Having poked one at a tech demo, I was left with basically the same impression. I'm not really sure what the '
point' of the
console is. At this
point the software isn't fully baked (most of the cool features are 'summer 2012' which is almost over). Yes, it's got 24 mix busses (up from 16) and 16 DCAs (up from 8) but the effects rack is still behind the industry, and the signal delay is still 2.5ms (same as m7) Even stranger, the RIO and HA boxes are all compatible the M7 and 5D with an add on card...
As an LS9 replacement It's thrilling, but at 15k for the CL1 (used M7 territory) , 20 for the CL3 (sc48 territory) and 27 (3k below used pm5d territory) for the CL5, I really can't see there being much of a market for this thing.... esp seeing all those prices are without any of the remote units.
The CL series is apparently intended to slot between the M7CL and PM5D with an updated version of the now common Centralogic interface and integrated
stage box support via a non-proprietary audio
network.
Yes, Summer 2012 is almost over, which could be looked at as meaning the updated firmware and software should soon be available. Also consider that while the CL5 and Rio3224-D were released earlier this year, the CL1, CL3 and Rio1608-D were always set for a late Summer
release thus it makes some sense that the final 'production' version of the software and firmware would also be released at that time.
The analog input to analog output
latency is "less than 2.5ms", which is also the same as the PM5D and seems to compare to the "typical" 2.0ms of the DiGiCo SD9 and the 2.3ms of the
Venue SC48. If you want much lower
latency you probably need to move up to 96kHz sampling, which has its own tradeoffs including in terms of any digital networking.
With the right cards the CL series are also compatible with the AD8HR and the SB168-ES, but I see that compatibility across the
line as a potential advantage.
You seem to be mixing street and list prices in the comparison. You also seem to compare prices for new and used equipment, which is not always applicable, for example used gear is usually not an accepted or viable option in most of my work. I personally find that the only way to make accurate cost comparisons is for a specific application, otherwise one or two additional or fewer inputs or outputs, multitrack recording and playback, particular digital audio
network support and so on can often make a significant difference in the resulting costs for different consoles.
I find digital
console comparisons interesting since they are so easily affected by the reference application(s) and personal preferences. And people often seem to focus on factors that may not not relevant to every application or that won't or shouldn't matter. I remember a discussion where one person suggested everyone avoid a particular brand of consoles because of how the preamps sounded when clipped until somebody pointed out that the goal should be to not clip the preamps in the first place and how well you could avoid
clipping them might be more relevant than how they sounded when clipped.
I also think it is great to have more options available. No one analog or digital
console is going to be the answer for every application. Factors such as the use, the users, the budget, physical constraints, the rest of the
system, the procurement process and so on may all vary and each combination may be best served by a different solution. I think it's nice to have more options so you can better select the 'best fit' solution rather than trying to make one of a more limited selection work.
