I am looking at purchasing some used lights and I am debating between the X.Spots and Cyberlights. Just wondering which product you would buy and what your reasoning is.
It sort of depends on which model of each (there were several models of both the x.Spot and Cyberlight).
For arguments' sake I'm going to assume we are talking about the top model of each: Cyberlight Turbo & x.Spot Xtreme (I'm also assuming you are not wanting to know about the brand new Cyberlight 2.0 which is entirely different)
Cyberlights are much brighter and move much faster. They are also the only moving light I have ever worked with that allows you to have both gobo wheels sharp at the same time.
x.Spots have better optics and better/smoother color mixing, they move more fluidly as well (albeit more slowly). You can put more gobos into them than the Cybers and have 16 bit index/rotation control (as opposed the the Cyber's 8-bit). They also have a very fast Iris mechanism.
Depending on your maintenance budget, I would probably lean to the Cybers. Xspots tend to need TLC. Cybers are easy to fix, and are a much simpler fixture to repair. They are also much brighter. And last time I checked, the lamps were cheaper as well, unless you are looking at turbos. Joshua Wood
XSpot: 21 gobo positions, all rotate, all easy to change Cyber: 4 rotating gobos, remaining fixed.
XSpot: Far wider zoom range Cyber: Narrower, but a lot brighter
XSpot: More complex, but fairly simple to maintain (Modular) Cyber: Simpler, but more limited functionality, one card, so more $$$ to change.
XSpot: Smoother color mixing, CTO, CTB Cyber: Colors are much less uniform
I think it all depends what you want to do. For theatre, I find my XSpots far more versatile than my Cybers, but both have their place. For large, dramatic, bright beam effects from upstage, the Cyber is the ticket . . .
I agree. Cybers just keep working. Xspots are hard to keep going even in the best conditions.
I also disagree that xspots are easier to maintain than cybers. Xspots are somewhat easier to disassemble, but finding the actual problem can be very difficult.
[quote=Woodj32177;42579]I agree. Cybers just keep working. Xspots are hard to keep going even in the best conditions.
I also disagree that xspots are easier to maintain than cybers. Xspots are somewhat easier to disassemble, but finding the actual problem can be very difficult.
Of course YMMV. :D
Joshua Wood
I guess it depends on what the problem is!
For mechanical problems, I'll take an X-Spot any day . . . isolate the problem to a module, pull it, work at your leisure on the bench. On a Cyber, you either have to work on it upside down in the air, or horse that big 'ol beast onto the bench - not my idea of fun. That, and if you carry X-Spot spares, you can have a module changed in almost no time.
For electrical problems, then yes, the X-Spot can get irritating, especially if you have a 2 phase or 3 phase that is corrupting the inter-module bus. *THAT* can be a whole load of not-fun quickly!
Having said that (knock on wood), the biggest problems I have had with my X-Spots have been mechanical, with some of the gobo wheel stacks having been assembled a wee bit too tight and binding, or the occasional bad sensor.
Oh, and having mentioned that, I'll score X-Spot light years ahead in diagnosing and replacing sensor failures as well, since every sensor has a status indicator on it's 2/3 phase, so you can see what works with nothing more than taking the side covers off . . .
I'll get back to my initial comment - the X-Spot is about the most complex mover I have seen in a long time, so it is not unexpected to see more issues . . . it's simple probability! More that can go wrong ==> more that will go wrong! You want low maintenance and simple, use pars!
