pvanstry Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 So now that the 688 is out, i would ask Sound devices to make us a CL12 linear fader controller. Here is what i would like to have on it: 1- 12 high quality ( Penny Giles if possible ) fader 100mm 2- Stop and Record button like on the CL6 3- That it hooks via the USB port or that SD makes a box that could fix itself to the current 688 connector used for the CL6 and then goes to a heavier duty connector. 4- USB pass thru in order to hook up a keyboard to the new CL12. 5- THat Fader 7-12 on the 688 turns into trim for does channel when the CL12 is hooked. 6- 10 programmable shortcut keys 7- Low power consumption 8- Small footprint but still with enough spacing in between faders to be practical to mix. 9- Under 3000$ 10- Make it available really soon!!! Anybody interested in this? please add your voice to this post so that we can get it… This would really make me purchase a kit. ALso, please SD, let us know if you are thinking of doing this. Thank you Pascal Van Strydonck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 So now that the 688 is out, i would ask Sound devices to make us a CL12 linear fader controller. Here is what i would like to have on it: 1- 12 high quality ( Penny Giles if possible ) fader 100mm 2- Stop and Record button like on the CL6 3- That it hooks via the USB port or that SD makes a box that could fix itself to the current 688 connector used for the CL6 and then goes to a heavier duty connector. 4- USB pass thru in order to hook up a keyboard to the new CL12. 5- THat Fader 7-12 on the 688 turns into trim for does channel when the CL12 is hooked. 6- 10 programmable shortcut keys 7- Low power consumption 8- Small footprint but still with enough spacing in between faders to be practical to mix. 9- Under 3000$ 10- Make it available really soon!!! Anybody interested in this? please add your voice to this post so that we can get it… This would really make me purchase a kit. ALso, please SD, let us know if you are thinking of doing this. Thank you Pascal Van Strydonck Exactly... From my sonosax post.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 I'd rather see a digital mixer, that would operate stand alone and be useful for years to come, no matter what recorder I choose to use in the future. The fact that there are AES capable inputs via the expansion port, means that such a mixer could feed a 688 in addition to many other options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 I'd rather see a digital mixer, that would operate stand alone and be useful for years to come, no matter what recorder I choose to use in the future. The fact that there are AES capable inputs via the expansion port, means that such a mixer could feed a 688 in addition to many other options. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek H Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 #5 is already true, at least where using the CL-6 is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Scott Young Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Definitely interested this... Unsure if they are going down that road due to recent social media posts they've made. Maybe we will learn something at NAB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAB414 Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 +1 for CL-12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Waldron Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 I need one extra fader...a CL-13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 I'd rather see a digital mixer, that would operate stand alone and be useful for years to come, no matter what recorder I choose to use in the future. The fact that there are AES capable inputs via the expansion port, means that such a mixer could feed a 688 in addition to many other options. Ya. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriskellett Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 In for a CL-12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afewmoreyears Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Agree..but... The companies would not make money for long with that strategy. Were a pretty small base from which to conduct business... That being said, building a mixer we could simply use for years would not have us back buying another any time soon.. I think the plan is to continue to roll out new stuff while keeping the lifespan manageable.. This these days this happens automatically with the technology changing so quickly. I think it is what it is... new stuff for a while and then more new stuff.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cory Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 +7 for cl-12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shastapete Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Not to be that guy, but Matt Mayer says no... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted March 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 If that's the case, either it was done on purpose or really shortsighted indeed. Either way, it would be pretty stupid. Still crossing my fingers here. In between a SOnosax with no outputs and a SOund devices with no faders, am i the only one that feels like some of us should design these things instead…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelo Waldron Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 If that's the case, either it was done on purpose or really shortsighted indeed. Either way, it would be pretty stupid. Hmmmm....maybe you are the stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisH Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 So now that the 688 is out, i would ask Sound devices to make us a CL12 linear fader controller. Here is what i would like to have on it: 1- 12 high quality ( Penny Giles if possible ) fader 100mm 2- Stop and Record button like on the CL6 3- That it hooks via the USB port or that SD makes a box that could fix itself to the current 688 connector used for the CL6 and then goes to a heavier duty connector. 4- USB pass thru in order to hook up a keyboard to the new CL12. 5- THat Fader 7-12 on the 688 turns into trim for does channel when the CL12 is hooked. 6- 10 programmable shortcut keys 7- Low power consumption 8- Small footprint but still with enough spacing in between faders to be practical to mix. 9- Under 3000$ 10- Make it available really soon!!! Anybody interested in this? please add your voice to this post so that we can get it… This would really make me purchase a kit. ALso, please SD, let us know if you are thinking of doing this. Thank you Pascal Van Strydonck Please keep the 688 off the cart! We need a new 7 series or an 8 series or a front end for the 970. I really feel strongly that the 6 series is great in a bag but doesn't belong on a cart. Now if you are building a bag cart then great, keep it a bag cart. The last thing we need is any more advancement of the 6 series, its too much that they release both the 664 and 688, that was a mistake. I think it is unprofessional to build a fader based cart around a bag based recorder. The Idea of having all those analog knobs and faders able to mess up your mix if someone brushes your cart while they point a the monitors or something is awful. The 788 is perfect for the cart because all the controls completely switch over on the CL-9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Chris, I am a little amazed at the way you are dictating and lecturing to a whole group of highly seasoned veteran sound people, telling them to "please keep the 688 off the cart". It really seems like you are expressing your own opinion in a very dogmatic and condescending way. It is quite transparent, to me, that the importance to you of keeping the 688 off the cart is that it could serve to slow down any of the possible intentions of Sound Devices to develop what it is that YOU want to put on your cart. It is fine to make suggestions, make your recommendations to Sound Devices, but to declare to all your fellow sound mixers that it is just "unprofessional" to even consider doing something different than what you want to do, that is what I would call unprofessional. I'm waiting for you to tell me I'm unprofessional because I use the 17 year old Cooper Mixer and it doesn't even have Dante! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisH Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 No Jeff you are a great mixer and Coopers are still some of the best sounding mixers on the planet. My point is that there is a hole in the market for the product I am requesting. If you want to make an analogy out of it, then make our production sound gear market a boat. There is a hole in our boat that needs patching, there is no ideal rig to add more faders to our rigs right now. We are patching this hole by adding second recorders additional mixers, bag mixers Live mixers and a wide array of other patches. We don't need to add another piece of duct tape we need to replace the broken plank and have a proper solution. Im having breakfast sorry about the morning grumps but I was really happy with the thread I started asking for an update that wasn't the 688 it seemed that people were on board with that. It also seems that us 7 series and 970 series users are due a little attention now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 I would bet that SD would prefer the 600 series stay in the bag and they optimize that use. That's not totally the reality today, but alas. It's a solid bet that they either revamp/replace the 788T, OR start to promote the PIX as their cart based solution. The obvious hole with the PIX is the lack of a front end. I'm sure they will have a solution at some point. It's a tough nut to crack. People want 32, or more, tracks available, but can you put 32 faders and still fit it on a cart? Maybe a MagLiner rolling table, but probably not the vertical carts that a significant percentage of the market uses. Now that the 688 is "done", I'm sure the engineers can work on other projects. Makes business sense to ship the 688 first. Those will outsell a cart based recorder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gilchrist Posted March 16, 2015 Report Share Posted March 16, 2015 Lots of narrative work is done from a bag now. It's part of the changing world we work in. Remember that the feature sets of the products we use are dictated by the chipsets used inside and the complexities of designing for size vs efficiency vs features. Products with custom chips are expensive and can suffer from blips in the supply chain, board layout is a true black art and design and production costs for products that will sell small quantities like a dream mixer for our needs get big really quickly. Threatening or trying to bully the manufacturers that serve us is short sighted. Best regards, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Guys, I'm my opinion there is no dedicated machine for one thing or another. It's how you use it and that's all. Not about the arrow but the archer. 688 as currently more feature then a 788t, so why shouldn't it not be at home on a cart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Deakin Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Senator is back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindrop Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Senator is back. No it'd have to be repeated at least 10,000x to qualify...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomboom Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Makes me wonder if SD won't surprise us with a 7 series new unit at NAB... Since the 688 is kind of a "dual 633", maybe they had time left to develop in the "recorder" dept. ... But I'm probably plowing clouds right now... [emoji1] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Scott Young Posted March 17, 2015 Report Share Posted March 17, 2015 Makes me wonder if SD won't surprise us with a 7 series new unit at NAB... Since the 688 is kind of a "dual 633", maybe they had time left to develop in the "recorder" dept. ... But I'm probably plowing clouds right now... [emoji1] To me, it would seem weird to announce (and ship) the 688 a month before announcing a somewhat similar 7-series unit at NAB. A lot of people are selling expensive machines (664, 788) and buying 688s... if another similar recorder was immediately available they would likely announce at the same time, no? So people could plan their upgrades. My two pennies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.