which would be better to have

[larrynews]

ok which is better 55 fish only, a wet/dry or a fuge/sump

[Amstar]

what are you trying to do???  do you want corals??

I personally would go with the fuge/sump

[larrynews]

no corals i have the 90 reef for that, just working on getting better water quality

[Amstar]

Back in the day when I had a bigger tank I  had a fuge/sump (lots of macro-algae)  on it when it was just a fish only tank (had some live rock) and the water quality was great.  I had a bamboo cat shark, a lion fish, and a puffer.  the water quality was great and with a fish only tank if I am not mistaken you can use alot more carbon (all the time) due to not having to worry about leaching good things out of the water for the corals.  I had macro algae and carbon as well as filter floss running (changed it every other day) and the water was quality was nice

[UDJustin]

fish only i would do a wet dry

[Joel]

My opinion is;

If it's a fish tank, do a wet / dry with a good protein skimmer.

If it's a reef type tank, do a remote deep sand bed with macro and a good protein skimmer.

[larrynews]

great thanks, so i think i might take my wet dry from the reef and put it on the fish only and get a fuge for the reef......hummm sound pricey

[Viggen]

a wet/dry is definantly the easiest way to go.  My wey dry has been running for 14+yrs now & is hooked to a 260g.  I was skimmerless for a while then purchased a ER which worked for 1-2 yrs before the pumps crapped out on me.  Now I am back to skimmerless for about a year.... I just do more h20 changes

skimmer + wet/dry gets my vote but the skimmer isn't a necessity, just makes it easier