3rd Grow: Amare Tech 450W LED & UVB, 4x4 Tent

PurpleGunRack said:
Too bad those THC Bombs didn't germinate, it's a killer strain and it will give you dense nugs under a candle.
You could always get a couple of the small mars reflectors to crank the wattage above the 600w line, recommended for 4x4 when using HID.
Going for some of the more expensive seeds can pay off big time, sometimes;)
Click to expand...

Man you're getting me excited to look up new strains. Maybe I'll try some autos!
 
Versai said:
For reference, here's a link to my first harvest with the Mars 1200 and Iced Grapefruit.
First Grow - 3x3' Tent - Soil - Mars 1200W LED

Used the same soil, same nutes, same pot sizes, similar training styles. Not an exact comparison tho because of 3x3 vs 4x4 and the strain difference.

Amare in 4x4, Mars in 3x3
450w with Amare SE, 550w with Mars 1200.
376g with Amare, 420g with Mars.
.94 GPW with Amare, .75 GPW with Mars.
25w per sq. ft. with Amare, 61w per sq. ft. with Mars.
Airy, frosty buds with Amare, Dense fat colas with Mars.
Amare hung at 24", Mars hung at 18" high.

I honestly do not like this strain, I need to find different genetics badly. But all of the strains I've grown are in a similar tier from the same breeder, so they're somewhat comparable. Appearance and smoke wise, I think I enjoyed my Mars grown buds better. I think it is because there was more watts of light on them. I cannot go back and measure the lux or par with tools I don't have, but these are the results I got and my observations so far.

I think it's a stretch to say the SE450 can flower a 4x4 independently. At least not at the density standards I'm used to. I feel like it was the largest single panel Amare had to offer 6 months ago and they wanted to say it can flower a 4x4, and clearly it has. But so could my Mars 1200 if I hung it 6" higher. The Mars may even be able to compete with a higher GPW if I was using it in a 4x4 space with 6 extra plants like I was using the Amare.

I think to flower a 4x4 denser I would need to hang my Amare as close as the Mars was; at 18-20 inches, and accept a smaller footprint. Or add more lighting to increase the watts per sq. ft. "25w per sq. ft. with Amare, 61w per sq. ft. with Mars." The Amare is using less than half the watts per foot than my Mars grow. I know CREE and CoB are good, but they're not 200% better.

So I feel a little misled, like Amare has focused too much on the center umol number to say it's intense enough to cover a 4x4. I would like to see par charts at different heights across the entire recommended 4x4 space. I so badly want a PAR meter. I suspect that 18" is kind of the dropoff height for 5w LED's peak par. The CoB's seem pretty far intensity; but since the panel is only 22" wide, it needs to be 24" above to 'evenly' cover a 4x4 canopy.

The last difference I've noticed between these two fine LED's is the price.
$1,145 for the Amare SE450, $435 for the Mars 1200.
$2.5 per watt of Amare light, 80 cents per watt of Mars light.

SE450 draws 100w less than the 1200 and yields probably about the same 1GPW in a 4x4. So from what I can tell, you're really just saving 100w with the Amare. But the cost difference of the 450 and 1200 is $710. So it would take you 61,000 hours of use to make back the cost in electric efficiency. 14 years of flowering 12/12 lol. Where did the deal go? The only way I could really justify the luxury option is if you have a limited space and limited electricity usage and need to maximize your efficiency of both.

To summarize, the Amare SE450 pros are more efficient power use, fuller spectrum, I believe slightly faster growth and slightly more frosting. Cons are that it's hella expensive and over-rated for a 4x4 so I still need to spend more $$ on more lighting. I'm having a hard time re-justifying the expense when I could buy two Mars 1200's for less and yield twice as much for just $25 extra on the electric bill per month.

I plan to continue with this light in the same space with other strains. Could be that the strain is just bunk, or I'm messing something up, or perhaps just the day temps of 86 degrees F have created more airy buds. I'm like 99% sure I want more watts in a 4x4 tho.

Anyone else's thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hey Versai
I am kind of in the same boat it seems, I was planning on buying either 2 new MarsII1200's or something else, I was looking at the Amare because they have the COB and the Cree diodes, but to be honest I am presently running 3 Mars hydro lights and am quiet happy with them especially when you factor in the initial investment. I would not mind giving Amare a try but just not sure if I want to pay that kind of money for a light I do not know anything about other then what someone tells me about them. I have seen you around a lot here at 420 so I would value your opinion over someone who I have never heard of. So whats your honest opinion of the Amare verses the Mars, and if you do not want to offend either of them and would prefer to tell me via PM thats cool too.

Thanks
 
Hey OG, I'm honored you value my opinion. The Amare panel did outperform my Mars 1200 in efficiency and quality. For an experienced grower like yourself, I think you could especially make use of the better spectrum from the better panel. I think I still have some work to do before I can really show it maxing out, but I'm already impressed.

But like you say, these panels are expensive options. If yield and economy are your concern, you could definitely grow more fine quality bud with Mars panels for less $$. The efficiency of the Cree and Cobs doesn't yet seem to be worth the higher price. The only way I can find it being beneficial is if you're limited on space, electricity, or heat. For example if you can only grow in a 3x3 closet or only with 5 amps, you're better off getting an Amare panel to make sure you're maxing out your bud quality and production for the amount of electricity and heat.

I don't have a 3x3 tent anymore, but I think I'll try using my SE450 in a 3x3 area on my next grow for a more direct comparison. I think it's too early for me to judge this light for sure. It's better, but is it worth it? idk. I got it half off for doing this journal and it still broke my bank. I could never have afforded it otherwise. But quality is worth the price sometimes and I think when hung closer in a 3x3 this panel is going to grow some very high quality buds. I feel like I'm saving myself money in the long run by getting the best panels, because if I max out my production with Mars I'd just be looking for something better in a year.
 
Versai said:
SE450 draws 100w less than the 1200 and yields probably about the same 1GPW in a 4x4. So from what I can tell, you're really just saving 100w with the Amare. But the cost difference of the 450 and 1200 is $710. So it would take you 61,000 hours of use to make back the cost in electric efficiency. 14 years of flowering 12/12 lol.
Click to expand...

Hmm... 100 watts difference, that's .1 kWh. So that 61,000 hours would be 6,100 kWh. Taking your cost (difference) of $710 as being the cost of that electricity... Your electricity only costs $.0012 per kWh, lol?

Disclaimer: I suppose it is possible I screwed up my calculations...
 
I must be living in the wrong state, lol. I pay well over a penny per kWH. Over 10x more, actually.
 
TorturedSoul said:
Hmm... 100 watts difference, that's .1 kWh. So that 61,000 hours would be 6,100 kWh. Taking your cost (difference) of $710 as being the cost of that electricity... Your electricity only costs $.0012 per kWh, lol?

Disclaimer: I suppose it is possible I screwed up my calculations...
Click to expand...

Costs $0.11 per kWh here. So the 100 watt difference, .1 kWh x 0.11 = 1.1 cent difference per hour.
12 hours per day adds up to 13.2 cents per day.
If you flowered 365 days per year, the difference in electricity would be $48.19 per year.

So assuming the SE450 and Mars 1200 can both yield about 1 pound average per grow, the difference comes down to quality and cost. Trichome and bud quality seems a little better with Amare, but that's hard to measure. The cost difference is easy, $710.

When shopping for a CREE panel, the high efficiency seems like it's going to save you money. "Why use 550w in a 3x3 when you could use just 450w?" But the higher initial cost seems to overshadow any savings, as it would take you over 14 years for the 100w per month savings to add up to the $710 difference. If electricity is cheaper for you, the more efficient option makes even less difference.

Does that make sense? I could be thinking about it wrong.
 
To give you guys some context, my current grow space is limited to 15 amps. So Amare is definitely the best way to spend that 15 amps since I'll yield more per watt. But the cost of 15 amps lighting is:

Amare: $3,360 (Three Pro4s, One Pro3)
Mars: $1,220 (Two 1200s, One 900)

For the cost of maxing out my limited 15 amps, it would probably be cheaper hiring an electrician to install additional circuits for cheaper panels. I'm having a hard time justifying the expense.
 
Versai said:
So assuming the SE450 and Mars 1200 can both yield about 1 pound average per grow, the difference comes down to quality and cost. Trichome and bud quality seems a little better with Amare, but that's hard to measure. The cost difference is easy, $710.

When shopping for a CREE panel, the high efficiency seems like it's going to save you money. "Why use 550w in a 3x3 when you could use just 450w?" But the higher initial cost seems to overshadow any savings, as it would take you over 14 years for the 100w per month savings to add up to the $710 difference. If electricity is cheaper for you, the more efficient option makes even less difference.

Does that make sense? I could be thinking about it wrong.
Click to expand...

I would consider the "trichome and bud quality" to be important. But, as you say, this is difficult for the average person to quantify (at least without sending samples to a lab for testing, which many would refuse to do).

Failure rate (in terms of percentage of units sold) is something that I would consider to be very important. I assume it would be somewhat inconvenient (at minimum) to have a light fail during use, especially in a type of product that precludes going to the nearest hardware/electrical store and purchasing an emergency replacement bulb, lol. For those who do not have a backup light source on hand - which is something that we all should have, but many do not... either due to the expense or because "spares" have a way of being incorporated into the next grow's expansion, lol - such a failure could be disastrous. But I suppose that this thing would be even more difficult to measure than quality of the harvest.

I am one of those people who must keep track of their electrical consumption. Not just because of the cost of electricity, but because of limited capacity of my residence. While it is difficult for me to buy anything (so this is sort of a hypothetical statement :;): ), I would be more inclined to want to purchase the device that can deliver the same, or at least nearly the same, results whilst consuming less electricity. One way of looking at your example (for ME) is that $710 will not get me an upgraded electrical system. Anyway, others may not have quite the same issue, but may be worried about their gross electrical consumption (as I have read that in some countries, a regular spike in electricity consumption above a certain amount may be a factor in whether or not the local LEO are allowed to enter and search a residence). With large-scale commercial growers... IDK which way this particular pendulum would swing, lol. They'll pay less per kWh (and tend to have adequate electrical capacity). It might come down to the other factors - at a guess, failure rate, quality of the harvest, difference in yield (small differences might become significant as things are scaled up, IDK), et cetera. Secondary considerations might come into play such as who would give a better discount on, IDK, 25+ units being purchased. Or even features such as whether one company offers a model that provides for the use of air-cooling setups (like the air-cooled HID hoods, I mean, with a 6"/8" intake/exhaust side that can be connected to duct work).

Another thing that I just thought of: One company (Amare Technologies) out of the two offers COBs - which are of higher output than the mono-color LEDs - along with lenses that can be attached to focus that light for (presumably) even greater penetration. This is a feature that might be of more importance to others, because one's preferred growing method - and choice of strain - will come into play. But I can see where a product that is capable of greater penetration into a dense canopy would be preferred by many. I think you might have made the observation that using the lenses would shrink the footprint; this is true, and is one of the reasons that a grower's style (etc.) would be factors in whether or not to use them. Still, it gives one options. It may not be of extreme significance to a "scrog" type grow (then again, I have seen some pretty full canopies, lol, and wondered whether the light was really getting to the bottom of the buds even though they were all above the screen), but could be somewhat important to one who grows "sog" style, especially if their strain still seems to have a fair amount of vertical growth. For growers who do minimal (or no) training, it could be very significant - a 5' tall bush might require a good bit of penetration.

I can only make this statement based on what I have seen on this forum and the two manufacturers' websites, because I have never used a Mars-Hydro panel and have only recently gotten one from Amare Technologies, but: It looks to me like the latter is ahead at this time in terms of the technology used in its products. One assumes that both companies will improve in the future. Whether AT maintains the lead remains to be seen. But, as of right now, it seems to have a head start (so to speak).

I'm just rambling. It's too hot and muggy to sleep, lol.
 
They're definitely featuring the latest tech. Let's say the spectrum difference with Amare leads to a 15% increase of trichome production. That turns your 20% thc strain into a 23% strain, pretty awesome. For someone who wants the very best flower, this would be the best light. But the cost to achieve that was actually not so efficient if the panel cost $2 per watt compared to $1 per watt for the 20% thc flower. The 3% higher thc flower can't be sold for twice as much, and it's not going to get you twice as high. So paying twice as much for it is not exactly worth it. Maybe if you're competing for the cup or something.
 
Another consideration; Amare has 5 year warranty vs Mars 1 year? So in that respect, you're getting a more reliable investment with Amare. CREE is supposedly more reliable components, but both CREE and Epistar diodes have long lifespans, well over 5 years I think with minimal lumen depreciation. Though cobs may lose efficiency over time without you noticing as individual diodes die on the chip. Seeing how many problems Mars panels seem to have, I kind of doubt a panel would make it 5 years without issue. Both brands are manufactured in Shenzhen, China though, so you'd assume they have similar manufacturing standards.

If you plan to grow for 5 years, a top-end panel today might be relevant for 5 full years, making the cost of the Amare SE450 ($1145) $229 per year. Let's say in that same 5 years, you would need two Mars 1200's, each lasting 2.5 years. The two Mars 1200 ($870) would cost $174 per year + $48.19 extra electricity, so $222.19 per year.

I guess they're pretty comparable investments in the long run. But if you were only planning to grow for 3 years or if better stuff replaces current tech in 3 years, it obviously makes sense to go with the cheaper panel.
 
Versai said:
Another consideration; Amare has 5 year warranty vs Mars 1 year? So in that respect, you're getting a more reliable investment with Amare. CREE is supposedly more reliable components, but both CREE and Epistar diodes have long lifespans, well over 5 years I think with minimal lumen depreciation. Though cobs may lose efficiency over time without you noticing as individual diodes die on the chip. Seeing how many problems Mars panels seem to have, I kind of doubt a panel would make it 5 years without issue. Both brands are manufactured in Shenzhen, China though, so you'd assume they have similar manufacturing standards.

If you plan to grow for 5 years, a top-end panel today might be relevant for 5 full years, making the cost of the Amare SE450 ($1145) $229 per year. Let's say in that same 5 years, you would need two Mars 1200's, each lasting 2.5 years. The two Mars 1200 ($870) would cost $174 per year + $48.19 extra electricity, so $222.19 per year.

I guess they're pretty comparable investments in the long run. But if you were only planning to grow for 3 years or if better stuff replaces current tech in 3 years, it obviously makes sense to go with the cheaper panel.
Click to expand...
Very try but don't forget about the resale value the laser cut case itself is worth bout 50$. So let's say if you buy 1200$ Amare and 1200$ Mars the Amare in 2-3 years will still be worth 7-900$ and the mars prob bout 4-600$ but I love the way you take a fair view at things man you should run a blog lol

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using 420
 
All this LED talk is awesome! Great discussion going on here!! I would like to add that I have used Mars-Hydro lights and both units broke within days of their 1 year warrenty. They wanted me to pay $60 shipping for each 1200w and wait weeks to get them back...So I switched to Amare and never looked back.

Sent from my LGMS395 using 420 Magazine Mobile App
 
Prepper420 said:
I would like to add that I have used Mars-Hydro lights and both units broke within days of their 1 year warrenty.
Click to expand...

I guess you are happy that Amare Technologies' products have a five-year warranty, then (and three years of technical support).

Hopefully, everybody's lights will last a long time, regardless of which company they purchase them from. But things sometimes happen and, when something goes wrong, a longer warranty is a big plus, IMHO.
 
Back
Top Bottom