# Best thrower LED: XR-E R2; XP-E R4; or XP-G2?



## PCC (Aug 25, 2012)

I have a Solarforce Masterpiece Pro 1 head with a blown driver that I want to rebuild. I have a few different buck drivers that I can use as well as different emitters. The question is, which would give higher lux numbers: XR-E R2 driven at 1.5A? XP-E R4 driven at 1.2A? XP-G2 driven at 2A? Im going to use a cool white emitter regardless of which emitter I go with.

I don't want to even think about the XP-C or the XM-L for this.


----------



## archimedes (Aug 25, 2012)

Vinh would probably know for sure, but my guess would be the XR-E ... ?

That reflector on the MPP-1 is _massive_


----------



## WeLight (Aug 25, 2012)

think your selling XPC short, both XRC and XPC have best CD/Lumen due to die relationship with optics


----------



## archimedes (Aug 25, 2012)

I think the issue might be the max rated amperage, though ... 500-700mA for XP-C / XR-C, but 1.0A for XR-E ?


----------



## PCC (Aug 25, 2012)

I want a usable spot. If I wanted an impossibly small hotspot I would buy a laser instead.

I'm thinking that an overdriven EZ900 XP-E R4 would have a higher surface brightness than an overdriven EZ1000 XR-E R2. According to jtr1962's testing the EZ1000 XR-E R2 driven at 1.5A is putting out around 345 lumens while an EZ900 XP-E R2 driven at 1.5A put out 305 lumens. Each increase in bin steps is an improvement of 7%, so, we're looking at about 350 lumens by R4, but, the smaller EZ900 die would mean that you have a higher surface brightness. The thing is that the XR-E has a larger footprint which allows for better thermal contact for more power handling so it can be driven even harder. How does the XP-G2 compare?


----------



## znomit (Aug 25, 2012)

PCC said:


> I want a usable spot. If I wanted an impossibly small hotspot I would buy a laser instead.
> 
> I'm thinking that an overdriven EZ900 XP-E R4 would have a higher surface brightness than an overdriven EZ1000 XR-E R2. According to jtr1962's testing the EZ1000 XR-E R2 driven at 1.5A is putting out around 345 lumens while an EZ900 XP-E R2 driven at 1.5A put out 305 lumens. Each increase in bin steps is an improvement of 7%, so, we're looking at about 350 lumens by R4, but, the smaller EZ900 die would mean that you have a higher surface brightness. The thing is that the XR-E has a larger footprint which allows for better thermal contact for more power handling so it can be driven even harder. How does the XP-G2 compare?



Consider the XTE too, 456lm at 1.5A (binned at 85C). 
A step down from the XP-G2 in lumens but with a smaller die.


----------



## phantom23 (Aug 25, 2012)

XT-E has smaller die but thick die coating (yellow thing covering it) and gives floody beam. XP-E has different optics than XR-E - wider beam angle and that's why it will throw less. XP-E R4 at 1,2A will not outthrow XR-E R2 @1,5A. I don't know where XP-G2 fits, first test show that it gives similar beam to XP-E but it's much more efficient/powerful so it may get close to XR-E. But that's just a theory, Masterpiece's reflector was designed for XR-E and XP-x series emitter may not focus properly.


----------



## Gunner12 (Aug 25, 2012)

With a reflector, you'll probably want something with a wider emitting angle with the smallest die. Wider emitting angle so more light hits the reflector and gets focused into the hotspot, and smallest die so the light source is closer to a point source.

Your best bet might be an XP-C for a narrow beam, but since you want throw and a wider hotspot, an XP-E R4 at 1.5A should do well. The XP-G/XP-G2 would have to be driven at 3.6 A to match the same current/die-area as the XP-E at 1.5 A. 0.81 mm^2 for the EZ900 die vs 1.96 mm^2 for the EZ1400 die.

Note: I have no optical design experience so I might just be sprouting untrue gibberish.


----------



## phantom23 (Aug 26, 2012)

Gunner12 said:


> With a reflector, you'll probably want something with a wider emitting angle with the smallest die. *Wider emitting angle so more light hits the reflector and gets focused into the hotspot*, and smallest die so the light source is closer to a point source.


Sounds good in theory but it doesn't work. XR-E and XP-E have the same die but different beam angle. XP-E has wider beam but throws less than XR-E. XP-G and XP-G2 are completely different animals, G2 has different optics and narrower beam angle (=better throw). As I said - XP-G2 gives pretty tight hotspot, similar to XP-E so it doesn't have to be harder driven.


----------



## PCC (Aug 26, 2012)

phantom23 said:


> Masterpiece's reflector was designed for XR-E and XP-x series emitter may not focus properly.


I can make it focus.

I guess I'll have to make all three combos and keep the highest performing one. I was trying to avoid doing that.


----------



## phantom23 (Aug 26, 2012)

Tou can skip one - XP-E R4. XP-G2 gives the same beam and much more light=more throw. Plus Masterpiece already has XR-E R2.


----------



## ergotelis (Aug 26, 2012)

The best thrower is a dedomed xm-l @ 4+ amp. You can check some of my beamshot threads, that i got over 200,000 lux in trustfire x7 host. It is difficult to measure such high lux number accurately, but with that flashlight i can see much much further than anything i have/had.


----------



## psychbeat (Aug 27, 2012)

PCC said:


> I can make it focus.
> 
> I guess I'll have to make all three combos and keep the highest performing one. I was trying to avoid doing that.



If u do make all 3 and measure em it would be a great service for us 

Curious how they all do in SMO 26mm reflectors too!


----------



## phantom23 (Aug 27, 2012)

Masterpiece Pro-1 has "slightly" bigger reflector and completely different drop-in.


----------



## PCC (Aug 27, 2012)

psychbeat said:


> If u do make all 3 and measure em it would be a great service for us
> 
> Curious how they all do in SMO 26mm reflectors too!


I'll point them due North in your direction and you can report the Lux :thumbsup:


----------



## SemiMan (Aug 30, 2012)

phantom23 said:


> Sounds good in theory but it doesn't work. XR-E and XP-E have the same die but different beam angle. XP-E has wider beam but throws less than XR-E. XP-G and XP-G2 are completely different animals, G2 has different optics and narrower beam angle (=better throw). As I said - XP-G2 gives pretty tight hotspot, similar to XP-E so it doesn't have to be harder driven.



Narrower beam angle absolutely does not equal better throw. "Throw" will come completely from output of the LED hitting the reflector and/or being modified by the optic to be focused in a collimated beam. That is difficult if the LED is already "focused" with a narrow beam.

Throw though in general all comes down to apparent surface brightness. I have a feeling that may be max in the XPG2 right now. The XPC is great when you look at candelas/lumen, but there are not many lumens. If the optic has candela/lumen numbers, just look at your total lumens and see how many candela will come out.

Semiman


----------



## phantom23 (Aug 30, 2012)

So how would you explain the fact that good old XR-E throws much better than (also old) SSC P4. Both have similar efficiency, identical die but SSC has much wider beam angle? Another example - XP-G vs XP-G2. With XP-G2 throw increase is greater than brightness one.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Aug 30, 2012)

How many throws does an XP-G do, and how many throws does an XP-G2 do? 

"This LED throws so much!"
"How much throw does it have?"
"20!"

I'm getting annoyed with the "throw" term. Throw is meant to convey only what the eye perceives as seeing farther. Take two lights with the same peak candlepowers, but different flood patterns. One puts out more light and throws less, one puts out less light and throws more. Throw isn't surface brightness. It's not a low beam angle. It's not low divergence. It's not the lack of flood. It's a word, an idea, that is influenced by all of those variables, and more, but mostly it's about opinions. What light do you think you can see farther with?


----------



## psychbeat (Aug 30, 2012)

^^^ I agree that perceived "throw" is important but it is nice to have hard #s. 

Especially when the emitters are using the same reflector or optic. 

Obviously in the field a tiny XP-C might not be beneficial over an XM-L in the same reflector even at long range.


----------



## SemiMan (Sep 1, 2012)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> How many throws does an XP-G do, and how many throws does an XP-G2 do?
> 
> "This LED throws so much!"
> "How much throw does it have?"
> ...




In some ways I have to agree with you and in some ways I do not.

"Throw" can be expressed in technical terms and by that, I mean candlepower. Candlepower essentially equals throw. That said, a laser has tremendous candlepower, but obviously is not that useful ...unless you want to illuminate something a mile away. I can do that with a green 25mw laser ... not with any 25mw (optical) flashlight.

The old XRE does not "throw" better. The only place where it does its with an aspheric optic and even that is debatable as it is more a function of available optics and not what is possible.

There are likely very few if any optics on the market "tuned" for the XPG2. They are XPG optics beings used with the XPG2. The XPG2 has higher surface brightness so yes higher candela will result, but given your eye can't tell less than a 30% difference in "brightness" realistically you could not tell it is "brighter" without measuring it with a meter. You may actually notice a throw difference as you have some better differentiation when things get "dark".


----------



## PCC (Sep 21, 2012)

My understanding is that the narrower viewing angle means that the light is more concentrated in the narrower beam. The XP-E and XR-E with the same die size and bin should put out the same amount of light, right? So a narrower viewing angle means that the intensity of the beam is higher than the emitter with a wider beam angle. Put that behind a narrow deep reflector and you get a slight bit less light making contact with the reflector, but, the higher intensity should more than make up for that reduction.


----------

