Jim Feeley Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Gotham Sound sums up the 688 in this 35-second video. Cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erkal Taskin Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Gotham Sound sums up the 688 in this 35-second video. Cute. See even Gotham thinks 788 is over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted March 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Gotham Sound sums up the 688 in this 35-second video. Cute. https://vimeo.com/121194739 Haha this is a great video! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 What advantage would that be? (...I'm not being provocative, - genuinely interested in this). My guess is that the 668 was always on the cards, but the 664 was easier to get out at the time to keep the brand relevant and compete. Now I wonder if they'll ever update the firmware for 664, - even the 663 offers more than 48khz!!!....I want my money back. there's no fader lag for one. also, there's no additional delay to the A/D and D/A process required for the DSP engine to work. This delay is very small, but there are instances where utilizing an analog system may be beneficial, versus a digital one where you then either have to live with the side effects or add additional hardware for time synchronization (FoH or audio distribution systems for example). Also, analog circuits tend to be immune to firmware glitches (although digitally controlled analog one may not be). I wouldn't outright say that one is better than the other, both have their advantages, but there are many reasons why digital systems are taking over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arnold Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Can you assign all the pots (large and small) to be trim controls a la Nomad? In my experience the kind of shows that require somebody to have over 6 tracks mixed in the bag on rotary faders are almost always the kind of fuck-ups where a mix is near impossible. I end up turning my Nomad faders into trims and just handing over ISO tracks. If so, having the mini faders would be a godsend that wouldn't require a bolt-on panel which both the 664 and the Nomad do, unless you are truly nuts and think you can use the 'virtual faders'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek H Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 When the cl-6 is attached the mini faders become trims for 7-12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myke2241 Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Its cool but for me it doesn't replace my 788t. I was really hoping for a pure recorder to replace something in the 7 series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeheel Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 SInce the SL-6 distributes a single pair of antennas, does that mean that all six wireless channels have to be in the same block? That could be a bit problematic... Cheers, Brent Calkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevland Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 there's no fader lag for one. also, there's no additional delay to the A/D and D/A process required for the DSP engine to work. This delay is very small, but there are instances where utilizing an analog system may be beneficial, versus a digital one where you then either have to live with the side effects or add additional hardware for time synchronization (FoH or audio distribution systems for example). Also, analog circuits tend to be immune to firmware glitches (although digitally controlled analog one may not be). I wouldn't outright say that one is better than the other, both have their advantages, but there are many reasons why digital systems are taking over. Totally understant Tom, but for the function these devices are required - in the bag recorder, sync to picture, the 688 wins hands down. The fact that it is is exactly the same box as the 664 means they have had this template on the table for years and filled the guts with the 664 until they were ready to roll. I now own a (heavy) analogue box that looks the same as the 688 but without the flirtatious eye-lashes. The 664 has been put out to pasture and my guess is that it will one day soon disappear from their product list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Williams Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 It really is cool. I wonder if they'll make a control surface for it similar to the CL-9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsound Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 So a few more details from Paul Isaacs: "No external audio cables are necessary to get audio from the SL-6 to the 688. All audio is passed through a short cable that runs between the bottom panel of the SL-6 and the top panel of the 688. Its a cable similar to the one that connects the CL-6 to the 664 except is has a few more pins. This small cable also passes serial command data (for control and monitoring of receivers) and powering." I think this is quite significant. Having read the draft 688 manual I can not find any reference to how the output of the CL-6 is assigned on the 688. Does it create an additional menu page(s) when connected? Thanks Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted March 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Having read the draft 688 manual I can not find any reference to how the output of the CL-6 is assigned on the 688. Does it create an additional menu page(s) when connected? Thanks Steve Assuming you mean the SL-6 (the wireless slot in add-on) and not the CL-6 (the fader panel add-on), don't really know. I'm sure more info will come to light as the day approaches. Though they announce the 688 will be out next month, the SL-6 won't be out until the summer. So there may be some waiting before you get your answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 How exactly this is a combination of 788 & 664? I see it as version two of 664, rather than 788 & 664. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomboom Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 automix and digital Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afewmoreyears Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 I just wish I could hot swap it with my 788 and CL-9... Yank off the 788 and pop on the 688....Using it with my CL-9 would have it in my kit as soon as it was avail... No CL-9 usability, I'll stick with the 788... and the 633 for the bag... Agree with the idea that I would NEVER want to load it with all those radios and tote it around... F&^$ that... but I would love to use it on a cart... That concept usually means a brutal day and a way for them to eliminate the boom ops... Hey, might as well just boom it too right...!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 It's all analog before the A/D. "Digital" doesn't say something. 788 is still better IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted March 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 It's all analog before the A/D. "Digital" doesn't say something. You could say the same about the 788. To clarify Pierre's comment further, like the 788, the 688 has it's A/D stage after the mic pre-amps, and does all of its mixing in the digital domain. Unlike the 664, which is all analog and does all of its mixing in the analog domain; the recorder is in the back end, A/D stage being pre- or post-fader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Capulli Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Chiming in regarding new products in 6 series and not 7 series - always love to see new stuff from SD - to me the way the 788 was laid out was very intuitive. I prefer that aspect over the 6, 5, 4 series (if you call it that) of mixer recorders. To me you can be faster with your hands on the bag and eyes on the set with the way that machine was laid out. (I feel same with 411s over the SRs.) Very impressed with this super slot standard - can't wait to see it function on screen and maybe further implementation Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 You could say the same about the 788. To clarify Pierre's comment further, like the 788, the 688 has it's A/D stage after the mic pre-amps, and does all of its mixing in the digital domain. Unlike the 664, which is all analog and does all of its mixing in the analog domain; the recorder is in the back end, A/D stage being pre- or post-fader. My point is: For me this is not a replacement for 788. 688 simple offers more "features" from 664. Waiting to see the new 788 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Childers Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 As a 664 owner this is kind of frustrating...yes the 688 looks awesome, you know they had this already on the mind when they releases the 664 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 As a long time owner of a 664, i see this new machine as more of a 633 upgrade. After all, it is a digital mixer and not an analog one. That being said, he does give a lot of possibilities expansion wise. Input and output delays, multiples Aux outs, mix assist, a brighter display ( if i got that right ) and not to forget a SL-6, which i will call a step in the right direction. Now picture the 688, a SL-6 and a ( crossing my fingers here ) a CL-12 linear fader controller, and seriously, who could resist? Just curious, how many of you would a CL-12 convince them to make the change? i bet a lot of you... my two cents Pascal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAB414 Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 As a long time owner of a 664, i see this new machine as more of a 633 upgrade. After all, it is a digital mixer and not an analog one. That being said, he does give a lot of possibilities expansion wise. Input and output delays, multiples Aux outs, mix assist, a brighter display ( if i got that right ) and not to forget a SL-6, which i will call a step in the right direction. Now picture the 688, a SL-6 and a ( crossing my fingers here ) a CL-12 linear fader controller, and seriously, who could resist? Just curious, how many of you would a CL-12 convince them to make the change? i bet a lot of you... my two cents Pascal Me for sure. And a side question, is it safe to assume the SL-6 is completely incompatible with the 664? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 Indeed SL6 works only with 688. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted March 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 And a side question, is it safe to assume the SL-6 is completely incompatible with the 664? Paul Isaacs from Sound Devices confirmed that the SL-6 will ONLY work with the 688 because the short cable connection between the 688 and the SL-6 has a few more pins that the 664 lacks that will allow for the receiver control and audio monitoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulluysavage Posted March 5, 2015 Report Share Posted March 5, 2015 +1 on Cl-12 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.