(I'll take these slightly out of order)
You are, of course, allowed to state your opinions, I only asked that you choose your words carefully because we want this forum to be a bit more respectful that some of the other, larger, forums out there. As I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I wouldn't consider the Mustang to be ugly with that many hard edges either; I'd call it sleek. Then there's the problems cherry picking one model of cars, there are other Ford models that look just like Toyota, Honda and other "foreign" cars. Are those Fords less American? I think not. Compare that to a Volvo, known to be boxy and foreign.
Perhaps "masculine" and "feminine" is closer but I couldn't call the SS series ugly nor even uglier than the sol 9 but that's MY opinion and just because it's *your* journal doesn't mean that others can't have (and post) different opinions...as long as they're respectful. As I said, *I* (personally) didn't appreciate that choice of words/comparison but I *never* said that you didn't have a right to your opinion.
If you think that a sol 9 will properly cover a 4x4 area (as they claim) or larger (as you implied may be possible) for flowering then you have, indeed, fallen for LED marketing/propaganda and I can only assume that the research you did was flawed and the "data" provided by LED proponents because not enough w/sqft is not going to get anybody top-shelf results. If mediocre results is good enough then you might be happy with less w/sqft.
If you had researched HydroGrow you should have seen information about the dispute and I only mentioned it because I posted the same thing in the Quantum journal and it's only fair to mention it in a hydrogrow journal too. I'm not looking to debate the dispute in your journal, and like I told the other member, if you really want to debate the dispute we can start a new thread specifically for that.
LED lights are most effective with smaller plants and higher w/sqft numbers than every manufacture (that I've seen so far) claims.
CLW suggests placing their lights 18-24" above the canopy. The 12" figure that you might be thinking about is probably from their PAR measurements which, imho, is what much of the LED myth/propaganda is based on instead of reality.
I'm not sure how high hydrogrow suggests putting their lights, their website and specs are lacking details but, again, no 450w (or less) LED light will properly cover a 4x4 area for flowering cannabis. Even the CLW SS800w (620w actual draw) is only 40w/sqft over a 4x4.
I wouldn't use the word "lie" for every website/manufacturer, some are more honest than others. However, I do think they overstate the coverage areas for marketing reasons. I am glad that you're taking the hydrogrow "claims" with a grain of salt.
I'm glad to hear that George handled things better but I believe that he wouldn't want his employees to be rude to customers. I'm sure that he takes his reputation for outstanding customer support seriously, as he should.
I am looking forward to your results but based on reality (and dozens of journals) I wouldn't want you to have unrealistic expectations that might sour your experience if you didn't know better. We want your honest opinions (on both lights) but I have to be honest with mine as well.
I think that you took the CLW measurement in "veg mode" which is, of course, lower than flower mode which should be about 310w based on the actual draw of the SS800w.
I'm not sure how the sol 9 could possibly be putting out more than they say it uses. "Power Consumption 450W" but, fine, let's call it a 460w light and do the math.
4x4 = 28.75w/sqft. (not enough)
3x3 = 51.1w/sqft (much better)
2x3 = 76.7w/sqft (exceptional)
Now, if you keep you plants small the higher w/sqft coverages should give excellend results if the sol 9 can penetrate as well as LED lights with 5w diodes. Since we don't have any completed "array" journals yet I'm not sure what the differences in penetration will be. Hopefully, we'll find out soon.
Hope that helps...