Source 4 PARs Practical opinions please

[Gnome]

Hi All

 

I am considering adding some Source 4 PARs to a rig that currently includes generics and about a dozen conventional PAR. I mainly use CP62 and CP61 lamps in the PAR for short to medium throws (approx. 6 to 15m). They are used for all the usual stuff such as cross light for dance, back light and general colour wash.

 

I know what the sales blurb says but what are the experiences of users? For example how much grunt do you get out of the 500w lamps? What are the beam sizes and shapes like subjectively? Any day to day maintenance tips?

 

Regards.

[JimWebber]

Personally I have got a lot of time for them, they do give out a fairly hefty punch, very similar to a 1K unit. The main advantage to me, is that I work in many venues with limited power supplies, so the 575W consumption is great! I don't know if it is me though, but whatever lens I use, the beam never seems as "Oval" shaped as a CP62.

 

They are a little more maintenance hungry then Par64s, with lenses and reflectors to look after, and are probably a bit more fragile, again thinking of lenses and reflectors.

 

Cooler beam as well, which may be an advantage in some situations!

 

HTH

 

Jim

 

EDIT - The only thing I will say against them, is the price relative to a bog standard PAR64.

[Grahame]

I have to disagree with Jim - they're not the same as a standard PAR at all. They don't have anywhere near the same punch, and the area coverage is less. They could perhaps be described as being a "softer" version of a PARcan, but they should not be considered as replacements for same (as I'm sure Opera North will testify). They are a different beastie altogether.

 

But that's not to say I don't like them - certainly the lower power consumption is a big factor in their favour, and they are very nice units in their own right. Just don't think you can do a straight replacement of normal PARS unit for unit with them.

[AndrewR]

The fact that they have a 'softer' beam is often an advantage, they are great for washes and cross lighting. The biggest problem I have with them is the fact that they don't really produce visible beams in haze when up against 1k parcans. Oh, and the big amount of spill you get, compared to a parcan.

 

Overall... very efficient, very useful for anything that needs a fairly narrow wash light. (they are, in terms of effect, closer to Fresnel's than pars really. But soooo much more efficient.) You can get loads on a 3k dimmer. And will produce, for my money; the most even, most efficient, orchestra wash I have ever seen.

 

Actually, stop thinking about them as parcan replacements. They just cant compete with 1k pars, even with 750w lamps. But they do a much brighter job of anything that would normally involve a narrow Fresnel. Although, the barn doors I've had to use were a bit rubbish. If they were cheaper they would take a lot of work away from the humble 1k par. And as to ovalness, they don't seem as oval as a CP62, but that because the beam is so even. Stick a scroller on the front and they can do wonders with washes. :D

 

Hope that ramble helps... :** laughs out loud **:

[Gnome]

Hi all and thanks so far.

 

That brings the scroller issue to mind.

 

If you'll excuse the question "Do they droop" when used with scrollers?

 

Regards

[Jamtastic3]

The units themselves are fairly strong in build compared to PAR64's and their yoke is locked fairly well into place. I've never had the angle of one move at all when bumped by mistake or with a scroller in it.

The only thing I find annoying about the Source Par is the fact you don't get long nose versions - single gels in front of the lense tend to burn quicker since they are basically next to the lamp.

[andy_s]

I'd echo most of the sentiments here - perfectly good lanterns, but need to be thought of in their own right, not as a PAR 64 replacements.

 

A practical example - I did the relights for one of our shows on tour a while ago: most of the work was done by side light pros booms rigged with PAR64 /62s due to the difficulty of getting to anything rigged overhead or upstage (large set in the way) For budget reasons, we used house kit, and one venue had source 4 PARS - at roughly the same throw and angle as the original, the S4 PARs were being plotted 30 - 40% higher than the original levels. This could have been to do with local dimmers as well, but I'd attribute at least part of this to the lantern

 

so: use S4 PARs when they are the right thing for the job, but don't look at them as a direct replacement for a proper PAR64.

[ale.heat]

I personally find that they have great little features that make focusing up a ladder a little easier.

 

Obviously lens rotation ring at the front and lamp housing at the back. Makes focusing a lot easier and cooler with no burnt arms from getting too close to the unit. The lens ring does get a little bit tough to move after they have been kicking about for a bit. Although maintenance helps with this.

 

Maintenance, they are easy to maintain although the trunion/yoke bolts have nuts on the inside which are ever so annoying to put back in if you have to attach the safety bonds to the trunion/yoke to stop people nicking them. This is my only really big issue and even then it isn't that important just when you have to attach 30 bonds it gets tedious.

 

All other comments for and against that I have, have been mentioned previously by other members. :** laughs out loud **:

[Tomo]

The only thing I find annoying about the Source Par is the fact you don't get long nose versions - single gels in front of the lense tend to burn quicker since they are basically next to the lamp.

If you're burning gels too fast, you may have the lens in back-to-front.

 

The lens in an S4 Par should bow inwards - that's towards the lamp/away from the gel.

This greatly improves gel life as there's a nice big airgap betwixt glass and gel!

 

(It's also much easier to swap the lenses that way!)

[Jamtastic3]

Thank Tomo for that!

That's where I have been going wrong. I've been thinking (on the basis on a par lamp) to have the bow facing outwards. Now to change the lenses around...

[son of lx dad]

the s4par is substantially heavier than a standard par64 tho is quite robust because of this, this may be an issue to you in a weight limit situation.

 

I have found that the '61' lens option seems slightly narrower than a standard cp61.

 

if you have issues with the amount of spill, I can highly recommend the top hats with flocked interior, used to good effect currently in the Albert Hall and on tour with 'Stomp', tho this does seem to cut the edges of a '62' beam down a small amount.

 

the reduced power consumption is an excellent feature especially as it greatly increases your pairing capability. A s4 lamp is considerably cheaper than a standard par64 lamp and does tend to last longer when rigged nose down at least.

 

Artistically speaking it is true that it does not have that 'zingy' quality that you get from a par but in most situations I would suggest that it is a good long term replacement.

 

one point that some may not have considered, do some checking into which brand of lamp you use, with a light meter you may find some considerable differences between the GE lamps and Ushio (sp?) lamps. even between the 575w and 750w types of both manufacturers and more interestingly the differences between the lamps in a s4profile and an s4par.

 

the features many others have mentioned here are all excellent and I happily use this lantern in many situations in all types of gig.