techieman33
Well-Known Member
Hah, fair enough. I've seen it from both ends of the spectrum. I worked in a Shakespeare-equipped theatre which I wished had Source Fours instead, and I've worked in a church where I would've traded the 360Q's for even Shakespeares any day. I like 360Q's, but their fleet just didn't agree with me for some reason.
The aforementioned theatre went about 15 years before socket issues started popping up, which I consider to be a standard lifespan, which makes me wonder about the issues you had with the Osram sockets. The Shakespeare has decent ventilation, and I've seen more barbaric fixtures with sockets that lived good, long lives. One gripe I continuously had about the Shakespeare was the removable shutters. They removed too easily -- trying to pull the shutter and you end up with the entire blade out of the fixture... Kind of a pain when you're on a dark catwalk. I did appreciate their thumb screws on the accessory gate (but I wished they were captive. No telling how many I lost), and I wonder why it took ETC so long to implement that.
So to cut my hijack as short as possible; the Source Four is absolutely better, but given a low, non-negotiable budget and the need to quickly fill a theatre full of lights (in my case, a very small temporary space with a 5-year max lifespan until a PAC is built), I would consider them. They wouldn't be my first choices, but if someone had a pile to unload at some very reasonable prices...
It's all in what you compare them to. The shutters on the strand 2200 series come out far easier than on the shakespeare. Of course I like that on the zooms from that generation since they shutters are cut at an angle and can be flipped to get the angle you need. And there are a lot more parts, especially the spring, and plastic guide on the SL's barrel. Of course given the option I would take a source four, or a pacific over a shakespeare. There are still a lot of old fixtures out there though that pale in comparison to a shakespeare.
