Aqamai LRS: the best for nanoreef? Let’s do our test in the DaniReef LAB

How to value these numbers in aquarium?

This is a good question. At first we thought that we could transport these values to the aquarium tout-court. Than we filled the aquarium, insert the probe and redone the measurements. We fazed but, as we have already said in elsewhere, we’re going to talk about this in another article. Basically, while at 20 cm the result is practically the same, as we progressed, thanks to the glass and the water itself reflecting the light, we found even the double of the values measured in air. Obviously this isn’t a detail that can be standardized, so we think that our method of calculation is the most correct, and the best for the comparison of coverages of different ceiling lights.


The measurement of the consumption was made possible thanks to the useful device RCE PM600 that can also measure the Cos(fi) (or power factor). The result is already given in watt.

Aqamai LRS: prescelta per nanoreef? Vediamola nel DaniReef LAB

Here above there’s the maximum power and below the Cos(fi).

Aqamai LRS: prescelta per nanoreef? Vediamola nel DaniReef LAB

The calculus of the absorbed current, that is the power, is the following one:

Ceilign light Aqamai LRS: 47,59 watt. Considering that at 17 cm the ceiling light has at the middle 1.256 μmol m-2 s-1, we can say that it has a peak value of 26,39 μmol m-2 s-1 w-1 (PAR per watt). A slightly higher value than the Cetus 2.

It’s a little lower than the declared one of 50 w. It can also depend on the rotation speed of the vents.

The comparison with other ceiling lights on the market

Recently we started to use the new Apogee’s Quantum Meter MQ-510. For this we can’t completely compare the data of other ceiling lights because before we used the probe Seneye.

But considering the first celing lights we managed to test we can do an interesting comparison about their produced energy:

AI Hydra 32 HD at 17 cm560.18543090,501.3036.190
AI Hydra 32 HD at 37 cm 563.23243090,50 1.3106.224
AI Hydra 32 HD at 57 cm 462.61443090,50 1.0765.112
Aqamai LRM at 17 cm642.64946590,881.3827.071
Aqamai LRM at 37 cm721.67646590,881.5527.941
Aqamai LRM at 57 cm616.47046590,881.3266.783
Aqamai LRS at 17 cm275.88128947,599555.797
Aqamai LRS at 37 cm311.54828947,591.0786.547
Aqamai LRS ta 57 cm254.28328947,598805.343
Cetus 2 at 17 cm409.99321560,681.9066.756
Cetus 2 at 37 cm 290.86621560,681.3534.793
Cetus 2 at 57 cm 173.65121560,688072.861
Philips CoralCare at 17 cm1.858.572749190,502.4819.756
Philips CoralCare at 37 cm 1.340.533749190,50 1.7907.037
Philips CoralCare at 57 cm 933.246749190,50 1.2464.899
Aqamai LRS: prescelta per nanoreef? Vediamola nel DaniReef LAB

The energy produced by each watt stays costant in the different distances in the Aqamai LRS. Very good the behave of the Aqamai LRS that has the peak value at 37 cm (in reference to our distances), the distance we need in aquarium, considering anyway that the energy value is very similar above and below.

Ceiling lightPARWattPrice PAR/watteuro per watteuro per PAR
GNC 466 696 (Seneye) 120 1.400 euro 5,8 spread  11,72,01
Orphek Atlantik V4 1.515 (Apogee) 226 1.099 euro 6,7 spread  4,90,73
Philips CoralCare 2019 2.088 (Apogee) 190 749 euro 11 spread  3,90,35
Maxspect Ethereal 689 (Seneye) 130 500 euro 5,3 semispread 3,80,72
Barra Led Askoll Pure Marine 237 (Apogee) 28 n.d. 8,4
Zetlight UFO ZE-8000 791 (Seneye) 91,5 500 euro 8,6 cluster 5,50,63
Aqamai LRM 2.285 (Apogee) 90,88 465 euro 25,14 double cluster 5,10,20
AI Hydra 32 HD1.908 (Apogee)90.50430 euro21,08 double cluster4,750,23
Cetus 2746 (Apogee)60,6821512,29 cluster3,50,28
Aqamai LRS1.256 (Apogee)47,5928926,39 cluster6,10,23
Aqamai LRS: prescelta per nanoreef? Vediamola nel DaniReef LAB

Devices in hand, the Aqamai LRS has the higher PAR per watt relationship we ever had. Speaking of euro per watt they’re in average.

Mantaining costs

The Aqamai LRS costs 290 euro.

The absorbed power is 47,59 watt, so the relationship cost/watt is about 6,1 euro per watt. In order to do a comparison with the other ceiling lights we had in our hands you can consult the following chart:

Ceiling lightPriceCosumptionRelationship euro per wattReferences
Cetus 2215 euro60,68 watt3,5 euro per wattDaniReef LAB
Philips Coralcare 2019749 euro190 watt3,9 euro per wattDaniReef LAB
Maxspect Ethereal500 euro126 watt4,0 euro per wattItalian test
Radion XR30w G2 PRO
790 euro170 watt4,7 euro per wattItalian review
AI Hydra 32 HD430 euro90,5 watt4,75 euro per wattDaniReef LAB
Radion XR30w G4 PRO915 euro190 watt4,84 euro per wattItalian article
OceanLed Sunrise 600870 euro180 watt4,8 euro per wattItalian test
Orphek Atlantik V41099 euro226 watt4,9 euro per wattTest
Radion XR30w G2690 euro140 watt4,9 euro per wattItalian review
Radion XR30w G4760 euro150 watt5,1 euro per wattItalian article
Aqamai LRM
465 euro87,5 watt5,1 euro per wattDaniReef LAB
Zetlight UFO ZE-8000500 euro91,5 watt5,5 euro per wattTest
Aqamai LRS289 euro47,59 watt6,1 euro per wattDaniReef LAB
CEAB Slide & Led2.700 euro275 watt9,8 euro per wattReview
Sicce GNC 4661.592 euro120 watt13,3 euro per wattItalian review
Aqamai LRS: prescelta per nanoreef? Vediamola nel DaniReef LAB

The ceiling light is very well build, thin in the construction, pretty easy to be programmed (especially if you use the preset programs). The PAR are good especially in the middle, and they’re perfect for efficiency. Sure, they’re not this incredible at 17 cm, but what sticks out of this ceiling light is the uniformity of energy at the three distances. Perfect for LPS and soft corals in a nanoreef of 50 cm, I wouldn’t go further, while the SPS are precluded, but something in the higher part of the rock. The cost per watt is in the average and the peak PAR espressed are record breaking. The global energy espressed is good, but it can’t compete with ceiling lights that consume and cost the double or quadruple.

Comments and questions, as always, are welcomed.