# E-bin P7



## JustinS (Feb 26, 2009)

Hi,
Just checking out the Bin coding charts for the P7 & notice that there are quite a few different P7's. Why is it that an LED can have so many different tints, VF's & Brightness groups?
I've only seen C & D bins available, when is SSC releasing the E bin P7?
Cheers
Justin


----------



## Marduke (Feb 26, 2009)

E bin? Probably never. SSC can only produce the bottom of the D bin currently. If history is a guide, they will just split the D bin when they approach it's halfway point into a D1 and D2 bin, or move the E bin lower to encompass the upper half of the current D bin.


----------



## monkeyboy (Feb 26, 2009)

We seem to have reached a limit in LED efficiency with current manufacturing processes with the current Cree R2 bin. However Cree, are continually announcing greater and greater achievements in the lab so I think the next generation of Cree led will gain a large leap in efficiency rather than an incremental increase. Once this technology finds it's way into the SSC P7, I would expect performance beyond E-bin. 

Whether or not we'll be seeing this new technology in one months time or five years time is a different matter.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Feb 26, 2009)

I think we are on the verge of a major breakthrough. Manufacturers NEED to make something better. They can't just keep tweaking what they are already using. They are already using many different little tricks to suck out as much light as they can from these dies, how many more little tricks up their sleeves before they have to just make a new show all together?

Of course, one way around it is learning to grow LED material on substrates other than sapphire. I recall reading somewhere about researchers finding a way to grow blue LEDs on a type of silicon 

Right now, chip manufacturers are using different, more advanced phosphors, using current spreaders, light-extraction layers with nanotubes, making the light extraction layer super-thin, even flipping chips to remove the need for bond wires. I don't know what's next, but I'm hoping they just find a new chip material instead of doing all this stuff to existing chip technology.


----------



## TexLite (Feb 27, 2009)

Marduke said:


> E bin? Probably never. SSC can only produce the bottom of the D bin currently.


 
DejaVu....

Do you have any test data that reflects this? I'm not aware of any conclusive lab test involving the flux output of any number of P7's. 



Marduke said:


> If history is a guide, they will just split the D bin when they approach it's halfway point into a D1 and D2 bin, or move the E bin lower to encompass the upper half of the current D bin.


 
What history?

Most all are aware of the fact that SSC changed the binning structure.It was done _once _for the P4 bins and _once _for the P7.I don't think being changed once can be classsified as marketing hype,and no reason to predict it will be done in the future.

-Michael


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (Feb 27, 2009)

+


----------



## Marduke (Feb 27, 2009)

TexLite said:


> DejaVu....
> 
> Do you have any test data that reflects this? I'm not aware of any conclusive lab test involving the flux output of any number of P7's.



The data is referenced in the last time you didn't believe me. Go look it up in that thread.



TexLite said:


> What history?
> 
> Most all are aware of the fact that SSC changed the binning structure.It was done _once _for the P4 bins and _once _for the P7.I don't think being changed once can be classsified as marketing hype,and no reason to predict it will be done in the future.
> 
> -Michael




Well, the fact that they have shown a tendency to alter the bins (2/2 for the most recent models) at precisely the same time they start producing emitters capable of just barely reaching the bottom of the new bin is indeed deceptive marketing IMO.


----------



## TexLite (Feb 28, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The data is referenced in the last time you didn't believe me. Go look it up in that thread.


 
If this is the thread you are referencing:Newbie question: Differences between MC-E and P7 LEDs

You never posted _any evidence_ there to support your accusations and assumptions,quite the contrary in fact.You made multiple erroneous statements which you never reconciled and here you are making the same accusations. 



Marduke said:


> Well, the fact that they have shown a tendency to alter the bins (2/2 for the most recent models)at precisely the same time they start producing emitters capable of just barely reaching the bottom of the new bin is indeed deceptive marketing IMO.


 
To me Marduke it makes the most sense to change bins at the time new production standards are reached.

Why would a manufacturer waste resources altering bins which had no relation to and were nowhere close to current production standards?

I fail to see how changing the bin structure to tighten the bins _once_ for each product could be classified as a "tendency".

And where is the test data showing the flux data for SSC P7 samples showing SSC is only able to produce "the bottom of the bin"?

Its not referenced in the thread previously mentioned,or here.

-Michael


----------



## Marduke (Feb 28, 2009)

TexLite said:


> If this is the thread you are referencing:Newbie question: Differences between MC-E and P7 LEDs
> 
> You never posted _any evidence_ there to support your accusations and assumptions,quite the contrary in fact.You made multiple erroneous statements which you never reconciled and here you are making the same accusations.
> 
> ...



No, it was not that thread. And it was not me, but several others who posted supporting evidence.

And I can't believe one could not see the dishonest binning structure of SSC. They purposely start with wide bins, and half them AFTER they can produce in the upper half of the bin.

P4-U for example started out 91-118.5, which consumers obviously thought they had an equal chance of buying form any portion of that bin. In reality, U-bin P4's were almost entirely <100. Only after SSC was able to produce >=100 did they split the bin. This was purely a marketing ploy, designed to trick early consumers they could be getting better LED's than they were.

SSC is the only company I know of to change their binning structure AFTER model release starts. All the other companies have a shred of dignity, and stick with the original bin structure they lay out to start with.


----------



## saabluster (Feb 28, 2009)

Marduke said:


> No, it was not that thread. And it was not me, but several others who posted supporting evidence.
> 
> And I can't believe one could not see the dishonest binning structure of SSC. They purposely start with wide bins, and half them AFTER they can produce in the upper half of the bin.
> 
> ...


Marduke you are spot on with your reasoning. They are very deceptive in the manner in which they release new products. I have seen it over the years. They put out a press release saying that x product has flux output up to or is binned up to y lumens per watt and then make the bins freakishly wide to encompass the as yet unreachable flux output. They are playing on the ignorance of some people and the overoptimistic nature of others that will believe there is a chance to get a few LEDs that would be at the top of the bin because they so desperately want it to be so. It is plainly obvious what SSC are doing. Of all the LED maker/packagers Cree is the most honest and upfront and it is for that reason I own Cree stock and not Lumileds, SSC, or anyone else's.


----------



## easilyled (Feb 28, 2009)

Marduke said:


> No, it was not that thread. And it was not me, but several others who posted supporting evidence.



Can you provide a link to the thread with the evidence please.


----------



## Marduke (Feb 28, 2009)

easilyled said:


> Can you provide a link to the thread with the evidence please.



There are literally dozens of comparative threads in this subforum. Use the search function.


----------



## easilyled (Feb 28, 2009)

No thanks.

It would be looking like a needle in a haystack.

Particularly since such evidence obviously doesn't exist.


----------



## jirik_cz (Feb 28, 2009)

look here, here, here and here. not a statistically relevant data, but at least all these samples are all closer to the bottom of the bin...


----------



## Marduke (Feb 28, 2009)

easilyled said:


> No thanks.
> 
> It would be looking like a needle in a haystack.
> 
> Particularly since such evidence obviously doesn't exist.





jirik_cz said:


> look here, here, here and here. not a statistically relevant data, but at least all these samples are all closer to the bottom of the bin...



As I said, just a small sample of the many threads available with a quick search.

It's horribly obvious what their marketing strategy is to anyone with two braincells to rub together.


----------



## TexLite (Feb 28, 2009)

You said:


Marduke said:


> The data is referenced in the last time you didn't believe me. Go look it up in that thread.


 
Lets see,the last time I "didn't believe" you was the time you made at least 3 completely erroneous statements regarding the output of the P7 and SSC binning structure.It was in this thread:Newbie question: Differences between MC-E and P7 LEDs

Then:


Marduke said:


> No, it was not that thread. And it was not me, but several others who posted supporting evidence.


 
So which thread is it in?

There's not one bit of lab test data on flux output in that thread or any other other I'm aware of.

You've stated time and again that SSC can only produce "the bottom of the bin",where is the test data showing this?



Marduke said:


> There are literally dozens of comparative threads in this subforum. Use the search function.


 
Then post links to just one or two with actual test data.



jirik_cz said:


> look here, here, here and here. not a statistically relevant data, but at least all these samples are all closer to the bottom of the bin...


 
Jiri,three of those links are to one thread.And while its the most informative we have so far,its one or two emitters out of a hundred thousand tested with a homemade setup.

Its one of the most informative threads on CPF,but it dosen't in any way reflect what Marduke is claiming,namely the P7 flux range SSC is producing.



Marduke said:


> As I said, just a small sample of the many threads available with a quick search.


 
Then it shouldn't be hard to post a link with test data,but neither yourself or anyone else has posted a link yet to any test data.



Marduke said:


> It's horribly obvious what their marketing strategy is to anyone with two braincells to rub together.


 
Well there go the insults.

It should be so easy for someone with so many braincells to post technical data that supports their claims.

-Michael


----------



## TexLite (Feb 28, 2009)

saabluster said:


> ...They put out a press release saying that x product has flux output up to or is binned up to y lumens per watt and then make the bins freakishly wide to encompass the as yet unreachable flux output.They are playing on the ignorance of some people and the overoptimistic nature of others that will believe there is a chance to get a few LEDs that would be at the top of the bin because they so desperately want it to be so.


 
I'm not saying SSC is honest or upfront with their marketing,and quite honestly,I don't have a horse in this race.

I really don't have a favorite,I'm just trying to be objective,and there is no evidence to support many of the claims previously made here.

-Michael


----------



## Marduke (Mar 1, 2009)

TexLite said:


> I'm not saying SSC is honest or upfront with their marketing,and quite honestly,I don't have a horse in this race.
> 
> I really don't have a favorite,I'm just trying to be objective,and there is no evidence to support many of the claims previously made here.
> 
> -Michael




Really? You seem to jump in all the SSC vs Cree threads, always defending SSC. So for not having a "horse in the race", you seem to have a bit of a tendancy there.

In this thread, we get two "random" data points which are bottom binned. 

They changed the P7 bins not once, but twice to encompass their "premium" bins. This post shows a D bin which does not even meet spec, and this post shows a first gen C bin barely meeting original spec. They then lowered the C bin to 700, then split it.

So, we are 4/4 so far with SSC selling bottom bin with "random" samples, and 3 premium bin changes for two models in recent history. Can you get much more obvious than that?

There are also countless posts of people simply getting disappointed lights chalked up to "bin lottery". There are literally hundreds of posts related to P7-C lights which were advertised as "up to 900 lumens" driven at the spec 2.8A which were mysteriously ~200 lumens short by visual estimation. Not an actual data point, but hundreds of accounts should stand for something.


----------



## TexLite (Mar 1, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Really? You seem to jump in all the SSC vs Cree threads, always defending SSC. So for not having a "horse in the race", you seem to have a bit of a tendancy there.


 
I seem to "jump in" because you along with some others have an obvious tendency to post completely erroneous information when it comes to anything SSC.



Marduke said:


> In this thread, we get two "random" data points which are bottom binned.


 
The two "random points" are the from the same thread jiri linked to.They are not conclusive lab tests.The measurements are taken in a lightbox(of which your aware),not in an integrating sphere.

Even if they were IS lab results,2 samples out of 100,000 can hardly be considered to support the claims you make.



Marduke said:


> They changed the P7 bins not once, but twice to encompass their "premium" bins.


 
No,they were changed once,not twice.The original C bin which was 740lm-960lm was split and the D and E bin added.



Marduke said:


> This post shows a D bin which does not even meet spec, and this post shows a first gen C bin barely meeting original spec. They then lowered the C bin to 700, then split it.


 
Those post are from the same thread,jtr1962's,the same thread again which both yourself and jiri previously linked.



Marduke said:


> So, we are 4/4 so far with SSC selling bottom bin with "random" samples


 
You have absolutely no idea from what part of the bin range SSC is producing emitters,it is a complete assumption on your part,and a bad one at that.

Even if jtr1962's test could be considered completely accurate,two or three emitters out of hundreds of thousands could hardly be considered an accurate reprensentation of what SSC or any other manufacturer is producing.



Marduke said:


> ,and 3 premium bin changes for two models in recent history. Can you get much more obvious than that?


 
Again,SSC split the P4 binning once and the P7 binning once.



Marduke said:


> There are also countless posts of people simply getting disappointed lights chalked up to "bin lottery". There are literally hundreds of posts related to P7-C lights which were advertised as "up to 900 lumens" driven at the spec 2.8A which were mysteriously ~200 lumens short by visual estimation. Not an actual data point, but hundreds of accounts should stand for something.


 
Thats one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard.El Cheapo lights advertised as top bin when in reality the were who knows what bin driven at who knows what current,(many delivered nowhere near advertised current),has no bearing whatsoever on what a manufacturer of one component is able to produce.

There are dozens of disappointments daily from buyers who purchased flashlights with all different types of emitters,Cree,SSC,Luxeon,etc.The poor manufacturing and false advertising of flashlight manufacturers have nothing to do with what the emitter manufacturer is able to produce.

The _vast _majority of customers who purchase lights from quality manufacturers and modders whose lights actually output rated current and actually use premium bin emitters are more than pleased with output.

You still haven't produced any test data to support the claims your making.

I don't care if the average D bin P7 is 801lm or 899lm,I only want to see the data to back up what your claiming.

For that matter,I'd love to see some test data for any of the major models currently in use,I'm sure everyone here would. 

-Michael


----------



## Marduke (Mar 1, 2009)

TexLite said:


> No,they were changed once,not twice.The original C bin which was 740lm-960lm was split and the D and E bin added.
> 
> 
> Again,SSC split the P4 binning once and the P7 binning once.



Wrong. It was 740-960. It was then 700-900, then 700-800 and 800-900. Although these TWO changes were close together, they were separate changes. 

So not only was the P7 binning split, it was lowered into the original B bin so they could sell more B bins as being "premium". So it was more than even just a split.

Believe what you want, but it doesn't take much reasoning ability to see what SSC is doing, and most of CPF can clearly see that. I am sorry that you are incapable of that level of reasoning.


----------



## saabluster (Mar 1, 2009)

Let's not get the OP's thread locked.


----------



## saabluster (Mar 1, 2009)

TexLite said:


> You still haven't produced any test data to support the claims your making.


I really don't like the direction this thread has taken so please don't see this as escalation but I would like to know if you have seen _*any*_ evidence of a SSC performing at the top or near the top of its respective bin. Off the top of my head all I can remember are tests showing them at or near the bottom of the bin.


----------



## TexLite (Mar 1, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Wrong. It was 740-960. It was then 700-900, then 700-800 and 800-900. Although these TWO changes were close together, they were separate changes.


 
Maybe.Maybe I missed that.

Its irrevelant however to the claim that you've made over and over about the flux of the P7.

You have no data to support your claims about SSC only being able to produce the bottom of the bin. 



Marduke said:


> Believe what you want, but it doesn't take much reasoning ability to see what SSC is doing, and most of CPF can clearly see that. I am sorry that you are incapable of that level of reasoning.


 
Maybe I don't have enough brain cells.

Or maybe I just don't have enough evidence.

If we ever see any actual test results,I'll agree with whatever facts are contained therein.

-Michael


----------



## Marduke (Mar 1, 2009)

TexLite said:


> Maybe.Maybe I missed that.
> 
> Its irrevelant however to the claim that you've made over and over about the flux of the P7.
> 
> ...



You have 4 tests results which you choose to ignore because they are "inconvenient", and which is enough to be statistically meaningful.

There are dozens and dozens of posts of others running emitters at spec and getting sub-par performance. Although not statistically valid, they are no less meaningful.


----------



## TexLite (Mar 1, 2009)

saabluster said:


> I really don't like the direction this thread has taken so please don't see this as escalation but I would like to know if you have seen _*any*_ evidence of a SSC performing at the top or near the top of its respective bin. Off the top of my head all I can remember are tests showing them at or near the bottom of the bin.


 
Got me while I was typing.

No saabluster,thats been my point.We have only an extremely limited number of results,from which very little can be drawn.

I don't care where they fall,but making posts claiming you know where the majority of one particular emitter falls with no real information to back it up is misleading.

As far as the posts escalating,my previous post was going to be my last but I saw yours after I submitted mine and wanted to reply.

I thought I had been civil,I don't recall attacking a poster or being offensive.I only asked that claims made be backed up with something more than opinion.

If you took offense,then I offer my apology.

-Michael


----------



## saabluster (Mar 1, 2009)

TexLite said:


> I thought I had been civil,I don't recall attacking a poster or being offensive.I only asked that claims made be backed up with something more than opinion.
> 
> If you took offense,then I offer my apology.
> 
> -Michael


I did not mean for that to be directed at you specifically. It was just a general caution as it seemed like the comments back and forth were becoming more intense. No offense taken at all. 

I wonder if there is any way we can settle this conundrum? I don't have a large stock of SSCs but if someone did and could offer to send them to jtr for testing that would be very helpful to the community here. It would be nice to have a larger sample size from which to draw conclusions from.


----------



## TexLite (Mar 1, 2009)

Marduke said:


> You have 4 tests results which you choose to ignore because they are "inconvenient", and which is enough to be statistically meaningful.


 
I haven't ignored anything.You made the claim that SSC "can only produce the bottom of the bin" with the P7.

4 inconclusive test,only two of which are of the P7,is simply not enough of a product sample to make the assumptions you have.



Marduke said:


> There are dozens and dozens of posts of others running emitters at spec and getting sub-par performance. Although not statistically valid, they are no less meaningful.


 
I never said they were meaningless.Cree clearly has the advantage in many areas over SSC,but there is no real IS evidence _yet _of flux output to show where the majority of any one emitter falls.

Its pointless to discuss this any further.



saabluster said:


> I did not mean for that to be directed at you specifically. It was just a general caution as it seemed like the comments back and forth were becoming more intense. No offense taken at all.


 
None of the insults or name calling had came from my posts,but I still wanted to apologize in the chance my posts had offended anyone.



saabluster said:


> I wonder if there is any way we can settle this conundrum? I don't have a large stock of SSCs but if someone did and could offer to send them to jtr for testing that would be very helpful to the community here. It would be nice to have a larger sample size from which to draw conclusions from.


 
Well,that might help,but the ideal solution would be to have a large sample tested in an integrating sphere under manufacturer specs.

I really don't care either way,I just don't think there is any reason to post information we don't have.

-Michael


----------



## easilyled (Mar 1, 2009)

Texlite, I agree with you 100%

I couldn't care less whether SSC or Cree or Osram or Nichia are leading the race.

I just don't like to see sweeping statements based on *no* facts.

Oh, unless you consider a sample of 1 whole led as being cast-iron evidence. 
(the other one was defective)


----------



## rantanplan (Mar 1, 2009)

TexLite said:


> [...]
> I never said they were meaningless.Cree clearly has the advantage in many areas over SSC,but there is no real IS evidence _yet _of flux output to show where the majority of any one emitter falls.
> 
> Its pointless to discuss this any further.
> [...]



A discussion can only take place if there is hard evidence? Isn´t that perspektive a little bit too simple? At least for all of us that live in the 21st century, in free and sophisticated cultures  ...

I´ve to admit that there is no real evidence and you could cite the well-known "in dubio pro reo". But the given indications ...

- P7 tested so far performed below or only slightly within specs
- binning change policy of SSC in the past
- no E-Bin available
- common sense: distribution in production processes

... provide a indication that the "claim" may have truth in it (IMHO!) and the majority of existing D-Bins are in the lower half of the D-Bin range (assuming that SSC does correct binning). Yeah, there is no solid evidence, but without discussing and thinking about it, I doubt there will be any in the future, doesn´t matter what side for. You can discuss "abstract theories" ... that´s what "humanists" do all day long  ... just keep the discussion objective and try to argue reasonable.


----------



## saabluster (Mar 1, 2009)

easilyled said:


> Texlite, I agree with you 100%
> 
> I couldn't care less whether SSC or Cree or Osram or Nichia are leading the race.


Fair enough. But other people feel differently.




easilyled said:


> I just don't like to see sweeping statements based on *no* facts.


The only thing there are no facts or evidence for is any SSCs performing in the top half of their bin. For a second let's forget specific flux output. Ask yourself, why would SSC be about the business of bin shifting?


----------



## Marduke (Mar 1, 2009)

There may never be HARD evidence one way or the other. However, the best information available based off limited testing and the first hand experience of many well informed CPF members, mixed in with a little common sense W.R.T. basic marketing strategies, the best conclusion we can draw is that SSC bins are purposely layed out so that the largest possible % of production falls in the bottom of that bin.

They would not have changed the bins to be "more accurate" unless they had previously been "less accurate"

Also, they would not have changed them unless it meant they could make more money off it. And how do you think altering bins could make money?? 

Engage your common sense filter....


----------



## easilyled (Mar 1, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Engage your common sense filter....



I believe common sense is seeking evidence before making claims that are impossible to prove and therefore completely meaningless.

I'll leave you to engage your complete speculation filter as you excel at it.

However, just for good measure I'll give a completely unfounded spin scenario, in the same vein as yours.

It would go as follows:-

I believe that Seoul have revised their bin coding because they have now refined their measurement and production techniques
and can therefore bin with considerably more accuracy.

They will be bringing out an E-bin in 3 months, then an F-bin in 6 months and a J-bin will arrive no later than June 2010.

Oh, by the way please don't ask for any evidence to back this up.

Its completely obvious, its just common sense, can't you see?


----------



## Marduke (Mar 1, 2009)

My statements are based off 2 years of observation by countless members, and random samples as presented above. To date, they only point in one direction.

Time will tell.

I'll put my prediction on a D1 and D2 bin this year, or a lowered E-bin (currently 900-1000).


----------



## baterija (Mar 1, 2009)

Stepping back a moment to look at the Luxeon K2, the data sheet provides some interesting information about how they manufacture and bin.

From the data sheet (pdf file)


> LEDs are produced with semiconductor technology that is subject to process variation, yielding a range of flux performance that is approximately Gaussian in nature. In order to provide customers with fine granularity within the overall flux distribution, Philips Lumileds separates LEDs into fixed, easy to design with, minimum luminous flux bins. To verify supportability of parts chosen for your application design, please consult your Philips Lumileds/Future Lighting Solutions sales representative.


They include this illuminating chart:






Now we know that Cree and SSC both are following a similar process where they make a batch and bin them after the fact based on the process variations. It seems reasonable in the absence of confirmation of something different that both of them have similar Gaussian (aka normal) distributions.

Where does that assumption lead us? The top bin of any of the LED's for sale is going to encompass the right most tail of the distribution. The upper limit of that top bin may fall well outside the distribution (with a probability of being near that limit approaching zero). The upper bin limit may fall at a point where the probability isn't quite zero but the next bin is so rare it's not for sale yet. Best case, the highest bin will be heavily weighted towards the lower end of the bin. Worst case there may not be any significant numbers in the higher part of the bin. As manufacturers tweak their processes to produce slightly higher outputs in the same die they are in effect shifting that graph to the right until it overlaps the start of the next bin (which is when we start seeing posts about the new "super duper" bright bin. :nana Unless the top bin also covers the central point of the distribution it's always going to be weighted towards the lower output of the bin, and the most likely output in the bin is the lowest output.

All it takes to get their is assuming normal distribution, and assuming that the top bin doesn't overlap the central point of the distribution. Given what we know about LED production, and Luxeon's statements about their process, those seem like reasonable assumptions.


----------



## Marduke (Mar 1, 2009)

+1

As I said, just a bit on common sense.


----------



## TexLite (Mar 1, 2009)

rantanplan said:


> A discussion can only take place if there is hard evidence?


 
A discussion is a matter altogether different than a statement of fact.

Marduke stated that SSC could "only produce out of the bottom of the bin",and that there was evidence to prove so,one had only to "look it up",that is a statement of fact. 

It has nothing to do with opinion or theory at all,quite the opposite in fact. 



rantanplan said:


> Isn´t that perspektive a little bit too simple? At least for all of us that live in the 21st century, in free and sophisticated cultures  ...


 
I suppose I live in the 19th century and am unsophisticated because I ask for statements of fact made as quantitive to be supported by data.

The last era of human civilization in which opinion was to be accepted as fact and not to be questioned even in the absence of evidence was anything but "sophisticated".



rantanplan said:


> ... just keep the discussion objective and try to argue reasonable.


 
Thats quite an edict coming from someone who is attacking another poster personally.

I'll leave all the name calling and assumptions to you guys,this line of "reasoning" has run its course for me.

-Michael


----------



## Marduke (Mar 1, 2009)

It's rather simple. To produce any units in the top of the current premium bins, they would have to have higher efficiency than anything currently produced. 

Since SSC uses Cree EZ1000 dies, and Cree uses tighter binning, we have an accurate scale by which to compare what is and is not possible. 

Such was the case when the magical U-bin produced efficiencies up to Cree R2 level, when the best available was Cree P bin equivalents. It's not like it's rocket science...

Damn, all that common sense is hard work. :sweat:


----------



## easilyled (Mar 2, 2009)

baterija said:


> Stepping back a moment to look at the Luxeon K2, the data sheet provides some interesting information about how they manufacture and bin.
> 
> From the data sheet (pdf file)
> They include this illuminating chart:
> ...




The bottom line is that nobody knows how far off Seoul is to announcing their E-bins.

Cast your mind back to when there were Cree XR-E Q2 bins for a long time (maybe 6 months)
which then jumped to Q4 with almost no time for Q3 then quickly on to Q5 from Q4.

Q2 XR-Es were around for about 6 months before upgrading to Q3.

Nobody on CPF even had time to buy Q3s before Q4s were announced.

Q5s were available within a month of Q4s.

So your statistical curves tell you nothing about when the manufacturers have made up enough ground
to reach the next level in output and hence the new bin becoming available in terms of real time.

This could be tomorrow, next week or in 6 months time.

For all we know Seoul could be very near E-bin level and hence to the right of the peak on the graph.

Equally possible is that they could be a long way away from this stage and the D-bin could be well on the left of the peak.

The only way to *know* where on the curve we are is by taking a large sample of leds of a certain bin and measuring them.

And all these conspiracy theories from Marduke about Seoul really don't convince me that he knows any more about this than anyone else.

In fact I find them quite unhelpful, counter-productive and uninformative, not matter how many times he repeats himself.


----------



## Marduke (Mar 2, 2009)

How do we KNOW where we are at? The best LED in production quantities currently available is the R2, which is approximately 214 lumens at 700mA. Benefit of the doubt, and assume that R2 was also bottom of the bin, so add another 5% to get it to the top, so that's 226lm. In a quad die, that's ~904lms. As you can see, it is definitely, quite literally, the very bottom of the bin.

However, that particular R2 is already at the top of the bin, 123lm @ 350mA, so no such luck for E-bins at this very moment.


----------



## easilyled (Mar 2, 2009)

Marduke said:


> How do we KNOW where we are at? The best LED in production quantities currently available is the R2, which is approximately 214 lumens at 700mA. Benefit of the doubt, and assume that R2 was also bottom of the bin, so add another 5% to get it to the top, so that's 226lm. In a quad die, that's ~904lms. As you can see, it is definitely, quite literally, the very bottom of the bin.
> 
> However, that particular R2 is already at the top of the bin, 123lm @ 350mA, so no such luck for E-bins at this very moment.



You make so many assumptions that I have to laugh.

You may not recall but SSC-P4s were originally brighter than Cree-XREs when they both came out using the same EZ1000 die.

The reason for this was questioned by many of us and we came to the conclusion that they could extract more light
by virtue of the gummy dome which seems to enhance transmission compared to the Cree glass dome. 

(but there may be many more reasons that none of us know, how could we unless we are working in the led manufacturing industry)

It may have escaped your comprehension, but even if the same die is packaged differently, the output and beam will be different.

Then you are assuming that you can simply add the output of 4 single leds and it should equal the total output of a quad-die where all the dies are packed closely together. 

Again I'd need someone in the industry to be able to tell me whether 4 dies packed closely together in the SSC-P7 package
would likely decrease, increase or keep the same total output as for 4 separate dies. 

I certainly wouldn't make that assumption myself.

I could go on and on picking holes in your arguments.

This is why measuring a known bin to find the distribution is the only way.

Anyway, I'm ducking out of this thread now.

You are welcome to the last word.


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 2, 2009)

Marduke said:


> P4-U for example started out 91-118.5, which consumers obviously thought they had an equal chance of buying form any portion of that bin.


Obviously?
Even without baterija's contribution, I'd have thought that it was fairly obvious that if there are no devices available in bin N+1, then it was deeply predictable that in bin N, the outputs would be biased towards the bottom end, since even without knowing any production details, there's highly likely going to be some kind of bell-curve-ish tail-off happening.

To be honest, I'm not particularly bothered if people who can't even see *that* feel misled, since eternal thoughtless optimists are likely to make a habit of being misled almost anytime they buy anything.

For anyone not obsessed by numbers, surely the most important thing about a bin is whether there's any obvious difference between devices at the low end and high end of a given bin. Even with the old Seoul bins, the best and worst in a given bin are still pretty indistinguishable for practical purposes.

When it comes to Seoul splitting some bins, maybe they were just learning a marketing lesson from Cree - after all, there are *some* people who'd turn up their nose at a Q5 once R2s were out, even though the difference in practice is meaningless, though I suppose that's partly down to people wanting to be able to _talk_ about having an R2-based light, rather than actually using it.



Marduke said:


> ...the best conclusion we can draw is that SSC bins are purposely layed out so that the largest possible % of production falls in the bottom of that bin.


Since, apart from the splitting of S, T, and U bins, the current Seoul bins up to bin X seem to be virtual copies of the Luxeon bins from years back, right down to the letters used, I guess you must credit the Lumileds engineers with a scary amount of foresight, predicting where to draw the T-U boundary for best effect for a future competitor.

Personally, I greatly prefer being able to buy LEDs of known Vf in bins that give an adequate idea of brightness than have LEDs in tighter brightness bins, but where Vf is a total gamble.
Other people may want something different, and they have a company that caters for them.
To me, that seems like a good thing.


----------



## baterija (Mar 2, 2009)

uk_caver said:


> Obviously?
> Even without baterija's contribution, I'd have thought that it was fairly obvious that if there are no devices available in bin N+1, then it was deeply predictable that in bin N, the outputs would be biased towards the bottom end, since even without knowing any production details, there's highly likely going to be some kind of bell-curve-ish tail-off happening.


Sure way to be more clear than me and show me up. :twothumbs 

If anything Seoul's practice of splitting the bin gives more clues to shifts in the distribution curve than fixed bins. Cree R2 are starting to be seen with more frequency lately than they were for months after they were first released. That's a clue the curve is shifting right slowly but less direct.

Cree's binning is also almost linear. That means diminishing returns in perceived brightness with each step. I could label that as dishonest marketing. It is what it is. Seoul bins more according to perceivable difference, and then chooses to split the bins. That is what it is. We're all smart enough, and have enough info here to make informed buying decisions with both binning strategies. If we choose not to, shame on us.

I'm still waiting for Natural White 93 CRI P7's, even if they could only manage A or B flux bins. :naughty:


----------



## saabluster (Mar 3, 2009)

baterija said:


> If anything Seoul's practice of splitting the bin gives more clues to shifts in the distribution curve than fixed bins.


Nobody here is questioning the shift in the distribution curve. Of course they are getting(not making) brighter LEDs because Cree's dies continue to improve.The big question that was so conveniently overlooked was "why would SSC be about the business of bin shifting?". 



baterija said:


> Cree's binning is also almost linear. That means diminishing returns in perceived brightness with each step. I could label that as dishonest marketing.


Seriously?:shakehead


baterija said:


> Seoul bins more according to perceivable difference,


Since people seem to want hard evidence and certified lab tests in this thread I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to back that up.



baterija said:


> and then chooses to split the bins.


So let me get this straight. They, knowing full well that the lumen march will continue on, binned according to perceivable difference and then for some unexplained reason chop bins into _smaller_ pieces? Doesn't this rail against their entire way of binning? If as you say they bin according to percieved differences they would be _increasing_ the size of the bin as the distribution curve moves to the right not decreasing.
Heres the thing. They know full well that outputs will continue to increase. They can figure out ahead of time what a good binning system is and stick with it. Why fiddle with the bins? 

*Evidence as to their thinking and methods*
It is well documented that they are disingenuous in their press releases.
Take a look at a clip from one of them from here. 
12-04-06
*Seoul Semiconductor's P4 LED*

SEOUL, Kr. - Seoul Semiconductor (SSC, KOSDAQ 046890), a global leading LED manufacturer, announced today the launch of its new LED product, P4. The P4 emits 240 lm at 1 A of light and features the industry’s highest luminous efficacy (100 lm/W @ 350 mA at the maximum) with only a single die, making it a brighter and more cost-effective light source compared to conventional 70 lm/W fluorescent and 15 lm/W incandescent lighting options. 
“P4 is making history in the lighting industry as the alternative to conventional fluorescent and incandescent lighting sources,” said Jung Hoon Lee, CEO of Seoul Semiconductor. “Conventional LEDs have been known to emit more than 100 lumens with several dies. Seoul Semiconductor’s P4 is the only LED product in the world with 240 lm via a single die.”  

Notice how they word it to sound like if you ordered a P4 you would be getting an LED that put out 240lm at 1A? Maybe one out of a hundred in that bin would.

About six months later Cree put out a press release for their 100lm/W LED. Notice the difference in tenor.

"Cree...today announced commercial availability of XLamp® LEDs with minimum luminous flux of 100 lumens at 350 mA. XLamp LEDs are the first LEDs to be available in volume with this level of performance."

Whereas SSC boasts about the output of the very top of their top bin Cree showcases the _minimum_ expected.
Notice at the end there they acknowledge the prior "availability" of LEDs of this caliber but note that they were not available in an significant number. 

Since I have been watching this scene Cree has always been above board with their press releases not trying to word things to make themselves sound better than they are. The same cannot be said about SSC. Yes I have only sited one reference for them but you are welcome to search through all the press releases and find all the other instances. Of course you will have to negotiate around all the news about them and Nichia suing one another.

If SSC has a track record of being deceiving with the way they deal with the public this is evidence as to the corporate culture there. Who decides binning? Who sits down and figures out the business strategy? Who figures out how to squeeze more money out of an operation? 
Why be shifty with the bins? Why have the SSC LEDs tested around here by highly respected members barely made it in their bins. This is simple math for all who want to be honest with the available evidence at hand. Would more evidence be better? Absolutely! But so far the evidence leans against SSC and until _any_ evidence can be shown to the contrary I cry foul. 



baterija said:


> We're all smart enough, and have enough info here to make informed buying decisions with both binning strategies. If we choose not to, shame on us.


No "We"(humans) are not all smart enough. This is in evidence every day even here on an enthusiast website. We(CPFaholics) are freaks. Normal people do not know this much about LEDs and that includes a lot of companies that would be in the market to use LEDs in their products. And even if nobody was ever duped by the misleading practices of SSC the fact that they try ticks me off and should give some clue as to the people running it and the possible reasons why they would be shifting bins at such "convienient" times.


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 3, 2009)

saabluster said:


> No "We"(humans) are not all smart enough. This is in evidence every day even here on an enthusiast website. We(CPFaholics) are freaks. Normal people do not know this much about LEDs and that includes a lot of companies that would be in the market to use LEDs in their products. And even if nobody was ever duped by the misleading practices of SSC the fact that they try ticks me off and should give some clue as to the people running it and the possible reasons why they would be shifting bins at such "convienient" times.


The average retail customer likely still buys lights because they have "*3W LED!!!*" printed on the packaging in bright colours, even if the LED isn't likely to see anything like 3W in their life, and might even still be a Lux III, and even if the customer has no idea what a Watt is.

If it comes to a company buying LEDs to use in products, if they're too dim to read a datasheet or make a vaguely educated guess about binning, and they confuse maximum, typical and minimum, or assume that there's a linear spread of devices across each bin, then they shouldn't blame anyone else for that.

However, in practice, it doesn't matter what the spread is across a bin, as long as a bin is narrow enough that the variation from top to bottom isn't large enough to make a difference for the given application.

_Personally_, with both the (unsplit) Seoul bins, and the similar-width Luxeon bins they were copied from, I never had any worries that if I made a load of lights from devices in the same bin that anyone would notice (let alone worry or complain about) any brightness difference between their lamp and anyone else's.


----------



## Ryanrpm (Mar 3, 2009)

There's no way I'm able to contribute anything to this thread, but just wanted to say, "Nice comparison of press releases saabluster." It's nice knowing what is really out there, and not just what someone thinks they know is out there.


----------



## baterija (Mar 4, 2009)

saabluster said:


> Nobody here is questioning the shift in the distribution curve. Of course they are getting(not making) brighter LEDs because Cree's dies continue to improve.The big question that was so conveniently overlooked was "why would SSC be about the business of bin shifting?".


I'm simply stating that the bigger bin followed by a split gives *me* more information about where the curve lies in relation to the bins than Cree's method when changes are happening slowly like they currently are. It's certainly not what I would encourage as a best business practice if I had input at Seoul. I didn't overlook the question of why; I simply don't care very much. I'd care if Seoul was consistently grading LED's in a bin they don't perform in.



> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, spin is great isn't it. :naughty: That just may be why I used the conditional phrase "could" in there. I'm perfectly serious about the diminishing returns in their single die binning structure though. Anyone buying an R2 at a premium because it's "brighter" than a Q5 might agree with the dishonest notion when they can't tell the difference.



> Since people seem to want hard evidence and certified lab tests in this thread I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to back that up.


 Cree's binning structure doesn't need to be tested - *they define it and publish it*. Look at the percentage gap between the top and bottom of their single die bins from P2 - R2, it's diminishing.



> So let me get this straight. They, knowing full well that the lumen march will continue on, binned according to perceivable difference and then for some unexplained reason chop bins into _smaller_ pieces? Doesn't this rail against their entire way of binning?


It does. Maybe it's dishonest. Maybe they've got some organizational dysfunction that pulls them between 2 binning solutions. (Somewhere there could be a Seoul Engineer that looks like Dilbert with his very own pointy haired boss overriding reason. Maybe Wally is in charge of binning.) It simply doesn't matter to me. I got involved in this thread only because I wince at any notion that top bins are not weighted towards the bottom.

Or more simply, I don't have a dog in this fight.


Buy both!


----------



## saabluster (Mar 4, 2009)

baterija said:


> Cree's binning structure doesn't need to be tested - *they define it and publish it*. Look at the percentage gap between the top and bottom of their single die bins from P2 - R2, it's diminishing.


 I was not talking about backing up Cree binning. I was talking about SSC's purported binning to perceivable differences. Go back and read it again and you will see what I was talking about.



baterija said:


> I wince at any notion that top bins are not weighted towards the bottom.


I agree whole heartedly with you there.


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 4, 2009)

As to perceptible differences between LEDs of slightly different brightnesses, a lot depends on the application.

I can see that maybe for some products using LEDs, it may be that tight binning is needed (or at least specified/desired by the end user), but for flashlights/headtorches being used in practice, I doubt that many people would reliably notice a +25/-20% lumen difference in the absence of some kind of reference.

I'm sure it's possible to distinguish smaller differences in artificial comparison setups (lights mounted side-by-side, rapid alternating switching or covering/uncovering of lights), though I think you'd find that if there was a pause between light A going off and light B going on, it would make it harder to tell, and the longer the pause, the harder it would be.

If you gave someone one of two lights and got them to walk through a dark scene using it, and then repeat that walkthrough with a second light, and asked them what difference they thought there was, if any, I suspect that many wouldn't be sure that there was a difference until it was somewhere in the ballpark of a Luxeon/old Seoul binwidth.


----------



## easilyled (Mar 4, 2009)

This thread seems to have become completely derailed from the OP's original question about when we can expect to see SSC-E-bins
and hijacked into personal gripes about Seoul instead.

My aim was to contest the original reply to the OP's question by Marduke, which was "probably never"

I didn't see how anyone could make that sort of prediction without recourse to some more factual basis such as measuring
the output of the existing highest bin (D-bin)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that most D-bins are nearer to 800 than 900 lumens, but I would rather confirm this than speculate.

At some point in time, there is likely to be an incremental increase in output due to some technological advance.

At this time the flux of the D-bin will likely go up and then an E-bin will probably be announced soon afterwards.

It seems to me that without measurement of flux, this point in time will be impossible to predict.

I think however that the fact there are now D-bins with a Vf of "I" means that some advance has already been made
compared to when only J Vfs were available if I had to resort to speculation.

Anyway, I couldn't care less whether a particular bin is weighted to the lower end or not.

I have many flashlights with Seoul leds and many with Crees and I'm very happy with the performance of both of them which 
seem to me to be on a par with each other in different ways.

I really think that the people that have personal issues with Seoul should have resisted the urge to air their views in this thread 
as it wasn't relevant to the OP's original question.

If you feel so strongly, why not make a new thread about this instead?


----------



## saabluster (Mar 4, 2009)

easilyled said:


> This thread seems to have become completely derailed from the OP's original question about when we can expect to see SSC-E-bins
> and hijacked into personal gripes about Seoul instead.
> 
> My aim was to contest the original reply to the OP's question by Marduke, which was "probably never"
> ...


Don't try and lay this at my feet. As my mom would say it takes two to argue. Its not like the topics in this thread are completely separated from from the OP's topic. "when is SSC releasing the E bin P7?" Because of SSC's practices we don't know. They may just shift bins tomorrow to move the E bin down to the level they can produce at. That has everything to do with the OP's question. Now a better question would be "When is SSC releasing P7s at at 900 or 1000 lumen output?". But that wasn't the question.


----------



## Marduke (Mar 4, 2009)

No rebuttle to all this TexLite??


----------



## easilyled (Mar 4, 2009)

saabluster said:


> Don't try and lay this at my feet. As my mom would say it takes two to argue. Its not like the topics in this thread are completely separated from from the OP's topic. "when is SSC releasing the E bin P7?" Because of SSC's practices we don't know. They may just shift bins tomorrow to move the E bin down to the level they can produce at. That has everything to do with the OP's question. Now a better question would be "When is SSC releasing P7s at at 900 or 1000 lumen output?". But that wasn't the question.



Your replies were obviously agenda driven. Mine weren't. 

I understand that you don't like the way that Seoul have changed their bins lately. I think everbody's got the message now, so well done!

Personally I'm very happy with 800 lumens output.

I have several lights with SSC-P7s and the output is amazing.


----------



## saabluster (Mar 4, 2009)

easilyled said:


> Your replies were obviously agenda driven. Mine weren't.
> 
> I understand that you don't like the way that Seoul have changed their bins lately. I think everbody's got the message now, so well done!
> 
> ...


My only "agenda" is finding the truth. I also did not like everyone hounding Marduke. And agenda or not you participated and perpetuated the discussion. 
Yes I prefer Cree over SSC and for very good reason but I also own many SSC products. One of my favorites are SSC's high CRI line of LEDs that Cree as yet has no match for.


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 4, 2009)

saabluster said:


> Its not like the topics in this thread are completely separated from from the OP's topic. "when is SSC releasing the E bin P7?" Because of SSC's practices we don't know. They may just shift bins tomorrow to move the E bin down to the level they can produce at.


The only time Seoul have _shifted_ (rather than merely split) bins seems to have been very early on in the P7's life, before most people actually got their hands on one. It appears the P7 was announced as available at the very end of February 2008, and the bins had been changed to their current ones by some time in April.
If they'd done it much earlier, it would barely have counted as a change at all.

It would seem very much less likely that they (or anyone else) would _change_ bins once production and consumption was in full swing.


----------



## ECKO32 (Mar 16, 2009)

JustinS said:


> Hi,
> Just checking out the Bin coding charts for the P7 & notice that there are quite a few different P7's. Why is it that an LED can have so many different tints, VF's & Brightness groups?
> I've only seen C & D bins available, when is SSC releasing the E bin P7?
> Cheers
> Justin


 Well i guess this threads not about the e-bin anymore such a pity politics has to step in and take it over;(
sometimes its so distracting when I have to hyperlink to another thread but its worse now that the tread strays off topic wish you guys would start a new thread regarding this if it be cree vs. ssc or whatever:shakehead


----------



## Nil Einne (Apr 27, 2010)

Hopefully people don't kill me for resurrecting this thread but it's always interesting to look at things in perspective. AFAIK, so far, still no E bin P7. But also no splitting the D bin either as some people predicted. Whether this is because they are still only performing in the bottom half of their bin as some people allege I can't comment on.


----------



## bullettproof (May 1, 2010)

Nil Einne said:


> Hopefully people don't kill me for resurrecting this thread but it's always interesting to look at things in perspective. AFAIK, so far, still no E bin P7. But also no splitting the D bin either as some people predicted. Whether this is because they are still only performing in the bottom half of their bin as some people allege I can't comment on.




LOL this thread is hilarious 

How those E bins treating ya:thinking:


----------



## znomit (May 2, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> LOL this thread is hilarious
> 
> How those E bins treating ya:thinking:


To be fair the XRE hasn't progressed at all either...


----------



## saabluster (May 2, 2010)

znomit said:


> To be fair the XRE hasn't progressed at all either...


As I have come to find out that is because Cree is intentionally holding the XR-E back. They are trying to move customers over to other more profitable product lines. I was told not to expect any improvements on the XR-E platform. Interesting isn't it that the XP-E which uses the same dice as the XR-E has an R3 bin in volume availability?


----------



## znomit (May 2, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Interesting isn't it that the XP-E which uses the same dice as the XR-E has an R3 bin in volume availability?



I always assumed the ring sucked up a bin full of lumens. 

I see cree still don't list R2 on XRE...


----------



## easilyled (May 2, 2010)

Oh no, why did someone resurrect this thread?  It was far better being buried in the anonymity of time long gone. 

It seems to me that nobody would really be too bothered anymore whether Seoul's SSC-P7-E bin ever becomes available because Luminus's SST-50 (and SST-90) are proving to be more popular than either Seoul's SSC-P7 or Cree's MCE for very good reasons. (single-die package which eliminates donut and provides better beam quality and probably throw) 

Regarding XRE, I know that this provides saabluster with the ideal led for the DEFT because of its narrow beam angle and high surface brightness, and therefore it must be personally disappointing that this package is not being further developed by CREE.

I assume that the XPE will be another option to consider for the DEFT if its output flux continues to evolve significantly.


----------

