duraleigh said:
[quote:2mra4lt2]I like the idea of being able to tell the difference between 2.2 and 2.3 or 2.4 ppm chlorine
You do not have a good grasp of what precision is required........What do you plan on using that information for? increments that small are neither dependable or useful in any way.
On the contrary, i think it would be quite useful to know, for instance, that when I turned my SWG up from 10% to 15% this morning, has my chlorine gone from 2.3 to 2.4? Or has it still continued to drop, now reading 2.2? That would tell me that I need to crank it up to 20%, etc. I prefer to keep chlorine levels as low as possible while still preventing any algae or bacterial problems
[quote:2mra4lt2]It will read chlorine up to 10ppm, and I can't imagine why I'd want to read above that all that often.
Again, with a total of four posts, all virtually selling the ColorQ, you do not have a good grasp of what this forum teaches. Virtually everyone who follow our practices has a need to test in excess of 10 ppm.[/quote:2mra4lt2]
Well, that's fine, and I think I can solve this intractible dilemma of needing to occasionally test above 10ppm by *also* having a Taylor kit as backup. I'd use this to have better testing for CYA as well. But it seems like the ColorQ might be a better choice *for me* to use on a daily basis for chlorine, alkalinity and pH, the main things I'm interested in.
And if I'm "selling" a ColorQ solution, that's because I believe in the technology. It should be basically simply a digital scanner, and these have proven themselves extremely powerful, capable, and are relied on daily in any number of industries. Properly built with quality components, a good scanner can read minute gradations in color, saturation and value very, very well.
Now, if LaMotte has implemented their particular solution not all that well, using a cheap scanner or optics, that's one thing. But as a professional who understands digital scanning very well, all other things being equal, I would of course look to that over an analog solution.
[quote:2mra4lt2] Cost is not an object in the least.
Sorry, but that sounds like bragging or are you just being silly? Braggarts never carry much credibility here.[/quote:2mra4lt2]
I mentioned this because I've seen others elsewhere say that one reason they prefer a test kit is because it's cheaper. I made the point that for me it's "silly" to worry about a hundred bucks when I've just spent $30,000 restoring a 40-year old pool. And I've never been one to make a product choice based on the fact that it might be a bit cheaper than the alternative. I tend to buy quality, whereas some others do in fact seem to look more at the price.
With respect to bragging, if I really wanted to brag, I would have responded to the "do you want a toy" comment with something like, "No, that's what my BMW 650i convertible is for." But I won't do that, since that would be gauche.
The opinions on the ColorQ are based upon hundreds and hundreds of anecdotal information others have shared on this forum.
Sorry if I don't immediately and automatically believe something just because somebody says so. Particularly when something is extremely highly rated elsewhere on other reputable, reliable forums. Or would you say all these owners on Amazon are mistaken? Or stupid? It's very rare to find a product with an almost-perfect 5-star rating like this, some 18 out of 21 reviewers really, really like it ... search on Amazon for:
"LaMotte 2056 ColorQ Pro 7 Digital Pool Water Test Kit"
Your pre-prejudice has apparently not allowed you to read or understand any of them.
"Pre-prejudice", yes. If you'll notice, I originally asked for advice on whether I should get the tablets or the liquid variant. So, yes, I had already decided to buy it. I didn't ask whether I should buy a digital product or should I buy test kits, but that's the question some others decided to answer for me.
But whether I can "read" or "understand" any of them, I can assure you I can, and I'm considering the input. Whether it changes my mind or not may be something else, but that's again, because of *my* particular needs and preferences. If pH is something I'd want to test daily, I'm pretty sure I'd much rather do it with the ColorQ, than the clunky drop-kit way, due to the comparison shown in the links I earlier quoted.
And again, if have some inkling maybe a reading is not right, nothing is preventing me from double-checking it with a Taylor backup kit. I don't understand why it's such an either-or thing for some.
I thought you asked a legitimate question but you apparently didn't want to hear legitimate answers.
The question is perfectly legitimate, it's just that the answers weren't answering the original question. And it seems to upset you that I don't abandon that question a whole lot more readily than I tend to do when I see other evidence (such as rave reviews from most reviewers who've actually bought it on Amazon and owned it.)
YOur hope for the ColorQ being the "magic bullet" of testing simply will not pan out. I suggest you read and learn more about the subject.
That may be true, and I may have to live with the fact that it has limitations and occasional inaccuracies. And maybe there are some individual units out there that are lemons. And reading and learning more is in fact what I tend to do, and will do, on the subject.
I do in fact appreciate the comments, but I'm not completely convinced that risking $150 to try a ColorQ will somehow bring my life to an immediate and tragic end. I spend that much on propane to bring my pool up to swimming temperature on a chilly Texas spring day.
It would be easy to assume you work for LaMotte from your posts. (A fine company, by the way) If you do, you should reveal that and if you don't, you should modify your rhetoric.
Paranoid much? Nope, I don't work for LaMotte, I'm just one of those guys who thinks these fanatics who go nuts over vinyl records because of their supposed "warmer" sound over CD's, ignoring all the pops, ticks and skips, are kind of quaint and amusing. And are to be coddled rather like a doddering grandpa, who also hasn't heard of these things called digital equalizers, which could have "warmed up" the sound to their heart's content.
[/quote:2mra4lt2]