Members hamer Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 this looks pretty good to me 2X 500 watt amps Versatile 16-Input Configuration Adapts to Varied Source Requirements Advanced Channel EQ Ample I/O for Expansion and Integration One-knob Compression on Mono Channels 9-band Digital Graphic EQ with Presets & Memory FRC (Frequency Response Correction) System Automatic Feedback Suppression Multi-band "Maximizer" Dual Yamaha SPX Effect Processors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members drumstix Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Nice board, wonder how much it weighs. I like the extra CD/tape imputs per channel strip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hamer Posted February 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Nice board, wonder how much it weighs. I like the extra CD/tape imputs per channel strip. only 24 pounds I think yamaha has a winner herehttp://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/ModelSeriesDetail/0,,CNTID%25253D450962%252526CTID%25253D227800,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ViLo Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm picking one up this week, I wanted the Mixwiz3 but I don't have enough money to buy a separate power amp[to match with my Mackie C300's] This Yamie will do for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RoboPimp Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I wish I could say something good about them but my yamaha board has not held up well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GCDEF Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I only see 8 real channels.2 monitor mixes"Maximum Output Power @ 0.5 % THD at 1 kHz: 500 W/4 ohms". Calling those amps 500 watts is a bit of a stretch. For the money, I still say the Carvin C1644P offers a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarharv52 Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I have the smaller 5014 and like it pretty well.He's right about the power.It does well but that is MAX power at 1k.It has plenty of volume for what I do(classic rock,3pc).As much as I like it,next time I will go passive mixer and active speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Smitty-PNS Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Have to agree with GCDEF on this one. I'll keep my Carvin 1644P as well. ============================== Not sure I like the + - buttons on the graphic EQ. How many monitor mixes are there on that unit? ============================== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaBender Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I only see 8 real channels. I suggest an eye examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GCDEF Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I suggest an eye examination. Likewise. See anything different between channels 8 and 9? How many mic inputs does this "16 input" mixer have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 "Maximum Output Power @ 0.5 % THD at 1 kHz: 500 W/4 ohms". Calling those amps 500 watts is a bit of a stretch. And how is this? The effects processors and comps. by themselves are quite beyond Carvin's offering, and if 8 (mic) channels are suitable for the application then it seems like a pretty reasonable offering to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GCDEF Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 And how is this?The effects processors and comps. by themselves are quite beyond Carvin's offering, and if 8 (mic) channels are suitable for the application then it seems like a pretty reasonable offering to me. I said the Carvin gives more for the money and I'll stand by that. I'll take Carvin's 16 mic channels, 4 monitor mixes, 4 power amps, 4 busses over Yamaha's 12/2/2/1 as being more useful than Yamaha's fancier effects processor. The Carvin has reverb/delay/chorus and flange. We only use reverb and delay anyway and they're perfectly adequate in the Carvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members prosigna Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 It would cost hundreds of dollars in outboard gear to get that many comps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaBender Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Likewise. See anything different between channels 8 and 9? How many mic inputs does this "16 input" mixer have? The first 8 channels have a compressor, while the next 4 do not. I see 12 "real" mic channels. Why do you claim there are only 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members prosigna Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 The last four channels are pared down beyond just the compressors. They also lose the swept mids, input pad, and channel inserts. The first 8 are real nice and the last 4 are equal to really cheap mixers. The funny thing is the first 8-ch have comps and inserts. The last four have neither. The most common thing placed in inserts is comps. Strange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kevinnem Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 The last four channels are pared down beyond just the compressors. They also lose the swept mids, input pad, and channel inserts. The first 8 are real nice and the last 4 are equal to really cheap mixers.The funny thing is the first 8-ch have comps and inserts. The last four have neither. The most common thing placed in inserts is comps. Strange? .. both make a good point.... can we say 8 real channels, and 4 x 1/2(.5) channels? .... yes, that is what I will vote for, I say this is a 10 channnel mixer (makes a much sense as some of the marketing interpetations of channels....) Kev. I think it is interesting to see a digital EQ, .... how long is it befoe someone drops a DSP chip in and offers a FULL 31 band digital EQ on each output? I though you could do it for cheap, you need a little interface, and the chip, but you only need to program 1 set of code, and surely you could steal that from anouther digital product everyone has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members prosigna Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 That digital EQ is pretty neat. Cheap mixers have cheap parts and the faders on an eq like that would get noisy fast. Now they will last much longer. The interface for multiple 31-band eq's would be more complicated than the simple LED style interface used here. I think adding that level of functionality to something like a A&H GL-2400 would be a neat package. Something like adding a DriveRack PA (Including the Crossover) and a Lexicon effects unit with a small LCD like used on Roland V-series multi-track recorders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 My question is why do you not think it's a 500 watt amp? Any insight? As far as the features, if 8 full mic channels with comps and good effects suit the application, it's a heck of a nice solution. Just because something has 16 mic inputs doesn't mean it's automatically a better product. My friend plays in a guitar/bass trio, needs only 6 channels but also would like comps and good effects... this is a much better value for THEM in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GCDEF Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 My question is why do you not think it's a 500 watt amp? Any insight?As far as the features, if 8 full mic channels with comps and good effects suit the application, it's a heck of a nice solution. Just because something has 16 mic inputs doesn't mean it's automatically a better product. My friend plays in a guitar/bass trio, needs only 6 channels but also would like comps and good effects... this is a much better value for THEM in this case. "Maximum Output Power @ 0.5 % THD at 1 kHz: 500 W/4 ohms". I said it's a bit of a stretch. Peak power obviously, at only 1 kHz not full range, THD is kind of high into 4 ohms. They seem to really stretch things just so they can claim 1000 watts total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ViLo Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 My question is why do you not think it's a 500 watt amp? Any insight?As far as the features, if 8 full mic channels with comps and good effects suit the application, it's a heck of a nice solution. Just because something has 16 mic inputs doesn't mean it's automatically a better product. My friend plays in a guitar/bass trio, needs only 6 channels but also would like comps and good effects... this is a much better value for THEM in this case. Now, will I be better of with this one: [Peavey16FX] http://www.musikmuehle-engen.de/images/peavey-16fx.jpg and a power amp? I like the idea of having the One Knob Compressors, on the 5016.the 500 watts @ 4 omhs will give me________________watts @ 8 ohms [??] I will run 5 acoustic electric guitars, one acoustic electric bass, and 3 vocals, from 100 -400 people churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 13, 2007 Members Share Posted February 13, 2007 "Maximum Output Power @ 0.5 % THD at 1 kHz: 500 W/4 ohms". I said it's a bit of a stretch. Peak power obviously, at only 1 kHz not full range, THD is kind of high into 4 ohms. They seem to really stretch things just so they can claim 1000 watts total. The difference between 0.5%THD and anything lower results in maybe a few watts. Yamaha decided on 0.5% as their point of measurement. As far as 1kHz is concerned, if you took the bandwidth of the average fullrange speaker, again you would find a difference of maybe a few watts. It is NOT a peak power measurement by the way, it's a RMS based measurement. Yamaha is pretty reasonable in general about their power measurements by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GCDEF Posted February 13, 2007 Members Share Posted February 13, 2007 The difference between 0.5%THD and anything lower results in maybe a few watts. Yamaha decided on 0.5% as their point of measurement. As far as 1kHz is concerned, if you took the bandwidth of the average fullrange speaker, again you would find a difference of maybe a few watts. It is NOT a peak power measurement by the way, it's a RMS based measurement. Yamaha is pretty reasonable in general about their power measurements by the way. You sure that's RMS? "Maximum output power" doesn't sound like it to me. If the difference between full range and a decent distortion figure is only a few watts, why not list the full range, low distortion specs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaBender Posted February 13, 2007 Members Share Posted February 13, 2007 These power discussions can seem kind of silly. While folks that have never operated these units are quick to doubt the power claims, I've read posts from many satisfied owners that powered their tops and monitors with them. What's more important, numbers or testimony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GCDEF Posted February 13, 2007 Members Share Posted February 13, 2007 What's more important, numbers or testimony? Both. People should understand the numbers. There was a post on the Carvin board I think where a guy was surprised that his "800 watt" mixer wasn't nearly as loud as he thought it would be. I wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted February 13, 2007 Members Share Posted February 13, 2007 First of all, look at the manual for a really nicely written product. A lot of work went into this, as is the norm for Yamaha products in general. I do not see the mention of RMS, so it does appear to be undefined, but my experience with Yamaha (until proven otherwise anyway) is that they have always used RMS based measurements. It's always possible that we are seeing spec. creep in action, but I'm doubtful. Anyone have one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.