1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Mixer Battle: Yamaha MG166CX vs Carvin C1240

Discussion in 'Live Sound [BG]' started by agreatheight, Oct 9, 2013.

  1. Looking at smallish mixers and have it narrowed down to 2 - the Yamaha MG166CX vs Carvin C1240. Any opinions? Other options in the price range (under 500 new)? I am keeping my eye out for a good used board, but Portland ME is a small market...

  2. modulusman

    modulusman Banned

    Jan 18, 2004
    Well I owned a c1644 mixer that was OK. Worked fine and was durable. I bought it when I needed a mixer with built in effects that had the ability to do 4 monitor mixes. I only used it for about 20-24 gigs before I replaced it with a Peavey fx16. I sold the carvin to another band who gigged it pretty heavy for about year until they upgraded. AFAIK they had no problems with it. No experience with the Yamaha.
  3. How are the pres on the Carvin? Was there anything about it you specifically didn't like? Why did you feel the need to move to the Peavey?

  4. RustyAxe


    Jul 8, 2008
    I owned a Yamaha MG166cx and liked it fine. Coincidentally I just played a gig in a church and they were using that board. Sound guy was ignorant (not stupid, just not hip to that board) so it was fortunate I knew it well.

    I also own a passive Carvin RX1200R mixer, and that's what I use most these days. 100% reliable. I prefer the "lunchbox" format to the mixing "desk" format. Easier to transport, and smaller footprint (I usually do my sound from the stage ... ugh!).
  5. seamonkey


    Aug 6, 2004
    Both great mixers. I have a smaller Yamaha for years that is essentially noise free.

    If you plan on using a lot of outboard gear, or need good monitor mixes, you might want to take a look at
    PreSonus 16.0.2

    Built in digital processing and effects, and monitor mixing. i.e. each performer can have their own monitor mix.

    Good for stage and studio.
    High price may be offset by not needing as much outboard gear.
  6. Yeah, I have heard a lot of good things about that mixer. Truth is I think it is more board than I need right now, and it's twice as much as the ones I am thinking about. But I am keeping an eye open for one used locally. If I pick up the Yamaha, I will likely use the comps and effects on board. If I pick up the Carvin, I will likely use the effects on board to start, and just route in a 1/2 rack dbx comp or two.
  7. Any other opinions on this?
  8. modulusman

    modulusman Banned

    Jan 18, 2004
    Well the Peavey I bought used for $350.00. It has stereo 27 band EQs unlike the joke 9 bands on the carvin. It also had better sounding effects, a feedback ferret, and other goodies that the carvin didn't have. When I bought the Carvin 1644 it was the only 16 channel mixer I could find that had built in effects and the ability to do 4 monitor mixes. The Peavey was introduced a few months later.
  9. I used the Yamaha for quite a while and still use it occasionally as a second mixer when I have two bookings at the same time.

    Pros: it pretty cheap, sounds decent, good eq, it has high pass filters.
    Cons: the plastic faders kept coming off, I don't particularly like the reverbs on it.
  10. LowG


    Dec 8, 2006
    Milwaukee, WI
    The built in comps on the Yamaha are actually very useable and handy. I'm enjoying using that board. But Wadge's cons list is true. If you rely on reverb to be a big part of the sound (not subtle background) you may find the built in lacking. The board is kind of plastic feeling too, but you get what you pay for. The sound and function of it has been great though.
  11. uhdinator


    Apr 20, 2010
  12. I am keeping my eyes open for a used board locally and online, but I haven't seen anything yet to make me jump.
  13. I just spotted a Mackie CFX 16 MKII for 350 local. Any thoughts on that board?
  14. modulusman

    modulusman Banned

    Jan 18, 2004
    They want to much money. I have owned 6 Mackie mixers and the cfx version one I had sucked the most. Lame effects and no headroom on the mixer itself.
  15. Thanks for the heads up. Not much of a selection here in Maine.
  16. 4Mal

    4Mal Supporting Member

    Jun 2, 2002
    Columbia River Gorge
    Cfx sound quality isn't... Bite the bullet and do the Yamaha would be my suggestion. I've had really good luck with their stuff over the years.

    Though.... If you are in the biz for the long haul... The Presonus Studio Live 16.4.2 is a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than piecing together all the rack mount crap you eventually end up with... Note that the 16.4.2 has 31 band eq's on all the outputs. Not just l&r like the 16.0.2... Yep much greater outlay up front, I got that. For me it would have been cheaper in the long run though.

Share This Page