LED Wash Mover recommendations

mpbld

Member
Got some OLD Mac 2k washes that I am starting to replace. Am leaning heavily towards LED replacement. More funding if I go "green", etc.

I have a Chauvet Rogue 2 Wash in on a demo right now, and have been fairly impressed with it; and it is damn hard to ignore the price point! It is not quite as bright as I would ideally like; close, but not completely sold. Would like a big more punch. So, anyone out there have experience with them? Our overstage trim heights run between 19-25' or so, so throw distances are not long.

Sorry to sound like I am overly concerned about cost, but I am the LD for a mid-sized college program in the state of Ohio, and money is next to impossible to come by. Auras, X4, K-10s, Robin 300; certainly all strong possibilities. But 3-4 times as much as the Rogue 2 Wash.

Any of you had any real-world experience with the Rogue 2 Washes? Other thoughts?

Thanks, as always!
 
I'd feel much better about the longevity and repairability of a martin product over a chauvet product. Chauvet has the reputation it does for a reason.
 
Friend of mine just did a show with bunch of R2's. He sounded pretty pleased, especially for the price. He did comment that the "white" isn't particularly good but as fixtures to paint color across the stage they were fine.

I'd feel much better about the longevity and repairability of a martin product over a chauvet product. Chauvet has the reputation it does for a reason.

They've turned that around quite a bit in the last couple/few years. You still get what you pay for, but if an R2 suits your needs for half the price and you can afford to buy twice as many fixtures as you could Martins, it's hard to justify purchasing Martins without more tangible reasons than just "Chauvet has made some shoddy products in the past".

Generally with LED wash fixtures when you pay more, you're paying for improved dimming, improved output, and improved color mixing (including improved white). I can think of many applications where those factors are absolutely critical, but I can also think of many where those factors aren't critical at all. I can also think of instances where a lighting designer insists on a perfect white and smooth dimming, but where the audience will never notice the difference and it would be grossly irresponsible for a venue with a tight budget to cater to the vanity of the lighting designer.

Also something to be said for not investing a huge amount per fixture in a market that in 3 years is going to have far improved technologies in dimming and LED emitters, and at a lower cost.

If lighting designers everywhere took the position that only ETC Selador fixtures with x7 color mixing were acceptable for cyc lighting in overall quality of construction and operation, you'd find either
a) a lot of venues with beautifully lit cyc's but no other fixtures in their inventory, or...
b) a lot of cyc's showing up on the used market, or...
c) a lot of out-of-work lighting designers.

Inexpensive products have a role in the market, whether anyone's vanity likes it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ric
Friend of mine just did a show with bunch of R2's. He sounded pretty pleased, especially for the price. He did comment that the "white" isn't particularly good but as fixtures to paint color across the stage they were fine.



They've turned that around quite a bit in the last couple/few years. You still get what you pay for, but if an R2 suits your needs for half the price and you can afford to buy twice as many fixtures as you could Martins, it's hard to justify purchasing Martins without more tangible reasons than just "Chauvet has made some shoddy products in the past".

Generally with LED wash fixtures when you pay more, you're paying for improved dimming, improved output, and improved color mixing (including improved white). I can think of many applications where those factors are absolutely critical, but I can also think of many where those factors aren't critical at all. I can also think of instances where a lighting designer insists on a perfect white and smooth dimming, but where the audience will never notice the difference and it would be grossly irresponsible for a venue with a tight budget to cater to the vanity of the lighting designer.

Also something to be said for not investing a huge amount per fixture in a market that in 3 years is going to have far improved technologies in dimming and LED emitters, and at a lower cost.

If lighting designers everywhere took the position that only ETC Selador fixtures with x7 color mixing were acceptable for cyc lighting in overall quality of construction and operation, you'd find either
a) a lot of venues with beautifully lit cyc's but no other fixtures in their inventory, or...
b) a lot of cyc's showing up on the used market, or...
c) a lot of out-of-work lighting designers.

Inexpensive products have a role in the market, whether anyone's vanity likes it or not.

I understand where you are coming from, and yes, cheap products have a niche. I just disagree that those products belong in a institutional program of any size. In my experience, cheaper products at the beginning end up costing much more in the long run, both in time and materials. If the program is worried about having money for anything (as the OP said) buying a few lights from a company with a track record of less than ideal products (people keep saying they've improved, but I've yet to see those results myself..) is just going to turn into a nice graveyard of broken lights in a few years when there isn't money to repair/maintain/purchase new versions. Yes, LED wash units are simpler than their arc unit predecessors, and should theoretically break less... but I'll believe that when I see it.
 
I've seen the exact same thing happen with expensive units. The school doesn't have people, expertise, or budget to keep the fixtures maintained and the newly hired lighting professor has a thing against LED's, and against movers, and especially any combination thereof -- fast-forward a few years and the gears are seized up because they weren't used often enough and then after a couple go down, nobody wants to touch the rest of the inventory because they don't know which ones are bad or someone mistakenly told them that all of the units were that way.

This goes back to: if you can buy more fixtures then you can afford to have a couple fixtures cannibalized for parts, or after 5-10 years you can have the entire inventory replaced with the newer, cheaper model.

The only potential way I can think of to avoid this is for the school to earmark money annually for repairs/replacements, or to buy the fixtures from a dealer willing to provide an extended warranty or a service contract.

There's no good substitution for keeping someone around with basic electronics and soldering skills. But then again, LED moving heads have one-tenth the number of things that can go wrong with them. The likely problems are a blown fuse, pan/tilt problems, or faulty LED emitters. It's not like Ye Olde Days when you had CMY wheels, flags, heat sensors, lamp sensors, dichroic wheels, ballasts, dowsers, frost/zoom mechanisms, or other mechanical functions prone to eventual failure. A moving LED head has far fewer moving parts than conventional moving wash units. Far fewer ways a fixture can end up in the graveyard in the first place.
 
It is always an issue with academic programs that do not have FT staff electricians........and there are a bunch of us that have sizable inventories of conventionals and movers that do not have staff MEs.

When we purchased our Martins around 12 years ago, or so, I became a certified Martin field tech to take care of our lights. The problem that I run into, on a regular basis, is that, as a professor, I have class prep, teaching, committee meetings, production and design meetings, rehearsals, techs, etc. That leaves precious little time to fix and maintain gear.

I train my students to do basic maintenance and cleaning. I will have the occasional student who comes in with really strong electronic skills, and they will often take care of simple fixes (belts, motors, flags, etc). That still leaves many major repair problems that, as the units have gotten older, I have little time to deal with. We ain't getting a staff position; just is not going to happen.

So buying gear that will not require much maintenance, outside of the usual stuff, is always important. I always find myself second-guessing myself, to be honest, when looking at something like the Rouge 2 Wash. I have the money to pick up (7) to (8) of them, OR a much smaller # of another fixture (Robe, Martin, GLP, etc).

If I have a larger #, and keep (1) or (2) rotated out as backups, then I can replace my Mac 2k Washes (of which I own 6) pretty much 1 to 1. If I go with a more reliable (and much more expensive) fixture, then I would likely not have the luxury of having backup units.

Chauvet's stuff is absolutely much more reliable than it once was, but there is always a bit of the "snob" in us all that is still more comfortable with a brand with a better history of reliability.

Let me put it this way, I would like a Lexus, but can probably only afford a base Honda.
 
I'm touring with a dozen on them right now, I have another tour out with 6 of them. Have been super happy with them, great colors, nice zoom range and more than punchy enough for my needs.

I've put them on several tours, an opera and a few other things, so far no issues and no complaints.
 
The R2 Wash is brighter than an aura, and the X4 if i remember my tests right. Also I really don't like that the X4 needs an additional base for floor mounting, the regular hanging clamp is screwed directly to the bottom, and has no quick connect, it also requires a third type of mounting adapter if you want to hand it vertically. So all in all....its a terrible fixture. The R2 also seemed more robust and less noisy that the X4 when I put it in a long test of P/T/Z/Dim color change/Bally set as fast as it could go.

I have had really good reliability with the R2 wash, even for use in white for front wash. For the price, especially replacing something like 2k wash, just but a few more.

I'd feel much better about the longevity and repairability of a martin product over a chauvet product. Chauvet has the reputation it does for a reason.
Repairability maybe, but anyone who had a lot of experience with martin knows that they break a lot. And Harman acquiring a company has never helped their customer service.
 
Repairability maybe, but anyone who had a lot of experience with martin knows that they break a lot. And Harman acquiring a company has never helped their customer service.

Really ?, that's actually the exact opposite of my experiences . I've used 6 Mac 700 Profiles extensively for about 4 years. Other then a blown fuse and opting to change all the lamps in one shot, have had no issues. My MAC Aura's are almost two years old, get used every event and have been trouble free as well.

My research with some local shops as well as a buddy who MA programs in the big leagues told me that Martin was as reliable a fixture line as you could find and I've found that to be true.
 
I would actually recommend the Mac Quantum Wash. Their zoom range and punch is amazing. Plus, they make an excellent white. The Mac Aura XB is the same engine but smaller, although I haven't personally experienced them. Plus, if you run the quantums in full channel mode, you can control three zones of LEDs plus the "aura" ring and get some really cool effects and eye candy.
 
I know Chauvet has a bad rep, but I used to use 4 Q-Spot 560's at Miami Dade College for 3 years. Never once had a problem. That being said, they arent the best Mover in the world. I've seen the Rouge's used a few times, they are damn bright. For the price, I would just get more if that's possible. I understand how Colleges work, trust me budgets suck. Its all on how you plan on using them. If its for small Black-box theatre or Jazz concerts, why have fewer more expensive lights. Now if your trying to light a stadium, spend the money on better lights. All in all, unless your program has a large tech program, go cheap.
 
A friend as 6 Elation Design Wash LED's Zooms. that he's used for his highschool and in my space many time in teh last 2 years and they have very nice punch and saturation compared to my S4 Par fixtures. The Zoom is an extra nice features for the price point that they sit at. I'm not sure how they price out compared to the R2 Washes, but they could be worth a side by side comparison.
 
I know Chauvet has a bad rep, but I used to use 4 Q-Spot 560's at Miami Dade College for 3 years. Never once had a problem. That being said, they arent the best Mover in the world. I've seen the Rouge's used a few times, they are damn bright. For the price, I would just get more if that's possible. I understand how Colleges work, trust me budgets suck. Its all on how you plan on using them. If its for small Black-box theatre or Jazz concerts, why have fewer more expensive lights. Now if your trying to light a stadium, spend the money on better lights. All in all, unless your program has a large tech program, go cheap.

The Rogue series is an order of magnitude better than the Q-Series fixtures.

Really ?, that's actually the exact opposite of my experiences . I've used 6 Mac 700 Profiles extensively for about 4 years. Other then a blown fuse and opting to change all the lamps in one shot, have had no issues. My MAC Aura's are almost two years old, get used every event and have been trouble free as well.

My research with some local shops as well as a buddy who MA programs in the big leagues told me that Martin was as reliable a fixture line as you could find and I've found that to be true.

I would say that Martin is not particularly better or worse than any major player as a whole(pretty good recently), but in some cases they have had some pretty unreliable product lines in the past. Recent Martins are easily repairable though, and are smartly designed with removable modules, making repairs pretty fast. I've done field repairs on Vipers during set changes(3 problem fixtures out of 12, swapped in 2 spares, then had to repair them to swap the 3rd bad fixture). Could have been a fluke, or just mishandling from the last rental or in the shop, and I don't know the age of the fixtures. I still really like the Viper though. When it comes down to it all moving lights break.

The New Chauvet stuff is designed and built much better than even products 2 years ago. With intelligent LED washes there are also many less things to go wrong than older arc fixtures with CMY, colorwheels, etc. I'm not going to say an R2 that it is better or worse reliability than an Aura, because only time will tell, but so far so good, and the price is right.

Chauvet Professional products carry a full 2 year warranty as well. MAP on an R2 wash is $1499 I think.
 
I had a demo of the Chauvet Rogue R2 Wash and a RH1 Hybrid (spot) the other week, and I was extremely impressed. Now for conventional theatre, what I really cared for what the intensity and the smoothness of the movement. That was great on both. Then getting into the colors, both did a pretty good job creating most of the colors I threw at them.

For me, those wash units are going to have a lot of flexibility in my gym-a-torium. The fixtures felt sold, well machined, and the cases didn't give under a regular bit of pressure. The spots are cool and all the features are neat. I'm very impressed with them, and plan to incorporate them into my big purchase and future productions. Time will tell their quality, but first blush, I feel pretty good about them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back