Sorry Bro. That sounded alot harsher than intended. My apologies. I didn't mean to come off so jerky.
Hehe OK, got it my mistake then StormChaos -- when I read your response I thought I'd broken some unwritten 420 Mag forum rule or something so I figured I'd better back off so as to not offend anyone.
In truth, I really try not to ever put forth a definitive statement of fact, even on subjects I feel I know pretty well. But I guess I can be persuasive at time and it may seem like I'm trying to imply more than I am. If I do so, I sincerely apologize as I assure you, it's not my intent.
I'll be more careful in the future to vet my posts not just for misspellings but for silly errors like getting PitViper and IrishBoy's work confused -- it was just a silly error because I was... well... medicated just a weeeee little bit...
Anyway, just to clarify, what I was trying to say specifically is that if I had only $700 to spend on lights I personally would go with LEDs because of the lower electrical consumption and longer life time of the unit. Because of the way the thread originator posed his question, it seemed clear he was looking for a small grow at home which is a situation that I feel is well suited to the application of LEDs versus using a GD lamp. While I have no idea if the units I'm using now (which are rated for 50K hours) will actually run that long, other LEDs I've used have served me well for years with no problems.
Because LEDs are solid-state components I don't see any compelling reason to doubt the manufacture's claims as to the product's useful lifetime. But the absence of a negative does not prove the existence of its inverse, so if you know of reports of LEDs failing please do let me know as I would be very interested to read about that. I did quite a bit of research into the current state of LED technology before I moved forward and I really found the information to be very interesting and compelling. That's why I find myself now being a pretty staunch supporter of the idea that LEDs will eventually be a very economical way to light a garden.
That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that LEDs are still in their absolute infancy and much more needs to be done to improve them. I also agree completely that the currently available GD lamps will produce fantastic results. I would never counsel a larger grower to use LEDs, as they are not yet suited to that type of application, in my personal opinion.
However, if yield is not the primary factor in your plans -- and yes, I know that seems antithesis to what most people would want, then for me personally I think LEDs are already a viable option, not a gimmick or a "fad" product.
My results have been very impressive but it has become clear that I can't expect to see comparable results as I might have expected if I'd decided to use a MH or HPS system instead. However, the reduced heat, simplicity of design, safety (I like to go away for the weekend, and I need to be sure there is not a fire when I'm gone) and lastly, the reports that cannabis seems to produce resin more effectively under LEDs (for unknown reasons) were what finally made me conclude that I wanted to back LEDs, both by using and testing them myself and also by talking to others to let them know that I feel that LEDs are a viable option to using the traditional GD lamps we are all used to.
That being said, trying to compare yields from a GD system and an LED system, in my opinion, is a little like trying to compare apples to oranges. While you can correct for all other variables by using identical clones, soil, etc... the lights are not really the same. GD lamps do not work in the same manner as LEDs, and the emission spectrum from a GD lamp is not at all similar to the emissions from tuned LED lights.
Now, as to your assertion that GD lamps will produce larger yields — the funny part here is that... I agree! I know how effective they are. That really never was the issue, at least in my mind, but I agree 100% that it has to be a very important consideration. If maximum yields are most important and the grower has the resources to cover the electricity, why not invest in a set of 1000 watt lamps? The cooling costs and additional fans, ducting, etc... certainly do represent a not insignificant additional cost, and of course replacement lamps at $100 or more each, every six months, has to be considered. But with the amazing amount of lumens those lamps can put out, one would be hard pressed to argue against their overall effectiveness and utility. The fact that their use is so very prevalent today is all the testament needed to verify they are, indeed, the de facto standard at the moment.
Anyway, it seems I've penned a mini-dissertation when I meant only to clarify my personal position on the subject, so please accept my apologies for being so verbose.
GrowLEDHydro's 300 watt vs. 400 watt HPS 
me too... I had no choice but to respond.... and um... sorry again for biting your head off intially... lack of meds LOL and too many females.... no offense to the women of this site... 