Jump to content

Sound Devices 688 + SL-6


Ze Frias

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...