X-Laser reach me to get an agreement. Their customer service worked.
Printable View
X-Laser reach me to get an agreement. Their customer service worked.
i'm sorry to hear you had issues, i don't know the your details, but..
i had a performance issue with some galvos i bought from x-laser (it was a honest mistake on their spec sheet). i dealt with adam from x-laser and he could not possibly have been nicer and more professional to work with on resolving the problem. i would not hesitate to do business with him again (in fact, i owe him a phone call).
What was the advertised power of the laser you bought? Was it advertised as "apparent brightness"?
X-Laser reach me to get an agreement. Their customer service worked.
i agree it is a little confusing. the x-beam 2500 shows power of 1.6J CW (why don't they use W or mW ?) but apparent brightness of 2.5W (different unit of measurement) and "apparent brightness" is totally subjective.
what does a 2.5W laser look like? without knowing beam specs and color balance, that's a meaningless statement.
source: http://x-laser.us/wp-content/uploads...back-final.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by myanezt
Curious, and PM me if its sensitive, but what was the going rate for a 2.5W 'apparent brightness' (probably real 1.6W like Chris said... is this at the window or is it really even lower?), with 15K scanners?
1.6j @ 1 joules per sec is 1.6w apparent brightness is scam plain and simple
1.6J CW, pretty meaningless figure without the unit of time - it could me 1.6J / week, which would be a matter of microwatts!
This is 100% true. Any projector that is returned to them must be run back through their entire quality control system before it can be sold again.Quote:
Originally Posted by myanezt
CDRH requires a manufacturer to certify that each and every projector sold is compliant with all the requirements of 21 CFR 1040. But once the projector leaves their (X-laser's) hands, they have no control over what is done with it. Thus, when it comes back to them, they must test and re-certify everything.
Yes, this is a huge pain in the ass. But don't blame X-laser for this. They don't make the rules, the CDRH does.
Shipping an expensive item like a laser projector is a perfect example of a time when you should purchase insurance for the shipment. I don't know of anyone foolish enough to send something that costs a few thousand dollars without insuring the shipment.Quote:
they told that the case was damaged on the delivery and charged another 75$ for that. Very un-profesional.
If you purchased insurance, it will cover the damage fee. If you didn't purchase insurance, then you are out of luck. But consider this: if the package had been lost or stolen, you would be out ALL your money. Let that be a reminder for next time: Insure expensive packages when you ship them. (Insurance is cheap.)
Sorry, but I don't think you have a legal leg to stand on. The re-stocking fee is clearly explained on the invoice, and I'm pretty sure it's in the user's manual as well. (In fact, it used to be on their website, although they just re-did their site so it might not be up there now.) Since they do not guarantee a power output, you won't win by saying that your measurement is different.Quote:
I just spoke with an attorney and filed an consumer complain in MD General Attorney, if I don't solve will claim it in a small bussines bussines arbitrary court.
In the future, you do know that they have some dealers that have projectors on-display in the store that you can look at before you buy, right? I know that some of the larger Guitar Centers (the one's with "expert service" staff, whatever that means) do this... That might be something to look into for the future.
But by your own admission, there was nothing wrong with the projector. It just didn't look as bright as you thought it should. That's not the same thing as a broken ILDA connector.Quote:
I have a friend that bought from an Chinese company, laser ilda interface came broken and they replaced the unit with no cost.
It boils down to you not being happy with the projector, but the projector still does what they say it does. In that case, the restocking fee applies. Sorry, I know that isn't what you wanted to hear, but that's the heart of the issue.
As an aside, I do agree that it would be better if they rated their projectors in actual power output (watts or milliwatts), at least when selling to an informed clientele like the laserists here on the forum. But the vast majority of their customers are not laser geeks.
They are lighting people, mobile music people, venue managers, and other people in the entertainment industry who couldn't care less about the technical details and just want to buy a laser projector that works and is legal without a lot of red tape or jargon. So their marketing is aimed at that sort of buyer, not us.
Adam
Thank god for the UK - restocking fees are now illegal against consumers. Seller even has to refund the postage (outbound (+ inbound as well if the contract doesn't specify the consumer pays the return at the point of sale) in addition to the full purchase price of the product with no deductions. This is for just if you change your mind. There are additional rights for faulty goods.
X-Laser reach me to get an agreement. Their customer service worked.
Apparent brightness is a scam… Honest manufacturers give actual specs, not apparent brightness… Edited for x-laser.
I heard about these this weekend. Be a good idea to jump on one. Or three. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by slicklasers
that's a great price. got pics and details?Quote:
Originally Posted by slicklasers
I could be interested in a pair of these. Can you PM me some more info please.Quote:
Originally Posted by slicklasers
Cheers
i would never buy a laser based on "apparent" specs, vs. buying from a seller with actual measured specs/ power.
I'm guessing they're target market is DJ's and nightclubs.
But that's just me ��
I have to say that X Laser (USA) are generally a very reputable company whose employees have always been very helpful on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by slicklasers
That said, I personally do think that apparent brightness is very subjective. Always best to buy on watts, that way if it's unusually bright, it's a bonus and if it's too bright, you can always turn it down. If it's usual brightness, you have the comfort of knowing you have a laser of Y power that's the usual brightness for Y power and you are happy in that. Either way, buy on watts and you win.
So quality of optics have no bias on final output power?
Quote:
Originally Posted by White-Light
I will post an ad in the Buy/Sell/Trade. Check there for full pics and specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamidog
Actually no. It didn't appear as bright as THEY said it would appear. So it really wasn't as described. By using such a thing as 'apparent brightness' to sell their lasers, they've really made their own bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
The proof of the pudding is that it was tested next to a laser of that ACTUAL power rating, and found wanting.
I'd certainly be looking to return it and get a refund or exchanged for one that actually DOES look as bright as a projector it claims to be as bright as.
Maybe they meant as bright as a 1.8watt light bulb. I looked up the specs for the projector and sure enough it says "Apparent Brightness" and doesn't list anything as the standard for comparison. When you see something advertised using "apparent brightness" as a specification you need to look elsewhere. "Apparent brightness" sounds like something you would find for something you buy at Harbor Freight or Walmart. No doubt, it is shady advertising and its only purpose is to be deceptive. Obviously, it is not going to put out 1.8 watts and if it doesn't put out 1.8 watts it CAN'T be as bright as a typical 1.8 watt projector. It's just plain logic and common sense. I find fault in X-Laser for selling a shady product but I can't really fault them for their return policy from a legal standpoint. It does kind of suck, though. I'm glad this thread was created so that I can look out for this sort of nonsense for when I go projector shopping.
Do you still have this laser or did you send back already ?
The easiest way could be as follow :
Provide your location, find a laserist with a power meter living near your place and measure the real power.
This way of giving power is ridiculous, they have similar marketing techniques as Laserworld.
Hi all -
Marcos and I, and several other people in our shop, have been corresponding extensively over several weeks. We have actually spoken nearly daily it seems since before Halloween and it seems that as time moves on it becomes more clear to him what is involved in returns and what complexities are involved in US variances. That part is being sorted out.
As far as this apparent brightness business, let me clarify a few things that have gotten muddied up in this thread.
First, Marcos purchased two systems, one of beams and one for graphics. In our discussions I told him that I thought the beam projector would be bright enough for his needs and it was. I also told him that the graphics system was much less bright and indeed it ended up not being bright enough for his needs, and ultimately he decided to return them to save his money for a higher power graphics system. I mention this only because some have run with the idea that he was misled by the way we specify our lasers, and this is not the case or the issue at hand. I had a number of very frank conversations with him and in the end the result was consistent with what I told him initially - he simply made a different aesthetic decision for his application and that's fine.
Secondly, I have addressed the apparent brightness issue here before. It is not a devious plot or any such thing. In fact the last time this came up I gave a detailed explanation which was supported by Brad who saw an A/B first hand and there was no further objection to my reasoning. If you like, PLEASE start a thread and lets explore how to do this more objectively.
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...024#post300024
As I said in the earlier thread, doing this more objectively is my preference, but no such system exists. I would be very happy if one did. A search on apparent brightness in this forum results more than dozen threads where people discuss how the perceived brightness of a laser is impacted by a variety of factors beyond power. Everyone here knows that brightness (within certain ranges) is more heavily influenced by things like wavelength than power. In such a case, how can that difference in 'apparent brightness' be quantified properly for an end user? Lets answer that together and come up with a better system. But, please read the earlier thread before you reply... I would very much like to have a constructive conversation about this - because it matters for a lot of people - but I can't just let it persist that we are just making things up. We are not.
Lastly, Slick, don't throw stones in a glass house. I'm not going to pop onto your thread and try to sell my stuff by taking shots at your product - which I certainly could because I had a long conversation with an FDA inspector about it, apparently just before it was your product. By the way, you can't call it FDA approved. It isn't, both because it just isn't, and because FDA does not "approve" products, ever. I would respectfully suggest that you modify the language at a minimum.
Be constructive and we have no issue.
dan im sorry it is 100% a deceptive practice no matter how you try to spin it i put in the same class as laser world
you can not list a measurement in joules with out a time reference
so 1.6j for 1 second is 1.6w end of story its not 2.5w ever saying that and saying perceived brightness is just trying to take advantage of uneducated customers end of story
Ok, I hear that. I would say two things:
1) I don't think the time reference should be the issue - at all. Saying CW, as we do, implies that the time reference is for 1s because that is the default measurement for all continuous wave lasers. This is the way it is communicated on most if not all safety forms, so that's a really odd thing to object to... and no one has objected to it before.
2) Just because something is done a certain way does not mean that it is the best way to do it.
Let's take a very simple case: It is beyond dispute that 1W of 532 is going to have a higher apparent brightness than 1W of 445. To an end user, these are both 1W lasers and many people naturally infer that two lasers of the same energy are equal in effect which is incorrect. This causes them to draw a false equivalency between the two systems that is both inaccurate and leads to problems. This is an issue, and I don't think that anyone here would have trouble seeing that.
Realizing that people reading a cut sheet can't be given a lecture on how objective specifications relate to subjective experience (which is far broader than a wavelength spec), how SHOULD one communicate the difference in apparent brightness if not to use a subjective rating which equates the effect to something they can understand?
By the way, I am far from the first person to have this issue. The effect of color temperature on apparent brightness has been studied since as far back as the 50's as far as my research has shown, and the lighting industry evolved temperature weighted values to describe the perceptual effect of varying color temperature on otherwise equivalent light sources.
Why should that not be done here when identified as such?
Why is it inappropriate to weight a power specification based upon how we chose to construct laser A vs laser B?
I don't think that anyone can fairly object to our approach if they both acknowledge that there is an issue, and can't offer a better solution. It is also worth mentioning that I cannot think of anyone, outside of PL, objecting to this approach, ever. And, we have been quite transparent about this. Its not like we are just pretending that a spec is something that it is not. I actually just gave a 90 minute lecture at LDI about this very issue, that X-Laser paid for, to inform the designer community about issues of apparent brightness and to discuss with them how and why it came to be. I have posted here, written two white papers on the subject and issued written guidance to our sales team on more than one occasion making sure that they understand what it is, and what it is not.
If we were calling it power and giving apparent brightness numbers, that would be deceptive - I would agree. Other firms have done that in the past where specifications labeled as power were just nonsense. But we clearly label objective and subjective values. I can see the slippery slope argument very well and am very sensitive to that - which is why I want a better solution.
In short, our actions are aligned with transparency and I'm still looking for a better solution if anyone wants to start a thread to discuss it.
If you are going to say you have "apparent brightness" you need to say what it is "apparently as bright as". Without specifying that it is all just a bunch of BS. And, if you really want to be ethical, you need to still go ahead and list the power levels and wave lengths that it has.
What if a car had a really peppy gearbox that made it really quick and the dealer advertised it with "300 Apparent Horespower"? Who here would not laugh that dealer off the face of the planet? That is essentially what you are doing.
I have absolutely no quarrel with the use of apparent brightness if you state the standard for comparison AND you give the true specs of the projector at least in the fine print. The projector mentioned just says "1.8W Apparent Power" and that's it. That's just lame.
a better solution is not needed just rate your projectors in watts after scanners list wavelengths used and be done with it no problem
in 2015 most legal (fda) projectors use the same source wavelengths and the difference is negligible with modern wavelengths (ie no one uses 660nm any longer)
but infact with 465-470 becoming prevalent it puts your projectors apparently less bright than others so your 1.6j projector could have apparent brightness of 800mw
Yes, I'm not sure why you are looking to 'simplify' (read: make more confusing) something that most laserists already have their head around, i.e. wavelengths and their respective brightness to the eye, and appropriate weighting for a reasonable white.
I'm sure its all there in your previous thread, which i probably even read at the time, but having most of the industry do one thing, and one or 2 others do something else, really doesn't help the consumer when comparing similar fruit (because we're going to do a fruit analogy sometime here aren't we.... [;)] )
The problem is that to do this would require referencing the CIE color chart and the human eye's brightness response. Nevermind the fact that there are at least 3 editions of the color chart and that estimates of human vision sensitivity is all over the map, the real issue here is that their target market (the mobile DJ, club promoter, lighting designer, etc) is completely uninterested in these issues. You start talking about wavelengths and most people's eyes glaze over. That's why they went with the apparent brightness thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnYayas
Look - back in 2010 I felt the same way. I actually called Dan out for some of these apparent brightness issues right here on the forum. And he invited me to his shop to personally show me what was going on. What I saw was a system that allowed you to put two very different projectors (say, an RGB with 445 nm blue and 650 nm red pitted against another RGB with 473 nm blue and 635 nm red) and end up with a beam that looked similar despite the very different ACTUAL power output levels inside.
Admittedly, after I left I still wished they would rate in watts as well as apparent brightness, but at least I understood why they didn't/couldn't. Dan's example in his post above is not hypothetical. It's taken from direct customer experience. ("How come my 1 watt green laser is so much brighter than my 1 watt RGB laser?" is an actual question from a client.) This apparent brightness thing works for it's intended audience. It's easy to understand, and it allows you to compare vastly different projectors and get something close to parity.
To us, as laser geeks, a power rating in watts makes sense. And we are smart enough to know that a 1 watt red at 650 nm is going to look very dim when compared to a 1 watt green at 532 nm. But the average X-laser customer is NOT going to know this, and they will be pissed if they buy something they think will be just as bright as their first laser, only to discover that it really isn't. And I promise that if you put the actual power level in the manual, even buried in small print, someone will find it and use it to raise a stink. So yeah, it may not be the best approach for us, but for them this whole apparent brightness thing works.
Note also that this is only on their lower end projectors (which are aimed at the mobile DJ crowd, etc). Once you step up to their Defiant projectors (which are very expensive), you'll see they are rated in watts. Granted, they are priced out of reach for all but the largest touring acts, but those acts are informed enough to know what they are buying. And really, why would a mobile DJ care about a laser projector that can withstand being set on fire, right?
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: X-laser sells in a vastly different market than we are used to. By and large, their customers are NOT laser geeks. Yes, there are exceptions, but for the most part we are talking about people who couldn't care less about things like wavelength, longitudinal mode, or even beam profile. (In fact, I once had a DJ at a show complain that "your laser beams are too small - can't you make the beams fatter?") When you are dealing with that crowd, you need to change your approach.
Adam
What if this uneducated DJ has a 1.8W 532nm mono color laser and expects the 1.8W Apparent Brightness RGB projector to be as bright. Will he be happy with the results?Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
All they have to do is list the wavelengths and powers in the laser and call it a day. End of story.
adam any one who is purchasing a class 3b/4 should have enough knowledge to understand that or learn it before purchase hell even just to obtain variance
Not certain if I should jump into the fray or not but, I see both sides of the coin. I agree with both sides of the coin and yet have issues with both sides of the coin. Yes, X-Laser does do a lot of R&D work to ensure their projectors are as bright as possible using less power than one might otherwise think. And yes, as Dan mentioned, I will absolutely attest to seeing this in person in a very large venue side by side with much more powerful projectors. I honestly forget about that at times when I've thought about buying one. I start to get that price vs. wattage syndrome kicking in and start to shy away... even though I've SEEN it and KNOW better. I'll admit it.
.
I get that their products are also marketed to the less laser knowledgeable client such as DJ's and, I'd "really" rather them have less powerful projectors anyway. No offense to any DJ's but many I encounter are dumb as rocks. It's like strapping a 2 watt 445 pointer to a Jack Russell terrier's collar. They'll often just have beams going wherever they go.
.
But "apparent brightness" as a marketing description is seriously flawed. 2.5 watts of.... what? 2.5 watts from a whitelight ion, versus 2.5 watts from RGBLasersystems versus 2.5 watts from Guandong Prettylights are vastly different things. How does this non-laser educated DJ know what 2.5 watts really looks like in the first place. Or what it's "supposed" to look like. And, for that matter... even for the educated laserist, what IS 2.5 watts supposed to look like?
.
There is probably some type of parallel that can be made between this and compact fluorescent bulbs in Home Depot where 23 watts has the "apparent brightness" of a 100 watt tungsten bulb. Maybe but... it's a different type of light.
.
Dan posed the question of a better way to measure it. Is there any way to incorporate other forms of measurement already used for light such as lux, lumen or footcandles? Probably not but, worth asking. I don't have that scientific a mind. Maybe a universal scale needs to be created to determine "laser brightness". Although, even that could be flawed based on where you measure it from. Up close, as an example, a Lightspace Venus II with about 2.7 watts combined power next to their Ascent X 12 watt, is not necessarily all that different. I was a bit disappointed to discover that. But... back up about 75-100 feet and look again. The Ascent is now noticeably "brighter".
.
J/CW also is hard for me to wrap my head around. X-Laser is the only company I have ever seen that refers to laser power in that fashion. And maybe an argument can be made that it's more "correct". I don't know but, if it was really that much better of a measurement, wouldn't more manufacturers list it?
I'd hazard a guess they don't make specific comparisons because it could be commercial suicide.
eg. As bright as Y-Brand could result in being sued by Y-Brand if they can prove it in some way inaccurate or subjective (unprovable).
As bright as X-Lasers own more expensive laser model Z, could result in sales of Z model being lost because people decided to buy the cheaper DJ model laser because it's claimed to be just as bright and costs 1/2 the price.
I personally don't like the description nor do I think it should be used, but equally, nor do I think as some appear to have suggested that X-Laser are deliberately dishonest. As I said above, they've contributed here for some while and have always appeared an upstanding company in the past, at least in my eyes.
Perhaps the safest way of describing for them would be to say eg 1.8W RGB Laser with 640nm red which is approximately X times as bright as the 6XX diodes used in some other brands projectors, making our laser watt for watt appear brighter than those competitors.
That way, it's clear:
1. What the actual wattage is (especially if the small print said if it's measured before or after optics)
2. How certain wavelengths of light may make certain colours brighter than other (un-named) competitors using less luminous wavelengths
3. You're not committing suicide on the face of it, as you're not comparing it with any specific brand nor your own more expensive products
4. By using the word approximately, provided you're not way out, you are leaving some wriggle room in the comparative description
Just my 2 cents although whether or not it's appropriate is down to X-Laser and their lawyers advice...
I appreciate the constructive feedback. In that spirt, let me offer a few thoughts.
1) While in an ideal world the buyer would be deeply familiar with laser technology, as others have said they just are not. If we were selling to laserists it would be a different story completely. Then we can really drill into issues beyond wavelength like modulation, beam specs, effects of scanner dynamics on perceived brightness and more.
Wavelength was just an example, but yes we are competing against 655's still. Seriously. Also we do use 470 and yes, that has an impact for sure.
2) In general yes, marketing statements comparing model X with Brand A is undesirable, especially when it involves subjective issues like brightness. Also given my position in ILDA and various other roles I try not to speak ill of other products, even when it is totally fair. That said, as Brad pointed out some of these aesthetics are situation dependent and that makes it all the more challenging to help people infer an effect.
3) We debated, and still debate, the virtue of putting raw power numbers next to the apparent brightness numbers kind of like Brad's light bulb example. We ran it by a dozen industry folks who advised against it primarily because they felt it would cause confusion just as it did when LED began to emerge. "What do you mean 30W of LED can replace a 250W par can!? That just nonsense!" The fact of the matter is that because of the FDA rules arranging shootouts is challenging with many customers, and cameras simply don't pick up the nuances of laser well at all. A 1W laser can look exactly the same as a 10W laser on camera if shot from one angle or another or using different settings.
Now Im sure someone will argue the other side of that coin, and feel free. But it is absolutely not as simple as just giving raw power numbers and hoping people will understand exactly what they mean.
That said, you point is very well taken John about the single color vs the RGB. However, I would argue that that problem would exist in any case. Both a 1.2W raw power RGB and a 1.8W apparent brightness rated RGB laser are going to beat a 1.8W blue and be beaten by a 1.8W green. In either case people have to understand issues of apples and oranges and that is tough to communicate.
Again, if this were JUST an issue of wavelength, there would be no issue. We have done precisely what you suggest and when we started using 638's we did the whole x times brighter than 655 thing. We could easily say that if that were the only issue - but it's not. There are a lot of other factors that go into how bright a laser looks. A simple example is our Auroras. From a power/wavelegnth standpoint they are identical to the previous generation, but they are several times brighter at the same power. In fact, on some patterns they handily beat 1W systems. Why?
Our new HPX (which is rated in watts not apparent brightness) was just in a shootout run by a client against a projector that was double the "power" and cost, and the difference between the two was "...almost indistinguishable." The client said that they were amazed that they looked almost identical and in fact the HPX looked better on some patterns because the white balance was better.
How would we communicate to other clients that they can get essentially the same effect for half the cost if we are not going to be seen as bashing the other product in the process? Or separately, how would we communicate to them that they can get a similar effect at a much safer level of power?
Apparent brightness is not ideal. You will get no argument from me on that. But when we put our model against several other models and our model is as bright or brighter, why should we not be able to say that it has an apparent brightness of X watts yielded by the competing model comparison?
I totally dig the slippery slope argument and that's why i would like something better.
A watt is just joule per second. Joule being the unit of energy. If you have something sending out 1 W then you know that after one second you end up with one joule. But if you just state that something is sending out one "joule" but don't specify the time scale then that says nothing. Does it actually take an hour to send out that joule of energy? Then it would send out, on average, 1/3600 joules per second, or 0.00027777777 watt. It did send out a joule of energy, but it took a whole hour for it to do so, making it only 0.27 mW. Why would we assume it would only need one second to do so when it's not specified? In fact most people would assume it is NOT joules per second because if it was then why wasn't it just in watts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradfo69
Continuous wave lasers should always specify their output power in watt, and you should get suspicious if they don't. Is some kind of cheap trick going on? ("We told you it would only send out 15 joules of energy! It's right in the specs!") Or did you buy a pulsed laser, which rather states the energy it can have in one of its pulses in joule...
Where it breaks down is when a company named Y-Lasers comes out with a true 1.8W projector that has basically the same diodes and everything else, but with a true measurable 1.8W at the aperture. Assuming that the 1.8W Apparent Brightness isn't really 1.8W total power, I would have to assume that it wouldn't or couldn't be as bright as the Y-Laser projector unless there is some way to trick physics. So, what do you tell the DJ who compares the two and notices they aren't the same? Is that when you break out the explanation that the X-Laser spec was based on projectors that use 650nm diodes and how your eye is more sensitive to the lower wavelengths, etc. What do you tell the DJ when he then asks, "Well, why did you choose that way instead of basing it on the diodes that Laser-Y uses in their projector?" It would be a good question.
I get the reason for "Apparent Brightness" and all of the other points. But, in the end, its a made up standard of measurement that is based on some standard that no one is really sure about. Even though we have gone through this thread, does anyone yet know what the standard of "Apparent Brightness" is? Does anyone have a 1.8W projector that they know would look the same as the one in question? I don't think so.
The whole thing just comes across to me like that whole VW diesel emissions thing. I know it isn't the same but it just feels that way... and perception is everything. It isn't what your intentions are as much as what people think your intentions are. It seems like X-Laser keeps having to explain themselves in order to get the perception straight. But, wouldn't it easier to just write up the facts in a nice tidy paragraph and add that to the advertisement?
I kinda wondered a little about something like that too. I know verbage costs money and there is the question of whether people read it anyway but, some sort of blurb like "X-Laser works hard to maximize the performance of each individual component of the laser system thereby giving the apparent brightness of a 2.5 watt RGB projector while affording the safety of much lower powers." Or something to that effect....Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnYayas
speaking from experience, most of the time , when customers ask for a lasershow, they ask for a certain wattage, I hardly ever get asked to quote for "bright enough".
I guess that's why x-lasers clientel are mainly DJ's and club end users?, where the main concern is low pricing.
that's probably the reason Ive never see professional laserists, using x-laser products, I see them mainly at clubs or weekend DJ's.
whatever works for them I guess, im sure they sell a ton of them anyways...