SanDevices E682 vs E6804

Discussion in 'RGB Lights - Intelligent Pixels and 3-Channel RGB' started by Shanta, Oct 4, 2013.

  1. Shanta

    Shanta New Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wake Forest, NC, USA
    I have just ordered an E6804 and read the manual in anticipation of it's arrival. The more I look at it the more impressed I am with what the 6804 can do and am left wondering why the 682 has such a broad audience. I understand that the additional outputs meet some very specific design needs; if for instance you are running many varieties of pixel standards. I can also see that the dual voltage is nice, again for those with very specific needs.


    But, unless I'm mistaken, with the E6804 you can run the controller in 12v, have a couple of 12v strings attached to a couple of ports and then have another port setup to drive a 5V string and just use the data (and clock, if req) from the board and have the power bypass the controller and go straight from the power supply to the string. Is this not the case? I know I'd miss the benefit of the on-board fuses, but inline fuses are cheap.


    Both units can handle 12 universes of pixels. It seems to me that, unless you are running more than 4 different types of output there is no need or the 682. Am I missing something? If I were using it as a pixel controller AND as a e1.31-DMX bridge then perhaps the extra outputs would be particularly helpful, since each DMX-out would be driving so many fewer pixels than what it's capable of (ideally distributing 510 pixels to each output of the 6804 instead of the 170 for each DMX output) so spreading that load over more outputs would be nice. But for the price difference why not just get 2 6804s? Unless 8 ports just isn't enough and you really need 12. For now I'm running all 1 type of strip, considering adding some strings (all of the same type) and perhaps dedicating a port to DMX to drive a TinyPix with some floods and maybe a star. All told less than a thousand pixels.


    So, is there some advantage to the E682 I'm missing?
     
  2. thebaronn

    thebaronn New Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not 100%. But I am pretty sure the refresh rate on the 6804 using the same number of pixels will be much lower than the 682.
    Lets say you wanted to run 1600 pixels. All 12V for ease, cause I am not that smart.
    On the 6804: inject power at the board, or first pixel and 101st, 201st 301st (you could push it to 129 and 257 but I think you will still need a third injections point) The refresh rate will only be 30hz (per Jim) and that is utilizing only 10ish universes.
    On the 682: way more options for running the same amount of pixels. Easiest? 16 100ct strands, powered from the board. No pain of injecting, refresh rate is 123hz.
    I think main thing is the refresh rate on the pixels. Whatever you drive on the 6804 its 4 times faster on the 682. Since you are thinking of using 2 6804, I guess the refresh rate would only be 2 times faster using the same setup over 2 6804 boards as opposed to just a 682 board. For 1000 pixels, the 6804 might be the way to go. My wife calls it the "cute" controller. LOL!
    I have 6 682s and 2 6804s. The goal was for the 6804 to be high in the air driving all the lights on the roof....
    Small, compact, lightweight. If you really want to be cheap you could wrap it in a Ziploc bag and duct tape it to the roof. Not that I have done such crude things :D
    If I am wrong in part or whole, it wouldn't surprise me.
    Hopefully someone else can chime in.
    Good luck this year!
    Eric
     
  3. Charl Marais

    Charl Marais For my twins was the excuse I started with.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Secunda
    Find Me On:
    Ziplock bags - mmmhh now why didn't I think of that :eek: .
    My take on this is that both will do the job without a problem and it is only once your CLAP addition starts growing thorns that the 682 will start delivering improved performance.
    That said I think both are great units with slightly different application niches.
     
  4. jediknight2

    jediknight2 Full Time Elf

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I don't think that's right. Power Injection is a matter of voltage drop over distance from power insertion. Therefore, your injection points wouldn't change...
     
  5. thebaronn

    thebaronn New Elf

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ziplock bags: you haven't thought of it because you haven't reached my level of laziness!!

    The injection: i see what you mean, even if I'm running power through the board, i am still injecting power. I meant that if you run 16 100ct strands (100 per socket) on the 682 board you do not need to inject power down the line if you run it through the board. If you were running 400 pixels per socket, you would have to.

    Eric
     
  6. plasmadrive

    plasmadrive Full Time Elf

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Elk Grove, CA
    I have 2 6804s driving 8 universes of icicles under my eves and while I didn't wrap the 6804s in ziplock bags, I did use some Pixel Extenders and they are in the ziplock bags. Can't see any reason those won't work for the 6804.. just watch out for static.
     

Share This Page