Leaving Strand

[LXPlot]

Have you compared the two, with like beamspreads, side by side?

I have not actually compared beam qualities side by side, as I don't have the resources (and probably not the eye) to do this. But I can say without a doubt that the SPXs have easier shutters and an easier focus mechanism than the Source Fours. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[derekleffew]

Well, the shutters move in and out, and the lens moves forward and back. While the unit does have a number of seemingly useful features, the only one I'd be willing to pay the premium for is superior photometric performance, which I don't feel it has. Plus the fact that at one time the manufacturer suggested a fixture would last an average of seven years, which I feel is ridiculously short. Also, the website says "SPX delivers more light for your stage (up to 63% more than current industry benchmarks)" while the datasheet.pdf says "Up to 27% more efficient than current industry benchmark units." So which is it? or are they just making stuff up? Running the numbers shows the Source Four slightly brighter given comparable lamp and beamspread (at cosine distribution).

 

[techieman33]

Have you compared the two, with like beamspreads, side by side?

I have talked to a few different people that have seen both side by side and all have said they would take the selecon over the source 4 any day.

As far as the OP is concerned, our cd-80 racks have been on pretty much non stop for 20 years without any problems other than a loose bus bar that recently reared it's ugly head. We also have a few sl's in inventory and I haven't ever had problems with them burning through gel. I guess I'll just be the 50th person to say it sounds more like a maintenance problem then having gotten stuck with someone buying bad gear in the past.

 

[waynehoskins]

The Source Four is a beautiful light when maintained.
The 360Q is a beautiful light when maintained.
The Strand Leko is a beautiful light when maintained.
Even the SL is a beautiful light when maintained.

etc.

(Except the aforementioned Altman No. 1KL doorstop, though it is a beautiful doorstop when maintained)

I remember, in the late '90s when I was in high school, going to the university library to read up on stage lighting. Most all they had there was quite old, but I remember drooling over the Q-File and the Pacific, among others. The high school had a manual board with a pro-patch, a few 1KLs and a bunch of Fresnels, etc.

Since then, they've upgraded to an Express, and a handful of my Lekos and 360Qs have lived up there for a couple of years. I've lit a bunch of shows there, both in the ancient times as student and this past decade as guest designer, and while the latest tools are really nice, most of the time they're not necessary.

Learn to design within limitations, and you'll be a better designer for it.

 

[gafftaper]

I have talked to a few different people that have seen both side by side and all have said they would take the selecon over the source 4 any day.

Are you talking about Strand Manufactured Selecons or the originals from down under. I haven't had my hands on a Strand manufactured Selecon yet. However I have several originals Pacific Zooms in my inventory. The old Selecons are definitely superior to a S4 in a lot of ways. The field of light is much flatter than a S4 can do, the optics are nearly as crisp as an ETC HD lens, and then you have the heat management system. They also cost a lot more back then. Are the new ones as good? I don't know. Anyone know where they are made today and if the workmanship is as good as always?

Speaking of the SPX... I love the accurate statistical representation of this graph from the Strand Website.

 

[techieman33]

Are you talking about Strand Manufactured Selecons or the originals from down under. I haven't had my hands on a Strand manufactured Selecon yet. However I have several originals Pacific Zooms in my inventory. The old Selecons are definitely superior to a S4 in a lot of ways. The field of light is much flatter than a S4 can do, the optics are nearly as crisp as an ETC HD lens, and then you have the heat management system. They also cost a lot more back then. Are the new ones as good? I don't know. Anyone know where they are made today and if the workmanship is as good as always?

Speaking of the SPX... I love the accurate statistical representation of this graph from the Strand Website.
View attachment 4845

I know at least one of the guys I was talking to was referring to new units that he installed in a high school recently. He said he loved them and would easily recommend them over a source 4. I haven't heard any one specifically mention the build quality, and haven't had one in my own hands to judge.

Isn't it just wonderful how they all fudge the numbers to make their unit look so much better than the rest.

 

[gafftapegreenia]

Here's how we test the durability of the SPX. We give 5 new SPX and 5 new Source 4's to a college, and then let practicum kids beat the ever living crapola out of them for 4 years. Of course, fixtures shall be tracked over the course of those four years and MUST be used in every plot. After that, we shall see which one fared better. (Conduct this experiment at the educational institution of your choosing)

 

[Les]

(Except the aforementioned Altman No. 1KL doorstop, though it is a beautiful doorstop when maintained)

LOL!!!


Now, I will say that I dealt with a fresh install of Strand SL's back in 2001. Maybe it was because they were relatively new on the market, but many of them did have problems right out of the gate (uhhh, so-to-speak). Reflectors cracked (units used 575w GLA's and were not moved around much), the fixture rotation anti-slip mechanism failed in many units - causing them to never tighten again, many a stuck lamp cap due to the 1/4 turn mechanism seizing up; and as of recently, I visited the space to find that many had lost the paint from their rear half.

The anti-slip problem could have been caused by over tightening, but I remember some units where the feature never worked correctly to begin with. The lamp caps probably could have used some graphite, but the problems were there straight out of the factory. Seems that the first batch or so of these units had some QC issues (some of which were immediate, and others that cropped up about a year after initial use). I will say that they were (are) great fixtures when working properly, and with some TLC, even the problem units can be good again. In some cases, I feel like the weaknesses of the unit's design can be compounded by poor or nonexistent maintenance (though ours had problems before any maintenance was to be expected). Never did I have a problem with burning through gel.

I don't believe anyone ever contested the condition of the lights, as most people I'm sure weren't aware of the small quirks with the instruments, thus no action was ever taken. Had someone contacted the manufacturer when they had the chance, it is likely that the problems would have been resolved.

Do a search for Strand SL and you will probably find that cracked reflectors, stuck lamp caps and broken anti-slip mechanisms are fairly common issues, even when fixtures follow a similar use and maintenance schedule as their counterparts, which rarely have these issues.

Maybe this is what the OP is speaking of. Again, a great light, but it has some unexpected weaknesses and can fail easier under normal use.

One final note-- the units that were fine from the get-go have continued to live happy lives.

 

[waynehoskins]

Do a search for Strand SL and you will probably find that cracked reflectors, stuck lamp caps and broken anti-slip mechanisms are fairly common issues, even when fixtures follow a similar use and maintenance schedule as their counterparts, which rarely have these issues.

I've heard the horror stories. I've only worked with SLs in-person once, and those worked fine. I'd forgotten about the cracked reflectors problem. I wouldn't (and didn't and thus far don't) recommend the SL because of those reliability problems. It could be they're all fixed now and new SLs would be just as reliable as new S4s.

Wasn't there a rash of S4 reflector failures at some point as well? Or am I misremembering the SL? Oh well.

It just takes more work to properly maintain an SL.

The point I was making (perhaps not well) is the same one that virtually everyone else is, that when maintained properly, virtually all lights are good. Sure, I'd prefer a Source Four, but I'd take an SL or a 360Q (or even a Shakes begrudgingly, freaking huge things). We can't always get what we want, but sometimes we get what we need. Or what we needed several years ago, that isn't enough now.

 

[Les]

It just takes more work to properly maintain an SL...

Well said; I think that in the end, that's what I was getting at. And just to clear things up, I agreed with your post above and wasn't challenging you in any way. Not challenging anyone in fact, only recounting my experiences in that these fixtures can be a bit fickle out of the box.

 

[mattbarber51993]

Our school has been using strand since we opened in 2002, since then the only thing we have acquired have been our ETC express 48/96, about 8 par 64 cans, a few 3 cell cyc lights, and strip lights. The only things that we had problems with concerning strand was the dimmers, the console, and their ellipsoidal. We recently performed Big: The Musical and that was the first time we really had a problem with the ellipsoidal, and that problem was the optics sucked. We had a gobo for stars which consisted of different size holes. We could not make them look like stars at all. We will hopefully be switching to some altmans within the next year.

 

[church]

Wasn't there a rash of S4 reflector failures at some point as well? Or am I misremembering the SL? Oh well.

Yes I have replaced a number of cracked reflectors in S4s

 

[techieman33]

Our school has been using strand since we opened in 2002, since then the only thing we have acquired have been our ETC express 48/96, about 8 par 64 cans, a few 3 cell cyc lights, and strip lights. The only things that we had problems with concerning strand was the dimmers, the console, and their ellipsoidal. We recently performed Big: The Musical and that was the first time we really had a problem with the ellipsoidal, and that problem was the optics sucked. We had a gobo for stars which consisted of different size holes. We could not make them look like stars at all. We will hopefully be switching to some altmans within the next year.

I've never had an issue getting ours to focus with a gobo, did you try using a donut?

Yes I have replaced a number of cracked reflectors in S4s

3 of our 9 s4 juniors have cracked reflectors as well. It's just something that's going to happen with a glass reflector.

 

[Les]

True on the glass reflectors, but the SL's seemed to develop cracks a lot sooner than expected-- within the first year of use.

Re: optics sucked- in addition to the donut suggestion, at what length did you go through to properly bench focus the fixture(s)? That can play a huge role in image quality, especially with something like stars. That's one thing the SL's never disappointed me with. The optics were pretty decent.

 

[shiben]

Several years ago, my High School went through a half million dollar renovation. Now one may think that this would be a positive step for my school ;however, you would be sadly mistaken. For my school bought Strand, all Strand pars, fresnels, ellipsoidals, dimming racks(2), board...the works. So you can defiantly see our lighting crews frustration with these units. The Strand SL Coolbeams are just about the sloppiest, most unreliable, and overall cheap units to work with. We've had issues ranging from bad caps, sloppy/impossible cutting when soft focused, rough components, gels burning through like crazy, and (besides the 2 booms we have in the house).
Then recently after our Spring show under our new lighting designer, we were approached by our director with the new option to phase out our Strands with newer and better equipment. The talent we have in both our acting and technical departments is excellent, and as such, deserves excellent lighting. So i was wondering what we should replace our strand ellipsodials with? From what i understand ETC would be a reliable source and I was wondering if you all agreed?
Thanks- Austin[/FONT]

So I dont really understand the boom issue, I dont really understand why you deserve taxpayer dollars for less than 10 year old gear, Dont really understand that if your talent is so excellent that you cant make excellent lighting, and why you want to replace all your strand stuff to fix the one instrument you are having issues with, your SL coolbeams. Now, I work with a pile of S4s in various states of wonderfulness (they all work though, and well), an Ion, and 4x CD-80 racks. What has the least issues of our inventory? That would be the CD-80s, whih we have not had problems with since they were turned on. The board works fine, a nearby school has one and I used it, the language is different but not complicated, again back to the if you have excellent techs issue... As for the PARs, not sure how to screw that one up... Fresnels, kind of similar... As for your maintinence issues, fix them. My inventory of Source 4s and Fresnellites needs a ton of work to keep in operating order, I spend on average a full week after striking a show cleaning, re-doing caps, blowing out lens tubes, fixing whips and plugs, etc, and usually another couple weeks re-benching as many as I can get to until they get used again. It just takes time. Equipment gets mistreated in schools. It just does. Now, what you can do is get with your lighting designer, and instead of spending another half a million on new ERS units that will be shot to hell in 7 more years, look into maybe replacing parts, bringing in new ones if you need them, renting cool toys, etc. Then take a class or find a local guy to show you how to fix them right and do as many as you can.

 

[jglodeklights]

If you are having problem with cuts while soft focused...........well yeah! They are units designed for creating super hard edged cuts sharp-to-shutter.

Which also will burn out gels much quicker as if you are sharp to beam throw, as you are focusing the light at the front lens and not shutters, creating quite a bit of heat there.

Not properly benched (they don't necessarily come benched properly from the factory), not as much light will be coming out the front as it should and it will cause a lot of additional heat within the reflector cavity.

 

[icewolf08]

I think that in the 36 posts in this thread we have sufficiently scared off ATooker13. I realize that most of the posts here were intended to be helpful/educational, but when I read this thread I can see how the OP might feel like he was being attacked/berated/talked-down-to. It is not really necessary for a whole bunch of us to repeat the same information. I am temporarily closing this thread until the OP has a chance to formulate a response (if he wants to) so that the thread does not continue down this path without enough information.