Blue LED's on EQ Look AWSOME (pictures)!!!!

[MOSFET]

Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.

I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
TIME!

I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!

MOSFET

[Matt Ion]

MOSFET wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>
> I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
> used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
> BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
> blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
> TIME!
>
> I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
> http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>
> THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!

Yer welcome :)

Whoa, that is bright! You don't find all that distracting when you're
driving?


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-0, 03/20/2006
Tested on: 3/21/2006 9:55:48 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[MOSFET]

> Whoa, that is bright! You don't find all that distracting when you're
> driving?
>
No, not at all. I think those pictures make it seem a bit brighter than it
is. It really isn't distracting.

Thanks Matt, I really do appreciate your detailed instructions!

MOSFET

[Matt Ion]

MOSFET wrote:
>>Whoa, that is bright! You don't find all that distracting when you're
>>driving?
>>
>
> No, not at all. I think those pictures make it seem a bit brighter than it
> is. It really isn't distracting.
>
> Thanks Matt, I really do appreciate your detailed instructions!

If you find it too bright, you could also try using a slightly higher
value of resistor, maybe 120 or 150 ohms.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-0, 03/20/2006
Tested on: 3/21/2006 10:39:46 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[winkenstein]

WHOA!, Dude, that looks sweet!
goos job.

i know i was of no technical help to you,
i just wanted to give praise

[MOSFET]

> If you find it too bright, you could also try using a slightly higher
> value of resistor, maybe 120 or 150 ohms.

Yes, as a matter of fact, since I wired it up in the day and did not know if
it might be too bright at night, I ran very long positive wires with the 100
ohm resistor out through my ash-tray, so they are easily accessible. That
way, if I wanted to add a 50 ohm resistor (which I did buy), I could do it
without taking everything apart again (all I have to do is remove my
ash-tray and pull the wires out). See, I'm learning after all these years!

BTW, I'm using big beefy 10 watt ceramic resistors.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

"winkenstein" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> WHOA!, Dude, that looks sweet!
> goos job.
>
> i know i was of no technical help to you,
> i just wanted to give praise

THANKS!

[Captain Howdy]

So the question is, do the led's still dim?


In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>
>I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
>used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
>BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
>blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
>TIME!
>
>I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
>http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>
>THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[Brian Oglow]

To have more control over the brightness you could replace the resistor
with a variable resistor. This way you could adjust the brightness as
needed.

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>> If you find it too bright, you could also try using a slightly higher
>> value of resistor, maybe 120 or 150 ohms.
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact, since I wired it up in the day and did not know
> if it might be too bright at night, I ran very long positive wires with
> the 100 ohm resistor out through my ash-tray, so they are easily
> accessible. That way, if I wanted to add a 50 ohm resistor (which I did
> buy), I could do it without taking everything apart again (all I have to
> do is remove my ash-tray and pull the wires out). See, I'm learning after
> all these years!
>
> BTW, I'm using big beefy 10 watt ceramic resistors.
>
> MOSFET
>

[Matt Ion]

Captain Howdy wrote:
> So the question is, do the led's still dim?

"It now it stays bright ALL THE TIME!"

>
>
> In article >, "MOSFET"
> > wrote:
>
>>Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>>
>>I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
>>used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
>>BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
>>blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
>>TIME!
>>
>>I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
>>http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>>
>>THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!
>>
>>MOSFET
>>
>>


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-0, 03/20/2006
Tested on: 3/22/2006 7:48:58 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Matt Ion]

Brian Oglow wrote:
> To have more control over the brightness you could replace the resistor
> with a variable resistor. This way you could adjust the brightness as
> needed.

I thought of that; problem is, most readily-available potentiometers are
much higher resistance (1kohm and up) so the LEDs would only operate
through a very small portion of its range, and most won't have the
necessary power handling. Suitable units DO exist, of course, but
they're not as common.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-0, 03/20/2006
Tested on: 3/22/2006 7:51:23 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[GregS]

In article <coeUf.174188$B94.102673@pd7tw3no>, Matt Ion > wrote:
>Brian Oglow wrote:
>> To have more control over the brightness you could replace the resistor
>> with a variable resistor. This way you could adjust the brightness as
>> needed.
>
>I thought of that; problem is, most readily-available potentiometers are
>much higher resistance (1kohm and up) so the LEDs would only operate
>through a very small portion of its range, and most won't have the
>necessary power handling. Suitable units DO exist, of course, but
>they're not as common.

The most logical solution other than ordering a pot, use
a LM317 to drive the resistor and Led's.
http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM117.pdf


>---
>avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
>Virus Database (VPS): 0612-0, 03/20/2006
>Tested on: 3/22/2006 7:51:23 AM
>avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

[MOSFET]

"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
> So the question is, do the led's still dim?

NOT AT ALL!!! In fact, I tried really cranking my system and didn't notice
any change at all. Also, the RPM's of the motor make no difference either.
I LOVE IT!!! I would have NEVER been able to solve this without your
help!!!

MOSFET

[GregS]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article <coeUf.174188$B94.102673@pd7tw3no>, Matt Ion
> > wrote:
>>Brian Oglow wrote:
>>> To have more control over the brightness you could replace the resistor
>>> with a variable resistor. This way you could adjust the brightness as
>>> needed.
>>
>>I thought of that; problem is, most readily-available potentiometers are
>>much higher resistance (1kohm and up) so the LEDs would only operate
>>through a very small portion of its range, and most won't have the
>>necessary power handling. Suitable units DO exist, of course, but
>>they're not as common.
>
>The most logical solution other than ordering a pot, use
>a LM317 to drive the resistor and Led's.
>http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM117.pdf

Well there is another way. Add another 100 ohms with a
parallel switch. Hi/Low.

greg

[MOSFET]

> To have more control over the brightness you could replace the resistor
> with a variable resistor. This way you could adjust the brightness as
> needed.

Now that is a damn good idea!!! I actually have a potentiometer already
mounted in my center console that I am not using. It was my sub volume
control when I was using an Alpine 7863 (with two sets of pre-amp outputs),
but after I bought my 9853 (with three sets) I no longer needed it.

Will a potentiometer work? I think I will try this! Thanks!

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

> I thought of that; problem is, most readily-available potentiometers are
> much higher resistance (1kohm and up) so the LEDs would only operate
> through a very small portion of its range, and most won't have the
> necessary power handling.

Would it be DANGEROUS to try hooking up my potentiometer to it? I don't
happen to know what the specs are on it, I just know it controlled the RCA
levels to my sub-amp.

MOSFET

[Matt Ion]

MOSFET wrote:
>>I thought of that; problem is, most readily-available potentiometers are
>>much higher resistance (1kohm and up) so the LEDs would only operate
>>through a very small portion of its range, and most won't have the
>>necessary power handling.
>
>
> Would it be DANGEROUS to try hooking up my potentiometer to it? I don't
> happen to know what the specs are on it, I just know it controlled the RCA
> levels to my sub-amp.

A potentiometer is just a varaible resisitor, allowing you to adjust the
amount of resistance. Certainly nothing dangerous about it. The
problems, as I noted, are in the amount of resistance it provides, and
the power it will handle. One designed to control your line-level feeds
is probably a low-power, high-resistance type, and not suitable to the
task.

As an example, Radio Shack lists 11 "pots" on their website: all but one
are at least 5kohm and 1/2-watt or less, with that rating, if you turned
it any more than maybe 10 degrees, you'd have too much resistance and
your LEDs would shut down... if the pot didn't burn out first.

The one they list that's closer is a 25-ohm, 3-watt unit
(http://tinyurl.com/na3q6); to use it, you'd wire it in series with your
existing resistor, but that would only adjust your total resistance
between 100 to 125 ohms and probably wouldn't make a big difference to
the brightness.

GregS had a better suggestion: add another 100-ohm resistor and a switch
in parallel with it, and wire those in series with your existing
resistor, and you'll have a high/low brightness switch.

IF you need it...


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-0, 03/20/2006
Tested on: 3/22/2006 9:00:07 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[MOSFET]

"> GregS had a better suggestion: add another 100-ohm resistor and a switch
> in parallel with it, and wire those in series with your existing resistor,
> and you'll have a high/low brightness switch.
>
> IF you need it...
>

I very well may do this. Even though I don't find it too bright, I have a
feeling my wife might. A switch to dim them would be useful. Thanks
again!!! RAC ROCKS!!

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

> WARNING: DO NOT *REPLACE* your resistor with a pot!! If you turn the pot
> "down" too far, you'll lower the resistance too much and burn out your
> LEDs! If you do wire in a pot, LEAVE YOUR EXISTING RESISTOR IN PLACE, and
> wire the pot in series with it.

Thanks! Will do.

MOSFET

[Brandonb]

And apparently its "OFFICIAL"... at least according to your Alpine HU... :)

Brandonb


MOSFET wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>
> I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
> used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
> BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
> blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
> TIME!
>
> I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
> http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>
> THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!
>
> MOSFET
>
>

[Brandonb]

Just throwing this out there as I have no clue on the electronics
involved... Is there any feasible way to connect it to the car's dimmer
switch? HU's usually have Dimmer and Illumination leads for this?

Brandonb


Matt Ion wrote:
> MOSFET wrote:
>
>>> I thought of that; problem is, most readily-available potentiometers are
>>> much higher resistance (1kohm and up) so the LEDs would only operate
>>> through a very small portion of its range, and most won't have the
>>> necessary power handling.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it be DANGEROUS to try hooking up my potentiometer to it? I
>> don't happen to know what the specs are on it, I just know it
>> controlled the RCA levels to my sub-amp.
>
>
> A potentiometer is just a varaible resisitor, allowing you to adjust the
> amount of resistance. Certainly nothing dangerous about it. The
> problems, as I noted, are in the amount of resistance it provides, and
> the power it will handle. One designed to control your line-level feeds
> is probably a low-power, high-resistance type, and not suitable to the
> task.
>
> As an example, Radio Shack lists 11 "pots" on their website: all but one
> are at least 5kohm and 1/2-watt or less, with that rating, if you turned
> it any more than maybe 10 degrees, you'd have too much resistance and
> your LEDs would shut down... if the pot didn't burn out first.
>
> The one they list that's closer is a 25-ohm, 3-watt unit
> (http://tinyurl.com/na3q6); to use it, you'd wire it in series with your
> existing resistor, but that would only adjust your total resistance
> between 100 to 125 ohms and probably wouldn't make a big difference to
> the brightness.
>
> GregS had a better suggestion: add another 100-ohm resistor and a switch
> in parallel with it, and wire those in series with your existing
> resistor, and you'll have a high/low brightness switch.
>
> IF you need it...
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0612-0, 03/20/2006
> Tested on: 3/22/2006 9:00:07 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

[Chad Wahls]

LEDs should not be connected in paralell thru one resistor due to
differences in load sharing, remember a LED is current driven not voltage
driven. The resistor is for current limiting. see:
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/components/led.htm

Chad

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>
> I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
> used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
> BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
> blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
> TIME!
>
> I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
> http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>
> THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!
>
> MOSFET
>

[Chad Wahls]

Oops, I forgot to add.... it looks great!

Chad


"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>
> I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
> used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
> BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
> blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
> TIME!
>
> I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
> http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>
> THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!
>
> MOSFET
>

[MOSFET]

> LEDs should not be connected in paralell thru one resistor due to
> differences in load sharing,

Well, it's too late Chad, I've gone and done it and it seems to be working
(I just came back from a three hour drive, no fires). So there, neeeeahhh!

Thanks for the compliment!

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

"Brandonb" > wrote in message
...
> And apparently its "OFFICIAL"... at least according to your Alpine HU...
> :)

Yes, I was listening to the 2000-2001 Offical IASCA disc.

MOSFET

[Matt Ion]

Brandonb wrote:
> Just throwing this out there as I have no clue on the electronics
> involved... Is there any feasible way to connect it to the car's dimmer
> switch? HU's usually have Dimmer and Illumination leads for this?

Depends on the car and the HU. Most newer units I've seen will only dim
the display one step if the dashlights are on, or leave it full
brightness if dashlights are off.

Similarly, the "dash light" lead in some cars actually provide a varying
positive output... some provide a varying negative output (ie. power
feeds the lights directly and the connection to ground is then
controlled), and some simply provide an "on" or "off" signal and the
light brightness is controlled another way. If the car uses standard
incansecent bulbs for the dash lights, the controls also don't usually
vary the voltage, but instead vary the duty cycle (technically, turning
the lights on and off very fast); this works on the principle that it
takes a certain amount of time for an incandescent bulb to full light up
and go dark.

So in order to do this, he'd first have to figure out how HIS car
controls the dash lighs, and possibly build a relatively complex
interface for it...


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-1, 03/22/2006
Tested on: 3/22/2006 3:28:59 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Captain Howdy]

Good stuff, that's what I wanted to hear. I don't know about never being able
to do it without my help a few people had the right answer, I just thought
that the 5 volt regulator was an unnecessary fire hazzard. The pic looks great
matches your alpine really well.

In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>
>"Captain Howdy" > wrote in message
...
>> So the question is, do the led's still dim?
>
>NOT AT ALL!!! In fact, I tried really cranking my system and didn't notice
>any change at all. Also, the RPM's of the motor make no difference either.
>I LOVE IT!!! I would have NEVER been able to solve this without your
>help!!!
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[Captain Howdy]

I think that the potentiometer will work just fine, just add it to the
resistor that you already have and see how it works or option two, find a
resistor that will dim the led's to the level that you want and then you can
wire it all up to a two position toggle switch. This will work like a high and
low switch.


In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
>> To have more control over the brightness you could replace the resistor
>> with a variable resistor. This way you could adjust the brightness as
>> needed.
>
>Now that is a damn good idea!!! I actually have a potentiometer already
>mounted in my center console that I am not using. It was my sub volume
>control when I was using an Alpine 7863 (with two sets of pre-amp outputs),
>but after I bought my 9853 (with three sets) I no longer needed it.
>
>Will a potentiometer work? I think I will try this! Thanks!
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[MOSFET]

Since this Alpine unit has EXTENSIVE EQ features built in, it might occur to
some of you that a dash mounted EQ is unecessary. But to anyone who has
owned an Alpine with the Bass Engine Pro feature, the reasons are OBVIOUS!
In fact, I decided to get a dash mounted EQ only AFTER I got the 9853.
THERE ARE NO BASS AND TREBLE CONTROLS ON THIS UNIT!!!! And to operate any
of the EQ functions, you have to navigate through about 20 menus, a feat
only Evil Kenivel would attempt in traffic. Sure, the sub-volume control is
easy to get to, but I have always been the type to fiddle with my bass and
treble. Now I HAVE used an SPL meter and test tones to set the parametric
EQ to compensate for accoustic annomolies in the car's cabin (standing
waves, cancellation effects, etc.). But beyond that, I have ALWAYS wanted
a measure of control to adjust tonal characteristics for each song (if even
bass and treble controls). That's why I use this 7 band Clarion EQ.

MOSFET

[Tony F]

Hey Nick, that does look really nice!!

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Clarion DRZ9255 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and Xenon X1200.1
Amplifiers, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and Focal 130HCs For Rear
Fill, Image Dynamics IDMAX10 D4 v.3 Sub

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP Head Unit, Phoenix Gold Ti500.4 Amp, Focal 165HC
Speakers & Image Dynamics ID8 D4 v.3 Sub

2006 Mustang GT Coupe

[MOSFET]

> Hey Nick, that does look really nice!!
>
> Tony

Thanks Tony, I'm very pleased.

Nick

[Phonedude]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Since this Alpine unit has EXTENSIVE EQ features built in, it might occur
> to some of you that a dash mounted EQ is unecessary. But to anyone who
> has owned an Alpine with the Bass Engine Pro feature, the reasons are
> OBVIOUS! In fact, I decided to get a dash mounted EQ only AFTER I got the
> 9853. THERE ARE NO BASS AND TREBLE CONTROLS ON THIS UNIT!!!! And to
> operate any of the EQ functions, you have to navigate through about 20
> menus, a feat only Evil Kenivel would attempt in traffic. Sure, the
> sub-volume control is easy to get to, but I have always been the type to
> fiddle with my bass and treble. Now I HAVE used an SPL meter and test
> tones to set the parametric EQ to compensate for accoustic annomolies in
> the car's cabin (standing waves, cancellation effects, etc.). But beyond
> that, I have ALWAYS wanted a measure of control to adjust tonal
> characteristics for each song (if even bass and treble controls). That's
> why I use this 7 band Clarion EQ.
>

It's too bad that we can encode EQ settings in the header info of MP3 files.
The headunit would then read the info when it loads each file, make the EQ
adjustments specified, and, presto, every song is played at the perfect
settings. Obviously, it would take time and effort to note the sound
quality of each song, keep track of changes and then reburn the CD --
probably many times. Even so, I would be willing to do the work to make the
"perfect:" CD for my car and ears.

Just a thought.

PD

[Doug Kanter]

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Since this Alpine unit has EXTENSIVE EQ features built in, it might occur
> to some of you that a dash mounted EQ is unecessary. But to anyone who
> has owned an Alpine with the Bass Engine Pro feature, the reasons are
> OBVIOUS! In fact, I decided to get a dash mounted EQ only AFTER I got the
> 9853. THERE ARE NO BASS AND TREBLE CONTROLS ON THIS UNIT!!!! And to
> operate any of the EQ functions, you have to navigate through about 20
> menus, a feat only Evil Kenivel would attempt in traffic. Sure, the
> sub-volume control is easy to get to, but I have always been the type to
> fiddle with my bass and treble. Now I HAVE used an SPL meter and test
> tones to set the parametric EQ to compensate for accoustic annomolies in
> the car's cabin (standing waves, cancellation effects, etc.). But beyond
> that, I have ALWAYS wanted a measure of control to adjust tonal
> characteristics for each song (if even bass and treble controls). That's
> why I use this 7 band Clarion EQ.
>
> MOSFET
>

You should write to Alpine and tell them that. Car audio companies always
have been and always will be in stiff competition with the car makers, whose
cars mostly come with head units that qualify as halfway decent. I know
that's not saying much, but stock radios are far better than they were 20
years ago, and this has had a huge impact on the aftermarket business. At
least in my opinion, companies like Alpine should listen up about what
people want. It won't help your situation now, but maybe for your next
purchase....

[MOSFET]

> You should write to Alpine and tell them that. Car audio companies always
> have been and always will be in stiff competition with the car makers,
> whose cars mostly come with head units that qualify as halfway decent.

That's a really good idea, I think I will do that. I mean, I really do look
at this as sort of a design flaw. Although adjusting the EQ bands is
complicated and should never be attempted while driving, I think Alpine
tried to get around this by providing preset EQ curves ("Rock", "Jazz",
"Country", "Easy Listening", etc.). These preset curves ARE more easily
accessible, the problem is I don't like any of them. Also, sometimes I just
want to adjust something (the treble, for instance) just a bit and don't
want to have to try completely different EQ curves.

Frankly, I would have simply included a traditional bass and treble control
along with the other EQ features. I know the Alpine engineers must have
thought this was redundant, but apparently they failed to take into account
users like me.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

>> It's too bad that we can encode EQ settings in the header info of MP3
>> files. The headunit would then read the info when it loads each file,
>> make the EQ adjustments specified, and, presto, every song is played at
>> the perfect settings.

Yes, that would be SO great. And I would certainly take the time to make at
least some rudimentary adjustments. I mean, there are songs that I ALWAYS
have to turn the bass up or down. It would be so nice if before I burned a
disc I could make these adjustments to the MP3 file.

MOSFET

[bob wald]

yeah looks neat-o..i'm sure most 9-10yr. olds be very impressed..lol

[jlaine]

That definitely is bright as heck, I'm surprised it doesn't get to you
after a while...

Looks awesome though!


--
jlaine

[RG]

Just curious, but if I remember correctly from your previous posts, you have
an Alpine unit with the Bass Engine Pro. If so, doesn't that HU have a 5
band parametric EQ ? So why would you want to install a low end (and broken)
Clarion EQ in the first place and go through all the hassle of making the
LED's work like they are supposed to from the get go ? Everyone has a reason
for doing what they do, so I'm just curious, and not really critical, as
I've done similar things like this too.

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>
> I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
> used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
> BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
> blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
> TIME!
>
> I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
> http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>
> THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!
>
> MOSFET
>

[RG]

OK, forget it as I just read thru the rest of the thread and saw you
reasons. Nothing like the old analog controls, eh ?

-RG

"RG" > wrote in message
...
> Just curious, but if I remember correctly from your previous posts, you
> have an Alpine unit with the Bass Engine Pro. If so, doesn't that HU have
> a 5 band parametric EQ ? So why would you want to install a low end (and
> broken) Clarion EQ in the first place and go through all the hassle of
> making the LED's work like they are supposed to from the get go ? Everyone
> has a reason for doing what they do, so I'm just curious, and not really
> critical, as I've done similar things like this too.
>
> -RG
>
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thanks to everyone who helped on that project of mine.
>>
>> I finally found time to rewire those LED's in parallel (not series) and I
>> used a SINGLE 100 ohm resistor with the five 3.7 volt LED's and MAN IS IT
>> BRIGHT!!!! It LOOKS SOOOOOOO COOL right below my Alpine 9853 which has a
>> blue display and blue "Alpine crystals". It now it stays bright ALL THE
>> TIME!
>>
>> I just took a couple of pictures you can see at:
>> http://www428.pair.com/mosfet/mtx.html
>>
>> THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME!!!
>>
>> MOSFET
>>
>
>

[RG]

Well ... can't you already do this with itunes and an IPOD ? It's not really
that hard to do from a technical standpoint. But it does have drawbacks.
Plus, it is pretty easy to EQ recordings using several software programs for
the particular environment you will play them back in. Just takes time and
some skill. Some of the MP3's I've downloaded by budding "recording
engineers" have sounded pretty over EQ'd, if you know what I mean.

-RG

"Phonedude" > wrote in message
news:XrxUf.11952$wD1.6307@trnddc02...
>
> "MOSFET" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Since this Alpine unit has EXTENSIVE EQ features built in, it might occur
>> to some of you that a dash mounted EQ is unecessary. But to anyone who
>> has owned an Alpine with the Bass Engine Pro feature, the reasons are
>> OBVIOUS! In fact, I decided to get a dash mounted EQ only AFTER I got the
>> 9853. THERE ARE NO BASS AND TREBLE CONTROLS ON THIS UNIT!!!! And to
>> operate any of the EQ functions, you have to navigate through about 20
>> menus, a feat only Evil Kenivel would attempt in traffic. Sure, the
>> sub-volume control is easy to get to, but I have always been the type to
>> fiddle with my bass and treble. Now I HAVE used an SPL meter and test
>> tones to set the parametric EQ to compensate for accoustic annomolies in
>> the car's cabin (standing waves, cancellation effects, etc.). But
>> beyond that, I have ALWAYS wanted a measure of control to adjust tonal
>> characteristics for each song (if even bass and treble controls). That's
>> why I use this 7 band Clarion EQ.
>>
>
> It's too bad that we can encode EQ settings in the header info of MP3
> files. The headunit would then read the info when it loads each file, make
> the EQ adjustments specified, and, presto, every song is played at the
> perfect settings. Obviously, it would take time and effort to note the
> sound quality of each song, keep track of changes and then reburn the
> CD -- probably many times. Even so, I would be willing to do the work to
> make the "perfect:" CD for my car and ears.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> PD
>

[RG]

Blaupunkt has traditionally done this and it works great. Don't know if they
still do but it is VERY effective. I currently am using a Blaupunkt
Heidelberg in my wife's Jetta. It has a 5 band parametric EQ plus the usual
bass and treble controls, plus a 5 stage loudness control. I have used lots
of HU's, including Alpine, Excelon, JVC, Pioneer, yada yada. But I have to
admit thta the Blau is one of the best sounding I have ever heard. People
seem to diss them and I can't figure out why, other than they probably have
never even really had or heard one. Maybe its because there are no jumping
dolpins ....

........ oops, sorry for straying a bit from the immediate topic.

-RG

"MOSFET" > wrote in message
...
>
> Frankly, I would have simply included a traditional bass and treble
> control along with the other EQ features. I know the Alpine engineers
> must have thought this was redundant, but apparently they failed to take
> into account users like me.
>
> MOSFET
>

[MOSFET]

So why would you want to install a low end (and broken)
> Clarion EQ in the first place

Low end? I have always thought of Clarion as a very good car audio
manufacturer. Although you can never really completely trust the
specifications a company gives, the specs for this unit appear very
respectable:

20 Hz to 20kHz +/- 1 db
S/N: 100dB
THD: .02% at 1kHz
Input Sensitivity: 0-4V RMS
Input Impedence: 15 kohm
MAXIMUM OUTPUT: 6.0V RMS (7v max)

So this unit also acts as a line driver as well. Also, IMHO, the sound is
SUPURB. I notice absolutely no added distortion or background noise (I have
A/B'ed it with the EQ in and out and there is no increase in hiss) . AND it
adds SO MUCH to my system!! I am quite smitten with it, actually. I did
not know it was broken when I bought it on Ebay, but now that I have fixed
the LED's, it operates PERFECTLY (in fact, I think it operates better as I
KNOW the LED's I installed are brighter than the originals!).

MOSFET

[Captain Howdy]

I have always liked the Alpine 3331or 3321, had both back in the day the 3331
had more adjustable xover settings then the 3321.


In article >, "MOSFET"
> wrote:
> So why would you want to install a low end (and broken)
>> Clarion EQ in the first place
>
>Low end? I have always thought of Clarion as a very good car audio
>manufacturer. Although you can never really completely trust the
>specifications a company gives, the specs for this unit appear very
>respectable:
>
>20 Hz to 20kHz +/- 1 db
>S/N: 100dB
>THD: .02% at 1kHz
>Input Sensitivity: 0-4V RMS
>Input Impedence: 15 kohm
>MAXIMUM OUTPUT: 6.0V RMS (7v max)
>
>So this unit also acts as a line driver as well. Also, IMHO, the sound is
>SUPURB. I notice absolutely no added distortion or background noise (I have
>A/B'ed it with the EQ in and out and there is no increase in hiss) . AND it
>adds SO MUCH to my system!! I am quite smitten with it, actually. I did
>not know it was broken when I bought it on Ebay, but now that I have fixed
>the LED's, it operates PERFECTLY (in fact, I think it operates better as I
>KNOW the LED's I installed are brighter than the originals!).
>
>MOSFET
>
>

[bob wald]

i see you took my advice n got that clarion eq.
i have one too but havent used it yet..lol
bought yours off ebay? was $45 too much for you?

[MOSFET]

I wanted a JVC EQ, but couldn't find one

"bob wald" > wrote in message
...
>i see you took my advice n got that clarion eq.
> i have one too but havent used it yet..lol
> bought yours off ebay? was $45 too much for you?
>

[bob wald]

jvc i like.but they aint got no eq that increases your output v.....stop
lieing..lol

[bob wald]

mosfet..admit it i changed your life....everytime you use that eq.you
love, think of me.n how lucky you are you came across me.lol

[Soundy]

>> It's too bad that we can encode EQ settings in the header info of MP3
>> files. The headunit would then read the info when it loads each file,
>> make the EQ adjustments specified, and, presto, every song is played at
>> the perfect settings.


> Yes, that would be SO great. And I would certainly take the time to make at
> least some rudimentary adjustments. I mean, there are songs that I ALWAYS
> have to turn the bass up or down. It would be so nice if before I burned a
> disc I could make these adjustments to the MP3 file.

Nice idea, but highly impractical...

First, you'd need to find some way to encode the info into the file in
such a way that it wouldn't interfere with the audio data. ID3 tags
don't have a spec for that info.

Second, you'd have to devise a standard for the info, including how
many bands of EQ and how many steps per band... and then get the HU
manufacturers to agree to support that standard.

Third, they'd all have to support it the same way - +3 steps at 100Hz
would have to sound the same on every HU or it negates the whole
purpose.

Fourth, you'd need software to embed the data on the computer end...
that would require either a separate program to either replace your
regular media player or use separate from it, or it would require every
other software maker (Microsoft for Windows Media Player, Apple for
iTunes, WinAmp, Real, just to name four of the biggest ones, and there
are literally hundreds of others) to subscribe to your standard. Some
players might allow it with the use of plugins, but many won't.

Fifth, what sounds good on your computer speakers is probably NOT going
to sound anywhere near the same on your car system, which kind of
nullifies the whole point of the exercise.

Better way to implement this kind of idea is to have the HU itself
remember the settings you apply for a given song or disc. With
pre-packaged music CDs, this would be easy using every disc's embedded
serial number (same data your software players uses to look up CDDB
info). Once you adjust the EQ for that disc, you have the HU store
those settings so it can recall them anytime you insert that disc.

[MOSFET]

> Better way to implement this kind of idea is to have the HU itself
> remember the settings you apply for a given song or disc. With
> pre-packaged music CDs, this would be easy using every disc's embedded
> serial number (same data your software players uses to look up CDDB
> info). Once you adjust the EQ for that disc, you have the HU store
> those settings so it can recall them anytime you insert that disc.

NOW THAT, IS A GOOD IDEA!!! I like it.

MOSFET

[Phonedude]

"Soundy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> It's too bad that we can encode EQ settings in the header info of MP3
>>> files. The headunit would then read the info when it loads each file,
>>> make the EQ adjustments specified, and, presto, every song is played at
>>> the perfect settings.
>
>
>> Yes, that would be SO great. And I would certainly take the time to make
>> at
>> least some rudimentary adjustments. I mean, there are songs that I
>> ALWAYS
>> have to turn the bass up or down. It would be so nice if before I burned
>> a
>> disc I could make these adjustments to the MP3 file.
>
> Nice idea, but highly impractical...

Not impractical at all, just not implemented at this time.

> First, you'd need to find some way to encode the info into the file in
> such a way that it wouldn't interfere with the audio data. ID3 tags
> don't have a spec for that info.

That method already exists, although the tags would certainly have to be
expanded.

> Second, you'd have to devise a standard for the info, including how
> many bands of EQ and how many steps per band... and then get the HU
> manufacturers to agree to support that standard.

Yes. This is true, but not impossible. Let's set that right now -- is ten
enough? Do we need 15 or 20? Plus or minus 5dB for each band? Steps in
..01 dB? Say encoded like 0.00,0.00,0.05,0.25,0.5, 1.0, 1.15, . . . . and so
on. Of course there are those whose settings for the lowest five or so
bands will be 5.0, 5.0, 5.0, 5.0 :-p

> Third, they'd all have to support it the same way - +3 steps at 100Hz
> would have to sound the same on every HU or it negates the whole
> purpose.

Not true. As long as I can adjust my MP3 files to sound the way I want them
to on *my* HU then that's all that's required. The differences between HUs
are going to be present regardless of technology and I don't think this can
be overcome. (Nor should it, becuase if they all sounded the same
compeitition would be reduced to flashing lights and dancing dolphins -- not
a good thing.) In any case a file that needs the bass boosted probably does
so regardless of player.


> Fourth, you'd need software to embed the data on the computer end...
> that would require either a separate program to either replace your
> regular media player or use separate from it, or it would require every
> other software maker (Microsoft for Windows Media Player, Apple for
> iTunes, WinAmp, Real, just to name four of the biggest ones, and there
> are literally hundreds of others) to subscribe to your standard. Some
> players might allow it with the use of plugins, but many won't.

Easily added to all of the above. The fact that it doesn't exist now does
not mean it is impossible or even difficult to create.

> Fifth, what sounds good on your computer speakers is probably NOT going
> to sound anywhere near the same on your car system, which kind of
> nullifies the whole point of the exercise.

Again, not true. As I said in my original post, it would be a tedious
process to make notes in your car when a particular track is played and then
change the settings next time you burn a CD, but the end result would be
worth it. You could probably even learn to correlate the sound on your PC
to the sound in your car and know what adjustments to make on your PC to
make it sound like you want when in your car.

> Better way to implement this kind of idea is to have the HU itself
> remember the settings you apply for a given song or disc. With
> pre-packaged music CDs, this would be easy using every disc's embedded
> serial number (same data your software players uses to look up CDDB
> info). Once you adjust the EQ for that disc, you have the HU store
> those settings so it can recall them anytime you insert that disc.

That may be fine with pre-packaged CDs, but with ordinary MP3 files the
quality control is simply not there. While it's relatively easy to
normalize volume on the files, other factors such as can be addressed by a
good EQ are wildly different from file to file. If a HU could be set up to
remember the EQ settings on a track by track basis then that's a solution
that would work. I don't see an option for remembering the settings for an
entire disk because the individual files vary so much. Either way, it would
be nice to be able to auto-adjust the EQ on a song by song basis. If the
setting were encoded in the MP3 header then it would work across all
players, even though they wouldn't sound the same a file that needs the
mid-range boosted probably does so regardless of the player.

It's a real need, and regardless of the solution I think we can expect to
see a solution in the future. When there's a perceived market a product
will be produced to address it.

PD

[Phonedude]

"Matt Ion" > wrote in message
news:VUzVf.185364$B94.9282@pd7tw3no...
> Phonedude wrote:
>
>>>Second, you'd have to devise a standard for the info, including how
>>>many bands of EQ and how many steps per band... and then get the HU
>>>manufacturers to agree to support that standard.
>>
>>
>> Yes. This is true, but not impossible. Let's set that right now -- is
>> ten enough? Do we need 15 or 20? Plus or minus 5dB for each band?
>> Steps in .01 dB? Say encoded like 0.00,0.00,0.05,0.25,0.5, 1.0, 1.15, .
>> . . . and so on. Of course there are those whose settings for the lowest
>> five or so bands will be 5.0, 5.0, 5.0, 5.0 :-p
>
> That's fine. Now get all the manufacturers who want to implement this
> idea to agree to the same standard. Ever tried herding cats?
[snip]

Ever wonder where MP3 files came from in the first place? There was a need
for compression and the marketplace came up with a solution. That solution
was then enhanced with ID3 tags for basic information. Just so you know,
the latest version, ID3v2 already has a place to put equalizer information,
showing that the need has already been recognized. The eq info is in
addition to volume, balance, and reverb settings.

For more info have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID3

[Matt Ion]

Phonedude wrote:
> "Matt Ion" > wrote in message
> news:VUzVf.185364$B94.9282@pd7tw3no...
>
>>Phonedude wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Second, you'd have to devise a standard for the info, including how
>>>>many bands of EQ and how many steps per band... and then get the HU
>>>>manufacturers to agree to support that standard.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. This is true, but not impossible. Let's set that right now -- is
>>>ten enough? Do we need 15 or 20? Plus or minus 5dB for each band?
>>>Steps in .01 dB? Say encoded like 0.00,0.00,0.05,0.25,0.5, 1.0, 1.15, .
>>>. . . and so on. Of course there are those whose settings for the lowest
>>>five or so bands will be 5.0, 5.0, 5.0, 5.0 :-p
>>
>>That's fine. Now get all the manufacturers who want to implement this
>>idea to agree to the same standard. Ever tried herding cats?
>
> [snip]
>
> Ever wonder where MP3 files came from in the first place?

I know exactly where they came from. Had nothing to do with any
"marketplace", just a buncha geeks wanting a way to share music, mostly
over horribly slow dialup connections.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-4, 03/25/2006
Tested on: 3/26/2006 4:28:03 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Soundy]

>> Better way to implement this kind of idea is to have the HU itself
>> remember the settings you apply for a given song or disc. With
>> pre-packaged music CDs, this would be easy using every disc's embedded
>> serial number (same data your software players uses to look up CDDB
>> info). Once you adjust the EQ for that disc, you have the HU store
>> those settings so it can recall them anytime you insert that disc.
>
> That may be fine with pre-packaged CDs, but with ordinary MP3 files the
> quality control is simply not there.

What quality control? I'm not talking about pre-programming every head
unit made with pre-set EQ curves for every piece of music... I'm
talking about the head unit simply storing whatever settings you make
on it for each individual CD (or song, if you want to get really anal
about it).

> It's a real need,

For whom?

> and regardless of the solution I think we can expect to
> see a solution in the future. When there's a perceived market a product
> will be produced to address it.

Only if there's a market of a viable size.

> As I said in my original post, it would be a tedious
> process to make notes in your car when a particular track is played and then
> change the settings next time you burn a CD, but the end result would be
> worth it.

How many people are going to spend the time burning CDs of MP3s, taking
them to their cars, listening to them, going back to their computer,
adjusting the EQ on a per-song basis, reburning them, trying again...?
You maybe. MOSFET maybe. I expect the novelty will wear off pretty
quickly (at 150 songs per disc).

At this point, why not just re-EQ the files themselves and burn those
to your CD-R? No modifications necessary to the head units, no
additional software needed... you can tune it specifically to your car,
since it doesn't need to sound "right" in anyone else's. It's no more
work, and you can do it today with freely available software and any
existing car MP3 player. Hell, it'll even work for people using their
iPod or other portable player in their cars.

Right there, your market vanishes: nobody's going to pay extra for a
head unit and change up all their software at some point in the future
to do something they can already do today.

[MOSFET]

I'm
> talking about the head unit simply storing whatever settings you make
> on it for each individual CD (or song, if you want to get really anal
> about it).
>
Yes, this makes the most sense. You're right, it is impractical to try and
make those corrections on your computer when it will be played in the car.
I would CERTAINLY be interested in a HU that would remember EQ settings for
every song. With the cost of flash memory cards becoming ever cheaper, I
would think it would be fairly easy to equip even a low-cost HU with enough
memory to remember the EQ settings of thousands of songs.

MOSFET

[MOSFET]

[Phonedude]

"Matt Ion" > wrote in message
news:qkGVf.187438$B94.9569@pd7tw3no...
> Phonedude wrote:
>> "Matt Ion" > wrote in message
>> news:VUzVf.185364$B94.9282@pd7tw3no...
>>
>>>Phonedude wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Second, you'd have to devise a standard for the info, including how
>>>>>many bands of EQ and how many steps per band... and then get the HU
>>>>>manufacturers to agree to support that standard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes. This is true, but not impossible. Let's set that right now -- is
>>>>ten enough? Do we need 15 or 20? Plus or minus 5dB for each band?
>>>>Steps in .01 dB? Say encoded like 0.00,0.00,0.05,0.25,0.5, 1.0, 1.15, .
>>>>. . . and so on. Of course there are those whose settings for the
>>>>lowest five or so bands will be 5.0, 5.0, 5.0, 5.0 :-p
>>>
>>>That's fine. Now get all the manufacturers who want to implement this
>>>idea to agree to the same standard. Ever tried herding cats?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Ever wonder where MP3 files came from in the first place?
>
> I know exactly where they came from. Had nothing to do with any
> "marketplace", just a buncha geeks wanting a way to share music, mostly
> over horribly slow dialup connections.

LOL. Clearly you don't understand what the "marketplace" is -- the
invisible hand writes, and having written, moves on. Your version of the
creation of the mp3 methodology is a little romanticized, but that's no
matter. I see you made no attempt to address the fact that what I am
talking about is already in the works. The fact that it can be done means
that, almost certainly, it will be. Right now the focus is on bluetooth and
external ipods or other mp3 players, but after that is fully addressed the
next step will be fully implemented tags with all sorts of sound quality
information included in the MP3 file. Some manufacturers will also probably
include some memory functions in their HUs, but the tags will also be there
so we will have a choice. Someday, perhaps, we will combine the two
technologies into one with your HU having a CD (or DVD) with RW capability
and will adjust the tags each time you adjust the volume, balance, or EQ and
hit "Save."

Frankly I don't think it would be that difficult to correlate the sound
produced by your pc to that of your car. In other words, It wouldn't take
much effort to train your ear and be able to say, if it sounds like *this*
on my pc it will sound the way I want in my car.

PD



>

[MOSFET]

> Frankly I don't think it would be that difficult to correlate the sound
> produced by your pc to that of your car. In other words, It wouldn't take
> much effort to train your ear and be able to say, if it sounds like *this*
> on my pc it will sound the way I want in my car.

For very basic adjustments, yes, I agree. As I mentioned in this thread
before, there are some songs that I ALWAYS have to turn the subwoofer volume
way up (this is certainly the most frequent adjustment, besides volume, I
make on my HU). I know what these songs are and it would be nice to be able
to make some adjustment before I burned a disc. But as far as adjusting
something like a 1/3 octive EQ or a parametric EQ, it would take being in
the car listening to fine tune to this degree. But I would certainly love
to have the option NOW!

MOSFET