Hi, I've been looking at some new lights for work (some movers, led pars and led strips) and I've had a few people tell me not to but Chauvet. Upon questioning why its so bad they could not answer that. To be specific i'm looking at Intimidator 355z, Intimidator 250, Color Rail IRC and Slim Par 64 RGBA. If anyone can shed some light on this subject it would be awesome
Is Chauvet really crap?
- Thread starterSam Cash
- Start date
I toured with Intimidator 350s for a while and loved them. The band has been using them all year and had no issues with them.
Compare them in this shot with some Mac 700s:
I was so happy with my experience that I am purchasing some R1 Spots. I will be sure to post a review of them when they arrive.
Compare them in this shot with some Mac 700s:
I was so happy with my experience that I am purchasing some R1 Spots. I will be sure to post a review of them when they arrive.
soundlight
Well-Known Member
Chauvet is hit or miss. The Intimidator Spot series is absolutely a solid purchase. I demo'd a 355Z the other day and if you're looking for a basic band/club/event lighting fixture you can't go wrong. Easy to swap gobos, good zoom range for custom gobo projection (if you'll be doing that). The zoom range is also good for making it look more like a beam fixture in small venues when you go down to 12 degrees.
As far as the wash lights go, especially for the PARs I'd look at quad color LEDs. Slim Par Quad 7 or Quad 12. Much better fixtures than the skittles look of the 5mm/10mm LEDs.
The COLORrails are pretty good. They're a bit narrower than I expected, but they're good if you're looking for a short throw backdrop lighting fixture or if you're looking for a cheap pixel chase fixture. If you can spend the money though, definitely check out the COLORband PiX. That's a great light. I've used those as pixel fixtures, backdrop lighting fixtures, and wash lighting fixtures before. Great little strip lights, and built like a tank.
All in all, I've found Chauvet DJ fixtures to be fairly good depending on the unit and Chauvet Pro fixtures to be great (they're in a different class, produced in different factories, differences similar to ADJ vs. Elation).
As far as the wash lights go, especially for the PARs I'd look at quad color LEDs. Slim Par Quad 7 or Quad 12. Much better fixtures than the skittles look of the 5mm/10mm LEDs.
The COLORrails are pretty good. They're a bit narrower than I expected, but they're good if you're looking for a short throw backdrop lighting fixture or if you're looking for a cheap pixel chase fixture. If you can spend the money though, definitely check out the COLORband PiX. That's a great light. I've used those as pixel fixtures, backdrop lighting fixtures, and wash lighting fixtures before. Great little strip lights, and built like a tank.
All in all, I've found Chauvet DJ fixtures to be fairly good depending on the unit and Chauvet Pro fixtures to be great (they're in a different class, produced in different factories, differences similar to ADJ vs. Elation).
JD
Well-Known Member
It really depends on what you're comparing them to. I have several and am happy with them. They are higher end Chinese. Are they a Vari*lite? no. Are they cheap Chinese no-name junk? no. They work fine. The construction leaves a bit to be desired as well as the documentation and support. Still enough people use them that if you have a tech question, you will probably find the answer.
Reminds me of the great Vari-light, high end, Martin fights we had in the 90's where brand loyalty was more important to the argument than what fixture was actually better.
Mention to your friend that Robe got their start making hardware for those big three and then started "reverse engineering" their own units. To some their no different than a Chinese knock off manufacturer.
soundlight
Well-Known Member
Robe is great stuff, in fact they're one of the best moving light manufacturers in the world at this point. However, not everyone needs that. You can buy a whole rig of Chauvet DJ lights for the cost of one Robe light, and if that's what the application calls for, that's a good plan. Fierce brand loyalty is misplaced when it comes to moving lights, because there are so many good lights at so many different levels from so many manufacturers right now. Not to say there's not bad units out there, but what I'm saying is that you'd be hard-pressed to find a single-brand rig these days.
NevilleLighting
Active Member
I agree with sound light, Chauvet can be hit or miss. Sometimes their manufacturing can be iffy and that can lead to issues like connector problems or bad color matching. Overall though I think a lot of what I have seen from them recently seems more robust. I do think that price is always a big concern and they are often much more affordable while being higher quality than a lot of the crap that is out there.
MarshallPope
Well-Known Member
I might equate Chauvet products to manure. Yeah, it's technically crap, but it's actually useful in the right application.
soundlight
Well-Known Member
If you consider Chauvet "technically crap", I'd say that you haven't used their more recent products. I used to say the same thing, but they have come a long way. Especially with the "Chauvet Pro" brand.
MarshallPope
Well-Known Member
Exclasius Dolvine
Member
I was the administrator for a Creative Arts Program for nearly 11 years and purchased many Chauvet fixtures and had no issues at all with them. As the program had a training program I was impressed with the stability and durability of the units.
Hope this helps.
de27192
Active Member
The question is - do you want to buy a product which the manufacturer properly understands, and has designed from scratch with a thorough knowledge of the technology being used... or do you want to buy a product where the manufacturer has hacked open somebody else's well-formed product, copied the technology and parts, and released it under their own brand - with no R&D expenses - for a lower price?
Yes Chauvet products can look good. But they look good because they brazenly rip off existing products with no regard for the R&D costs or the expertise that went into the original product. And then, later on; because they have not built the products based on their own understanding of the technology, they are not able to offer the same level of support that you would get from the manufacturer who actually designed it to begin with.
I am fundamentally against this practice. For anyone who is not convinced, look at the truss industry. James Thomas Engineering - no doubt one of the pioneers of the industry and who manufactured some of the finest truss you could buy, went under and were bought up by Milos - a company who's business practice is to buy truss from Prolyte and James Thomas; and reverse engineer it in order to produce their own equivalents, with eastern european welders, at lower costs... without a true understanding for the product they are selling you, since their role in it's development was copying it, not developing and producing it. This, in the context of lifting equipment, is worrying. Especially where they are cost cutting in order to maximise sales.
Don't assume that the big brands are invincible. If you want to see lighting products continue to be developed, invest in the companies who develop them, not in the companies who copy them.
Yes Chauvet products can look good. But they look good because they brazenly rip off existing products with no regard for the R&D costs or the expertise that went into the original product. And then, later on; because they have not built the products based on their own understanding of the technology, they are not able to offer the same level of support that you would get from the manufacturer who actually designed it to begin with.
I am fundamentally against this practice. For anyone who is not convinced, look at the truss industry. James Thomas Engineering - no doubt one of the pioneers of the industry and who manufactured some of the finest truss you could buy, went under and were bought up by Milos - a company who's business practice is to buy truss from Prolyte and James Thomas; and reverse engineer it in order to produce their own equivalents, with eastern european welders, at lower costs... without a true understanding for the product they are selling you, since their role in it's development was copying it, not developing and producing it. This, in the context of lifting equipment, is worrying. Especially where they are cost cutting in order to maximise sales.
Don't assume that the big brands are invincible. If you want to see lighting products continue to be developed, invest in the companies who develop them, not in the companies who copy them.
Stay in the industry long enough and you'll find a piece of junk from every mfg. Chauvet, Elation (and you could lump Blizzard, Irradiant, and a bunch of other names as well) have had problems over the years. But who hasn't had a problem with a Martin or a High End fixture or model as well? A shop I was at for a while had a run of Clay Paky fixtures that were constantly on the repair bench.
Brand loyalty (or DISloyalty) is risky. It prevents you from considering a product that would otherwise be better suited to the application.
The most important thing is developing relationships with vendors who will stand behind you if the product isn't performing as expected.
Brand loyalty (or DISloyalty) is risky. It prevents you from considering a product that would otherwise be better suited to the application.
The most important thing is developing relationships with vendors who will stand behind you if the product isn't performing as expected.
de27192
Active Member
Completely agree there... the main difference I was trying to highlight is that since Martin / CP / VL etc designed the product in the first place, they'll be far better supporting it later on. The issue I've had with Chauvet / Elation / etc is since they copied the product to start with, they lack the fundamental understanding of what makes it tick and how to fix unexpected issues.
Also I think that's important to support the manufacturers who undertake the R&D in the first place to innovate and develop new products. If we favour funding the copycats, we will lose out on vital industry pioneers.
Exclasius Dolvine
Member
Thank you for this post. I have to agree with not only your logic but your passion on this issue. I posted that I previously had no issue with Chauvet products, but I have to admit, I was an administrator ergo, not aware of the issue as you have enlightened us on. I would therefore, not recommend a product who engages in the practices you proclaim herein. Peace
Dionysus
Well-Known Member
A good reason to support brands that develop new technologies, designs and concepts. Now keep in mind that no everyone can afford these 'big brands', and Id rather see Chauvet/Elation/etc supported than the Chinese next-to-or-even-no-name alternatives that do more ripping off and undercutting than anyone else on the market. We've had pro/con threads on these brands on here in the past. The consensus was that for some things the cheap alternatives are more than good enough. For the most part I have to agree. SOMETIMES you get what you pay for however, okay, often.
Now for DJs, etc, Chauvet and the lesser brands, sure, okay, whatever. But for bigger shows where reliability and support are key, I say "no, go with the big boys".
