Jump to content
henrimic

Sound Devices CL-16 announced

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, johngooch said:

 X3 does not have faders in traditional sense.  What looks like faders and pots are actuators and any level control can be assigned to any actuator.

That was at least with the 1st cantarem for X/X2 the case, if I remember correctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanieldH said:

CL12 does work with the 833 though. 

The CL 12 is not a currently offered product, so unless you happen to have one, it does not really help an 833 owner.  Yes, one might be had used, but not a good solution for a new product line of the 8 series.  While it is true that this is overkill for an 833 in terms of capacity, it should still work should someone be so inclined, the architecture between the three machines is pretty similar and so far they all run the same software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, daniel said:

Sonosax R4+ is small light and looks very good value still, with the track count you need, dedicated linear fader panel and some other nice features for just a bit more than 833 - maybe a way to go.


Definitely did seriously consider the Sonosax SX-R4+ before I got my Sound Devices 833. 
I feel that the 833 was the right choice, but if Sound Devices keeps up this game of artificially restricting the 833 then I may end up regretting that. 
Plus Zaxcom has promised Nova will support their Oasis in the future, so we'll see how the roll out of Nova develops. 

 

7 hours ago, DanieldH said:

If I may humbly ask, what is the application of a 16 fader interface for a 12track 8input recorder. Yes, there are 6 busses or is it the screen, whatever it may do?

 

Just because there are 16 faders doesn't mean you have to use all 16 tracks at all time. (Am sure most CL-16 users won't be using all 16 faders all the time, just like most Scorpio users are not running all 36 tracks all the time)

Unless you think Sound Devices is going to bring out a smaller 12 track fader interface just for the 833?? And even if a "CL-12 mk2" is made, what if there are some other differences which would have made the CL-16 a better pick for you needs? (maybe the "CL-12 mk2" loses the screen for example) Or what if you live in a smaller market which has doesn't have both the "CL-12 mk2" and the CL-16 available to rent? And there is only the CL-16 available, that won't be possible for 833 users. 

 

7 hours ago, DanieldH said:

CL12 does work with the 833 though. 


It's a discontinued product, and it looks likely the CL-16 will be a better product to use with 8 Series Recorders. Except the 833 is being excluded, even though it is meant to be part of the 8 Series. 

 

This is as illogical as not allowing a Sound Devices Scorpio to use the new Sound Devices SL-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

This is as illogical as not allowing a Sound Devices Scorpio to use the new Sound Devices SL-2

"

 

A bit of a non sequitur and an overstatement perhaps. Why would SD not include the necessary hardware in their flagship recorder to not work with all the accessories in the series?

It is just possible that somethings could not be included to make the 833 as affordable as it is. If it had CL16 capability but cost another 40% would you have bought it? And would they have sold enough to make it worthwhile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amazed that people keep on thinking it isn't possible for the 833 to support CL-16, and are trying to justify Sound Devices' actions.

 

 

This isn't like say for instance when the 664 was excluded from getting automix, because the 664 has radically different underlying hardware than what the 633/688 shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's possible.

The question is, would it make the 833 more expensive to do so (extra Hardware) and even if it wouldn't, does it work out with SD business model.

 

These days people seem to think that everything that is possible is free, but lots of engineering / coding has gone into making things work, and somewhere somebody has to pay for that.

 

Arri for example sells 3 versions of their Amira with the same hardware but different firmware possibilities for radically different prices (25K, 30K, 35K). Once could argue that it shouldn't cost them anything to give away the advanced and premium licenses for free, but then again they have been running a successful business for years and years and I haven't, so I trust they know more then me about that ; )

Chris

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Chris Woodcock said:

This is what happens when you have to many products, sound devices have so much fragmentation.

 

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it -  they offer plenty of good options, suited for different types of jobs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is would you spend more on the mixer than on the recorder? No word on pricing yet but he CL-16 I bet is going to be north of $4K. 

 

What’s so wrong with using a 3rd party mixer anyway? If you really needed to put it on a cart and mix that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrismedr said:

The question is, would it make the 833 more expensive to do so (extra Hardware) and even if it wouldn't, does it work out with SD business model.

 

 

No, the 833 wouldn't require a trip back to the mothership to get extra hardware installed to support the CL-16. 

Also Sound Devices promised they'd bring out their own dedicated control surface for the 833, the lack of support for the 833 looks like backtracking by them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

No, the 833 wouldn't require a trip back to the mothership to get extra hardware installed to support the CL-16. 

Also Sound Devices promised they'd bring out their own dedicated control surface for the 833, the lack of support for the 833 looks like backtracking by them. 

Eehm, David, I've PM'd you.
Did that not work?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you recall, when the 6 series rolled out, the 633 was initially not supported for the CL-12. The reason was basically because it is a bag mixer, and if you want to mix with faders on a cart, you should get a cart mixer.

 

I would say that it would have been smart for SD to consider that MAYBE someone out there would want to buy two 833s (principal and backup) to primarily use in a bag, but with the use of the long forgotten C-Link, could gang their two machines together and use a CL-16 for those projects that come around maybe not often enough to justify also buying an 888. Just my thoughts, but I feel like a lot of bag mixers out there can identify with this scenario. It’s perhaps a missed opportunity for SD sales if CL-16 implementation for the 833 and C-Link weren’t abandoned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any official response from Sound Devices about the lack of compatibility with the 833 and if they have any alternate plans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AB said:

Is there any official response from Sound Devices about the lack of compatibility with the 833 and if they have any alternate plans?

Well, isn't there a working alternative since day one? A third party fader panel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there isn’t a dedicated controller for the 833 announced at the moment does not mean it’s never coming. Maybe there is a CL-10 in the pipeline? 
There is a dedicated controller already and it’s supported by SD. And it’s arguably much better suited to the 833 than to Scorpio. 

 

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

No, the 833 wouldn't require a trip back to the mothership to get extra hardware installed to support the CL-16. 


Well, I‘m glad you know so well how the 833 works and what it does or doesn’t need to get the CL-16 going. SD may have additional insight.

 

On 1/26/2020 at 3:09 PM, johngooch said:

Sooo I think -yes you can have  track level control on one "fader"  and the fader next to it a can control pre-amp gain of that track....  

 

On 1/26/2020 at 3:55 PM, Jeff Wexler said:

Constantin and John Gooch, you do know that this flexible assignment of each "knob" (fader) is the way Zaxcom recorder/mixers have worked for years. 


Thanks John and Jeff, that’s both very interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JonG said:

If you recall, when the 6 series rolled out, the 633 was initially not supported for the CL-12. The reason was basically because it is a bag mixer, and if you want to mix with faders on a cart, you should get a cart mixer.

 


Lots of people used the 633 on a cart however, even with a CL-12. Be it for small commercials, or indie feature films, short films, "TV Movie of the Week", etc

And I'm sure the 833 will be at least as popular for that, if not even more so than the 633 was (an 833/CL-16 combo certainly would be better than a 633/CL-12 ever was!).

 

As after all many big budget productions have been done with a 788T / Cantar X2 / Deva IV / etc , yet the Sound Devices 833 has similar ish or even greater I/O capabilities than those do. Thus it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect to see the 833 on lower tier small sound carts. 

 

3 hours ago, AB said:

Is there any official response from Sound Devices about the lack of compatibility with the 833 and if they have any alternate plans?


Sound Devices had promised there would be a new dedicated controller for the 8 Series, but with the updated news about the CL-16 it looks like they're breaking their word and giving the cold shoulder to 833 users. Instead only supporting Scorpio / 888, not the whole 8 Series. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the response of Sound Devices about the lack of AES inputs and the release of the XL-AES accesory, I think we can be confident, they do listen to their customers.

If you remember, the Dungan automix was first introduced on the 688 and after a while only on the 633 too.

The CL-16 was just announced and is not available yet.

This kind of equipment is made to last, we are not in the smartphone business, and investment in our tools is a long term decision.

So, we should be patient and see what will really come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Constantin said:

Just because there isn’t a dedicated controller for the 833 announced at the moment does not mean it’s never coming. Maybe there is a CL-10 in the pipeline? 

I'm skeptical there is a 2nd controller coming from Sound Devices in the near future. 
What if this mythical "CL-10" drops some important function the CL-16 has such as coms or the big LCD display?
And even if the "CL-10" is identical to the CL-16, what if you're in a small market which only has a CL-16 available for rent? You'll be locked out of using a 1st party controller. 

 

3 hours ago, Vincent R. said:

Well, isn't there a working alternative since day one? A third party fader panel?


That wasn't regarded as a good enough answer for 888/Scorpio users. In fact if you remember back, there was quite a backlash to that response, is why Sound Devices quickly brought out support for the CL-12 (which they had said before wasn't possible!) and then promised another (what we now know is the called the CL-16) would be coming soon for the 8 Series. 

 

Why invest in the 8 Series if Sound Devices is going to artificially restrict accessories from being used across the 8 Series range? (if a few years down the road I can justify getting a higher track count recorder, why should it be an 888/Scorpio if there will be unnecessary hiccups in terms of what can be shared across the 8 Series family? I'll be much more inclined to look into researching deeply elsewhere first. Sound Devices should rethink their strategy here, as this kind of artificial market segmentation will lose them sales)

 

What next is going happen, will Sound Devices release the stackable "SL-4" and exclude the 833 from using that as well? I don't think so, but it makes you wonder.
 

Am not the only one thinking this, I've had multiple private messages saying similar. Just I'm the one of only the few willing to pop his head out into the firing zone and say publicly what I'm feeling. Had one person mention to me he's going to sell his 833 later in the year and get a Zaxcom Nova instead once the Nova kinks are ironed out. Another couple of people have said they're going to hold off on upgrading their 633 to an 833 and wait to see how this pans out. 

 

Fair enough, the 633 is still a very capable machine they can carry on using for years to come, and the CL-16 raises skepticism about what the long term future of the 833 with Sound Devices is going to be. Are they going to keep the 833 in this pigeon hole forever going into the future? As the ugly redheaded stepchild of the 8 series family? I really hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

What if ...

 

You worry far too much about equipment (I know because I'm often having the same trouble ; )

Also, it's probably a good idea to buy equipment that does the things you need now, and not what it might be able to do (or not) in the future. If it's unclear and you don't like disappointments, better to wait a few month until things are ready and field tested.

 

just my 2 cents

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I'm skeptical there is a 2nd controller coming from Sound Devices in the near future. 
What if this mythical "CL-10" drops some important function the CL-16 has such as coms or the big LCD display?
And even if the "CL-10" is identical to the CL-16, what if you're in a small market which only has a CL-16 available for rent? You'll be locked out of using a 1st party controller. 

 


That wasn't regarded as a good enough answer for 888/Scorpio users. In fact if you remember back, there was quite a backlash to that response, is why Sound Devices quickly brought out support for the CL-12 (which they had said before wasn't possible!) and then promised another (what we now know is the called the CL-16) would be coming soon for the 8 Series. 

 

Why invest in the 8 Series if Sound Devices is going to artificially restrict accessories from being used across the 8 Series range? (if a few years down the road I can justify getting a higher track count recorder, why should it be an 888/Scorpio if there will be unnecessary hiccups in terms of what can be shared across the 8 Series family? I'll be much more inclined to look into researching deeply elsewhere first. Sound Devices should rethink their strategy here, as this kind of artificial market segmentation will lose them sales)
 

What next is going happen, will Sound Devices release the stackable "SL-4" and exclude the 833 from using that as well? I don't think so, but it makes you wonder.
 

 

A bit late to be skeptical now.

 

But seriously, neither SL2 or CL16 are released yet - we don't even know what they will cost. I heard 1 nice rumour about SL2 and Paul Isaacs confirmed no additional O/Ps (other than the ribbon). Good and bad in my opinion (which is of no  consequence ,'). However IMHO (and I think that of others), SD have been pretty good in the past about NOT making promises that don't happen (or take longer than thought). Ie. SD avoiding blowback by managing most peoples expectations quite well. I was pleasantly surprised when Dugan was included in a 633 update (and like I've said before would have paid something for it If that had been the only pathway as I didn't want the bigger 688). I think Jon G does make a good point about redundancy and compatibilities across recorders - hence my disappointment about SL2 O/Ps. But I think if you drew up a spreadsheet of what works with what, you'd find SD probably have a greater level of compatibilities, inclusions and shared functions across the available product ranges than any other brand. It make sense for them to prioritise the fader surface for the more expensive (cart orientated) recorders. And although it might not be directly linked - should SD delay the availability of a fader board for the bigger cart recorders until they can make it compatible with the whole range (or make a promise about 833/CL16 compatibility that takes too long for some)? Like I asked before, would you have paid more for your 833 for additional functions/features (or pay for an upgrade like Zaxcom did with Nomad)? There are so many products out there now compared to what was on offer 20 years ago and because of this, some great deals on some slightly older but really good gear - like your Maxx.

 

Maybe 833 can be updated for CL16 and if there was enough consensus amongst the community for doing this through something like a paid for FW/HW upgrade maybe it can happen sooner rather than later (if possible at all?)? But raging about your recorder not doing nearly everything the 1 costing twice as much does seems to forget the implications for those who've spent so much more on those machines and I don't think will get you the outcome you're after. From observation, those with most influence tend to be more in the loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, daniel said:

or make a promise about 833/CL16 compatibility that takes too long for some


Nope, from the way Sound Devices is wording it then it looks like Sound Sound is explicitly ruling out the 833 ever being compatible. As they specifically mentioned the question of "will this work with the 833?" then said: "The CL-16 is intended for cart use and only works with the Scorpio and 888."


Ignoring their users who would use an 833 / CL-16 on a cart, just like the 633 / CL-12 was. 

But hey, who am I to question their marketing logic.... perhaps they want to reduce demand for the CL-16?? 😉

 

22 minutes ago, daniel said:

From observation, those with most influence tend to be more in the loop.

Yes, not those with the smallest 833. 

I do agree with much of the rest of your post (except I reckon charging a firmware upgrade for something all the other recorders got without charge would be seen as very unfair). 

Anyway, high time I got off the internet! (especially as mere walls of text on the internet is terrible at conveying emotion. I'm probably coming across as raging angry, when that couldn't be further from the truth! I'm merely logically and calmly disappointed over how Sound Devices is treating this)
 

Anywho, got to finish preparing for tomorrow's shoot (yes, with the 833, I'm not giving up on it yet! 😜😂) & go to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, henrimic said:

If you look at the response of Sound Devices about the lack of AES inputs and the release of the XL-AES accesory, I think we can be confident, they do listen to their customers.

If you remember, the Dungan automix was first introduced on the 688 and after a while only on the 633 too.

The CL-16 was just announced and is not available yet.

This kind of equipment is made to last, we are not in the smartphone business, and investment in our tools is a long term decision.

So, we should be patient and see what will really come.

I was a beneficiary of the Dugan/Automix FW upgrade for 633 but I don't think the XL-AES accessory was a response to people saying it was crazy for a recorder in 2019/20 to have so few AES I/Ps. The XL-AES accessory was always in the pipeline and designed to steer mixers away from using non Superslot, AES O/P wireless. Put it this way, there's no point in buying a Nova if you're going to use a wireless system other than Zaxcom (you can - but why would you?).

Share this post


Link to post
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...