Two Acebeam X65 lights tested SBS w/interesting results

Dieses Thema im Forum "Flashlight Forum" wurde erstellt von seery, 3. Juli 2018.

  1. Borrowed a friends [6 month old] X65 for a week and liked it so much I ordered one. After it arrived I decided to run a few tests against the TN40S NW, which has been our daily user. All three of our TN40's test the same, so we grabbed one to see how it would compare to the X65's. These were simple ceiling bounce tests done at 4, 6, 8 and 10 feet.

    His was consistently 2.45 times brighter than the TN40, while the new one was consistently 2.80 times brighter.

    The two X65's head to head produced nearly the exact same results. We also swapped the battery packs, but the results didn't change.

    Assuming the TN40S NW is 4,005 lumens (90% of the 4,450 CW), that would mean:

    Old = 9,812
    New = 11,214

    The difference of 1,400 lumens (nearly 15%) isn't huge, but definitely significant. When using both lights outside the beam patterns and temperature looked identical, one was just brighter.

    This was nothing scientific of course, but interesting nonetheless.

    Do you think it's simply a light to light variation, or did Acebeam change something with the newest X65's?
  2. Armytek
    I would just assume that the XHP35 Hi LEDs in your brand new X65 have a higher binning than those in your friend's X65. This is quite usual and those variations are also in a fairly normal range. LEDs also tend to suffer from to many turbo runs, i.e. they will show some kind of fatigue (lower output) the more you use them on high modes. Furthermore the 6 month old battery pack could also already show some indications of wear & tear which eventually results in less output.

    As far as I have read, earlier versions of the X65 never achieved the advertised specs of 12.000 lemons.
    seery hat sich hierfür bedankt.
  3. Makes sense.

    His light didn't get used much at all (especially in turbo/turbo max). I probably used it more in one week than he did in 6 months.

    As noted above, we swapped battery packs and the results did not change.


    Maybe Acebeam is driving the newest ones harder so they will reach their advertised lumen output.
  4. Acebeam
    Possible. You could also ask on BLF for there may be more people owning a X65. Acebeam is also very active on BLF. Maybe they have some answers to those variations. Personally, I guess they just did some finetuning on their driver and/or use a different binning now. You could also do a runtime check with both lights, using the same battery pack. Maybe this helps to find the root cause...
    seery hat sich hierfür bedankt.
  5. The old one used Panasonic NCR18650B. Now they seem to use High Drain Cells with a little less capacity...
    #5 Gray Matter, 3. Juli 2018
    Zuletzt bearbeitet: 4. Juli 2018
    seery hat sich hierfür bedankt.
  6. Ich versteh' kein Wort?!?
    Marian hat sich hierfür bedankt.
  7. Joh! Is Englisch... ;)
    LetzterVersuch und Marian haben sich hierfür bedankt.
  8. Ist das besser?

    Ich habe mir eine Woche lang einen Freund (6 Monate alt) X65 ausgeliehen und es hat mir so gut gefallen, dass ich mir eins bestellt habe. Nach der Ankunft entschied ich mich, ein paar Tests gegen die TN40S NW zu machen, die unser täglicher Benutzer ist. Alle drei unserer TN40 testen das gleiche, also haben wir uns eine genommen, um zu sehen, wie es mit den X65 verglichen werden würde. Dies waren einfache Deckenprellversuche bei 4, 6, 8 und 10 Fuß.

    Er war konsistent 2,45-mal heller als der TN40, während der neue konstant 2,80 mal heller war.

    Die zwei X65 Kopf an Kopf produziert fast genau die gleichen Ergebnisse. Wir tauschten auch die Akkus, aber die Ergebnisse haben sich nicht geändert.

    Unter der Annahme, dass der TN40S NW 4.005 Lumen (90% der 4.450 CW) ist, würde das bedeuten:

    Alt = 9.812
    Neu = 11.214

    Der Unterschied von 1.400 Lumen (fast 15%) ist nicht groß, aber definitiv signifikant. Wenn beide Lichter außerhalb des Strahlmusters und der Temperatur identisch aussahen, war man nur heller.

    Das war natürlich nichts Wissenschaftliches, aber dennoch interessant.

    Denkst du, es ist einfach eine Licht-zu-Licht-Variation, oder hat Acebeam etwas mit den neusten X65 verändert?
    JOS und 0ssi1973 haben sich hierfür bedankt.
  9. I can also add some comments. I had the chance to compare 3 different X65. My one (from December 2017, only fairly used, already the updated version) and two new and unused ones from May 2018 from friends. My one was also measured by RS freak in his sphere (if I remember correctly with only 9000 lumens at start and ~8200 lumens @30s).

    One of the new X65 showed in direct comparison with CB measurements exactly the same values than my one. The other one had an visibly more cold white tint than my X65 and in direct comparison showed 10-12% more Lumen in all modes!

    Obviously there are significant differences between different models. But 1 out of 3 is not really representative and also it is not possible to find out if it is a systematic matter of batches / production year or just tolerances of the XHP35 and production itself.

    Personally I'm a bit dissappointed on the one side that there's a significant gap between Acebeams' specification with 12K lumens and reality (9K or 10K lumens depending if you have good luck with your model). On the other side the performance and power in real life is fascinating and 1 or 2K more lumens wouldn't make a visible difference.

    I finally sold my X65, not due to the performance but due to it's size. I've no application for such a hughe light. It really makes fun to use it, but unfortunately i used it too seldom, especially for >300 Euro's...
    seery hat sich hierfür bedankt.
Die Seite wird geladen...
  1. Diese Seite verwendet Cookies, um Inhalte zu personalisieren, diese deiner Erfahrung anzupassen und dich nach der Registrierung angemeldet zu halten.
    Wenn du dich weiterhin auf dieser Seite aufhältst, akzeptierst du unseren Einsatz von Cookies.
    Information ausblenden