<ScienceNerd>
I've done a lot of research into light and photosynthesis because neither of those are my particular specialty. Saying that the light that comes from one thing is somehow better than the light that comes from another is just silly. Visible light is a stream of photons traveling in a wave between the frequencies of 400nm to 700nm. No matter what emits it, it is essentially the same. In the case of MH, T5 & LED, the real difference is in the quantity of the various wavelengths being delivered. To adjust those various quantities of wavelengths in either MH or T5, you would have to change the bulbs or combine different numbers of bulbs of different wavelengths. The same would be true of an LED fixture with a fixed set of diodes running at a fixed amount of power. But an LED fixture with several different diodes running discrete wavelengths and having the ability to run at variable power, would be able to run a very broad range of wavelengths and quantities.
The perception that T5 or MH "grow corals better" is really more a function of the fact that the light they produce has been "tuned" to grow corals over several iterations of trial and adjustment. And even with the lower cost, less adjustable LEDs, they have a collection of diodes that basically target that sweet spot of wavelengths and quantities. But those high end infinitely adjustable LEDs seem to be the ones most people struggle with a bit, probably because they are adjusted "by eye" for the most part, and the human eye simply can't detect those individual wavelengths and quantities. But at the end of the day, if one were so inclined, one could perfectly reproduce the light from any one of these 3 form factors to any other.
The real difference (aside from price and maintenance) is in the delivery of the light. All 3 deliver light in very different ways, so each of them deliver light in different patterns. But again, if one was so inclined, one could duplicate or at least closely approximate the pattern from any one light to any other.
</ScienceNerd>
<Hobbyist>
My PERSONAL preferences is LED. But that is a function of form factor, efficiency, power, flexibility and low total cost of ownership because bulbs don't need to be replaced every 9-12 months. Not because I think it produces "better light". Since this thread is about 95% opinion, I figured I'd throw mine in (mixed with a little science and fact).
</Hobbyist>
I've done a lot of research into light and photosynthesis because neither of those are my particular specialty. Saying that the light that comes from one thing is somehow better than the light that comes from another is just silly. Visible light is a stream of photons traveling in a wave between the frequencies of 400nm to 700nm. No matter what emits it, it is essentially the same. In the case of MH, T5 & LED, the real difference is in the quantity of the various wavelengths being delivered. To adjust those various quantities of wavelengths in either MH or T5, you would have to change the bulbs or combine different numbers of bulbs of different wavelengths. The same would be true of an LED fixture with a fixed set of diodes running at a fixed amount of power. But an LED fixture with several different diodes running discrete wavelengths and having the ability to run at variable power, would be able to run a very broad range of wavelengths and quantities.
The perception that T5 or MH "grow corals better" is really more a function of the fact that the light they produce has been "tuned" to grow corals over several iterations of trial and adjustment. And even with the lower cost, less adjustable LEDs, they have a collection of diodes that basically target that sweet spot of wavelengths and quantities. But those high end infinitely adjustable LEDs seem to be the ones most people struggle with a bit, probably because they are adjusted "by eye" for the most part, and the human eye simply can't detect those individual wavelengths and quantities. But at the end of the day, if one were so inclined, one could perfectly reproduce the light from any one of these 3 form factors to any other.
The real difference (aside from price and maintenance) is in the delivery of the light. All 3 deliver light in very different ways, so each of them deliver light in different patterns. But again, if one was so inclined, one could duplicate or at least closely approximate the pattern from any one light to any other.
</ScienceNerd>
<Hobbyist>
My PERSONAL preferences is LED. But that is a function of form factor, efficiency, power, flexibility and low total cost of ownership because bulbs don't need to be replaced every 9-12 months. Not because I think it produces "better light". Since this thread is about 95% opinion, I figured I'd throw mine in (mixed with a little science and fact).
</Hobbyist>