• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

ADA Super jets - worth the investment?

Shinobi

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2017
Messages
546
Location
Denmark
I've been eyeballing these filters for a while now, especially the ES600 for my 60p.
I know they have proved their worth in the ADA gallery for years now, but I simply can't get my head around how a 350l/h filter can be sufficient for a 60p or even a 90p when we usually do the 10x turnover rule in our scapes.
I really do love the ADA products I own, and although they dosnt always impress on paper, I'm yet to be disappointed by the real life performance - even though the prices are somewhat outrageous.
I would really like to hear pros/cons or experiences from some Superjet users and if it's a worthwhile upgrade from my JBL901 or is it all brand hype?

Cheers
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,457
Location
Chicago, USA
Hi,
The best feature of this assembly is tat it uses an Iwaki pump, which are very reliable. Other than that though, any of the other highly regarded brands will do you just as well or better at a much lower price.

Cheers,
 

Shinobi

Member
Thread starter
Joined
14 Feb 2017
Messages
546
Location
Denmark
I looked at the ADA filters just because they are pretty, but the price!!!

Can't go wrong with an Eheim 2213 or 2215 at that size.

That would actually be a downgrade in terms of media capacity and flow rate from my JBL.

Hi,
The best feature of this assembly is tat it uses an Iwaki pump, which are very reliable. Other than that though, any of the other highly regarded brands will do you just as well or better at a much lower price.

Cheers,

Yeah kind of figures I guess, I really would like to hear some first hand users though , but guess they are few and far between at that price.
What's your take on the relatively low flow rate on these filters compared to what we normally suggest on this site?
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,457
Location
Chicago, USA
Yeah kind of figures I guess, I really would like to hear some first hand users though , but guess they are few and far between at that price.
What's your take on the relatively low flow rate on these filters compared to what we normally suggest on this site?
Well, that's the thing, you see. As I always say, a filter is nothing more that a bucket with a pump attached, which is exactly what ADA did.

As far as what is accomplished with a lower flow rate than the 10X rule, one really has to consider the situation holistically.
In the first place, if someone is using a low PAR in their lighting, then it's very easy to get away with low everything else, i.e., low CO2, low flow rate.
ADA ballasts are low power compared the other brands and their bulbs are lower PAR. Tom Barr took his PAR meter to a gallery some time ago and measure the the lighting. He saw that the tanks are actually low light tanks. The bulbs themselves emit a good percentage in the green/yellow. Humans are more sensitive to these wavelengths and we are not as sensitive to blue or red, so although the lights looks bright they are not really that bright.

So if you are using their overpriced lighting fixture along with their overpriced bulbs, then you can easily get away with a lower flow rate because the demand for CO2 will be lower.

Apart from all of that, if we are comparing our efforts to that of the gallery, you'll realize that there will be an army of employees (or at least a few employees doing an army's work) who will be scrubbing and cleaning - and you will not hear about specific problems, you only see the results of those efforts.

I would be very careful in assessing the effectiveness of a product based on what is essentially a Hollywood commercial. On the other hand we have first hand evidence in the forum when someone is using strong lighting and when the tank improves as a result of improving the tanks flow/distribution. So we know what works and what doesn't.

Excessive lighting is the root of all evil in this hobby, and the 10X rule was employed in order to combat this evil.

So if you have standard industry lighting at very high PAR output then I would avoid this particular filter in lieu of more muscular brands.

Cheers,
 

Shinobi

Member
Thread starter
Joined
14 Feb 2017
Messages
546
Location
Denmark
Well, that's the thing, you see. As I always say, a filter is nothing more that a bucket with a pump attached, which is exactly what ADA did.

As far as what is accomplished with a lower flow rate that the 10X rule, one really has to consider the situation holistically.
In the first place, if someone is using a low PAR in their lighting, then it's very easy to get away with low everything else, i.e., low CO2, low flow rate.
ADA ballasts are low power compared the other brands and their bulbs are lower PAR. Tom Barr took his PAR meter to a gallery some time ago and measure the the lighting. He saw that the tanks are actually low light tanks. The bulbs themselves emit a good percentage in the green/yellow. Humans are more sensitive to these wavelengths and we are not as sensitive to blue or red, so although the lights looks bright they are not really that bright.

So if you are using their overpriced lighting fixture along with their overpriced bulbs, then you can easily get away with a lower flow rate because the demand for CO2 will be lower.

Apart from all of that, if we are comparing our efforts to that of the gallery, you'll realize that there will be an army of employees (or at least a few employees doing an army's work) who will be scrubbing and cleaning - and you will not hear about specific problems, you only see the results of those efforts.

I would be very careful in assessing the effectiveness of a product based on what is essentially a Hollywood commercial. On the other hand we have first hand evidence in the forum when someone is using strong lighting and when the tank improves as a result of improving the tanks flow/distribution. So we know what works and what doesn't.

Excessive lighting is the root of all evil in this hobby, and the 10X rule was employed in order to combat this evil.

So if you have standard industry lighting at very high PAR output then I would avoid this particular filter in lieu of more muscular brands.

Cheers,

Thank you for the very well written and useful reply, you definitely raise some solid arguments :)
 

Similar threads

Top