Difference 788/CL8 vs 664

[John Blankenship]

Before this topic addressed abuse of the term "game changer," as I saw the term being bandied about, I gave some thought as to what devices, made for this profession, I thought were "game changers."

I gotta be honest (sorry if this offends anyone's "religion"), but while many manufacturers have introduced wonderful evolutionary products, I think Zaxcom holds the record for the term, as I put both the Deva and the Nomad into this category.

To me, a "game changer" is a product that drastically alters how we do our job (i.e. It changes the game for, either us individually, or for the entire industry). This is mostly a semantic argument, as, over time, the evolutionary products impact our lives every bit as much as the "game changers," but the latter seem to do it with a quick upheaval at a certain point in time.

The Deva introduced file-based recording and our world hasn't been the same. Our work procedures are different, our workflow is completely altered, and we're able to accomplish things that were barely dreamed of during the days of capstans and pinch rollers. The Nomad, for me, belongs in this category, as it drastically mitigates the pain and hassle when I find it necessary to transition from cart (with a Deva) to more mobile use that was formerly accomplished with a mixer and recorder, with all the complexity of cables and harnesses necessary for double system work on the go. The Nomad accomplishes this with an extremely compact form factor, while still having the capability of basic run-n-gun gigs along with an unprecedented amount of routing flexibility and control. So, the integrated combination of what it offers is what makes it a "game changer" in my mind.

For someone who has never used a Nomad, but would benefit from some of the type of capabilities it offers, the 664 might, to them. be a game changer. However, in the industry in general, Zaxcom got there first with the Nomad, and that's when the game changed. It changed partly because a massive number of people who didn't have the equipment for handling double-system gigs with full time code capability, now have that ability at hand with their next mixer purchase. It's the convergence of capability, flexibility, and different workflows that is revolutionary.

The 664 has a similar type of capability with its own differences, and it is a natural product in the evolution of Sound Devices' successful line (and will realize great success).

But, the company that has done the most to alter the paradigm of how we work is indisputably Zaxcom. That's not to take anything away from the other companies that continue to develop evolutionary products whose contributions enrich our work lives over a more gradual period of time.

Finally, in response to the ridiculous "mine is better than yours" comparisons that seem inevitable -- Which is better, a pair of pliers or a screwdriver?

[studiomprd]

I would add to JB's list NAGRA, as JW pointed out, the introduction of NAGRA equipment to movie making, the production sound "game" was significantly altered, and for the better.

notes: NAGRA is Polish for Recorder and Kudelski's recorders were not originally designed for movies, but for radio.

Edited September 13, 2012 by studiomprd

[Jeff Wexler]

No need to add it to his list, my first post which challenged the whole notion of "game changer", clearly identifies the Nagra as the first real game changer in the world of production sound recording. From my original post:

"I think the term 'game changer' has been miserably mis-used so many times in relation to so many products. In my view (and I have been 'viewing' this landscape for a very long time), there have been very few true 'game changers' that fit my definition of the 'game' we are changing. Some of the few items I can think of: the original Nagra, absolutely a game changer --- a recorder that allowed extremely high quality sync sound recording for motion pictures that ran on batteries and could be carried 'over the shoulder'."

[johnskog]

The 664 is wide, big. It's gonna take a pretty big bag to house a 664/cl6 with XLR cables and potentially 12 channels of wireless. When mixing that many tracks on knobs doing reality type bag work, you're GOING to miss part of a line or two. So that leans me towards the automix function of the 788t as more helpful than the extra tracks of a 664. Further, with my rack-based cart, the width of the 664 would make accessing the cables a tight squeeze for any last minute changes to the wiring. Not to mention that it's a whole lot easier mixing with faders vs knobs. Again the 788t outshines in this area. A 664 can't give you the option for linear fader control.

So I guess my point is, for me, smaller is better. More important in many ways than the interface. The Deva is by far the easiest interface available, but I bought a 788t because it was smaller and more flexible in a bag OR in a cart. And on the Game changer thing, the deva truly changed the way we recorded sound. Everything since is still just nonlinear recording. It's basically which nonlinear recorder fits your preferences/budget.

[Dan Ostroff]

The 664 is wide, big. It's gonna take a pretty big bag to house a 664/cl6 with XLR cables and potentially 12 channels of wireless. When mixing that many tracks on knobs doing reality type bag work, you're GOING to miss part of a line or two. So that leans me towards the automix function of the 788t as more helpful than the extra tracks of a 664. Further, with my rack-based cart, the width of the 664 would make accessing the cables a tight squeeze for any last minute changes to the wiring. Not to mention that it's a whole lot easier mixing with faders vs knobs. Again the 788t outshines in this area. So I guess my point is, for me, smaller is better. I can operate any recorder you throw at me. The Deva is by far the easiest interface available, but I bought a 788t because it was smaller and more flexible in a bag OR in a cart. A 664 can't give you the option for linear fader control.

I still don't see comparing the 664 to the 788 to be a fair comparison other than number of channels. Of course it is bigger, it's an add-on to the SD552, which is a bit wider than the 552 (having one more channel and a bit more room for the screen). 7-series recorders have always had a smaller footprint. I always thought CH1 on the SD552 was cramped and if the SD664 was any thinner, I think the complaint would then be that everything was too tight, cramped, etc.

Feedback I've read from most folks that use the 788T/CL8 often is that this is not a replacement to that setup, more so a replacement to the SD552. 788T has a lot more features and a dedicated *recorder*, has a hard drive, mix assist, higher sample rates, better recorder specs, etc. It must be emphasized that the SD664 is a field *mixer* that also records, intended for direct to cam bag work.

Just my $0.02.

[johnskog]

I still don't see comparing the 664 to the 788 to be a fair comparison other than number of channels.

Because both are multitrack recorders. Because a 788 with a cl8 is a "mixer." All units are capable of sending a mixtrack to camera. The Deva, nomad, 788t, 664 are all mixers with multi track recorders built in. All recording industry standard polyphonic wav files. The differences are in the size, weight, and the interface. In many cases, a 788t/cl8 combo would be overkill for bag work. And therefore (as Sound Devices even states on their 664 FAQ) the 664 would be overkill in some direct to camera situations. You have to compare the units, because in many ways they are two versions of the same thing. At that point, what is the advantage (other than track count and price), of a 664/cl6 combo?

[Dan Ostroff]

Because both are multitrack recorders. Because a 788 with a cl8 is a "mixer." All units are capable of sending a mixtrack to camera. The Deva, nomad, 788t, 664 are all mixers with multi track recorders built in. All recording industry standard polyphonic wav files. The differences are in the size, weight, and the interface. In many cases, a 788t/cl8 combo would be overkill for bag work. And therefore (as Sound Devices even states on their 664 FAQ) the 664 would be overkill in some direct to camera situations. You have to compare the units, because in many ways they are two versions of the same thing. At that point, what is the advantage (other than track count and price), of a 664/cl6 combo?

I see where you are coming from. Size wise, I don't think there is any comparison, SD664 is an add-on to the 552, therefore a bit bigger than that (without A LOT more to offer).

Personally I was surprised to see the CL6 attachment, not sure who is going to be brave enough to tote 8+ wireless around, definitely not me. But in the presentations of the SD664 that I've seen/heard thus far, there has been a clear designation that the 664 is not a dedicated recorder but a field mixer. I see it being a great alternative to the SD552 but if I had the 788/CL8, I don't think I would go to the SD664, that's just me. Here is an interesting post from SD when the 552 was introduced, comparing it to the 7-series recorders: http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/general/552-or-7-series/

Obviously not exact same comparison but some useful info can be pulled from there.

The 788T still seems like the best choice for cart use (w/ CL9 option), music recording, sound effects, and thanks to the option for CL8 it can also be used as a bag mixer (was the 788 originally intended for bag use?).

John - are you thinking of going from a 788 set up to 664?

[drpro]

I feel the 664 is a 552 replacement to some degree (ignoring the CL-6 add on), six inputs, plus six iso record and mixes. The ability to feed 3 cameras easily with standard connectors (most everyone has 10pin to camera cables and XLR cables). A much better user interface than the 552 or 700 series recorders. All of this for a few hundred dollars more. Yes it is a bit larger than the 552 and definitely larger than the 700 series recorders. I would say the 664 market is the mixer world of reality tv. Five wireless plus boom with the safety of recording all of those inputs. With its TC in and out plus word clock it can dabble in the cart world, though not as well as some of the other recorders out there. I recently was on a show that had two field crews tethered to each camera. We were using wireless and boom. Back in the bus there was a venue system recording the same wireless to a 788T, cameras all had lockit boxes. Nothing fancy. A 664 could have also done this.

It is another tool, next year there will be something else and so on. Is it perfect, no, but it fits a niche.

David

[johnskog]

I'm actively convincing myself that I don't need a 664.

[studiomprd]

" When mixing that many tracks on knobs doing reality type bag work, "

that is more a "tracking" gig than a mixing gig...

[johnskog]

indeed

[David Silberberg]

a mixer that records? or a recorder that mixes:

It's a mixer. I kind of wish I had waited to buy this instead of the 552 I bought in February-- but I needed it at the time. My old Cooper cs104 wasn't really enough and my 788t/CL8 was too much for many jobs...

With the 552, I guess SD was aiming their sites on the reality tv market that Wendt's x5 mixer fit into so comfortably-- offering a real step up from the X5 in features. But now it seems everyone wants isos-- and putting another brick (recorder) into the bag to capture the 552 isos is inconvenient. You might as well have the 788t or Nomad instead. So the 552 and all it's direct outs is kind of a half baked cake.

But after using the 552 since February I must say I like it operationally better than the 788t in that it's a simpler recorder, by far, and that generally means less fussing and checking and more of an analogue feel. I think I like the way it sounds better too.

On the other hand when there's a potential for things to get more complex I turn to the 788t. It really covers all the bases that I'm likely to run into. And that's why I bought it in the first place.

So the 664 is one better than the 552 because now you've got those isos covered without an extra machine in the bag. But the 664's menu driven functionality I fear would lead me more into the tech head zone- which is distracting. But then- I haven't tried the 664 so maybe it's menus aren't that bad.

As far as it's expanded capability, well, I don't think I want to do a 16 ch recording this way.

I certainly don't want to do a 16ch recording job wearing a bag. You can keep that job.

DS