User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 2:10:31 PM EDT
Hey everyone,
I may have the opportunity to trade my WP echos for a set of green ITT Omni8 MilSpec AVS6 tubes with less than 5 hours on it. I am unfamiliar with the newer Omni designations and have not looked through anything from the Omni V on. I am wondering if this may be a decent trade, or if I should really just stick with what I have. Although I enjoy looking through white, I am not super partial, especially if I can get a hot set of tubes in trade. My specs - FOM - 2323/2195 LUM Gain - 8923/8870 RES - 67/67 SNR - 32.75/34.5 HALO - .84/.92 They are crystal clear, but obviously like most echo tubes, may not perform as well in dark conditions. That being said, I am not sure if they under perform or over perform what you would get in an Omni8. What commercial tubes are these most similar to? Would it be like an HP+? I have not looked through enough night vision to know if I would be making a bad trade... Below is a pic of my Echo tubes compared to my omniIV PVS7. No moon, just stars. Some light coming off the floodlights from the buildings below.  " /> |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 2:36:46 PM EDT
[#1]
I own new production Omni 8 AVS-6 tubes. Mine are nicely matched but less than 1500 FOM and your echos probably crush them. I wouldn’t trade echos for filmed greens
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 2:49:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I own new production Omni 8 AVS-6 tubes. Mine are nicely matched but less than 1500 FOM and your echos probably crush them. I wouldn’t trade echos for filmed greens Aren't Omni VIIIs all minimum of 1600 FOM? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 2:58:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aren't Omni VIIIs all minimum of 1600 FOM? You would think, but I have the data sheets for them and they’re definitely not. One is 1472 FOM and the other is 1523 FOM |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 4:29:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would think, but I have the data sheets for them and they’re definitely not. One is 1472 FOM and the other is 1523 FOM You make me very curious what my specs are...the world may never know.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 4:44:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You make me very curious what my specs are...the world may never know.. I don’t even worry that hard, if I spent a fortune for a brand new unit then I would care. Used green mystery tubes I don’t worry about if they’re a good deal and work well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 4:54:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I own new production Omni 8 AVS-6 tubes. Mine are nicely matched but less than 1500 FOM and your echos probably crush them. I wouldn’t trade echos for filmed greens I am curious about these tubes do you have any data on them? contract code? CAD? are they MX10160A/avs6? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 5:04:59 PM EDT
[#7]
They are:
10160-c AVS6-G NSN5855-01-5034799 Exp Jan22 HamSandwich EDIT - I am dumb I thought you were talking to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 5:10:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am curious about these tubes do you have any data on them? contract code? CAD? are they MX10160A/avs6? Contract code: W91CRB-12-D-0014 CAD: 2003 MX10160A/AVS-6 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2020 5:30:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t even worry that hard, if I spent a fortune for a brand new unit then I would care. Used green mystery tubes I don’t worry about if they’re a good deal and work well. I only care to curb my curiosity. I love them no matter what their spec is as i can see in the fucking dark...and better than some friends lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 7:13:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Contract code: W91CRB-12-D-0014 CAD: 2003 MX10160A/AVS-6 How did you get spec sheets for them? I have a pair of ANVIS i would love to get some data on |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 8:20:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did you get spec sheets for them? I have a pair of ANVIS i would love to get some data on Really great question. I have no clue why they came with spec sheets but they did. I bought them as a set from a buddy and was very surprised to see they came with data sheets. And also surprised they came in below what we usually assume an Omni 8 would be. I’d post the sheets if I were allowed |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 9:39:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Really great question. I have no clue why they came with spec sheets but they did. I bought them as a set from a buddy and was very surprised to see they came with data sheets. And also surprised they came in below what we usually assume an Omni 8 would be. I’d post the sheets if I were allowed You can post the info from the sheets, just not take a pic of them an put them up |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 11:52:39 AM EDT
[#13]
Your Echos will probably look better against what will likely be average spec spec gen 3. The gen 3 will be brighter but you’ll lose most of that brightness advantage with Anvis objectives (you’re trading for an Anvis goggle I believe?).
Echo’s typically have a great image (and your picture reflects they do) and the higher SNR makes a big difference. I would only consider it with the gen 3 had similar or higher SNR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 12:45:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering.
I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 1:48:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering. I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... Ah, got it. That depends on the gen 3 tubes but my experience comparing a 67 res /31 snr Echo against 64 res / 25.4 snr gen 3 filmed GP is that they were close to even in low low light. If you like WP better than GP, you may feel like you've taken a step backwards (Echo vs average spec gen 3) A big thing to consider is if the gen 3 tubes are noisy in low light, you won't be able to minimize it by lowering the gain. ETA: because they are 10160 format |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 2:04:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering. I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative, they are PVS glass. That is what I am wondering. I know may have a clearer image with the Echos, but what is the trade off point? Will I lose that much clarity for a small gain in low light performance? That is the question... Quoted: Ah, got it. That depends on the gen 3 tubes but my experience comparing a 67 res /31 snr Echo against 64 res / 25.4 snr gen 3 filmed GP is that they were close to even in low low light. If you like WP better than GP, you may feel like you've taken a step backwards (Echo vs average spec gen 3) A big thing to consider is if the gen 3 tubes are noisy in low light, you won't be able to minimize it by lowering the gain. ETA: because they are 10160 format I would also like to point out that you will have higher sensitivity with the gen 3's. I've put my Echo with similar specs to yours up against friends' older gen 3 tubes (OMNI IV/V) with worse specs and while my image is far far nicer and cleaner, I also can't pick up some details in shadows while they can (they can see faint outlines and markings in the shadow of structures where I just see a dark shadow like a black hole). You can kind of see an example of what I mean at 1:20 of Will's video looking at the canister thing on the right where you can resolve more detail in the shadow with the Harris tube. They also seem to be able to resolve fine details from further away than I can with my Echo like reading small text on signs. At 1:09 of Will's video, you can kind of see what I mean where the text on the sign through the Echo is more blurry compared to the Harris tube even though the Echo's specs are generally better. Granted, this seems to be accentuated when there's not enough light out (typically no moon and only moderate starlight). To me, that's the biggest tradeoff where it's not just being able to see a little better in low light, it's being able to see things and details that you otherwise wouldn't be able to see vs having a very nice image when there's enough illumination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 2:05:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Silly question, but what is SNR control and what does Resolution control? Like do you ever get high res but low SNR?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 2:24:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Silly question, but what is SNR control and what does Resolution control? Like do you ever get high res but low SNR? The easiest answer IMO is - Resolution: How well you can make out different stuff that's close together. Signal to noise ratio: How well it forms an image against the "noise". A higher SNR tube gives a better/clearer image especially in low light ETA: didn't answer your last question. Modern tubes are almost all at least 64 lp/mm center resolution, so the resolution isn't a major factor for head mounted tubes. Signal to noise ratio is arguably the most important spec. From my experience, minor jumps aren't a major difference but something like 24-25 versus your tubes at 32.75 - 34.5 is very noticeable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 2:35:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Ah okay.
It seems like it may be mixed on the responses. I guess it just depends on what I am expecting to get out of the Gen 3. IMO, losing a little bit of clarity for a little bit brighter of an image would be a good trade off. The question is, how clear will the Gen3 image be! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 3:11:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah okay. It seems like it may be mixed on the responses. I guess it just depends on what I am expecting to get out of the Gen 3. IMO, losing a little bit of clarity for a little bit brighter of an image would be a good trade off. The question is, how clear will the Gen3 image be! You honestly could only answer that by doing a side by side comparison. CDN_Datawraith is absolutely right about photocathode sensitivity (and gain levels) having a big impact but how important it is to you or how it will affect your use/needs really depends on what you are expecting out of the tubes and where/how you are using them. The Echos will be more than fine if you have no issues using extra IR when needed and/or have decent ambient lighting. The main difference is a good gen 3 tube (and this even with high spec gen 3 vs lower spec gen 3 too) will let you see more in the dark before needing to turn on IR or needing to get closer to the object/whatever you need to identify. How big of an advantage/difference that is depends on the specific tubes and conditions. IMO, I'd wait for something with spec sheets to come along or do a special request order for specs, versus gambling on tubes with unknown specs. Unless you can try before you buy or have a return window if you don't like them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 3:19:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Here's a good read. It's not gen 2 vs gen 3 but rather high SNR vs low SNR. This was open source so should be good to go to post.
Effect of using high signal to noise aided visual acuity |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 4:29:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Resolution doesn’t matter that much, human eye can’t tell the difference between 64 or 72lp/mm. Resolution only comes in play if you put clip-on NVG in front of your scope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 4:36:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's a good read. It's not gen 2 vs gen 3 but rather high SNR vs low SNR. This was open source so should be good to go to post. Effect of using high signal to noise aided visual acuity Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 5:21:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). I believe it is EBI that Photonis lists differently, carry the decimal. 0.22 = 2.2 kinda thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 5:29:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it is EBI that Photonis lists differently, carry the decimal. 0.22 = 2.2 kinda thing. Yes, they definitely do. They use microlux instead of phot as a unit for EBI measurement. However, SNR is a ratio, so it does not have units. Therefore, if they have different procedures or parameters to generate their SNR numbers compared to L3H and Elbit, it may not be an apples to apples comparison and that wouldn't be shown in the spec sheet. It's just a rumour I heard so I have no idea if this is true or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 5:32:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). I believe it is due to the photocathode sensitivity and gain, both of which would be higher in the Omni IV/V gen 3 compared to the Echo. The USA Echo sheets I've seen have gain as 7,000-10,000. Using the max of 10k (the highest Echo I've seen was 9,243) and Pi to convert it that's 31,400 versus the Omni IV/V requirement of 40,000-70,000 (the gain was likely at least 50k). I've never seen Photonis data sheets listing photocathode sensitivity so no idea what that is supposed to be. Some people can't tell a difference with sensitivity and I've read some legit experts say it is a meaningless spec but IMO based on my own observations I notice a substantial difference with a high sensitivity tube provided that all of the other specs are also good overall. ETA: I don't 100% if converting it with Pi is the correct method but I'm sure @cj7hawk can answer that |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 8:05:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it is due to the photocathode sensitivity and gain, both of which would be higher in the Omni IV/V gen 3 compared to the Echo. The USA Echo sheets I've seen have gain as 7,000-10,000. Using the max of 10k (the highest Echo I've seen was 9,243) and Pi to convert it that's 31,400 versus the Omni IV/V requirement of 40,000-70,000 (the gain was likely at least 50k). I've never seen Photonis data sheets listing photocathode sensitivity so no idea what that is supposed to be. Some people can't tell a difference with sensitivity and I've read some legit experts say it is a meaningless spec but IMO based on my own observations I notice a substantial difference with a high sensitivity tube provided that all of the other specs are also good overall. ETA: I don't 100% if converting it with Pi is the correct method but I'm sure @cj7hawk can answer that Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Good article, thanks for the link. Reading it reminded me of something, one of the guys more familiar with night vision than I am up in Canada told me that Photonis generates their SNR differently than that of L3H or Elbit (more complex than just the EBI being measured in different units). Wonder if someone could comment and/or clarify that (as it might explain why my Echo with superior listed specs has more trouble resolving detail than an old toasty gen 3). I believe it is due to the photocathode sensitivity and gain, both of which would be higher in the Omni IV/V gen 3 compared to the Echo. The USA Echo sheets I've seen have gain as 7,000-10,000. Using the max of 10k (the highest Echo I've seen was 9,243) and Pi to convert it that's 31,400 versus the Omni IV/V requirement of 40,000-70,000 (the gain was likely at least 50k). I've never seen Photonis data sheets listing photocathode sensitivity so no idea what that is supposed to be. Some people can't tell a difference with sensitivity and I've read some legit experts say it is a meaningless spec but IMO based on my own observations I notice a substantial difference with a high sensitivity tube provided that all of the other specs are also good overall. ETA: I don't 100% if converting it with Pi is the correct method but I'm sure @cj7hawk can answer that I believe I seen the pi conversion mentioned on Cloudynights as well. A lot of what's better or not can be trumped by your personal preference in many circumstances. I will say my Intens screen makes all the gen 3 tubes I've seen look dirty. High light or low light I can tell my Intens is darker which makes it very easy on the eyes but struggles sooner in dark areas. I'd prefer my gen 3s for anything serious but my example from Photonis is hard to beat for everything else. By no means would I feel under gunned with the Intens though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 8:32:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Great. What is your other tube and Specs?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 8:43:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe I seen the pi conversion mentioned on Cloudynights as well. A lot of what's better or not can be trumped by your personal preference in many circumstances. I will say my Intens screen makes all the gen 3 tubes I've seen look dirty. High light or low light I can tell my Intens is darker which makes it very easy on the eyes but struggles sooner in dark areas. I'd prefer my gen 3s for anything serious but my example from Photonis is hard to beat for everything else. By no means would I feel under gunned with the Intens though. Very true. Even from night to night it can change. I’ve had nights where the L3 filmed GP M890’s lose nothing to my unfilmed and other nights where I’m like “are these the same tubes!?” Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 9:30:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great. What is your other tube and Specs? Don't have spec sheets but the ITTs and M890s are probably close to omni 7 minimums. The ITTs are darker and have more scintillation than the M890s. My filmless L3 GP tubes have a 2376 min fom and best them all in low light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2020 9:37:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very true. Even from night to night it can change. I’ve had nights where the L3 filmed GP M890’s lose nothing to my unfilmed and other nights where I’m like “are these the same tubes!?” Lol I took some nieces and nephews on a dark ride last night with the M890s after I'd been using the filmless the past week. Not bad at all but you're definitely right, filmless is where it's at 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 11:49:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I took some nieces and nephews on a dark ride last night with the M890s after I'd been using the filmless the past week. Not bad at all but you're definitely right, filmless is where it's at I've been very impressed with the M890AVs I've had. I have a set in an AVS-6 and have zero complaints. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
