fixtures.
He talks about the benefit of photons coming from closely hung fixtures ... fixtures like the Fluence 2 series are designed to hang 630w as close as 6" above the canopy ... while the HLG style fixtures of the same wattage are designed to be hung 3 to 4 times higher.
I may be mistaken, but it seems contradictory to support diffusing HPS to allow it to be closer to the canopy and then to criticize LED fixtures that are designed to hang close to the canopy when both are creating multi-angle photon sources.
The quantum board vs bar style discussion will persist ... and we'll all have our opinions and stay with what works for us until someone shows us a demonstrably better solution; but open discussions like this ... devoid of name calling and based on science can only help to enlighten our community.
 
hybridway2

hybridway2

Amare Shill
Bosgrower said:
Discussion continued :)
First and foremost ... he can never have another cup of coffee or energy drink again.
Now to the comments on LEDs and photon spread, and and canopy penetration.
I will preface my comments with the fact that using a Fluence 2P in a 5x5 tent with no CO2 I had a fixture height of between 6 and 12" at all times and pulled 1.4g/w with 4 plants on a regular basis (granted yield is somewhat pheno dependent). I expect the new larger flower space I'm building will give me better yields since I'll be able to control the humidity within the space and be able to add at least 1 more plant in each 5x5 "tray".
He looks at the benefits of the super spreader diffuser for HPS and talks about the benefits of eliminating hot spots ... which is my primary complaint with HLG style fixtures relative to bar style fixtures.
He talks about the benefit of photons coming from closely hung fixtures ... fixtures like the Fluence 2 series are designed to hang 630w as close as 6" above the canopy ... while the HLG style fixtures of the same wattage are designed to be hung 3 to 4 times higher.
I may be mistaken, but it seems contradictory to support diffusing HPS to allow it to be closer to the canopy and then to criticize LED fixtures that are designed to hang close to the canopy when both are creating multi-angle photon sources.
The quantum board vs bar style discussion will persist ... and we'll all have our opinions and stay with what works for us until someone shows us a demonstrably better solution; but open discussions like this ... devoid of name calling and based on science can only help to enlighten our community.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is a common Misconception spread around here & led mktng.
The higher the LES, the more light gets into the canopy no matter what style light it is.
Try it yourself with a flashlight over a plant in the dark. One of the first things the Led company i use taught me.
And yes, diffusion covers is what HE,HO,LEDs Need.
 
Last edited:
pulpoinspace

pulpoinspace

Well-Known Member
Thanks for continuing the conversation. we need some actual discussion threads here mixed in with the "uhhhh is this done yet?!" Give the video another watch. i have watched it quite a few times, along with others of his amazing videos, and i still learn each time.

He's saying that because bar lights have so many different point sources of light, all arriving at different angles and all ran with such low current, that the radiant intensity arriving at any of the chloroplasts is not intense enough to penetrate deeply into the stacks of thylakoids and thus, photosynthesis is not running at optimum efficiency. that doesn't mean plants won't grow or buds won't be huge, dense, and dank. lets be clear, were talking about the optimum efficiency of photosynthesis going on in each chloroplast at a microscopic level here. not about buds haha.

imo: bar lights are king for electrical efficiency, cob lights are king for photosynthetic efficiency. its all about striking a balance. the number of sources of light, how close they are to the canopy, and how hard they're run. We quickly found out 1 point light source has flaws indoors, but taking it to the opposite extreme isn't the answer.
 
Last edited:
hybridway2

hybridway2

Amare Shill
pulpoinspace said:
Thanks for continuing the conversation. we need some actual discussion threads here mixed in with the "uhhhh is this done yet?!" Give the video another watch. i have watched it quite a few times, along with others of his amazing videos, and i still learn each time.

He's saying that because bar lights have so many different point sources of light, all arriving at different angles and all ran with such low current, that the radiant intensity arriving at any of the chloroplasts is not intense enough to penetrate deeply into the stacks of thylakoids and thus, photosynthesis is not running at optimum efficiency. that doesn't mean plants won't grow or buds won't be huge, dense, and dank. lets be clear, were talking about the optimum efficiency of photosynthesis going on in each chloroplast at a microscopic level here. not about buds haha.

imo: bar lights are king for electrical efficiency, cob lights are king for photosynthetic efficiency. its all about striking a balance. the number of sources of light, how close they are to the canopy, and how hard they're run. We quickly found out 1 point light source has flaws indoors, but taking it to the opposite extreme isn't the answer.
Click to expand...
Thing is, my bar lights have higher photon density at 4' then my COB's (even at 100w each w/ reflectors).
The coverage is unmatched, especially if one was to add a 40w strip to each end-cap side.
Although I would love to see Kind LED's Square light with my choice of bars & diodes, par-mapped. Been digging that design since before I knew it was a Kind Led.
To be clear, I love my enhanced cob lights to this day & still prefer them over high density boards. Ex: I'd bet on my 6 yr old SE-450 Over the new, HE- Trinity (released as Echo w/o the reds).
Was going to include that combo in this current 3 way sbs but, idk why (well, I do) but I have a hard time growing under it & didn't want to sacrifice that much.
Bruce B. Has some decent videos but I feel they confuse newbs erd ha 7,
 
pulpoinspace

pulpoinspace

Well-Known Member
hybridway2 said:
Thing is, my bar lights have higher photon density at 4' then my COB's (even at 100w each w/ reflectors).
The coverage is unmatched, especially if one was to add a 40w strip to each end-cap side.
Although I would love to see Kind LED's Square light with my choice of bars & diodes, par-mapped. Been digging that design since before I knew it was a Kind Led.
To be clear, I love my enhanced cob lights to this day & still prefer them over high density boards. Ex: I'd bet on my 6 yr old SE-450 Over the new, HE- Trinity (released as Echo w/o the reds).
Was going to include that combo in this current 3 way sbs but, idk why (well, I do) but I have a hard time growing under it & didn't want to sacrifice that much.
Bruce B. Has some decent videos but I feel they confuse newbs erd ha 7,
Click to expand...
we're talking about how par meters =/= plants.

what is your opinion on radiant intensity? thylakoids? the way plants evolved to receive all their light from a single point. the things being discussed in the thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top