wateroftyne

Ah.. bless you, Si. You've hit that age. Give the coffee-table basses and chatting up twenty-somethings in nightclubs a miss, and restrict yourself to buying a few Hawaiian shirts and a 2-seater sports car. You'll be fine.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1366395' date='Sep 8 2011, 01:53 PM']TC would be pretty silly to market their 230 watt amps as 230 watt amps, as the engineering techniques they can now use have clearly put these amps way beyond the 230 watt category. Sadly, as too many people on Talkbass and here have proved, numbers on paper seem to matter more than the sound coming out of their cabs! TC has been faced with a problem, market these amps in the traditional way and loose sales, because 230 watt amps are not as popular, or pitch the amps against the 450 watt competition. Clearly their decision was correct because their amps were beating their competitors in the real world. All this "bashing" and "outrage" has really only been about semantics. Most published cab specs are calmly dismissed as fiction so in my view the anti TC lot just look like an irrational lynch mob. Apparently Genz Benz has also been “creative” with some of their watts so as technology has moved on it’s clear we should all be basing our amp purchasing on perceived volume not spec sheet watts. PS I'm still looking for a used RH750.[/quote] I'm still of the opinion that it didn't perform like I'd expect a 450 watt head to.

[quote name='KingBollock' post='1364879' date='Sep 7 2011, 06:11 AM']I'm surprised at how sticky they feel. I was expecting to be sliding all over the place, but it ain't happening. Is this something that will wear off? They're D'Addario Chromes. They're a lot brighter than I was expecting too.[/quote] That's wear off, and they'll be as smooth as glass. If you want to speed it up a bit, give them a good rub down all the way round with an old t-shirt.

Yip - Howard's da man. He's already got a feedback thread [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=49693"]here[/url]. You might want to re-post on there...

The green ones fetch £17 more.

Cheers, all! Peter - [url="http://www.billymitchell.co.uk/"]it's this chap[/url].

Hi all! Here's a few clips from a gig I did last night. It's slightly muddy as it recorded from the back of the hall under a low ceiling. P with flats > STL900 > 2 x Berg HS210s with a little post-EQ DI to the FOH. I've pushed 220Hz and rolled the bass back a bit. It gives an idea of everything I love about this head - round, authoritative, no mud, and it punches like no other Class-D I've heard. [url="http://www.jollybeggars.co.uk/penguinz/born.mp3"]Song 1[/url] [url="http://www.jollybeggars.co.uk/penguinz/blueberry.mp3"]Song 2[/url] (My tuba impression!) [url="http://www.jollybeggars.co.uk/penguinz/shiftin.mp3"]Song 3[/url] (A bit of North-East England vernacular for you ) [url="http://www.jollybeggars.co.uk/penguinz/primrose.mp3"]Song 4[/url]

...also, for a long time now I've been using two Berg cabs to give me some sort of tactile feedback during the gig. Since I got the Streamliner, one cab gives me enough whump for most scenarios.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1360538' date='Sep 2 2011, 11:09 PM']That is the first real volume issue I've ever heard of, and the rest came from non-owners who haven't even tried it so I don't count them. Did you compare it to the Walkabout? I know of a few owners that said the RH450 had a lot more headroom. I think the best qualified comparison I can give is the RH750 vs STL900, and I can honestly say they both have a lot going for them. The bass is too much sometimes on the STL900 and the 750 has more mids/cuts better, but on overall volume, extremely similar.[/quote] The thing with the Walkabout (and the Streamliner, for that matter) is that it's almost as if you don't have to turn it up particularly loud for it to feel like it is doing its job. What it puts out is supportive and authoritative. Whereas - IME - the TC just didn't have that quality. Yeah, you could turn it up, and it would get loud, but it didn't have the '3D'-ness of the notes. It was just... there. I realise it's a quality some people might enjoy, and I appreciate that. FWIW, my old Acoustic Image Focus head had a similar trait, I used that for years, thinking 'yeah.. this is great. It's nice and even, and I can hear all the notes.' But I was never happy - there was no body to it. All IMO, of course.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1360453' date='Sep 2 2011, 09:38 PM']Wot mentioned the tone, but not one person said it didn't whump. Strange effect, isn't it? Bring an article out that may not even be 100% accurate, and suddenly people worry about wattage![/quote] It didn't whump. It totally didn't whump.

Uffe's lack of response the RH750 question is a little odd, as well. If it had been a typo I would have thought he would nipped that in the bud right away.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1355987' date='Aug 30 2011, 09:37 AM']Otherwise, there would be no additional power, which doesnt make sense at all....we shall see! I do however understand Uffe's explanation given, and why they did it. It might seem odd, but as a few on talkbass mentioned, you can turn everything up full and nothing will clip...at all...just keep pushing.[/quote] Y'see, that's the bit I struggle with. It doesn't feel like it pushes to me. It's like listening to a song on the radio - you can turn it up loud, and it'll get loud, but it doesn't punch. But that's TC's take on valve amps, I suppose.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1355979' date='Aug 30 2011, 09:33 AM']The general consensus is the 750 spec is a typo. We shall find out soon.[/quote] I really, really hope it is!

All this reinforces everything I felt about the RH450. I thought I was losing my mind....

[quote name='mcnach' post='1355557' date='Aug 29 2011, 07:12 PM']*and* old school Motown sound? Welcome Chromes... (no, I don't get commision)[/quote] I'm not quite sure what you mean..?

[quote name='mcnach' post='1355071' date='Aug 29 2011, 10:56 AM']Ah, of course, I was merely pointing out that these strings don't really contribute to "mud". I also use them on a standard P-bass and a Squier '51 P-bass. High on depth and classic 60s tone, yet retain great definition and cut through. That's why I think that in a "near mud" situation these stings could be the ones to go for (without going for rounds).[/quote] The Mudbucker tele is also light-years away from a single-coil P. It really needs all the help it can get in the definition stakes... :-)

[quote name='mcnach' post='1354893' date='Aug 29 2011, 01:03 AM']I'd try D'Addario Chromes flatwounds. They are flats but they are rather meaty and with a pronounced midrange. So far, every bass I try them on makes me smile and think "what took me so long?" I was especially surprised when I put them on a Stingray clone (OLP). I still get a very slappable sound and the signature 'ray sound if I keep the tone up (this particular bass is passive).[/quote] Bear in mind that, tonally, OLP and the Tele Bass are completely different kettles'o'fish...

[quote]Marketed as a TC 250 it may have been more honest, but people would have presumed it not powerful enough for their needs."[/quote] I see the dilemma, but leaving '450' out of the name would have been a good move. TC's marketing is excellent - I'm sure they could have been more honest about the rating whilst also making it a non-issue. At least then people like me - who wondered why it seemed to struggle a bit at reasonable volumes - would have been able to understand why.

[quote name='Kelso' post='1354564' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:50 PM']Hey folks. I recently bought a 1972 Telecaster Bass from Si (username 0353203). I absolutely love this bass - the neck is deceptively fast, the pick up is thumping and it looks stunning. I currently play in a Soul/Motown band and I'm thinking about buying flats to string the tele. What do you think or do you have a better idea of how I might get that old school motown sound? (without purchasing a P-Bass! - I love the tele so much more!) Cheers, Kelso[/quote] I'm a flats fan, but in my experience flats and a mudbucker Tele are not a good mix... there's just not enough definition.

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1354555' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:47 PM']WTF would we do for a job then? lol[/quote] Stretch the truth a little bit.

[quote name='chris_b' post='1354547' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:41 PM']It's because we know that this is a storm in a tea cup instigated as part of an opportunistic marketing exercise by a competitor to TC.[/quote] I've got nothing against TC (really, I haven't) but IMO this incident is a step too far. They may not be first, but unfortunately they've been caught with their trousers down. I'd rather marketing people from all manufacturers were made aware that stretching the truth this far just isn't on.

[quote name='bigjohn' post='1354493' date='Aug 28 2011, 04:56 PM']I don't get it. They've marketed a 236W amp as 450W,[/quote] ...with an 800w peak.

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1354385' date='Aug 28 2011, 03:30 PM']I think the RH450 is underpowered, then all the MB LM/F series are underpowered, as is the Shuttle 6.0/9.0. If you need more volume, then Im guessing you are playing much larger stages. I have spent time A/Bing most the modern micros, and the volume pulls ahead of all the 500W MB amps, and the Genz Shuttle 6.0. We will find out more on Monday when Uffe starts to comment. I also ignore anything by a rival endorsee, especially when they are competing for TCs current market share.[/quote] FWIW, I play a range of different stages, but as I've said a few times already, it's not about volume but what happens to the sound at volume, how it handles the peaks. And yes, JimmyM is an axe-grinding twit. If anything good comes from this, it's that it'll put specs from all manufacturers under the microscope. TC have just pushed things a little too far.

I love bluegrass... always have. Incidentally, the song on the OP is an old English folk ballad. Here's an example of what happened to it over this side of the pond: