Sorry, that again is just your clearly Biased opinion. Looking at the very charts you provided shows that the cool white LED's are outside the human eye sensitivity for the major part in the blue range and the warm leds are, quite obviously, biased to the warm side.... as the graph you linked demonstrates. Also looking at the chart shows incandecent has a much wider spread in the blue spectrum than the LEDS.... as I said which shows they are more efficient in that regard because they are not using power to produce unwanted and useless wave lengths.
Actually what you have there is a lot of marketing hype. They say poor quality lighting rather than specifically LEDS and the sum total of their position is " Some LEDS" while providing no facts or evidence. They are also trying to infer in the main that their Comfort leds are nothing more than the warm 4-5000K colour temp that you can get in any leds.Here you have a major LED light manufacturer saying exactly what I said and marketing what they claim are improved LED lights. More costly than the common LED lights that are so popular.
I have not seen any LED flicker, the frequency of the drivers and the mains input is well above the acuity of the human eye in that respect.
The funny part is, while you are trying to prove your side of the argument with that link, it proves exactly what I have been saying. They are talking about warm light, the fact their LEDS can change colour and they have good colour and rendering index... which is hype not a specific measurement.
I also notice they have some points that are titled " xx% of people believe" . People believe lots of things but ill informed opinion does not change fact or make wrong right.
If you look at the charts you linked to and compare the output of LEDs to the Visible spectrum and compare it to the other light sources, you see the LEDS are the best matched. As I also said, other types of lighting are spraying emissions all over and far beyond the visual response of the human eye which is wasted energy.
They mention " Bad Lighting" several times on that page and others but they don't SAY what bad lighting is, only infer and misdirect the gullible reader to think it's any other LED but theirs. Bad lighting far and away in this scenario is dim lighting. Their Globes do nothing different to any other. You can get them in warm or daylight, same as I have in other brands or you can have the output selectable... same as I have.
As for things like glare and harshness, that's largely baloney as well. Glare is largely from point light sources. That's why there have been lampshades since the electric light was invented. The purpose is to diffuse the light sources into a larger area rather than a point source. Photo Lighting 101. That's why you put a Meter square Fish Fryer over a strobe head.... so the light is radiating from a meter square source instead of a 5 Cm sq source. Photo lighting is also specificaly directed to match the sun's colour temp to produce the most accurate colour rendition of what is being shot. Turning the colour temp down makes things yellow which can be useful when you are trying to give a model a tanned look but highly undesirable when you are trying to show the colour of the fabrics on a Lounge suite or the paint job on that new car. Colour temp meters and gels are used to make sure the colour coming from the lights are as spot on 6000K ( or 4000 in the old days of Tungsten film) as possible.
Changing colour temp as seems to be the main inference of better lighting on that page does NOT affect glare, it only fools people into thinking it is less glairy by in fact being less effective and bright light. Their point of reducing glare is lowering colour temp. It can be seen on any LED with variable colour temp that the warmer the temp the less Lumens the light produces. Pretty obvious a light that is less dim will appear to have less glare. The same thing could be achieved by using less powerful or just less lights!
People overwhelmingly have no Idea how to light anything. They will stick a bunch of downlights lights, be they halogen or whatever, right in the middle of a room and then wonder why it is displeasing as a bunch of pinpoint sources. Would be the same as if they put a bare Bulb incandecent in a room with no lamp shade. We have all seen that and how glary and harsh that is. It's not the light source, it's how it's applied that's the problem.
I put all my downlights in so the light washes the walls 50% of the beam width therefore creating a greater area for the light to radiate from and diffuse it and the resulting shadows. That's the way it should be done the same as people didn't have bare incandescent lamps with out a lamp shade because that was harsh and displeasing. For the lights over the island in the kitchen, They are all in reflectors hanging low so they don't catch your eye direct but reflect the the ( LED) light onto the work surface.
The laughable thing is Daylight is 6000K the same as daylight LEDS but the argument that is being made is it is not natural or good light or whatever. If it's the closet light source to the the sun, how can it not be the best artificial light source when it replicates the main one we have the closest of all.
Clearly you don't like LED but the links you put up far batter support what I have said over your position by far.
Look at the facts not the misleading hype.
Seems to me that perhaps you have just been exposed to a poor lighting installations/ applications rather than than poor LED lights per se.
Bookmarks