# Not Happy With LED's



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

I am really trying to like LED's. In summer they are cool, they can help save our planet by using less energy, thereby cutting emissions from the power plants....but that is all I like about them. IMO these lights make an aquarium look bad. The cold glow of LED's is creepy to me! I've seen tanks with the most expensive LED's available, but for me, they look bad. I like the look of a warm CFL. When CFL's first came on the market, I think I had a similar experience, where they looked colder than the warm incandescent. The warm glow of an incandescent bulb relaxes my brain. :}
I read somewhere that people in warm parts of the Earth prefer the colder LED's, and the people in cold areas prefer CFL/incandescent. 
I am also highly suspicious of LED's in regard to algae. It seems to grow more in my LED tanks, than my CFL tanks. 
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Happy 2016 Everyone on PT!


----------



## Fujiija (Feb 24, 2012)

I live in Chicago and I love LEDs! I won't buy another fluorescent bulb ever. Even the lights bulbs in my home are all moving to LED as the CFLs burn out.

Are you looking at the right LED color mix? I own 8 LED lights spread out over 5 tanks and they are just beautiful. Depending on the color temp of the LEDs, each fixture can look drastically different. I believe BML will even do a custom color mix for you if you're not happy with their standard offerings - I have two standard Dutch XBs and think they are just beautiful - my plants grow well, the colors are vivid, and my fish color look great. Algae can be a problem with any light - you just need to adjust the intensity depending on the light. I have a LFS where I can borrow a PAR meter and that helps take out some guessing when setting up a new light or you can look up the PAR graphs for your lights if they are standard off the shelf.


----------



## bsherwood (Nov 22, 2007)

I think you are not liking the color of your LED lighting. There are many options to be had that allow you to find your happy place. 

I am so happy to NOT be shelling out dollars for; compact f, or T5's or T8's or halides...straight pin, square pin....make sure you get a fan for heat displacement etc.....

never going back to that EVER!!!


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

Color temperature is not the only factor for the look of leds. The CRI, color rendering index, is important. The higher the number, the more realistic and appealing colors look to us. This is independent of the warmer or cooler Kelvin number. Good leds will have a CRI of 90+. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll find CRI ratings on the commercially available aquarium fixtures.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

You will also be paying through your nose for an LED system at 90 CRI, most use cheaper 80 or maybe 85's.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

You aren't alone in your assessment of LEDs. I've tried to like them as well, but always fall back to fluorescent lighting. Fluorescent lighting just fits most popular aquarium shapes, has proven performance, are inexpensive, and easy to adapt to your needs. (want to change to a reef, just swap in the appropriate bulbs) 

I think LEDs will get there when prices fall, optics get better, etc. It just isn't there for me yet. I find the light of most fixtures look sickly, both in color and spread.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Nordic said:


> You will also be paying through your nose for an LED system at 90 CRI, most use cheaper 80 or maybe 85's.



So what do you imagine fluorescent CRI is??




> T5-HO and T8 fixtures have an elevated CRI of 85, which is better than all of the HID designs currently found on the market except for the newest ceramic pulse-start metal halide lamps.


Bump:


prototyp3 said:


> I find the light of most fixtures look sickly, both in color and spread.


Though look IS personal, not sure if you just saw bad LED setups or what but that is certainly not what I've seen..

LEd's can be designed to be in ANY white or color tone one could imagine..
T5 spectrum vs various types of white LED's










Does reinforce my belief that you need to add cyan to LED's..


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Does reinforce my belief that you need to add cyan to LED's..


Yea, I can agree with everything said. It is preference. But I think we aren't quite there yet with LED's, as the other poster said. CFL's are my preference, and they are a couple of bucks each for the desk style, and can be as much as 25.00 ea. for the mogul base, higher wattage styles. Much cheaper than LED at this point.
I've tried different color ranges of LED, and found the red/blue to be the most relaxing on the eye. But then plant color is brown to the human eye. White LED's are so stark, and cold looking. Mixing them does help. I'm still happier with CFL's. My eyes don't get so tired looking at the tank!


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> Yea, I can agree with everything said. It is preference. But I think we aren't quite there yet with LED's, as the other poster said. CFL's are my preference, and they are a couple of bucks each for the desk style, and can be as much as 25.00 ea. for the mogul base, higher wattage styles. Much cheaper than LED at this point.
> I've tried different color ranges of LED, and found the red/blue to be the most relaxing on the eye. But then plant color is brown to the human eye. White LED's are so stark, and cold looking. Mixing them does help. I'm still happier with CFL's. My eyes don't get so tired looking at the tank!


I don't get tiredof this shade.. BTW I can change it quite readily.. 
As little post processing as possible..


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

I've seen all the regular offerings like Ecotech, AI, and Current. I have not seen BML lights which seem to be popular here, kind of ironic being that they're local here in Austin. I totally agree that visuals are subjective, but all the charts/graphs on the internet won't change what the eyeballs see in my home. 

Even if the visible spectrum was perfect, other problems still exist for me. The shadows cast by multiple point light sources look very odd. The seizure shimmer isn't very pleasant or relaxing to view. When you start to diffuse and blend numerous clusters to combat these things, you're talking about a lot of LEDs and often the energy usage shoots up to fluorescent levels or more. Not to mention the initial cost skyrockets.


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

my BML fixture is roughly 5500k and I think looks great. 

My other BML fixture is 6500k and I don't really like it, too white for my taste.

Neither fixture are ran at full blast, both dimmed to maybe 75% power.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 11, 2003)

I think I still have three 20W Cree LEDs somewhere from my last driver design project.
Those things are mean, They cast a sharper shadow than the sun, and feel like the are burning your retinas is you look at them without a diffuser, I think I was only driving them at about 12W, as that was the sweet spot for LED lifespan. 

I remember the high CRI units were a lot more expensive than the 85s, I Don't think I have a tank deep enough to use them in though.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Nordic said:


> I think I still have three 20W Cree LEDs somewhere from my last driver design project.
> Those things are mean, They cast a sharper shadow than the sun, and feel like the are burning your retinas is you look at them without a diffuser, I think I was only driving them at about 12W, as that was the sweet spot for LED lifespan.
> 
> I remember the high CRI units were a lot more expensive than the 85s, I Don't think I have a tank deep enough to use them in though.


50W 95CRI 5600K $49....
BC Series High CRI COB LED - 400LS - 50W ? High CRI LED Webstore

Got to keep up..
Check out Bridgelux Vero Decors as well


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

prototyp3 said:


> I've seen all the regular offerings like Ecotech, AI, and Current. I have not seen BML lights which seem to be popular here, kind of ironic being that they're local here in Austin. I totally agree that visuals are subjective, but all the charts/graphs on the internet won't change what the eyeballs see in my home.
> 
> Even if the visible spectrum was perfect, other problems still exist for me. The shadows cast by multiple point light sources look very odd. The seizure shimmer isn't very pleasant or relaxing to view. When you start to diffuse and blend numerous clusters to combat these things, you're talking about a lot of LEDs and often the energy usage shoots up to fluorescent levels or more. Not to mention the initial cost skyrockets.


Yes. I totally agree.

Bump:


scapegoat said:


> my BML fixture is roughly 5500k and I think looks great.
> 
> My other BML fixture is 6500k and I don't really like it, too white for my taste.
> 
> Neither fixture are ran at full blast, both dimmed to maybe 75% power.


Dimming them down is a good idea. I don't have a dimmer, but I've read about using wax paper over them to spread the intense focus, and soften the light. I think I will try that and see if it is more pleasing.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Fujiija said:


> I live in Chicago and I love LEDs! I won't buy another fluorescent bulb ever. Even the lights bulbs in my home are all moving to LED as the CFLs burn out.
> 
> Are you looking at the right LED color mix? I own 8 LED lights spread out over 5 tanks and they are just beautiful. Depending on the color temp of the LEDs, each fixture can look drastically different. I believe BML will even do a custom color mix for you if you're not happy with their standard offerings - I have two standard Dutch XBs and think they are just beautiful - my plants grow well, the colors are vivid, and my fish color look great. Algae can be a problem with any light - you just need to adjust the intensity depending on the light. I have a LFS where I can borrow a PAR meter and that helps take out some guessing when setting up a new light or you can look up the PAR graphs for your lights if they are standard off the shelf.


Yea, I have the mid/lower priced led strips from Marineland, and added blue and red spectrum 12 watt LED's. My only experience with the higher priced setups have been at friends or store setups. You can really see the difference between CFL and LED. I prefer the look of the CFL. (And the price.)


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

prototyp3 said:


> The shadows cast by multiple point light sources look very odd. The seizure shimmer isn't very pleasant or relaxing to view. When you start to diffuse and blend numerous clusters to combat these things, you're talking about a lot of LEDs and often the energy usage shoots up to fluorescent levels or more. Not to mention the initial cost skyrockets.


I just looked at a few of the higher priced LED fixtures, and found that they were actually using about 90 watts. The radion xr15w pro led uses 85 watts per lighting unit. So if you have a 55g or more, you will probably get two of them. No more value in any way, unless you love love love the look. I honestly do not like the look.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> I just looked at a few of the higher priced LED fixtures, and found that they were actually using about 90 watts. The radion xr15w pro led uses 85 watts per lighting unit. So if you have a 55g or more, you will probably get two of them. No more value in any way, unless you love love love the look. I honestly do not like the look.


The Watt efficiency is "generally" greater for LED and the geometry of the diodes also adds to the increase of PAR over tubes (regardless of reflector efficiency..)



> The preliminary conclusion is that the CoralCare unit developed by Philips delivers results which are
> highly comparable, or perhaps equal to conventional T5 technology, at 30% higher wall–plug efficiency.


A current study ..Obviously things are different from 1 manuf to the next..
and just as you can have one tube being less efficient than the next, so can you get that in LEd's..

BUT the main point is from this point forward the "money" is on LED and therefore the research..

LED Lumens/watt have already exceeded tubes by a comfortable margin..though not quite "common" in the real world..










BTW: You have legitimate concerns, but they mostly have to do w/ manuf/designers not maximizing the potential of LED for fw aquariums..

Which is why I prefer to build my own.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> BTW: You have legitimate concerns, but they mostly have to do w/ manuf/designers not maximizing the potential of LED for fw aquariums..
> 
> Which is why I prefer to build my own.


Yes, I agree, LED's aren't 'good enough' yet. If they could get that nice soft glow, instead of the high contrast stark shine on everything, I think I would consider buying them. Knowing that they are no longer saving us much in electricity as they become more broadly efficient, (85 watts per unit in one example), I am quite happy to stay with the tried and true CFL's, while still saving electricity.

I also agree with a recent article for grow lights: 
....'LEDs look ultra-bright because they are small and emit all the light in one direction. This is great if you want to grow a single blade of grass and not much help for most anything else. LEDs are extremely low power because they are small and emit very little total light. This means you need a lot of them to grow anything useful and then they use a lot of power. NASA has experimented with LEDs because they are small, light, and nearly indestructable. None of these features are particularly valuable to the average plant grower. Many LEDs emit a very narrow range of light wavelengths, which means they can be calibrated to emit only the light most useful for plants. That's exactly what a GRO-LUX lamp does and the fluorescent GRO-LUX does it about five times more efficiently....Houzz'.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> Y
> 
> I also agree with a recent article for grow lights:
> ....'LEDs look ultra-bright because they are small and emit all the light in one direction. This is great if you want to grow a single blade of grass and not much help for most anything else. LEDs are extremely low power because they are small and emit very little total light. This means you need a lot of them to grow anything useful and then they use a lot of power. NASA has experimented with LEDs because they are small, light, and nearly indestructable. None of these features are particularly valuable to the average plant grower. Many LEDs emit a very narrow range of light wavelengths, which means they can be calibrated to emit only the light most useful for plants. That's exactly what a GRO-LUX lamp does and the fluorescent GRO-LUX does it about five times more efficiently....Houzz'.


That is pretty old..
Flourescent








Old white LED








"New" Violet based LED..


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> That is pretty old..
> Flourescent
> 
> Old white LED
> ...


Good stuff. Thanks for the info. LED's are looking good in the high CRI. And since they really aren't saving much energy once they get to that level, it comes down to your pocketbook, and light preferences. I've been looking at tanks using the highest rated LED's, (399 dollars and up per unit) next to tanks with CFL's or T5's and the like. Plants are growing very well under all of these types of lights. So LED's have added to our choices.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> Good stuff. Thanks for the info. LED's are looking good in the high CRI.


Thanks to the more profitable industries, i.e photography (advertising) and product "display", high CRI is a priority, along w/ watt efficiency and longevity ( commercial lighting) we get some trickle down rewards.. 

Aquariums, of any kind, are not creators of "real profits" compared to general lighting..

Bridgelux Vero Decours are high CRI also but generally top out at 4000K....
Just some FYI's
http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2014/aug/illuminating-the-limitations-of-cri-testing
http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/...color-rendering-index-and-why-is-it-important
http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/...to-select-the-right-led-for-high-bay-lighting


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

an article from 10.5 years ago can't really be relied on as a source of information.

Ten myths of growing under lights

facts are facts... LEDs now are better than LEDs 10 years ago, as is expected. LEDs continue to get better and cheaper. Considering the multitude of configuration options available you can very nearly the color of your typical CFL, or T5ho, or whatever.

for my 125g high light/tech tank, the 72" $500 LED unit from BML has been cheaper than lighting it with other aquarium specific T5HO lighting after a few 6 month bulb changes.

My sad tank aside... the LED unit I have doesn't give me hard shadows, or those rippling shadows from surface ripples. 

On top of that, the BML unit only takes up about 2" of area up top, leaving me free to work around it if I decide not to move it.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

scapegoat said:


> an article from 10.5 years ago can't really be relied on as a source of information.
> 
> Ten myths of growing under lights


I didn't see anything in that article that was incorrect as of today's science. I agree with it. The facts they state in that blurb I quoted are just the facts. Unless you pay big bucks for LED's, you will get the highly focused, cheaper white and blue LED's. Since the article, I'm sure LED's have progressed. Not saying they haven't. Just that they don't look good to me, don't save money, and don't save energy at the level of high CRI required for broad spectrum plant growth. 

Although your tank is absolutely beautiful, IMHO, it would look even better with CFL's or T5's! And you can have choices today, that suit your preferences. 

How do you keep that sparkling/shimmering effect away from your tank? The LED's I've seen create so many moving shadows, unless the water surface is still.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> I didn't see anything in that article that was incorrect as of today's science. I agree with it. The facts they state in that blurb I quoted are just the facts. Unless you pay big bucks for LED's, you will get the highly focused, cheaper white and blue LED's. Since the article, I'm sure LED's have progressed. Not saying they haven't. Just that they don't look good to me, don't save money, and don't save energy at the level of high CRI required for broad spectrum plant growth.
> 
> Although your tank is absolutely beautiful, IMHO, it would look even better with CFL's or T5's! And you can have choices today, that suit your preferences.
> 
> How do you keep that sparkling/shimmering effect away from your tank? The LED's I've seen create so many moving shadows, unless the water surface is still.


Shimmering increases or decreases w/ the amount or density of point light sources..

A light like this will have much less shimmer









than this..


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

AWolf said:


> I didn't see anything in that article that was incorrect as of today's science. I agree with it. The facts they state in that blurb I quoted are just the facts. Unless you pay big bucks for LED's, you will get the highly focused, cheaper white and blue LED's. Since the article, I'm sure LED's have progressed. Not saying they haven't. Just that they don't look good to me, don't save money, and don't save energy at the level of high CRI required for broad spectrum plant growth.
> 
> Although your tank is absolutely beautiful, IMHO, it would look even better with CFL's or T5's! And you can have choices today, that suit your preferences.
> 
> How do you keep that sparkling/shimmering effect away from your tank? The LED's I've seen create so many moving shadows, unless the water surface is still.


the BML fixture uses a single strip of plastic to diffuse and angle the lighting. 

here's an image of someone else's I found online










The color in my photo is whiter than the color in person. I specifically chose a color layout that emulated a specific t5ho set up that I no longer remember the name of... it's roughly 5500k, so it's warmer/yellower, than in the picture.

and my tank looks like crap, but thank you  I'm getting over a lazy few months with it and reeling it back under control.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

scapegoat said:


> the BML fixture uses a single strip of plastic to diffuse and angle the lighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know, It's winter time where I am, and I'm relaxing my duties as well. I like the idea of that BML fixture. I'm going to look into it. The tank looks very very nice in that light in the photo.


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

AWolf said:


> I know, It's winter time where I am, and I'm relaxing my duties as well. I like the idea of that BML fixture. I'm going to look into it. The tank looks very very nice in that light in the photo.


BML lights aren't what I'd call inexpensive, but I don't think they're over priced. You don't get any cool features. They can be dimmed, and I think they're now offering a unit that can control the different RGB channels.

For me, the BML fixture was the clear winner. The cost of lighting a 125g high light tank wouldn't have been cheap in any option unless I went t5ho shop lights, but then I'd be messing with 8 bulbs every 6 months. 

The power, spread, and negligible maintenance of the BML fixture made it the right choice for me. It's not perfect. The only thing I'd prefer about a DIY CFL system would have been the ability to reduce the amount of light hitting the sand area, as that is littered with algae. I should maybe just cut a piece of plexi to fit that third of the tank to diffuse the lighting even more


----------



## Little Soprano (Mar 13, 2014)

I had the same dilemma with my LEDs on my reef actually. They do have great color but they were missing something. They are the Dsuny 4 channel LEDs, and while I get great growth, they were a little cold, so I put two VHOs in the hood (had them). I run a 454 and a 6500K, and it works really well. That tank is a 120 long (5')

Maybe you could do something similar?

On the flip side though, on my 120 (standard 4x2x2 for a high light tank, for 5 T5HO hydroponic grow lamps, I paid a grand total of $200. Granted I had two from a while back, so I ended up paying around 120. And for that money I was able to place them how I wanted in my hood, I have pretty nice individual reflectors, and because they can be linked anyway I want, I actually feel I had as much flexibility with them as the LEDs. I can't adjust the color spectrum on the fly, but I saved a lot of money and I'm getting plenty of light down the to the bottom of a 24" tank.


----------



## PrimeObsession (Jan 8, 2015)

When I was looking for my first LED fixture, I too was worried about the appearance of the light being produced. I did come across a few posts like this one with similar complaints- though most were a lot older. 

I did a lot of research and I ended up using the Bridgelux Vero series of LEDs that a lot of other people were using with success. These lights completely changed my perspective on LEDs. The light is very natural looking and the spread of light is amazing. One Vero 18 can easily cover a 24x18 in area. I don't know how even the par distribution would be though.

Anyway, my advise to anyone interested in LEDs to research current information for themselves, since some of the information posted in this thread might be a little outdated.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

PrimeObsession said:


> Anyway, my advise to anyone interested in LEDs to research current information for themselves, since some of the information posted in this thread might be a little outdated.


Good advice. I'll keep researching. Lifespan on the LED's bulb is outstanding, but the cheaper boards and such they are hooked up to have a sad failure rate, from what I have read. Now, we have LED's with E27 base, (standard screw bulb). These types are covered so the light is diffused. (I use them in the house, and the light is hideous to the human eye.) It would be nice to have the screw in ability, with the PAR/CRI we need for aquarium/terrestrial plants. Easy replacement this way. Although, I do love the nice thin and flat fixtures, a desk clip on is so handy and versatile. Maybe they will be on the market next week? :wink2:


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> Good advice. I'll keep researching. Lifespan on the LED's bulb is outstanding, but the cheaper boards and such they are hooked up to have a sad failure rate, from what I have read.


Sadly, no different than early CFL twists, that lasted months instead of years.. Base/up down whatever.. Horrible experience..


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Little Soprano said:


> Maybe you could do something similar?
> .


I am doing that now, with the cheap MarineLand hidden strips, and a 12watt RED/Blue spectrum only spot light. I do a lot of greenhouse growing, so I have the 12watt spots for seedlings and house plants as well. I've been mixing and matching these LED's to try and get a good balance. I've ended up adding my 125 CFL's to some tanks, and CFL desk clip on types to other tanks. The tanks look great this way. Where the LED's are shining, there is much more algae. Again, these aren't the expensive, nice LED's at 399 dollars or up. These are the cheapo 35 dollar set ups. Where these LED's focus, there is some major algae growth that I have to clean up every few days. So I know they grow plants. But.....:crying:I wish I could have only LED's and be happy, aesthetically and bank roll wise. Neither of those is happening right now for me.


----------



## alcimedes (Dec 7, 2014)

I've tried out LED fixtures from about half a dozen vendors. The BML lights are the only ones I've bought more than one of.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Sadly, no different than early CFL twists, that lasted months instead of years.. Base/up down whatever.. Horrible experience..


Yea, they can't get wet, can they. One drop of water touching the cheaper CFL's, and they fail and blow/blacken at that spot. There are CFL's made for humidity, like the Feliz CFL's. Those have lasted about three years on average, using them over aquariums at about 6 to 12 inches over surface, and in the greenhouse. By then they have faded output, and can still be used, but the plants don't fair as well. That's when I put them over my aquariums. That is why I want LED's that can be swapped for greenhouse use as well. Two birds with one stone kinda thing.

Bump:


alcimedes said:


> I've tried out LED fixtures from about half a dozen vendors. The BML lights are the only ones I've bought more than one of.


Yea, I'm looking at those. Look good.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

As an architect I end up discussing the quality of different LED light a LOT, and have attended lighting trade shows and met with countless LED fixture manufacturers. 

The source of the light is not going to be the cause of algae instead of growing plants, that is just down to intensity, and cool colour lights may be outputting more PAR than you had perceived as our eyes aren't so sensitive to perceiving cool white light. 

LED lighting is by far the best option available in any case, you just have to find the right colour and spread to work for you. If you don't like the spread and the sharp shadows then simply put a translucent diffuser (for example a frosted sheet or lens of glass or plastic under the light). LED's are cheaper to run, much more efficient, don't fade, don't require bulb replacements, and are more easily controllable. 

Many many people find light from florescent bulbs to be uncomfortable or to cause mild eye strain after several hours of exposure, even though very few people realise that this might be caused by florescents. This is something I've also been discussing with leading experts in the field of lighting ergonomics and which I've read I believe most every study on. 

I tried "white" LED lights on my tank and absolutely hated it as well, so I completely understand how the OP feels. It looked very cold and sterile, and the colours of everything were all washed out. The 'normal' cool white LED is 6500K, and is not something I'm a fan of. I experimented with some different sources and ended up using a mixture of warm white 3000K and natural white 4000K LED chips which gave me a very pleasant colour of light, and very good colour rendition. Lately I've preferred to build my own LED fixtures as in that way I can use much higher CRI chips than are in most any fixtures on the market, although next time I think I want to try a fixture by BML. (in my residential architecture projects I insist on exclusively 2700K light, despite that many people still seem to insist on using or recommending 3000K. 

Many aquarium fixture LED manufacturers seem to mix white with red and blue, and some of those look okay, and some don't. A mixture of warm and pure white already have a decent amount of red and blue in them, so I don't believe the supplemental colours are that necessary. And I've experimented with combinations of red, green, and blue chips used together to achieve a white light, but it's not a white light which has a very good CRI either. 

Hope those comments are helpful.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Mxx said:


> The source of the light is not going to be the cause of algae instead of growing plants, that is just down to intensity, and cool colour lights may be outputting more PAR than you had perceived as our eyes aren't so sensitive to perceiving cool white light.


You are correct, it is the amount of PAR from LED's that causes the algae, no doubt. Someone here on PT measured very high PAR from inexpensive LED fixtures. They grow plants, and algae very well in my experience. Just like any high PAR would. Adjusting LED lighting to suit my plant needs would require more experience than I have to date. 

But I maintain, that as you get LED's to look as good as CFL's or T5-T8's, (preference of course), they no longer save you cost in money or energy.

I also see poor manufacturing issues with many of the aquatic brands. (Unless you build). Failure rates are too high for me. Considering down time, shipping costs, etc., the more conventional lights are still beating out the LED.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Here's my two cents worth. I have a 72" 125 gallon tank and previously was running a Coralife fixture with 4 96 watt cfls. A quick check at a couple suppliers puts the current price for these bulbs in the $40-$50 range. I believe it was recommended to change the bulbs once a year(I would stretch that out some). So the annual bulb replacement was going to run $160-$200 without tax or shipping. The fixture was huge, covering almost the entire tank top. It also had 2 cooling fans that would run when the lights were on that were extremely annoying as the tank was set up in my living room.

The last time I was due to replace the bulbs I said screw it. I'm going to invest that money in a better light fixture. I did a little research and ended up getting a BML 10000K XB. It put out plenty of light but I was not happy with the coverage front to back at the top of the tank. I had kind of figured this would be the case but tried the one light first to see what it would do. I ended up getting a second BML, this time the 6300 XB. I really like the combination of the two spectrums together, as a lot of reviewers had mentioned. These lights are not inexpensive but I have not regretted it a bit. They are only a couple inches wide, have no loud cooling fan running, and I think my electric bill has gone down $10-$15 a month. I can't directly attribute this to the light switch but it seems like the bill went down at the same time I switched out the lights.

It may take several years to break even comparing bulb replacements, electricity use etc. but even if it takes longer or I end up not being money ahead I like these lights much better. I am running one at about 70% and the other at about 65% and they seem to run pretty cool. Running them at a reduced power level should increase life span as well.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Mxx said:


> LED lighting is by far the best option available in any case, you just have to find the right colour and spread to work for you. If you don't like the spread and the sharp shadows then simply put a translucent diffuser (for example a frosted sheet or lens of glass or plastic under the light). LED's are cheaper to run, much more efficient, don't fade, don't require bulb replacements, and are more easily controllable.


False comments highlighted in red.
LEDs lose intensity as they age, and they do not last forever.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jr125 said:


> Here's my two cents worth. I have a 72" 125 gallon tank and previously was running a Coralife fixture with 4 96 watt cfls.


Is the 96 watts an equivalent to incandescent, and they are actually only using about half or less that wattage to run? Or do the CFL's actually USE 96 watts to run? 

As far as cost, I just bought four 100watt equivalent CFLs, using 40 actual watts of energy, for 20 dollars at Lowes. 

So, still a money and energy savings for me.


----------



## rainbowfishes (Sep 2, 2011)

AWolf said:


> Yea, I have the mid/lower priced led strips from Marineland, and added blue and red spectrum 12 watt LED's. My only experience with the higher priced setups have been at friends or store setups. You can really see the difference between CFL and LED. I prefer the look of the CFL. (And the price.)


And the PRICE???? I would say you are penny wise and pound foolish when compared to LED's. I finally did the math and quickly bought some BML's which just arrived. On my 210 I had 7x 55 watt PC's and 2 x 96 for a total of 577 watts x 12 hr a day x 365 divided by 1,000 is 2,527 kwatt hr x .123/kwatt hr ave here in MO that's $311. Two BML 6' units @96 watts each or 192 watts. If I end up going full out and 12 hr/day that's 841 kwatts, $103/yr electrical cost or a savings of $207/year. And you know electricity costs only go up. Now let's talk about lamp replacement. 7 x 55 watt lamps at $17 each ($119) and 2 x 96 watt lamps at $28 ea ($56) for a total of $175 for lamps per year. I replace mine more or less every 12 months, they do dim out after that sort of time. So the total savings per year for me is $382. I will pay back the cost of those two 6 foot units in 2.5 years. You might like the look but you really don't have a leg to stand on when you start considering the "real" price.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

rainbowfishes said:


> And the PRICE???? I would say you are penny wise and pound foolish when compared to LED's. I finally did the math and quickly bought some BML's which just arrived. On my 210 I had 7x 55 watt PC's and 2 x 96 for a total of 577 watts x 12 hr a day x 365 divided by 1,000 is 2,527 kwatt hr x .123/kwatt hr ave here in MO that's $311. Two BML 6' units @96 watts each or 192 watts. If I end up going full out and 12 hr/day that's 841 kwatts, $103/yr electrical cost or a savings of $207/year. And you know electricity costs only go up. Now let's talk about lamp replacement. 7 x 55 watt lamps at $17 each ($119) and 2 x 96 watt lamps at $28 ea ($56) for a total of $175 for lamps per year. I replace mine more or less every 12 months, they do dim out after that sort of time. So the total savings per year for me is $382. I will pay back the cost of those two 6 foot units in 2.5 years. You might like the look but you really don't have a leg to stand on when you start considering the "real" price.


Yes, I am definitely paying a lot less for my setups, than you are with yours. You have a huge tank, and I expect that is why you may actually see the sense in using LED, both for cost and aesthetics. I think for the 55 gallon and smaller tanks, the CFL beats all. If I am ever the proud owner of such a large tank, I will definitely look at LED's to see if I can save. I am still concerned, however, that some of these stats are off. Some people, and I don't mean to condescend, aren't aware of the watt equivalence of CFL's. If it says it is a 100watt CFL, it is actually using about 40 watts of power. It states that on some packaging. If you buy in bulk, sometimes it doesn't state it anywhere. It is never printed directly on the bulb base. So check and make sure of your 'actual' wattage use. With CFL's, I am using less than half the amount of wattage I would for 100 watt equivalent incandescent.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> False comments highlighted in red.
> LEDs lose intensity as they age, and they do not last forever.


True but you must put it in perspective.. Now also consider using say a Buldmyled at 70% initially (30% reserve capacity).. 
Your replacement time exceeds 20 years at 8hr per day:


> 4. LED Still Give Off Light At End-Of-Life
> A fluorescent bulb at the end of its life is very simple to spot, because it is DEAD, nothing left. A T8 bulb is considered end-of-life at 60% of its light output, which equates to roughly 14,400 hours.
> LED replacement bulbs on the other hand, calculate the end of life at 70% which is approximately 50,000 hours.
> In order to keep up with LED, you will have to replace the T8 bulbs 3.5 times


CHART is too big so just click..
http://blog.ledwaves.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Lumen-Maintenance-Curves.all_-1024x990.jpg
http://blog.ledwaves.com/

Bump:


> I just bought four 100watt equivalent CFLs, using 40 actual watts of energy


You're still not taking into account watt efficiency or driver/ballast watt usage..
The only real measurement (well for our purposes) is the amount of photons/wall watt.. That will take into account all system losses and inefficiencies.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Bump:
> 
> your still not taking into account watt efficiency or driver/ballast watt usage..
> The only real measurement (well for our purposes) is the amount of photons/wall watt.. That will take into account all system losses and inefficiencies.


Considering the CFL's are self ballasted in my setups, my best assumption is the Underwriters Lab counts the wall wattage usage. Which is what really matters the most for energy savings on my bill. 

Again, I'm not saying LED's don't save energy at the wall, but that they don't save enough once they are at the higher necessary PAR levels and aesthetics. Saving 20 watts here or there with high quality LED's is not enough for me to switch over to them. But I am paying close attention to the BML fixtures. I like what I see and hear.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> True but you must put it in perspective.. Now also consider using say a Buldmyled at 70% initially (30% reserve capacity)..
> Your replacement time exceeds 20 years at 8hr per day:


In theory. We haven't seen hobbyists use LEDs over their tanks, subjected to real world conditions and variables, for 20 years.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

I would also imagine if PWM dimming is incorporated more $ saved.
I try to avoid any analog 0-10v dimming.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Maryland Guppy said:


> I would also imagine if PWM dimming is incorporated more $ saved.
> I try to avoid any analog 0-10v dimming.


Good point. The less expensive setups don't allow for dimming. But I hear about people only running their LED's at 70% all the time. So that would definitely make a difference in energy savings. I didn't think of that. Thanks!


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Analog dimming lowers the current, I believe altering the spectrum emitted.

PWM decreases duty cycle but at leading edge constant current is always supplied.
12 bit resolution is very smooth and dims down to zero.
8 bit resolution is rough and drops off when too low.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Analog dimming lowers the current, I believe altering the spectrum emitted.
> 
> PWM decreases duty cycle but at leading edge constant current is always supplied.


So, maybe I'm wrong, and not much of an energy saver? The LED's don't need much current, so there may not be much savings at all, huh.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

> I would also imagine if PWM dimming is incorporated more $ saved.
> I try to avoid any analog 0-10v dimming.


There is a common misconception that analog dimming "signal" implies an analog dimming at the LED. This is not necessarily true..The REAL output signal can be PWM regardless of the type of "control signal" i.e resistive, pw, or 0-10v analog..

Now this is driver dependent design though..
Simple resistor.. say a 10k pot can adjust the amperage reference value thus dimming (w/ color shifts) by cutting current to the LED's..

In other words things are not always as they seem..
This?:








or this:








Wired and wireless interfaces convey dimming settings to luminaires (MAGAZINE) - LEDs


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

AWolf said:


> So, maybe I'm wrong, and not much of an energy saver? The LED's don't need much current, so there may not be much savings at all, huh.


If constant current is applied at an 80% duty cycle other 20% lamp is off.
20% addition to lamp life and 20% KWH savings. PWM only.
PWM extends lamp life and saves on power consumption.

Maybe JeffK can comment on analog dimming.
My guess is same current is used, instead of supplying lamp power heat is probably just consumed by other electronic components.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Maybe JeffK can comment on analog dimming.


see above..


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> see above..


I am only working on the "or this:" side with LED projects.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

prototyp3 said:


> False comments highlighted in red.
> LEDs lose intensity as they age, and they do not last forever.


You're correct in that I did slightly carelessly oversimplify that rather excessively. To clarify, all lights lose intensity when they age and they do not last forever. 

LED's tend to have a rated life of 20,000 to 50,000 hours, with most around 30,000 hours measured at maximum output. This means that at 30,000 hours it should still have 70% of it's intensity. With a residential light which you might use for say 3 hours a day on average this equates to a life of 27 years, which is practically forever as most people will renovate more frequently than that. For aquarium use if your light is on 10 hours a day then that equates to over 8 years, but at which point you still have 70% of the original output. 

Accordingly, I currently base my tank fixture expectations on running the lights at 60% intensity which I presume should perhaps double their life, and every few years I can turn up that intensity by say an extra 5% in order to make up for any reduction in intensity. 

However, I also expect to replace any LED lights again in a few years anyway, as LED technology is rapidly advancing to the extent that in a few years the latest lights will again be twice as efficient, half the price, and have even better CRI. 

By every measure apart from upfront cost (which they're not far apart on now as well), IMHO LED's have significantly surpassed any other lighting options.

I'm not saying LED's are perfect however, and I have still experienced slightly more failures of DIY LED chips, strips, and bulbs than expected, and have sometimes had flickering issues with LED's used for room lighting, which is typically but not always due to some manner of incompatibility between switches, transformers and the bulbs and typically as a result of those coming from different manufacturers.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Mxx said:


> However, I also expect to replace any LED lights again in a few years anyway, as LED technology is rapidly advancing to the extent that in a few years the latest lights will again be twice as efficient, half the price, and have even better CRI.
> 
> By every measure apart from upfront cost (which they're not far apart on now as well), IMHO LED's have significantly surpassed any other lighting options.


These two points nicely illustrate why I'm not ready to buy into tangible cost savings of LEDs specifically for our hobbyist use.

While the LED fixture we bought 4 years ago may have years of life remaining, I doubt many will be content keeping it over their tanks when they lay eyes on the new fixtures available. Watching many people on this board, they change their LED fixtures out every year or two..

I think the upfront cost difference really depends on the tank. In my case, it would have took two Radions to get full coverage over my tank with a footprint of 40x24, at a cost of $1400. Going with T5, it was less than $500 for a ATI Sunpower, which equates to an upfront savings of over $900. 

Operating costs are interesting.. The two Radions total 300 watts, the Sunpower 144 watts. I can tell you I don't need to run all 6 bulbs full strength, even 4 is borderline too much. Bulbs can be had for $4-7 a piece, depending on quantity, it would take a looooong time to make bulb replacement costs a factor at all.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> I think the upfront cost difference really depends on the tank. In my case, it would have took two Radions to get full coverage over my tank with a footprint of 40x24, at a cost of $1400. Going with T5, it was less than $500 for a ATI Sunpower, which equates to an upfront savings of over $900.
> 
> Operating costs are interesting.. The two Radions total 300 watts, the Sunpower 144 watts. I can tell you I don't need to run all 6 bulbs full strength, even 4 is borderline too much. Bulbs can be had for $4-7 a piece, depending on quantity, it would take a looooong time to make bulb replacement costs a factor at all.



Never mind.. Forgot about the Sunpowers..
but to be a bit more fair,, your "programming" is pretty weak:
And you have fans.. I dislike fans.. 
It is fairly easy to design an efficient LED system as fanless..


> With 10 individual set points, it gives more realistic dawn-dusk and daylight simulations than non-dimmable fixtures.


W some skill I could take a few of these and exceed your ATI at the same price point, though one would need some DIY talent.. but not much:
A Typhon and a few large MOSFETS and done..256 steps or better..
http://www.aquatraders.com/LED-Aquarium-Lighting-EVO-Quad-Freshwater-Plant-p/56577p.htm

Out of curiosity they state this:


> Zero noise


http://www.tbaquatics.com/t5-aquari...-bulbs-x54w/?gclid=CPPHjbuRmMoCFQIPaQodBgADfA
Is that accurate?


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

prototyp3 said:


> These two points nicely illustrate why I'm not ready to buy into tangible cost savings of LEDs specifically for our hobbyist use.
> 
> While the LED fixture we bought 4 years ago may have years of life remaining, I doubt many will be content keeping it over their tanks when they lay eyes on the new fixtures available. Watching many people on this board, they change their LED fixtures out every year or two..
> 
> ...


 I'm not sure you are comparing apples to apples here. It can be hard to do when comparing different types of lighting.

For example you could get 2 36" fixtures at BML that should give your tank excellent coverage. They are rated 48 watts each and the pair would come in at under $500. I have heard very few people say they run these lights at 100%.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

There is only one metric that counts..
6 tube ATI:









My ATI Sunpower 6x80W PAR readings - Reef Central Online Community
7" off the water 24" deep tank..

Assume 2 45 degree lensed 48" BML's are equiv to the above..
PAR wise the 2 will be equal approx w/ much higher concentration w/ the LED (less waste but less consistency)
Cost would be w/ controller $750..
Current cost of a 6 tube 48" ATI $618..
PAR is fairly additive w/ the correct placement. EVEN assuming the ATI is still stronger it is marginal and to be honest.. mostly wasted because you would generally never want 300PAR at the substrate for a planted tank. It is even questionable for a reef tank, according to a lot of current studies..
You can do any watt crunching but it is the bottom line that counts..









Problem is sometimes not the LED's but how one uses them..


----------



## micheljq (Oct 24, 2012)

If i can add my little pinch of salt. I live in Canada, so prices/availability of T5HO and leds are different than in the USA.

To have the lighting i want, over my 36" X 18" X 24" high tank, i would need 4 T5HO, right now here i can ran all the pet shops in town (Quebec). The only one i find are Fluvals, I calculate 100$ yearly to replace them. I want some Giesemann's? I must order them and pay good shipping costs, because fluorescent tubes are long.

I did chose leds because of that. Also leds fixtures of quality, not the cheap ones where you must put so much leds (using quantity instead of quality), are less cumbersome. As for the look, for me it is the same, except the shimmer the leds can sometimes gives, which is secondary not specially important to me.

I can understand old timers who already own quality T5HO fixtures, they will run them for years, use their expense, it is normal. Or the ones running very high light setup with 6-8 fluorescent tubes, it is hard to compete that intensity right now with leds, although some higher quality costly ones may do (Kessil A360? Orphek PR72?).

We have to know there are different qualities also in leds, the cheap ones from China, the higher quality ones. Take the TMC Aquaray Grobeam 600, 4 of them would probably make for my setup (med-high light), and use only 48W (12W each), instead of 4 X 39W with 4 - T5HO. Apart from that if someone really prefer the look the T5HO gives, it is a matter of taste, hard to discuss that.

Led performance will continue to improve, i saw a documentary on TV. In lab they can now reach 200+ lumens per watt performance, so with time it will come down to us. Right now if we take TMC Aquaray i think they claim 83 lumens per watt performance, for example.

Forgive my English i am french canadian.

Michel.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> Never mind.. Forgot about the Sunpowers..
> but to be a bit more fair,, your "programming" is pretty weak:
> And you have fans.. I dislike fans..
> It is fairly easy to design an efficient LED system as fanless..


I'm not sure what's weak about being able to mix 2 channels of bulbs, it gives enough control for intensity and spectrum adjustments, along with sunrise/sunset and an afternoon burst if you want. 



> W some skill I could take a few of these and exceed your ATI at the same price point, though one would need some DIY talent.. but not much:
> A Typhon and a few large MOSFETS and done..256 steps or better..
> EVO Quad 48 LED Reef Bright (TR)


I personally wouldn't put anything electrical from AquaTraders in my home.. Not sure what doing the DIY gains us, especially if it's anywhere near the same cost as the ATI unit. Physically it wouldn't look as nice as a stainless steel fixture with integrated controller. Visually I doubt the light would be pleasing, the fixture seems to use a single type of LED and has no diffusing optics.



> Out of curiosity they state this:
> 
> ATI 48" Sun Power Dimmable T5 Fixture 6 Bulbs x54w - TB Aquatics
> Is that accurate?


Surprisingly it is. They use the proper fans for horizontal mounting, and they're variable speed to match the operating temperature of the fixture. With them running hard, I have to place my ear within 6 inches of the fans to hear them running.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jr125 said:


> I'm not sure you are comparing apples to apples here. It can be hard to do when comparing different types of lighting.
> 
> For example you could get 2 36" fixtures at BML that should give your tank excellent coverage. They are rated 48 watts each and the pair would come in at under $500. I have heard very few people say they run these lights at 100%.


Operating expenses are operating expenses, regardless of the light type.

This kind of shows what we discussed a couple posts back about the speed of advancement. BuildMyLED wasn't around when I was building my tank. I just looked at the website though, and two 30 inch dimmable fixtures would $568, their controller $109, their hanging kit $40, and a timer to actually turn off their controller, so we're over $700.


----------



## hbosman (Oct 5, 2006)

AWolf said:


> I didn't see anything in that article that was incorrect as of today's science. I agree with it. The facts they state in that blurb I quoted are just the facts. Unless you pay big bucks for LED's, you will get the highly focused, cheaper white and blue LED's. Since the article, I'm sure LED's have progressed. Not saying they haven't. Just that they don't look good to me, don't save money, and don't save energy at the level of high CRI required for broad spectrum plant growth.
> 
> Although your tank is absolutely beautiful, IMHO, it would look even better with CFL's or T5's! And you can have choices today, that suit your preferences.
> 
> How do you keep that sparkling/shimmering effect away from your tank? The LED's I've seen create so many moving shadows, unless the water surface is still.


I have a BML 10,000 K XB light. I like it a lot, although I was disappointed that it doesn't produce the shimmer of metal halids. My preference tends to be more to white/blueish light. The fact that I can use a dimmer vs. raising or lowering the fixture appeals to me as well. I dislike the yellowish light of the the CFLs in my recessed lighting fixtures. I have been gradually replacing them with LED retrofits from Home Depot. They are bright instantly and are whiter light. To each his own I guess. ;-)


----------



## rainbowfishes (Sep 2, 2011)

AWolf said:


> Yes, I am definitely paying a lot less for my setups, than you are with yours. You have a huge tank, and I expect that is why you may actually see the sense in using LED, both for cost and aesthetics. I think for the 55 gallon and smaller tanks, the CFL beats all. If I am ever the proud owner of such a large tank, I will definitely look at LED's to see if I can save. I am still concerned, however, that some of these stats are off. Some people, and I don't mean to condescend, aren't aware of the watt equivalence of CFL's. If it says it is a 100watt CFL, it is actually using about 40 watts of power. It states that on some packaging. If you buy in bulk, sometimes it doesn't state it anywhere. It is never printed directly on the bulb base. So check and make sure of your 'actual' wattage use. With CFL's, I am using less than half the amount of wattage I would for 100 watt equivalent incandescent.


I wasn't talking about the spiral CFL, the dipsh*t lights, I was referring to the real deal the T-5 size lamps bent in two. Incandescent lights what are those???  The old guys in the 60's used to talk about those lights along with heating their tanks with candles . Why even compare to those? Power Compacts, they have real 55 watts and real 96 watts using 6700 & 5500K lamps among others. Coupled with a good quality mirror like A&H Supply uses they are really good. I don't think that the spiral CFL's even match a decent T8 watt:watt and certainly not a good T5 with quality mirror. Below, photo of a single 55 real CFL watt hood set up with a Kill-A-Watt meter plugged in. Yeah they are a little inaccurate but show you that 55 means 55 not 15 or 20 . And for grins I plugged in one of my new BML 96 watt lights and it read 98 watts so comparing real numbers. When I get around to setting up the SunLunar dimmer I'll just measure if it lowers the wattage output by lowering the %. Most likely it will. I also have a lot of other smaller tanks, I think like some 85 more. At least 23 of those tanks would be considered "planted" by most standards, but the plants are for the fish not the other way around. On some of those I still have T-5's most with 6700 and 10,000K double bulbs. Right next to them I have FugeRay I's and FugeRay planted. I really light the 7,000K light, especially from the planted. They work pretty well for video work too. They work decent on short tanks, 40 breeder size and shorter and get enough light in to grow medium light plants. Certainly as good or better than the T8's that they replaced with again, lower electrical costs. I also replaced over fish only tanks the 4' 6500 or 5000 K T8 fluorescent bulbs with T8 replacement 20 watt 6,000K LED bulbs (LED global supply. They look every bit as good as the T8 fluorescent bulbs, produce a lot more light (1.5x) and a lot less heat. If the LED setups hold up like they are supposed to then I will be way ahead dollar-wise. I'll also be sucking less of the planet's resources and that's important too. Oh yeah and not tossing more waste into the trash every year by replacing CFL's and other fluorescent bulbs.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> I'm not sure what's weak about being able to mix 2 channels of bulbs, it gives enough control for intensity and spectrum adjustments, along with sunrise/sunset and an afternoon burst if you want.
> 
> I personally wouldn't put anything electrical from AquaTraders in my home..
> Surprisingly it is. They use the proper fans for horizontal mounting, and they're variable speed to match the operating temperature of the fixture. With them running hard, I have to place my ear within 6 inches of the fans to hear them running.


your biasing it based on the poor ballasts on their t5's at "one" point.

Beamswork LED's are Marineland LED's and a host of other re-branded lights. Aquatraders is not a manufacturer..

LED's are soo simplistic.. Constant voltage power supply and an aluminum core circuit board.. Not much to "burn"..
Replace the ps.. A simple $30 fix for a Meanwell that can even run multiple fixtures..

my point on the weak programming is the poor "stepping" of 10 steps.. Basically 10% increments.
Good LED ramping is 10 bit 4096(?) steps which is not so important above 50% but is buttery smooth below 50%..not "jumpy"..Of course that is for better timer/dimmers..

The DIY is referring to just hacking in a controller.. NOT a light built from scratch.. It is SOOOOOO easy and cheap to automate multiple LED constant voltage fixtures..


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> your biasing it based on the poor ballasts on thweir t5's at "one" point.
> 
> Beamswork LED's are Marineland LED's and a host of other re-branded lights. Aquatraders is not a manufacturer..


Fires are fires though, not easily forgotten or forgiven in my opinion.
I realize Aquatraders isn't a manufacturer, they just peddle the sketchy stuff from Odyssea. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own.



> my point on the weak programming is the poor "stepping" of 10 steps.. Basically 10% increments.
> Good LED ramping is 10 bit 4096(?) steps which is not so important above 50% but is buttery smooth below 50%..not "jumpy"..Of course that is for better timer/dimmers..


You don't dim in 10% intervals on the Sunpower, you can pick any value of intensity from 1% to 99% just fine.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

prototyp3 said:


> Operating expenses are operating expenses, regardless of the light type.
> 
> This kind of shows what we discussed a couple posts back about the speed of advancement. BuildMyLED wasn't around when I was building my tank. I just looked at the website though, and two 30 inch dimmable fixtures would $568, their controller $109, their hanging kit $40, and a timer to actually turn off their controller, so we're over $700.


My point is that we need to be careful when we make comparisons. We can all decide to sit on our hands if we are worried something new will come out next year that will be better. I don't care what the product is, it's likely to be improved down the line or replaced with better technology.

In my example I used 2 36"Original Series (high output) fixtures. You can choose between 8 different spectrums, they are all the same price. today the BML website lists them at $229 per light. There is some excellent info regarding par values etc. for each spectrum to help you select what will work for you, along with examples of the look of the various spectrums. There is also an XB series (very high output) that run $275 per light and an MC series that lets you control colors individually to customize the spectrum for $329 per fixture. I have 2 72" XB's on my 125. I run one at 69%, the other at 65%. It's about 22" from the substrate to the lights and I think I could have gotten by with the cheaper Original Series lights. I've had them for about a year now and I've adjusted the power level down a bit about once a month since I got them. Yes the controller is $109. You can run one of the pre-programmed profiles or program one yourself. Yeah, I bought a five dollar timer at Wal-Mart. That's still under $575 for two Original Series lights and a controller.


----------



## alcimedes (Dec 7, 2014)

Can you use any timer with the lights? Will the controller remember your program if it's getting shut off every night? I just picked up another BML light and their controller, and I'm not impressed that their own controller doesn't seem able to turn off their own light.

That's just stupid. (but if a $5 workaround fixes it, I can live with that, but damn. Just toss in a $5 timer with your controller when you ship it, and while you're at it include proper ceiling mounting screws with your ceiling mount kit.)


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

alcimedes said:


> Can you use any timer with the lights? Will the controller remember your program if it's getting shut off every night? I just picked up another BML light and their controller, and I'm not impressed that their own controller doesn't seem able to turn off their own light.
> 
> That's just stupid. (but if a $5 workaround fixes it, I can live with that, but damn. Just toss in a $5 timer with your controller when you ship it, and while you're at it include proper ceiling mounting screws with your ceiling mount kit.)


Yeah, any timer will work. I agree that it's mickey mouse. The controller doesn't shut off, you use the timer at the light power source. The controller keeps running. I'm just using the tank mounts on my lights. They're so small and light it's a cinch to move them around when doing maintenance etc.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

alcimedes said:


> Can you use any timer with the lights? Will the controller remember your program if it's getting shut off every night? I just picked up another BML light and their controller, and I'm not impressed that their own controller doesn't seem able to turn off their own light.


blame "industry standard" 0-10v dimming.. 
I've "wished" for them to change drivers since day one.. but no luck..

Bump:


prototyp3 said:


> You don't dim in 10% intervals on the Sunpower, you can pick any value of intensity from 1% to 99% just fine.


AHHH my mistake 10 periods.. w/ stepping..I stand corrected..

I still stand by for a few $'s more 2 Buildmyleds are equiv. and better tech.. 

board is only slightly more even..

Again the only important metric is PAR (photons)..

Soo I assume you'd never buy a Ford since Pintos bust into flames...


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

rainbowfishes said:


> I wasn't talking about the spiral CFL, the dipsh*t lights, I was referring to the real deal the T-5 size lamps bent in two.


I'm talking about these Feliz 125w, and the spiral CFL's. Both self ballasted. The Feliz 125w is equal to a 400w incandescent. The 40w CFL's are equal to 100w incandescent. And since incandescent is used as the standard known wall wattage/lumens/PAR, it merits mentioning as a possible source of mis-measurement in the earlier argument. 


While we are at it, I've used the same spiral CFL's you call dip'sI*t, for years growing plants, no problem. Yea, I pay 2-3 dollars each to replace them about once a year, if even that. They, along with most lights, don't like getting wet, and sometimes, around aquariums and houseplants they get wet, and are compromised. So about once a year they are changed out.

I do agree that the T5-T8 look beautiful for aquariums, but the spiral CFL's really do the job, and the look is more pleasing to some of us. Maybe most of the pleasantry is the fact that we still have money to put into groceries and gas. 

The bottom line is there are options. Figure the amount of money you are willing to spend, and go from there. I'm not going to put money into LED's anymore because I have another, better, option for now. In the future, when LED's don't cost so much initially, and have worked out the circuit board/switch failures that I read so much about, I'll join the club. In the meantime, my plants grow beautifully, and my tanks look lovely....to me. And that is all that really matters, eh?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

soon this discussion will be irreverent..


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

hbosman said:


> I have been gradually replacing them with LED retrofits from Home Depot. They are bright instantly and are whiter light. To each his own I guess. ;-)


I am very interested. Are these the E27 base screw in type LED lamps? I've been looking at those at Lowes in my town. If not, what type are you using to replace your lamps?

Bump:


jeffkrol said:


> soon this discussion will be irreverent..


Only when the cost of LED's come down! :wink2:


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> soon this discussion will be irreverent..


I truly mean this in the nicest way possible, but you're kind of crazy about LEDs.... No one is trying to dispute that they're efficient at outputting light per watt. But because they do so, doesn't mean they are the best choice for _aquariums. 
_That would be like pushing a Prius on everyone, saying there is no discussion to be had because it's the most efficient on fuel. Maybe people like sportier looks, need to tow or haul gear, etc. One size doesn't fit all, even if it's the most efficient in one aspect.


----------



## blueMegaman (Jan 6, 2016)

AWolf said:


> I am really trying to like LED's. In summer they are cool, they can help save our planet by using less energy, thereby cutting emissions from the power plants....but that is all I like about them. IMO these lights make an aquarium look bad. The cold glow of LED's is creepy to me! I've seen tanks with the most expensive LED's available, but for me, they look bad. I like the look of a warm CFL. When CFL's first came on the market, I think I had a similar experience, where they looked colder than the warm incandescent. The warm glow of an incandescent bulb relaxes my brain. :}
> I read somewhere that people in warm parts of the Earth prefer the colder LED's, and the people in cold areas prefer CFL/incandescent.
> I am also highly suspicious of LED's in regard to algae. It seems to grow more in my LED tanks, than my CFL tanks.
> Does anyone else feel the same way?
> Happy 2016 Everyone on PT!


You should not base your aquarium decisions on hippie propaganda.

I never was a fan of CFL lights. There light causes cell damage vs a traditional light. Also, if the bulb breaks, you have to wear a hazmat suit to clean up the mess according to their own guidelines. Plus if they are a situation in which they will be turned on and off often such as a closet light, bathroom light,etc... they will not last very long. I think in one example, they only lasted 30 hours for on and off use. 

Don't let any type of green tyrant push you into something you don't like. 

Anyway, the LED lights have a model which some salt water people use that is adjustable and allows you to adjust the color and temp of the light. I think you are talking about 2700 vs 5000 K. 

The 2700K is more of a warmer look vs 5000K is more of a cold look.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> I truly mean this in the nicest way possible, but you're kind of crazy about LEDs...


Me??? your only valid argument against LED's is cost. 
And I've showed you where that isn't even true. 

Then you throw in strawmen about everything from cf, fires to whatever, watts ect..

Oh and some shimmer..
Second point is as efficiency increases cost/watt decreases..

Everything points to your ONLY problem w/ them.. you "think" they cost too much..









I don't really care what anyone uses, and there are various reasons to pick one type over another.. but you need to be realistic..


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> Me??? your only valid argument against LED's is cost.
> And I've showed you where that isn't even true.
> 
> Then you throw in strawmen about everything from cf, fires to whatever, watts ect..
> ...


This thread is about disappointment with LEDs over our tanks. We don't need graphs showing us how efficient LEDs are in the lumens vs. watts department, as nobody is disappointed in or disputing their efficiency. We are disputing aesthetics, and that's mostly personal opinion. You could invent a new type of light that gives me perfect 75 PAR everywhere in the tank, for 1 watt, repels algae, and if it throws out a sickly green light I wouldn't be interested in using it over my aquariums. 

I was also comparing high end fixtures from well respected companies, and you brought up the stuff from Aquatraders.. Not quite the same. I was comparing store bought, warranty backed fixtures, not some DIY adventure.. I personally love tinkering, but many people don't. Especially if it involves electricity, or electricity over water in our homes.

If you're thrilled with LEDs over your tanks, great. But it's a little weird to come into a thread topic like this one to defend LEDs, against personal opinion, like they are your first born child.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> Everything points to your ONLY problem w/ them.. you "think" they cost too much..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, that chart makes it so clear... if I was looking into buying a desk lamp. And wanted to compare it against a T-12 shop light... Over a span of 5 years... WTF? Where do you pull these totally random images? :grin2:

I don't have a problem with spending money for a good piece of equipment. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, *I* value aesthetics most.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> This thread is about disappointment with LEDs over our tanks. We don't need graphs showing us how efficient LEDs are in the lumens vs. watts department, as nobody is disappointed in or disputing their efficiency. We are disputing aesthetics, and that's mostly personal opinion. You could invent a new type of light that gives me perfect 75 PAR everywhere in the tank, for 1 watt, repels algae, and if it throws out a sickly green light I wouldn't be interested in using it over my aquariums.
> 
> I was also comparing high end fixtures from well respected companies, and you brought up the stuff from Aquatraders.. Not quite the same. I was comparing store bought, warranty backed fixtures, not some DIY adventure.. I personally love tinkering, but many people don't. Especially if it involves electricity, or electricity over water in our homes.
> 
> If you're thrilled with LEDs over your tanks, great. But it's a little weird to come into a thread topic like this one to defend LEDs, against personal opinion, like they are your first born child.


w/ LED's you have an infinite choice of "color" and the ability to change it on the fly as you please.
Pick a color..
https://youtu.be/VruO2w1d3Ls










this is a commercial fixture w/ my custom spectrum. Your problem is you pick the wrong lights..
https://youtu.be/lkq9rr8NQtc


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

My how lighting has evolved!

I started with all metaframe and stainless steel.
Couldn't tell you how many times I had the shiitake shocked out of me.
We only had medium base bulbs in hoods.

Florescent came along and was not a strong seller.
All T12's, then HO, then VHO for the rich.

Then T8's hit and mixed in MH lamps, CFL.
LED, T5's, MV, T2 or whatever.

We all resist change.


----------



## rainbowfishes (Sep 2, 2011)

AWolf said:


> I'm talking about these Feliz 125w, and the spiral CFL's. Both self ballasted. The Feliz 125w is equal to a 400w incandescent. The 40w CFL's are equal to 100w incandescent. And since incandescent is used as the standard known wall wattage/lumens/PAR, it merits mentioning as a possible source of mis-measurement in the earlier argument.
> 
> 
> While we are at it, I've used the same spiral CFL's you call dip'sI*t, for years growing plants, no problem. Yea, I pay 2-3 dollars each to replace them about once a year, if even that. They, along with most lights, don't like getting wet, and sometimes, around aquariums and houseplants they get wet, and are compromised. So about once a year they are changed out.
> ...


You pay for a 125 watt bulb that's what 12 inches long and can cover maybe 20" of linear tank and probably 12" front to back. To do a 4 foot 12" wide tank you need what at least 2 and most likely 3 to do the job or 375 watts. That's a whole heck of a lot of T-5's. Spiral stuff wastes most of it's light reflecting off of itself. I guess they're good for growing watersprite and low light plants but when you actually do the comparisons, like I have and do the math on how much it cost to run them then just about anything beats the spiral compact bulb.


----------



## larolson (Jan 8, 2016)

bsherwood
Would like to pick your brain
I live in mayville trying to get a
125 planted tank to be successful
but not having luck at all.
LIghting, how much filter, stuff like that.
Could I get your e -mail
Thanks
Larry


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

rainbowfishes said:


> You pay for a 125 watt bulb that's what 12 inches long and can cover maybe 20" of linear tank and probably 12" front to back. To do a 4 foot 12" wide tank you need what at least 2 and most likely 3 to do the job or 375 watts. That's a whole heck of a lot of T-5's. Spiral stuff wastes most of it's light reflecting off of itself. I guess they're good for growing watersprite and low light plants but when you actually do the comparisons, like I have and do the math on how much it cost to run them then just about anything beats the spiral compact bulb.


Wow, I never thought this thread would get so controversial. But it is good to learn. I have learned things from this thread. Thanks for your input. :laugh2: But my CFL's grow many plants, and your over-generalizing the err of my ways is not going to change that. Facts are facts. There are many philosophies on lighting. There is science behind lighting. But if it works for you, don't let people tell you it doesn't, or can't, or won't, because there is only 'their' way, or the highway. It's a bit 'cult'ish'. LED's have issues, as do all lights.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

rainbowfishes said:


> You pay for a 125 watt bulb that's what 12 inches long and can cover maybe 20" of linear tank and probably 12" front to back. To do a 4 foot 12" wide tank you need what at least 2 and most likely 3 to do the job or 375 watts. That's a whole heck of a lot of T-5's. Spiral stuff wastes most of it's light reflecting off of itself. I guess they're good for growing watersprite and low light plants but when you actually do the comparisons, like I have and do the math on how much it cost to run them then just about anything beats the spiral compact bulb.


No, for small tanks CFL's, T8's, are much less expensive, and get the job done. If you are talking big, deep tanks, then you are right, there is a need to supply light efficiently to that size tank. LED's work for that scenario. But for smaller tanks, like the kind most of us have, there are much less expensive alternatives than LED at the moment. Now, when LED's come down in price, and cater to planted aquarium needs, then it will be good for all. It will give us more options. Some of us can't afford the expensive LED's at 100 dollars a pop. Some of us don't like the way they look. We would rather spend 2.50 dollars per CFL each year, and 10 dollars per clip on lamp. What's wrong with that? Nothing. And they work beautifully!

And....they don't take much more wattage from the wall.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

You need more graphics!


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> w/ LED's you have an infinite choice of "color" and the ability to change it on the fly as you please.
> Pick a color..
> https://youtu.be/VruO2w1d3Ls
> 
> ...


No doubt, it is a beautiful tank. But my 'picking' has to do with cost and aesthetics combined. LED fixtures costing 100 dollars give or take, don't look good to me. LED's costing 500 dollars look much better, but aren't affordable for some. I'll give it a few more years, and hope the costs come down so I can consider them.

Bump:


prototyp3 said:


> You need more graphics!


There it is! I was looking for this. Thanks!


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

Maryland Guppy said:


> My how lighting has evolved!
> 
> I started with all metaframe and stainless steel.
> Couldn't tell you how many times I had the shiitake shocked out of me.
> ...


The truth. I remember how much I didn't like CFL's. Now I do. So it all takes time. When CFL's first came out, they too were expensive. I am sure LED's will get better, and come down in price eventually. Until then, it's CFL's that make me happy.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> No doubt, it is a beautiful tank. But my 'picking' has to do with cost and aesthetics combined. LED fixtures costing 100 dollars give or take, don't look good to me. LED's costing 500 dollars look much better, but aren't affordable for some. I'll give it a few more years, and hope the costs come down so I can consider them.


We are on the same page here re: manufacturers and LEDs. 
It is, unfortunately, a hobby inflicted problem though. 
to be honest caused by fluorescent tubes..
Selling 6500k as "the color" for lighting and manuf. following suit..
For LED's this is one of the least enjoyable spectral choices you can make, in general, but it is NOT the worst for plants. Just visually..



AWolf said:


> Bump:
> There it is! I was looking for this. Thanks!


https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/1...BaseShopping&gclid=COXPhpScmcoCFdcSgQodLeoDUA
20w led .. $26.99...


It is close to 1/2 the price of your chart...Lumens are up to 2000


> Dimmable LED - 20 Watt - A21 - 125 Watt Equal
> 2,000 Lumens


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

prototyp3 said:


> Wow, that chart makes it so clear... if I was looking into buying a desk lamp. And wanted to compare it against a T-12 shop light... Over a span of 5 years... WTF? Where do you pull these totally random images? :grin2:
> 
> I don't have a problem with spending money for a good piece of equipment. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, *I* value aesthetics most.


There is a hard fought battle going on with these LED's in this thread. The simple facts behind lighting a tank and the costs involved are becoming convoluted with more extreme purpose. The very large and deep tanks, which I believe are more efficiently lit with LED's, (but can be done with T-5, T-8 and even mogul base CFL's), are being confused with the more typical, smaller tanks. I think some are thinking I'm all about outfitting a larger tank with CFL's. There is the problem. The average person, with the average sized aquarium, can do well with CFL's. They can also do well with the more expensive LED's. Always a choice. I like that. I'll stick to my CFL's until the LED's come way down in price, and become more standardized. Thanks for jumping in!


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/1...BaseShopping&gclid=COXPhpScmcoCFdcSgQodLeoDUA
> 20w led .. $26.99...
> 
> 
> It is close to 1/2 the price of your chart...Lumens are up to 2000


I've never seen a tank lit up with those e27 base LED's. Probably for good reason. I have them in my hallway, and they look....well...bad. But they do light up the hallway.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> We are on the same page here re: manufacturers and LEDs.
> It is, unfortunately, a hobby inflicted problem though.
> to be honest caused by fluorescent tubes..
> Selling 6500k as "the color" for lighting and manuf. following suit..
> For LED's this is one of the least enjoyable spectral choices you can make, in general, but it is NOT the worst for plants. Just visually..


Totally agree. Admittedly, I would buy the 500 dollar LED fixtures if I had the money to play with. They do look good. I would like to spend time with the fixture, and see for myself, over time, if the light is pleasing and not problematic in some way. 

Here is my assessment of the affordable (less than 100 dollar) LED:

The 6500K LED's is ugly
The inability to dim that intrinsically high PAR causes algae and plant issues
The angle of cheaper LED's is too focused
The high cost (over 20.00 dollars for the smallest, cheapest unit used and abused on amazon or in craigslist, when I can get all of these problems solved for 15.00 dollars with a CFL and Clip on)
Poorly manufactured (bad review, faulty)

Hoping 2016 will fix all those problems!


----------



## skanderson (Jul 25, 2010)

you could easily diy a sub 100 dollar led with good color and reasonable control. off the top of my head makers heat sink 25, cheap dimmable constant current driver 17, and a vero 18 decora 25. if you were less picky about color and more driven towards performance you would want a 90 cri vero18 in the color temp that you prefer. one thing I have noted with aquarium lighting is that people always pine away for high cri in their builds but most people prefer lighting that is distinctly not a balanced light. I gave in and finally bought 400 watt radiums for my reef like everyone said is best and am still waiting to get used to the windex look. I will be posting pics of what the diy trial units I'm making look like as I attempt to figure out how to light my planned big tank.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

18 watt, 5000K spiral CFLs over a 20H. Nine month old bulbs. PAR at the sub ranges between 85 and 100, according to a Hoppy meter. 

Total cost - $30.00. Just sayin...


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

I guess the point is you can get whatever kind of light and cost with LED's, there are many many different paths, and with the degree to which LED's have advanced then you aren't helping yourself by remaining sitting on the sidelines still. 

If you don't like shimmer and dark shadows get a pair of linear LED fixtures like BML's. 

If you like shimmer get cannon-pendant type fixtures or something like radions. 

If you want to spend a lot of extra money to have the latest gimmicks then get Radion's or Geisemanns, but don't buy brands like that on the basis of wishing to save money. Although if the cutting-edge techie stuff is what give you enjoyment in the hobby then knock yourself out. 

If upfront cost is your main issue and you can venture a slight risk then get some non-branded fixtures from chinese manufacturers on auction sites, but do your research first. (I'm going to get one of those when I set up my reef tank refugium inside my stand). 

If upfront cost is your main issue AND you want a quality brand then pick up a used fixture on an aquarium classified or auction website. That is exactly what I did when I bought a one year old Maxspect Razor fixture for my reef tank for $100 and which I've been 100% happy with. 

If you're not sure what colour of light you want then get a fixture which has adjustable channels or look at some fixtures in use until you figure out what Kelvin rating you yourself prefer. 

Do compare some different examples in use to figure out what has a CRI/spectrum that you like. 

In any case, as long as you don't get carried away and change your fixtures every two years and are content to stick with what you have for a while then you can and will save money by using LED's instead of other options. 

So to return to the original thread question, there are many other LED options with which you could find satisfaction if you explore your options. 

To redirect this thread slightly, what Kelvin rating do people tend to find to be the most attractive in freshwater planted tanks? From looking at the BML's fixtures, their 6300K Dutch Planted Tank series spectrum graphs, that fixture has a more uniform colour spectrum which mimics the spectrum of sunlight and therefore achieves more accurate and more natural colour rendition than any other fixture I've seen. But I might get that with the multi-channel colour control in case I wanted to play with increasing the blue or red to make those colours on fish really 'pop', as their 6500K Nature Style fixture still is designed to do. 

A 6300K or 6500K colour is cooler than I'd personally liked with my current planted tank however, but it sounds as if the BML fixtures do a good job of providing that colour of light in an attractive looking way by mixing many different colour LED chips to achieve good CRI, in comparison to using 6500K cool white LED's only (I assume), which neither they nor I had been happy with. Please advise members, based upon your personal experiences, thanks.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

AWolf said:


> There is a hard fought battle going on with these LED's in this thread. The simple facts behind lighting a tank and the costs involved are becoming convoluted with more extreme purpose. The very large and deep tanks, which I believe are more efficiently lit with LED's, (but can be done with T-5, T-8 and even mogul base CFL's), are being confused with the more typical, smaller tanks. I think some are thinking I'm all about outfitting a larger tank with CFL's. There is the problem. The average person, with the average sized aquarium, can do well with CFL's. They can also do well with the more expensive LED's. Always a choice. I like that. I'll stick to my CFL's until the LED's come way down in price, and become more standardized. Thanks for jumping in!


 You make an excellent point here. I think your original post was mostly a statement on how you haven't seen an led fixture with light you find visually appealing. All other things aside I would suggest the variety of color spectrum selections of led fixtures is vast. I have found that with mine even varying the intensity of a particular spectrum can make a huge difference in how well I like it. There are leds that even allow your to tweak the individual colors to your liking.

I guess if you are able to find something YOU like then it's time to consider all of the other factors involved.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Mxx said:


> To redirect this thread slightly, what Kelvin rating do people tend to find to be the most attractive in freshwater planted tanks? From looking at the BML's fixtures, their 6300K Dutch Planted Tank series spectrum graphs, that fixture has a more uniform colour spectrum which mimics the spectrum of sunlight and therefore achieves more accurate and more natural colour rendition than any other fixture I've seen. But I might get that with the multi-channel colour control in case I wanted to play with increasing the blue or red to make those colours on fish really 'pop', as their 6500K Nature Style fixture still is designed to do.
> 
> A 6300K or 6500K colour is cooler than I'd personally liked with my current planted tank however, but it sounds as if the BML fixtures do a good job of providing that colour of light in an attractive looking way by mixing many different colour LED chips to achieve good CRI, in comparison to using 6500K cool white LED's only (I assume), which neither they nor I had been happy with. Please advise members, based upon your personal experiences, thanks.


 I have a bml 10000K XB and a 6300K Dutch Planted XB on the same tank. I got the 10000K first because I thought the some of the other spectrums made some colors look "artificial". The light was more than enough to light the substrate well but I was not happy with the coverage front to back at the top of the tank. Even with the 90 degree lens the top couple of inches were too dim. This is on an 18" wide 125 gal tank. I had suspected this might be the case but decided to try one first so I could see how I liked the color as well. 

Several reviewers on the BML website commented on how well they liked the 10000K and the 6300K spectrums combined so I decided to go that route.

I like the result. When I run the 10000K alone and then add the 6300K I like it better. The 10000K tends to "wash out" the colors a bit and adding the 6300K adds a little "pop". Same is true the other way around. The 6300 alone does have a bit of an overdone look to me and adding the 10000K makes it a bit more natural looking. Plus I can kind of further adjust by playing with the power level on the lights individually. I currently run the 6300K higher than the 10000K which makes sense anyway as the 10000K has a higher par value in comparison. Still playing with it a bit.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> You don't dim in 10% intervals on the Sunpower,


Speaking about ATI.. I just got done "shopping" for an LED for a 200gal tank..
Now based on "features" alone equivalency I found your t'5's are not exactly cheap:
LED was a 4 panel 400 plus watt design w/ full ramping/dimming 4 channel control
Cost direct from China inc. shipping..$700
As the persons other preferred layout was 1 48" 4 tube plus 1 24" 4 tube I priced that at current ATI prices..

*$981.90 
t5's sure are expensive.. 

*Throwing in wattage T5 312 LED say 400


----------



## Liplant (Oct 7, 2015)

I just got a 6 bulb dimmable t5 24 inch for $300


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> Speaking about ATI.. I just got done "shopping" for an LED for a 200gal tank..
> Now based on "features" alone equivalency I found your t'5's are not exactly cheap:
> LED was a 4 panel 400 plus watt design w/ full ramping/dimming 4 channel control
> Cost direct from China inc. shipping..$700
> ...


Good job.


----------



## Liplant (Oct 7, 2015)

I was running leds from the start and never like the color of them hooked up the t5 and in 3 days the plants turned red and looks amazing jmo


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Liplant said:


> I was running leds from the start and never like the color of them hooked up the t5 and in 3 days the plants turned red and looks amazing jmo


Uh oh... Get ready to hear that you and your plants are wrong. If you didn't like the LEDs, you either didn't buy or build the right one.


----------



## Liplant (Oct 7, 2015)

I had reef breeder planted one 
And finnex planted plus one 
Led are just not for me


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

prototyp3 said:


> Uh oh... Get ready to hear that you and your plants are wrong. If you didn't like the LEDs, you either didn't buy or build the right one.


Seems a little condescending. What are the other options? That his plants just personally don't like leds?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Liplant said:


> I was running leds from the start and never like the color of them hooked up the t5 and in 3 days the plants turned red and looks amazing jmo


Here is a shocker for you.. Red plants are "stressed" plants (added for dramatic effect).
Before I go on I def. feel there is "some" validity in red vs LED BUT..(personally it is the small amount of UV in tubes..but I digress)

This should be required watching prior to any red discussion:
https://youtu.be/y4WNMBKKVjU


----------



## Liplant (Oct 7, 2015)

Kubla said:


> Seems a little condescending. What are the other options? That his plants just personally don't like leds?



Always one in the group 
Forums today are not about help it to flex your muscles sitting behind a computer lol 
It was just my opinion and my preference
Been running reef tanks for 20 years 
Was honored be a tank of the month on a major reef tank forum
So I do know alittle about lights


----------



## Liplant (Oct 7, 2015)

I like t5 
Always have liked them 
So that's what I go with 
Never said LEDs can't do that same job


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Kubla said:


> Seems a little condescending. What are the other options? That his plants just personally don't like leds?


I think my comment was misunderstood. I was warning him, tongue in cheek, that he was about to feel the wrath from the LED disciples.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

I've ran only LEDs personally, one current fixture and 4 different BML fixtures. BML's are pretty good, I've got good coloring on plants from them, but nothing spectacular like I see from T5 tanks to be honest.

That being said, I am now running a new LED, Aquatic Life Halo's. Second light on the tank for full coverage will be added tomorrow. I'm curious to see how the plants respond to these lights. From my reading, these lights use UV LEDs now to induce coloring in the plants.

Time will tell, but I'm excited to see how they work out.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> I think my comment was misunderstood. I was warning him, tongue in cheek, that he was about to feel the wrath from the LED disciples.


as opposed to the t5 worshippers??? Sorry couldn't resist..
Opinions are just fine. Confusing them w/ facts isn't..


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

jr125 said:


> Even with the 90 degree lens the top couple of inches were too dim. This is on an 18" wide 125 gal tank. I had suspected this might be the case but decided to try one first so I could see how I liked the color as well.
> 
> The 6300 alone does have a bit of an overdone look to me and adding the 10000K makes it a bit more natural looking. Plus I can kind of further adjust by playing with the power level on the lights individually. I currently run the 6300K higher than the 10000K which makes sense anyway as the 10000K has a higher par value in comparison. Still playing with it a bit.


Thanks for the comments. As you've done, I'd expect that two BML fixtures were necessary to achieve a good spread and coverage on any decently large tank. While using two fixtures, would you have still gone with a different angle than 90 degrees in retrospect? 

And can you describe at all what you mean by 'overdone'?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

bsantucci said:


> I've ran only LEDs personally, one current fixture and 4 different BML fixtures. BML's are pretty good, I've got good coloring on plants from them, but nothing spectacular like I see from T5 tanks to be honest.


just a word of advice.. Things aren't always as they seem. People doing show tanks purposely Nitrogen starve their plants.. And photoshop abounds..

LED's that grow RED plants - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report



> What appears to happen is that these plants produce anthocyanin that reflects the red spectrum. This is the plants' sunscreen to protect itself from intense light. Since the red spectra provides much more PUR than blue spectra, blocking the red provides more benefit. Also important is the length of exposure. Even under intense lighting, if this photoperiod is too short, it will not induce anthocyanin production. Thus, extending the photoperiod will help greatly.
> 
> 6500K LEDs are very low in red spectra. Fluorescent bulbs provide much more red and better color rendition. If using only 6500K LEDs, then it's necessary to supplement them with red LEDs.





> This is very true, I switched out one of my 6500k t5 for a 5000k zoomed and my red plants got a darker red on all of their new growth


Sometimes cause and effect is not quite so easy. Though for some it is just the bottom line..

Dare I say it..  some just use the wrong LED's or run them too short..


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> as opposed to the t5 worshippers??? Sorry couldn't resist..
> Opinions are just fine. Confusing them w/ facts isn't..


Difference is I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to use T5 lights. (or that they're better than anything else) All I've done is state my opinion, explaining what I like and dislike about different light types, and what ultimately led to my decision. Big difference.

I use LEDs too, on my sump. The fixture was smaller and more efficient than the alternatives. I look at every situation as being unique, there is no one-size-fits-all.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

to be honest, I certainly was not really even pointing to you.
I've never "purposely" discouraged Tubes. And I've even suggested them (well to be fair in more specific cases).
even twists in brooder reflectors (I've never even expressed my opinion of how ugly they are, till now)

Point is always to move the discussion forward and not be stuck in the past...and to address real current issues..
We haven't even got to the point of "mixed" lighting (LED/T5 hybrids all the rage w/ reefers) 

A few years from now I might be pushing Sulfur plasma lamps..
PLASMA INTERNATIONAL LIGHTING SYSTEMS

Point is to enjoy the hobby.. Something that, in my opinion is quite enhanced by LED's. Though admittedly I am a tinkerer by nature.. 
Again, the point is not to tell people they made a wrong choice but to show them what, after personal consideration, may be a better choice..(yea sounds a bit preachy to me too)


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

My favorite light is 2700 Kelvin. To me, this warm glow is absolutely beautiful. I have all of my tanks using 2700k CFL's. I am growing plants in the greenhouse, and in my tanks with it. I haven't found any plants that won't grow with this light. I have used LED's in the Red/Blue spectrum only to grow plants with no problems, but had to put the light further away from the plants. I have used LED's with just the white and blue lights (cheapo), and they grow plants too, but not very well, and forget about keeping any red in your plants with that spectrum, (algae also problematic). My dwarf lilies turned green and ghastly. As soon as I put them under 2700K CFL, red color came right back. Friends with T5-T8's had the same experience. But of course, we only bought the less expensive LED setups, under $100. This thread has taught me to only consider the LED if I can buy the very best, or can DIY a setup using high CRI (90) and dimming. Getting that 2700K glow and look will be very hard with LED's.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> Getting that 2700K glow and look will be very hard with LED's.


of course it would.. Look at the spectrum:

















close enough:


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> of course it would.. Look at the spectrum:


The way I found out that 2700K will grow plants in or out of water was from people who live far reaches from towns, like Alaska 'outback', where the only lights available are 2700K. Don't know why that particular lamp is available and no others, but it doesn't really matter. They grow what they need with them just fine. I thought it would be interesting to try in my greenhouse. So I did, and it worked beautifully! Again, loving the soft glow look in my greenhouse. Then I tried them on my aquariums, and growth took off. I can't say enough good about the 2700K spectrum. Now, with just the red/blue Spectrum LED's I have in my greenhouse, it is another story. They grow plants, but 'burn' plants if not placed far enough away. That Strong LED Par and focus can really be difficult to place over terrestrial plants. Same when I put them over aquatic plants. Burned plants unless I put them about 4ft away. Too much trouble, so I went back to my trusty, dusty 2700K CFL's. Just my experience, and the experience of many other greenhouse and aquatic plant growers around the world. So I guess the point is the plants don't care what the graphs say! :wink2:


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> The way I found out that 2700K will grow plants in or out of water was from people who live far reaches from towns, like Alaska 'outback', where the only lights available are 2700K. Don't know why that particular lamp is available and no others, but it doesn't really matter. They grow what they need with them just fine. I thought it would be interesting to try in my greenhouse. So I did, and it worked beautifully! Again, loving the soft glow look in my greenhouse. Then I tried them on my aquariums, and growth took off. I can't say enough good about the 2700K spectrum. Now, with just the red/blue Spectrum LED's I have in my greenhouse, it is another story. They grow plants, but 'burn' plants if not placed far enough away. That Strong LED Par and focus can really be difficult to place over terrestrial plants. Same when I put them over aquatic plants. Burned plants unless I put them about 4ft away. Too much trouble, so I went back to my trusty, dusty 2700K CFL's. Just my experience, and the experience of many other greenhouse and aquatic plant growers around the world. So I guess the point is the plants don't care what the graphs say! :wink2:


since I started I've "pushed" lower K LED's.. Problem is most find them too sickly yellow and are not enamored w/ the glow as others.
Low K LED's will grow plants just fine as well, though your right, the point source nature is a "feature' one must deal with.
this is 3500k w/ cheap emitters:









Actinic blue and 10000k white hybrid 10w chips:


















3500k 660nm red and 10000k/actinic blue combined.. 
Point is I'm pretty sure I could build a 2500k LED look alike but you won't find one off the shelf.. 

BTW: early prototype now replaced..Problem w/ LED's generally too cheap and easy to "play" with..

high blue pushed out a lot of bronzing in plants normally green (about 24" from light)








high blue stunted internodes though growth was there (very bunchy), just not really visible due to "dwarfing".
algea went crazy but to be honest I had pretty high light w/ low plant mass and a high bioload and no CO2. 

Upper image (below) added cyan.
lower no cyan LEDs









all those photos are minimally processed and any was done to closer match the "eye" digital cameras have their own "vision" and some things are more enhanced than one really sees..
660nm is one of the worst. most cameras do NOT come even close to "eye color".
Blue and green is often just the opposite.. over exaggerated compared to what the eye sees..

Keep that in mind.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> since I started I've "pushed" lower K LED's.. Problem is most find them too sickly yellow and are not enamored w/ the glow as others.
> Low K LED's will grow plants just fine as well, though your right, the point source nature is a "feature' one must deal with.
> this is 3500k w/ cheap emitters:
> 
> ...


This is really good to see. Very informative. Thanks!


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

AWolf said:


> This is really good to see. Very informative. Thanks!


you know what was really funny, removing what looked like dull plant trimmings from the tank (when running the higher blue ratios) and seeing their color in real daylight..All purpley white on the undersides..

LED's get both a deserved and undeserved bad rap on color..
"Industry" understands this and it has lead to a complete rework of the CRI scale, as one example.. and improved phosphor/design parameters.

as to plant physiology, that too now has tools for better research..


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

I suppose the thread title is what drew so many people in, some people seemed to think it was an opportunity to help someone with the issue they were expressing, while others seemed to think it was an opportunity to have a bitch-fest about everything about LED's they don't like, (or which they're jealous of). 

In response to other comments here, a 1000 lumen E27 bulb from Ikea for instance is $10.99, it's not 1500 lumen but is also not $45 as per the chart posted. 

I suppose you won't see too many 2700K fixtures intended for tanks, you can get screw-in LED bulbs or downlight spotlight style LED bulbs in that colour easily enough, as well as LED chips if you wanted to DIY. 

But it sounds like the OP is happy using 2700K CFL in any case, so just stick with that. The point is it wasn't the LED's that were the problem, just the colour of the LED's you had chosen to try then.


----------



## AWolf (Jun 13, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> you know what was really funny, removing what looked like dull plant trimmings from the tank (when running the higher blue ratios) and seeing their color in real daylight..All purpley white on the undersides..
> .


Yes! I've seen that happen to my terrestrial plants under Red/Blue LED. African violet leaves turned thicker and that purple/white underneath. My aquatic plants dwarfed and the leaves changed shape, more wide and flat. I then mixed the LED and CFL, and leaves began to change back. Really interesting stuff. If you think about our atmosphere, and how blue is a lot less available to our understory plants or underwater plants, it all makes sense. I will be interested to know if adding these blue and red spectrums in LED fixtures, thereby lessening the starkness of 6500k, will affect plants as I have seen, or if it all somehow even's out for the plants.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Mxx said:


> Thanks for the comments. As you've done, I'd expect that two BML fixtures were necessary to achieve a good spread and coverage on any decently large tank. While using two fixtures, would you have still gone with a different angle than 90 degrees in retrospect?
> 
> And can you describe at all what you mean by 'overdone'?


In hindsight if I would have known I was going to end up with 2 lights I probably would not have selected the 90 degree lens angle. Because I'm using the tank mounts the lights are only a couple inches from the top of the water so it does help to have the light cone spread out more quickly. Too narrow of an angle and I might have been in the same boat again with the very top of the tank being dim. Mounting higher a narrower angle would probably work fine. Also the way I have them set up is the 6300K at the very front of the tank angled to the back and the 10000K about a third of the way in from the back more or less pointing straight down. I kind of like the way you can tilt the lights in the mounts. I think the wider angle, at least on the front light, is probably good.

By 'overdone' I mean the color seemed a little strong. Like if you have the color turned up too high on your tv or playing with your photos on the computer. The 10000K seems to give the light a more natural look in my opinion. Running the 10000K alone the colors seem a bit washed out. That being said if I were going to run 1 light only I think I would choose the 6300K.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Mxx said:


> I suppose the thread title is what drew so many people in, some people seemed to think it was an opportunity to help someone with the issue they were expressing, while others seemed to think it was an opportunity to have a bitch-fest about everything about LED's they don't like, (or which they're jealous of).


That last part is a cute way of looking at things. 

If we're going to theorize a bit, I'm almost inclined to believe many LED users are unhappy with their choice, and that's why they're constantly changing fixtures. I know if I'm entirely satisfied with something, I'm going to enjoy using it and not replace/upgrade it every 6 months. That just doesn't make much sense.

You don't see people replacing/upgrading filters every 6 months when they are totally pleased with the performance and results of their current one. I'm not sure why lighting equipment would be any different. Unless it's because LEDs for aquarists is a rapidly evolving field, where current models make last years offerings look bad in comparison..


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> to be honest, I certainly was not really even pointing to you.
> I've never "purposely" discouraged Tubes. And I've even suggested them (well to be fair in more specific cases).
> even twists in brooder reflectors (I've never even expressed my opinion of how ugly they are, till now)
> 
> ...


I like the LED/T5 hybrid option, and I would definitely have gone that route (DIY) if I was working within a canopy over my tank. 

I can also appreciate the early adopters. They're the ones that spark and drive the rapid evolution of technology.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

prototyp3 said:


> That last part is a cute way of looking at things.
> 
> If we're going to theorize a bit, I'm almost inclined to believe many LED users are unhappy with their choice, and that's why they're constantly changing fixtures


Lighting is "in your face" 90% of the enjoyment..And actually I've changed heaters twice.. well 3 times now that I think about it. Nothing wrong w/ #1 or 2...just #3 was different. I'd actually replace that again (Won't mention the brand) because it has a wee flaw..

I've changed because I can and yes, tweak. I just ugraded 14 diodes from a mix of ww/cw to high quality luxeon 6500k's.. Part to add some photons (more efficient) part to change the one white channel.
At the time I ordered a controller I only had 4 channels.. and had to compromise (ideally a R,G,B,WW,CW array is pretty near perfect and not needing a rebuild ever.) on the white channel. 3 iterations all 3500k , all 6500k and 1/2 3500k/6500k.. At like 50 cents a diode and only 14 on that channel.. well tinkering is almost irresistible. I could literally tweak it in 1000k increments if I so choose (not that due to the wide latitude of LED lot variations it would in actuality be that precise)W/ separate channels I can tweak the color temp in 10's of k units....So why not?

I'm sure tube people go through the same thing.. roseates,6500k 10000k, 2500k, ect, ect till they are content..
At the time I knew of BML, Reefbreeders and DSunY would do custom which, as one thinking he is smarter than manuf. boxes would have been my commercial choices. Economics and the challenge drove me to DIY.
So, not to blow my own horn any I was already aware of the problems and would like to egotistically believe I had a part in changing the "attitudes".. though I'm sure I'm not the only one who was aware of them.. Fluval soon came out w/ their multi-spectrum LED w/ a CCT of 5000K, Marineland and Sat came out w/ color change THEN stronger w/ a better program.
Finnex asked here and I gladly gave, "my opinion" prior to the final release of the 24/7.

Blue moonlight is getting less and less in vogue ect..

So I guess, regardless of my "fickle" attitude I've "done my part" for the planted aquarium industry..though I'm sure less than I believe.. 

AND someone came out w/ a Kessil like fixture that is for fw what a Kessil should be.. Exciting times..


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

prototyp3 said:


> I think my comment was misunderstood. I was warning him, tongue in cheek, that he was about to feel the wrath from the LED disciples.


Got it. That's one of the problems with forums and texting, hard to get the tone sometimes.


----------

