Behringer UltraPar

[ian kirby]

Here's my 10p worth

 

The vast majority of mutipar look alikes in the market have the following "features" or drawbacks to you and me.

 

1. The main one being that they infringe the patent of ETC's product if they have a lamp holder that directly takes the HPL 575 lamp. All the ones I see have a metal housing over the 575 lampholder, which enables it to take the aforementioned 600watt lamp. This way they go around the patent of the lamp. You can , as a user unscrew this metal bracket wich would allow you to fit the HPL lamp.

 

2. ETC's reflectors are glass, the copies I have seen have all been fitted with Aluminium spun reflectors which give a much poorer beam.

 

3. The frame for the rotation of the lenses is difficult to turn on the cheap ones, getting stuck frequently.

 

Ian Kirby

[Brian Ship]

There seems some confusion here with the GKV type ANSI lamp with it's being 575 verses 600 Watt. Even find a similar to CP-29 5Kw/240v version listed of this lamp in past listings of it.

 

Much less some confusion that the G-9.5 base as similar to but not the same as a G-9.5*HS (*Heat Sink) base as licenced by ETC is only available for use in their fixtures. Should you meet with a rep. from Philips, ask them about the GLA series of lamp with removable heat sink which will have both worked in G-9.5 based fixtures and the ETC heat sink line. Good lamp but dropped eventually. Than ask about their buying licence from ETC to produce the HPL lamp with it's heat sink. Much less the chigrin on the face of the vendor rep I once met with in him introducing the new HPL lamp to me, than me showing him both a Ushio and Osram HPL lamp with as opposed to aluminum heat sink Phillips produced in catches up in the market with, ceramic lamp bases by the others now in dealing with moisture in conductvity issues. He was dumbstruck in that Philips had invested in paying ETC off now that the GLA with heat sink had been pulled from the market, and now followed suite in the HPL line but were now one step behind other manufacturers in technology on the lamp.

 

ETC. HPL lamps are their own lamp. I attach a *HS to note the difference between them and those other tmore standardized ypes that either have a heat sink in the lamp base itself or no longer need the heat sink in figuring out better lamp bases. Other companies might attach say a P/S to the lamp note in designating it to have a heat "S"ink. The Philips 6986P/S for instance is a #36374-7 lamp in description of GKV yet also having a heat sink as per a HPL lamp. No doubt as with the GLA lamps above, it is discontinued now that they bought the licence for actual HPL lamps. Removable heat sink was a great idea in again standardizing lamps, ETC never recognized such a thing it would seem however.

 

Still, the GE - American #35376 or is it 39739 and the better Phillips #6986P thus 33672-1 for our part numbers are indeed 575w/230v lamps. There is also the GLB that's Phillips #6991P or #36373-9 in being extended life.

 

Than we get into lots of 600v 230/240v GKV lamps, amongst them from Phillips in the 6986P, GE HX-602/HV or 38739 as possibly discontinued, Osram or is it Sylvania with you for their #54511, and lots more lamps both at 600v at 230 and 240v for this type of lamp. Lots of lamps by GE and Phillips, and one from Osram in the 600w style. Still there are 575w versions it would seem.

 

Still GE at one point produced in further confusing the GKV question a #35376 5Kw, G-38 version of the lamp in calling an ANSI GKV. One will note the same part number as above in it being a typo in a catalog. Somehow I don't think a BT-20 incandescent lamp would rate the most recent "G" designation of a ANSI lamp. Just not as much development into incandescent ANSI lamps at this point.

 

On the Berrenger issue, verses making art with tools in doing so on a budget, that's a good debate as to if your doing art is also within the perview of your morals in getting it produced verses holding onto some semblence of doing art but it being noble in effort. Each must make their own choice in sticking it to the man for over charging for stuff they make a profit off of copywriting verses paying those that would copy the intillectual property as if the insult of the next show in your space wishing to use the lights you placed and designed also for them. There certainly is no innocent people in this debate of who is right. At times it might be more reasonable in price to get a lamp from China than a domestic one, but that's a lamp and dependant upon the type of lamp in reliability verses cost.

 

More than this, the ETC fixture especially in a Leko, is not the perfect lighitng fixture in any sense of it. It could be expressed as a third generation improvement over that of what was on the market before hand, but it's certainly got it's faults. Given a few thousand in the inventory I could provide a long list no matter the fixtrue from them. Still in not really liking the ETC fixture and wishing for the fourth generation to come along, I have also prepped for resale some cheap cloans or clowns of them. Not the Berrenger line but no doubt very much similar. There are differences and if wishing for equivolent lighting at a lower price, often in comparison of one to another you will easily note differences.

 

Perhaps at some level, a debate of cheap cloans are in being cheap more appropriate than the old stand by of a PAR 64 fixture of similar cost but more ancient style. Hard to screw up a PAR can even if using cheap parts. With them it's all the lamp as opposed to depending upon inferior copy of design at times but just not getting it. Realizing of course that there is some serious problems with even ETC fixtures in quality control. Still that's the standard.

 

One might ask oneself that if you can't afford the ETC, and in renting or test sampling both fixtures in a side by side test what you get for the money. Than afterwards if it's worth the extra cost in either condition verses that of a normal PAR 64.

 

Hope it helps figure out some differences and concepts.