NEW Mitras Lightbar 3: Next Generation of Aquarium LED Illumination!

[Matthias Gross]

As promised, here is the newsletter we sent out a few weeks ago about our new Mitras Lightbar 3 in case you missed it!

Prepare to be captivated by the brilliance of the GHL Mitras Lightbar 3 - the ultimate solution for unparalleled light performance in your aquarium. We are thrilled to announce the brand new Mitras Lightbar 3

Whether you're a experienced enthusiast or new to the hobby, the Mitras Lightbar 3 promises to exceed your expectations with its exceptional features:

Unmatched Light Performance: Experience the true beauty of your aquatic world with the Mitras Lightbar 3's unparalleled light output, ensuring vibrant colors and incredible growth for your aquatic plants and corals.

Tailored Spectrums: Achieve perfect lighting for all applications with fully customizable spectrums (7 independent LED color channels), meticulously designed to meet the unique needs of your aquarium inhabitants. See your corals, fishes and plants in colors as never before.

Outstanding Energy Efficiency: Say goodbye to wasted energy and hello to cost-effective lighting solutions. The Mitras Lightbar 3 harnesses advanced technology to provide maximum illumination with minimal power consumption.

Models for Marine Water, Fresh Water and Refugiums: Let Your corals glow with the Coral Pop model (includes UVA) or achieve outstanding plant growth with the Skywhite model. Combine different models as you like and get even more flexibility in creating exactly the light You want.

Perfect size for any aquarium: No compromises in light coverage with models from 40 cm (15.75") to 200 cm (78.75") in 10 cm (4") increments.

Full control: Adjust the lighting schedule, simulation features and spectrum variation over the day exactly as you want with our UPDATED apps. *)


Embrace the future of aquarium lighting and secure your Mitras Lightbar(s) 3 today at the GHL USA Store or at the GHL Germany Store or your preferred dealer. Join the countless aquarists worldwide who have entrusted their aquatic ecosystems to GHL's innovative technology.

Learn more about our Mitras Lightbar 3 at the product page.

Available in 5 models with different baseline spectrums​

Coral Pop, Deep Ocean, Ocean Blue, Skywhite and Refugium

Advanced reflector and heatsink design​

Reflector with almost 100% reflection and diffusion, no disturbing "Disco Effect", massive heatsink with micro groves ensures perfect heat dissipation. Here is a Coral Pop cluster shown at 0.1% brightness.

Learn more

 

[BeanAnimal]

Interesting - maybe I should have kept the original Mitras spectrum and added one of these for the deep ocean blue. Thoughts anybody?

 

[Matthias Gross]

I wouldn't recommend that. If you want the more bluish/UVA spectrum then it is more economic to replace the clusters with the LX75 clusters. And space saving, you don't want a "hybrid"-like installation above your tank.

 

[Matthias Gross]

I wouldn't recommend that. If you want the more bluish/UVA spectrum then it is more economic to replace the clusters with the LX75 clusters. And space saving, you don't want a "hybrid"-like installation above your tank.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I wouldn't recommend that. If you want the more bluish/UVA spectrum then it is more economic to replace the clusters with the LX75 clusters. And space saving, you don't want a "hybrid"-like installation above your tank.

Thank you, I placed the upgrade order the same day they were announced here.

 

[Steven Garland]

Are these meant for just spplementing or do they push enough par for standalone lighting in a shallow tank ?

Do you have any par readings on the Deep Ocean 50 and the Coral Pop 50 ?

 

[Matthias Gross]

No, these are certainly not only supplementing lights. Our Mitras Lightbars (all 3 generations) are your full illumination solution, not a supplement. As you can see in the reels/photos I shared in the other LB3 threads.

Mentioning PAR is in many cases use- and meaningless for so many reasons. So instead of publishing some fancy numbers (which are not true anyway most of the time, as you can see them from other vendors) we have a different approach: Get the most light power and the ideal spread with the best LEDs, reflectors and electronics currently available. Or short: Do it the best way possible, then it is pointless to discuss about fancy PAR numbers.

Oh yes, they have a very deep penetration.

Let me quote a customer. This is not a fake testimony, this is the exact content of a message sent to us (I only removed his and the competitions names):

Hi there

I am J...-P... and I represent and am the aquarium coordinator and marine biologist for Y... A... Recently you sent us the new Mitras lightbar 3's for us to test out.

I can confidently say that with utter certainty that these are by far the best aquarium lights I have ever seen. For years I was a massive fan of the E... R... Pro's but after 1 day, my mind has been swayed. One day I said to myself that the day somebody can emulate the exact output of an A... T5 light unit with LED's is the day that whoever it is, wins the space race of aquarium lighting. You guys at GHL have successfully done that and by a country mile.

When unboxing, my first impressions were that the units were well made, well put together and of really good quality. They felt solid in my hands and the lenses over the LED's (comment from MG: we use micro-reflectors instead of lenses because this is more efficient and better color-mixing) were of a good quality. I will admit that when holding the lights in my hands for the first time I thought to myself, "How in the world are these going to penetrate a 3m deep tank". After having hooked up all the cables and the 3 separate lightbars to the splitter, I had them all fired up and one by one I held them over some corals we have at the top, back section, of the tank and I stood there in awe and amazement. I genuinely thought I was holding a T5 lighting unit in my hands because when I looked at the corals, the coloration, pop, depth and vibrancy of the corals was everything you'd expect to see out of a T5 lighting unit, but I was bewildered to realize that I was in fact holding an LED lighting unit in my hands.

Once I had hung them over the middle of the tank, I unplugged all the other lights we have on the tank and unplugged the light bars so the tank was only getting the sunlight from the glass roof leaving the tank fairly dark as it was morning. I asked my colleague to plug them in so I could get a control of what the tank looked like without them and with them. While the lights powered on I was nervous, but as they peaked to 100% I was amazed as to how well they penetrated all the way to the bottom of a 3m tank! And they really do penetrate. Yes it may help that the water in our aquarium is clear, but it is genuinely lighting up everything it is cast on from the top right to the bottom. Let me not even get started on how well they illuminate the fish in the tank. Every single colour of the fish was bright and on full display and the fish seemed to glow as they swam around.

I am very very very impressed and pleased to discover everything I did and all I can say from my side is, WELL DONE!!!

 

[Steven Garland]

I'm not really looking for fancy numbers,I just need/want to know on my 24"x10"x10" tank if I use the tank mounts,how much par at full tilt can I expect or if I hang them 6-8" above my tank will I get enough par for my lps and softies,if I go 10-12" above my tank what should I expect ect ect.

 

[BeanAnimal]

As much as folks want to rely on "PAR" readings to compare things, they are of little use in most cases (for may reasons).

In general you can assume that these bars have plenty of output. They will have fewer hotspots than the same number of LEDs and power output in puck style fixture. Therefore, a bit less punch at depth (for same number of LEDs) as a puck and both the puck and bar will have less PAR at depth than a focused lens type fixture.

So watt for watt for a shallow tank, bars will likely provide fewer hot spots and more even lighting with plenty of punch.

 

[Steven Garland]

I definitely rely on know what par is of a said fixture. If spread is good,spectea is good then realistically the light is nothing without the umph to back any of that up and provide good par.

I have never used GHL's lights and I am weighing my option for my current build. Looking for insight,not a debate.

ATM I am weighing between 2 OR3's,2 15" ReefBrite XHO's,adding another 24" XHO or 2 Light Bar 3's.

 

[BeanAnimal]

There is nothing to debate.

Comparing "PAR" , especially measured in different circumstances between fixtures is pretty much pointless. None of them have the same spectral output or spread. You may as well be comparing watts (honestly).

Within a reasonable margin of error you can count the emitters and the power consumed and compare fixtures with as much meaning as "PAR". Most manufacturers are going to drive the emitters (at full tilt) somewhere close to their rated output at L90. Most are going to use current gen emitters so output per emitter will be similar (at full tilt). So compare emitter counts and to an extent watts. Fixtures with higher numbers of white/blue are going to be "higher par" in most cases in normal operation over an reef tank.

 

[Herbster]

As promised, here is the newsletter we sent out a few weeks ago about our new Mitras Lightbar 3 in case you missed it!

How do they compare to the LX7 range? I was always under the impression that the Mitras Lightbars were the low end of your illumination range, but given the information above, maybe not anymore. I appreciate that the LX7 will give more flexibility when upgrading to a longer tank (just add another) while the bar type lighting is only really upgradable width-wise.

EDIT: Looking at the cost on a 4'/120cm tank:

3x Lightbar 3 (120) + accessories (PSU, Splitter & cable) = 1261.40 Euros
2 x Mitras LX 7X06 = 1859.8

Advantages with the Lightbar 3 are more flexibility in lighting options and a single power supply.

 

[Herbster]

No, these are certainly not only supplementing lights. Our Mitras Lightbars (all 3 generations) are your full illumination solution, not a supplement. As you can see in the reels/photos I shared in the other LB3 threads.

Mentioning PAR is in many cases use- and meaningless for so many reasons. So instead of publishing some fancy numbers (which are not true anyway most of the time, as you can see them from other vendors) we have a different approach: Get the most light power and the ideal spread with the best LEDs, reflectors and electronics currently available. Or short: Do it the best way possible, then it is pointless to discuss about fancy PAR numbers.

Oh yes, they have a very deep penetration.

Let me quote a customer. This is not a fake testimony, this is the exact content of a message sent to us (I only removed his and the competitions names):

"E... R... Pro's" I wonder what is being referred to there.......very cheeky!

 

[areefer01]

As much as folks want to rely on "PAR" readings to compare things, they are of little use in most cases (for may reasons).

But I was told I need a number! That number must be 1337.

 

[reef_ranch]

Ahh, the black box light. We don't need no stinking PAR maps. "Trust me bro, it's good enough." Seriously, we want to go backwards and have less information with which to distinguish between the 50 lights available in the hobby all of which will grow coral?? Yes, I'm quite sure it is good enough, but why would one want to buy this over the "E...R...Pro" or the OR3 or the AI or the ATI or the .... Because of wattage, diodes and anecdote? Perhaps. Those are important, but how that wattage is distributed, how efficient the reflectors are, these are best displayed in PAR maps. Give me some stinking PAR maps.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Ahh, the black box light. We don't need no stinking PAR maps. "Trust me bro, it's good enough." Seriously, we want to go backwards and have less information with which to distinguish between the 50 lights available in the hobby all of which will grow coral??

Your comments are based on the misguided assumption that "PAR" readings are a reliable method to compare light fixtures measured in different environments with different spectral outputs and no accepted standard of measurement or verification. The numbers are frankly, absolutely useless.

Those are important, but how that wattage is distributed, how efficient the reflectors are, these are best displayed in PAR maps. Give me some stinking PAR maps.

Recorded to what standard:
- what spectrum?
- what distance?
- what instrument?
- cosine correction?
- in water or out?
- what calibration?
- etc.?

This hobby is consumed with assigning value to numbers that are mostly meaningless. The readings tossed around are more than "ballpark" and as valid as the simple assumptions and conclusions that you decry as unreliable.


Now if YOU have more than 1 fixture and wish to test them (whatever your standard is) against each other, then the numbers become a bit more meaningful in that context. The same holds true for BRS lighting videos where they test fixtures in the same setup to the same standard to compare against each other. Those numbers, however are not meaningful to compare other fixtures in other setups to the numbers reported by BRS in their testing. To think they are is to no understand the variables at play and the more than significant error.

There are for too. many variables based on spectrum and the fact that these are NOT point sources, and even then if testing does not follow a standard then the numbers are meaningless too. Dr. Joshi used to maintain an extensive MH bulb database where each grid test was performed to an exacting standard (raw bulb and known reflector) so that bulbs could be compared. Likewise a known bulb could be used to compare different reflectors and a known bulb and reflector could be used to compared ballast differences. The key was one variable at a time, something we don't have when testing LED fixtures in the manner in which you are suggesting is valid.

Have a wonderful day!

 

[reef_ranch]

Your comments are based on the misguided assumption that "PAR" readings are a reliable method to compare light fixtures measured in different environments with different spectral outputs and no accepted standard of measurement or verification. The numbers are frankly, absolutely useless.

Why would they need to be measured in different environments? I want a PAR map similar to what BRS and Sanjay produced and Luxdium produces. Measured with a quality meter over a tank of stated dimensions. I want that for every fixture I am considering so I can see how the light is distributed and what par it produces at various depths. Its simply one of many pieces of information I want for each light I consider. I also want a spectrum map. I also want to know what diodes are used and how they are distributed in the fixture. I also want to know how many watts. And its dimensions. And its price.

In the same vein, I want to know what is in each product I dose in my tank even though I know its impact on my tank will likely be different than in others with different chemistry and biome. I think as a hobby we should be continually insisting on more information, regardless how we are able to apply each piece to our particular tanks. I would hope a voice as influential as yours would want the same.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am not going to respond point by point, but rather make several important points. It appears you have a misplaced understanding of "PAR".

1 - PAR covers energy between 400 nm and 700 nm. Different parts of that spectrum are more important than other parts in context to coral growth. Not only that depending on the coral, some parts may be more important than others. Measuring "PAR" even if the measurements were "accurate" is useless without understanding the spectra being compared.

It is like trying to determine loudness of a stereo system by measuring "watts". Watts makes no sense unless you consider the the impedance and frequency response and the efficiency of both the speakers and the enclosures. I can blow your eardrums out at 10 feet with 5 watts and a compression horn system. Likewise I can pump 50W into an acoustic suspension system and you can stand 10 feet in front of it and have a conversation.

2 - every generation and brand of meter reads "PAR" differently. A "few percent" between the different meters under the SAME light is only one deviation. Those different meters will have different error in regard to each other under a different light because the spectra is different. So 500 "PAR" with a measly 5% error could be anywhere between 475 and 525 and this is (again) ignoring important spectra that may or may not be contributing.

3 - If there is no standard for measurement then you can't compare a measurements between different fixtures. Distance from the meter matters, as well as the angle if the sensor and if it is in water or air and if there are reflections off of glass, the water surface etc. The error is easily double digit percentages for handheld measurements even if the rest of the variables are accounted for.

We could continue, but it is honestly rather pointless. Combine just those three things and it becomes obvious that PAR is rather meaningless in the context that you and others wish to use it.

Standards:
The problem here is that even if you define a standard: A specific sensor, a specific grid pattern specific distances and specific environment (water or air, walls or not, reflectivity of surfaces, etc.) You would have to have manufacturers follow it and that still does not account for spectral output, so what are you comparing?

Useful mapping?
Sure - for any given fixture the variation in output over a grid, repeated at several distances will show falloff and hotspots as a function of emitters, reflector, lens combinations. But the actual readings are pointless, it is the relative intensity at each location that is important. So percentages make more sense.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I think as a hobby we should be continually insisting on more information, regardless how we are able to apply each piece to our particular tanks. I would hope a voice as influential as yours would want the same.

IBM programmer George Fuechsel gave us a timeless saying in context to data and conclusions.

"Garbage in, garbage out"

Meaning that if a process is given bad information it will produce bad information as an output. PAR is bad information for the purpose that most in this hobby use it for.

I am all for good data and good metrics driving good decisions. I am also fine with the BRS light studies they published in the contest that they controlled the variables and allow us to compare the difference in relative spread, hotspots and shadowing between fixtures. Of far less value are the "PAR" readings due to the fact that every light has a different spectral output and furthermore that very few people run all channels at 100% (even more variables to consider).

 

[reef_ranch]

Let me quickly address the tone and tenor of your response. Your writing is pedantic and assumes I am ignorant of the issue. It comes off as condescending. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but if the reader's viewpoint is at all important to you, you might consider my perception of your responses.

As to your arguments, I know all of this. I've had a reef tank with stony corals continuously since 1994 and am a voracious reader. I've ran every light source ever made for the hobby and understood how it worked and what were its benefits and limitations. I now run radions, quanta strips and AI blades. I'm sure at some point I will change it up even though my corals are doing fantastic. Why? Because I enjoy the tech side of the hobby, love to try to find that extra 1% or 2% more color or growth and change lights every few years to see if the latest and greatest is better than the last generation. That is why I am interested in the new GHL lights.

I want a PAR map when I decide what LED fixture I want to buy. Sure, I want to know how the map was created and with what instrument. I will use this information -- and any other information I can get -- to make an informed decision. I understand you don't. That's fine. But please don't tell me the information is not and cannot be useful to my decision making.