So... The RH450 is actually a 236w head???

[Musky]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but it seems from an ongoing [url="http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/tc-electronics-quasi-wattage-ratings-discussion-thread-801140/"]TalkBass thread[/url] that TC have admitted that the RH450 is actually measured in 'quasi' watts. The actual RMS wattage has been measured at 236 watts @ 4 ohms.

Now TC wouldn't be the first to lead people to believe the RMS rating of their amps are higher than they actually are, but have any users noticed any problems in practice? TC seem to be claiming that the RH is more like a valve amp and sounds louder than the measured wattage would have you believe. So, anyone disappointed with the levels their RH450 can achieve?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Musky

[chris_b]

Fact: my 230/450 watt Staccato sounds every bit as loud as my 550 watt Thunderfunk.

So what is the problem? A bunch of Americans have got their knickers in a twist, that's all!

Edited August 26, 2011 by chris_b

[Thurbs]

Marketing being liberal with the truth shocker!!

[Musky]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1351933' date='Aug 26 2011, 01:25 AM']Fact: my 230/450 watt Staccato sounds every bit as loud as my 550 watt Thunderfunk.

So what is the problem? A bunch of Americans have got their knickers in a twist, that's all![/quote]
No problem at all. After all, plenty of people accept that valve amps can sound much louder than their wattage would suggest.

I've never noticed anyone complain that the RH isn't loud enough, but thought it threw up a few interesting questions. Like whether a lower quoted figure would have affected peoples' buying decisions; is perceived volume a valid way of quoting power and will this make people revise the oft quoted opinion that 300w is a good minimum for a gigging amp?

We're quite used to cab manufacturers being optimistic with their quoted frequency response, but this doesn't seem to happen so much with amps. Given the number of amps that people have noted are quieter than the wattage would suggest, is there another viable method of measuring perceived volume?

[xgsjx]

Might be proof at last that watts doesn't = volume?

The quote "300 watts minimum" is a bit like surround sound systems that say "25000 watts", it's nonsense. It's down to how efficient your cabs are & how good your amp is at running them.

[Musky]

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1351960' date='Aug 26 2011, 07:38 AM']Might be proof at last that watts doesn't = volume?

The quote "300 watts minimum" is a bit like surround sound systems that say "25000 watts", it's nonsense. It's down to how efficient your cabs are & how good your amp is at running them.[/quote]
This is what I've always thought, but as watts have become cheaper there have been enough people who have raised the bar to a 500w 'minimum'. I've noticed how some people have managed small gigs with the 30w Little Bastard - I've no idea what they were using for cabs, but it does kind of show up how pointless watts as a guide to volume is.

[stingrayPete1977]

People usually say the Genz ratings are optimistic so maybe Genz amps are even lower? Doesn't matter really though if it's already loud enough, I wonder what the RH750 puts out then? I have seen comments suggesting very little difference between the 750 and 450 so a jump of an extra 500+ watts would be a surprise.

How are people measuring them?

[wateroftyne]

I found the TC lacked punch and headroom at higher volume, but that might have been a tone (and taste) thing rather than output-related.

Edited August 26, 2011 by wateroftyne

[Muzz]

Never felt my RH450 lacked for anything: it's very loud, and it's also very, very loud with the right cabs, and that's what the problem with focusing on the numbers is about: the amp's only half the story. I can see why, in a number-obsessed market, simply trying to convince people that 250 or so watts from one amp is actually as loud as 500 watts from another would fall on its arse.

Bottom line is it's a great amp, and there isn't a drummer born who can compete with it without a PA, which is really where the headroom thing ends (tone considerations excluded, as WoT says, tho I must be picking the right tone for volume ). Any louder than that, and you're doing something wrong... IME, IMHO, YMMV, etc, etc,

[charic]

No! I'll have to get a TC Blacksmith then!

[Musicman20]

I think the Talkbass thread is ridiculous. Actually, I think some of the personal attacks on the staff at TC are quite excessive. I doubt TC will involve themselves at market level to the consumers again, which is a shame, because Ive had help/phonecalls/tested for Uffe and he's a genuine chap, and a bass player.

I also think there is some sort of vendetta from the Jimmy M chap because they didnt want him on the test pilot program, Every thread he moans about TC, and now he is endorsed by Ampeg (who, lets face it, probably lost a lot of business to TC) I find it all ridiculous. It wouldnt happen on Basschat like that, and if it did, Id hope the mods would sort it out.

I think there is more than meets the eye with the RH amps...its not just a case of 'oh its 240 ish watts', because they have build it a power management tool that essentially boosts that. Has anyone ever complained about the power? Not one. Most said 'this is the loudest micro on the market' (a year or so ago). It definitely outperforms the Markbass 500W amps and the Genz Shuttle 6.0 in terms of volume.

I also don't trust any tests on wattage, because there are too many variables at stake. I am no audio engineer btw, I am always dubious about marketing but I am also dubious about isolated tests.

It seems unless you have some sort of career/education in this field, your thoughts and opinions and batted off by the usual 'experts' which I find terribly boring and quite frankly, rude.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Musicman20

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352027' date='Aug 26 2011, 09:21 AM']. Has anyone ever complained about the power?[/quote]
*raises hand*

[Muzz]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='1352033' date='Aug 26 2011, 09:32 AM']*raises hand*[/quote]

OK, [i]apart from WoT[/i], has anyone complained about lack of power?

I feel a Monty Python Romans sketch coming on here...

Edited August 26, 2011 by Muzz

[alexclaber]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352027' date='Aug 26 2011, 09:21 AM']It definitely outperforms the Markbass 500W amps and the Genz Shuttle 6.0 in terms of volume.[/quote]

Just because some bassists think that doesn't make it true. If you like what the TC amp does as it runs out of power then you'll think it's loud. If you don't then you'll think it's overly compressed and lacking in deep bottom. It's just like how a lot of people think 300W valve amps are really really loud but personally I find them lacking in clean oomph. We have lots of happy customers using the TC amps but I don't recommend them universally because of the sound of their APM system.

Clever technology by TC. Disappointed by their marketing. The main frustration for me is that we make cabs that can handle (and do good things with!) huge power but because everyone else is making cabs with much lower power handling and max output (the TC cabs being a prime example) no-one is really making a lightweight head that can get every last dB out of them. The end result is that we're working on launching a lightweight head ASAP that really does have huge honest power output...

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='1352057' date='Aug 26 2011, 09:53 AM']If you like what the TC amp does as it runs out of power then you'll think it's loud. If you don't then you'll think it's overly compressed and lacking in deep bottom.[/quote]

Nail -> Head.

IME.

[Lozz196]

Vey interesting news Alex, look forward to seeing that one when it emerges.

[Muzz]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='1352068' date='Aug 26 2011, 10:00 AM']Nail -> Head.

IME.[/quote]

That'd be it, then...sounds good to me: compressed, low mids, what's not to like?

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Muzz' post='1352086' date='Aug 26 2011, 10:10 AM']That'd be it, then...sounds good to me: compressed, low mids, what's not to like? [/quote]
Ha ha.. my interpretation is 'Runs out of steam'.

Diff'rent strokes!

[Muzz]

Different Strokes? Wha choo talkin bout WoT?

[JTUK]

I'm sure that TC has a mapping system which gets the most out of its box... it is the reason that I think you should use the whole
amp/cab config for the best results.

Very impressed with the 750/RS210 demos but how that equates on live gigs could be another thing.
I find quite a few reverved amps don't amp up that well.

MY SWR400 does ok but runs out of steam for my style..but is better than the LMll, for example, IMO... but on the low level demo you might buy the amp on, the LMll comes across very well. I would have bought one had I not used one on gigs quite a lot.

The best amp I have found that pushes hard and keeps its sound is Thunderfunk, and I am sceptical about £700-ish doing it tbh.. esp the super-lightweight models.

Just my 2p

[Musicman20]

Wow, runs out of steam?! Seriously?! I can understand if you were in a really really loud heavy band against a few Marhshall stacks and you only had a 4x10, but then again, ive been there, and its super super loud. For everything else, its overkill.

Even if it doesnt have a huge low end, and focusses more on a low mid kick with that 'pushed tube' compression, surely thats what it was meant to do? No one expected it to be super clean, crisp, with a huge low end. As some of the users of the LM3 vs F500 have said, the F500 doesnt go as deep/low and packs a bigger punch, which seems to make it seem 'louder' whereas the LM3 gets wider...the more you turn up.

I think most were quite happy until the apparent wattage rating came out, and now everyone wants to jump on it.

Sure, it isnt massively clean with a huge low end like the Streamliner, but for that tight low mid kick, that sits right in the mix and lets you cut if you want to, the 450 and then 750 is hard to beat, IMO and IME.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352103' date='Aug 26 2011, 10:22 AM']Wow, runs out of steam?! Seriously?! I can understand if you were in a really really loud heavy band against a few Marhshall stacks and you only had a 4x10, but then again, ive been there, and its super super loud. For everything else, its overkill.

Even if it doesnt have a huge low end, and focusses more on a low mid kick with that 'pushed tube' compression, surely thats what it was meant to do? No one expected it to be super clean, crisp, with a huge low end. As some of the users of the LM3 vs F500 have said, the F500 doesnt go as deep/low and packs a bigger punch, which seems to make it seem 'louder' whereas the LM3 gets wider...the more you turn up.

I think most were quite happy until the apparent wattage rating came out, and now everyone wants to jump on it.

Sure, it isnt massively clean with a huge low end like the Streamliner, but for that tight low mid kick, that sits right in the mix and lets you cut if you want to, the 450 and then 750 is hard to beat, IMO and IME.[/quote]
FWIW, I sold my RH450 after I wrestled with it during scores of gigs of all types for the best part of a year. Way before any discussions about wattage.

I don't play in loud bands, but there was something about the way it handled transients that didn't sit right with me. It lacked authority. But like I say, it's a taste thing - plenty of people are happy with it.

[Musicman20]

In addition, and no disrespect to the Bass Gear magazine, but they had issues with Genz when they rated one of their amps at half the power! Apparently they then changed the system for measuring.

If anyone needs 1000W of clean head room, and they use it, they must be playing some pretty large professional gigs against a loud band. The whole wattage chase gets a little silly.

Again, I find after all these arguments, no one really complained (ok maybe a few on the sound) about absolute volume. 99% of the talkbass threads were saying the amp pushed more volume than the Shuttle 6.0/LM3/F500, regardless of tone.

The 450 was marketed as a modern take on vintage tube tone, so its going to sound like a tube amp pushed, because its supposed to.

Personally, im happy to use my 750, gig it, and ignore most of this because it will calm down, and those getting overly excited on other forums will get bored of arguing about something they dont own.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Musicman20

[alexclaber]

I've said this so so so many times in many different ways: 100W into a 4x12" will be loud. Get a 1x12" that's one quarter the size but has a cutting edge woofer which has four times the excursion (ie one woofer can move as much air as all four in the 4x12") and you'll need 800W to reach the same loudness.

So very high power amps aren't just about playing huge stages in very loud bands - they're about being able to physically downsize your rig with no loss of tone, loudness or bottom (as long as you have a cab that can leverage that power).

If you're going to test high power amps, especially on the USA's weedy mains power supply, you need a stabilised power supply. That was the fall-down with the Genz test. I'm glad they've improved their method!

[Musicman20]

I can understand the reason, but I still think my 'careful' nature would never throw that many watts at a small cabinet, no matter what the spec./price. That, I guess, is just my lack of knowledge, but still, id rather have more speakers than cram it all through one.