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

[Alec]

[quote name='thodrik' post='1352449' date='Aug 26 2011, 02:11 PM']Apart from the creative watts rating, I though that the BGM magazine gave a pretty good review. The watts issue has been jumped on by Talkbass folk, leading to lots of criticism. Some of the criticism is that a 236 watt amp has been marketed as a 450 watt amp.

The fact that it is 236 watts does not make it any less of a giggable amp.[/quote]

Well, I think the TalkBass folk, being more US-centric have an affinity for anything home-grown - and TC are a bit too much "them over there" for them. I'd always been struck by how many posts there were saying how good the Genz team were at resolving the problems they've had - I'd rather see fewer posts about having had problems!

As for the power, I'm more than happy with the output my RH450 gives me, but then again, I never had any complaints about the paltry 250W that my old Trace 4x10 combo kicked out!

To be honest, my joy with my RH450 is less about its power and far more about its form (small, light, cool) and function (tuner, compressor, EQ, valvetone, presets). It has waaay more power than I ever need - if I need more level then I have a PA to support me. I'm still a very happy puppy...

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='Alec' post='1352619' date='Aug 26 2011, 03:44 PM']I'd always been struck by how many posts there were saying how good the Genz team were at resolving the problems they've had - I'd rather see fewer posts about having had problems![/quote]

I got flamed by a few members for saying that (even had one irate PM). its a pretty tight knit community over there, more so in the mega threads.

[thodrik]

[quote name='Alec' post='1352619' date='Aug 26 2011, 03:44 PM']Well, I think the TalkBass folk, being more US-centric have an affinity for anything home-grown - and TC are a bit too much "them over there" for them. I'd always been struck by how many posts there were saying how good the Genz team were at resolving the problems they've had - I'd rather see fewer posts about having had problems!

As for the power, I'm more than happy with the output my RH450 gives me, but then again, I never had any complaints about the paltry 250W that my old Trace 4x10 combo kicked out!

To be honest, my joy with my RH450 is less about its power and far more about its form (small, light, cool) and function (tuner, compressor, EQ, valvetone, presets). It has waaay more power than I ever need - if I need more level then I have a PA to support me. I'm still a very happy puppy...[/quote]

There are a few brands on Talkbass that seem to be difficult to speak out against (Sadowsky/Nordstrand/Genz Benz/Ampeg). But I'm not sure that is much different from this site either in terms of 'untouchable' gear. A person starting a thread here saying 'I used a Shuker bass with a Mittle Mark III head and Barefaced Compact and it produced a really rubbish sound', would probably be subject to a few questions. I doubt it would amount to the level of some of the Talkbass threads that occasionally get highlighted on here though.

However I have not seen much on the Talkbass site that suggests that the US members are suspicious of anything not made in the USA (insert non-Heritage series Ampeg joke here). They have Sandberg and Trace Elliot clubs, and there seems to be a lot of love for EBS and Ashdown stuff too.

However, I think that are a number of folk on there with an Ampeg complex that seek to make EVERY thread on amps amount to a discussion of how Ampeg just does everything better. These comments are generally easy to filter through though and trying to argue with them is about as useful as going on the Ernie Ball forum and asking questions regarding how to modify the pickups, bridge and eq section. Putting it this way, if it was discovered that the Ampeg PF 500 was putting out about 250 watts, some of the same people going after TC on Talkbass would be making statements defending Ampeg.

However,I must clarify that I just look now and then on Talkbass for updates for gear being planned/released around NAMM season or when I'm looking to buy gear. Though the excitement that I could potentially be Sadowsky club member 1545 and Trace Elliot club member 486 is almost too exciting...

[Merton]

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='1352440' date='Aug 26 2011, 02:01 PM']There are two distinct camps on this issue at TB. One (which I subscribe to) says that lying about the power ratings of their amps is just plain wrong. The other, which is typified by responses like yours, says that as long as it sounds good we don't care if they are advertising fraudulent power ratings. Consider that attitude the next time you go to the petrol pump that may, or may not, be giving you every liter you've paid for.[/quote]
Sorry Bill, I wasn't referring to TC lying, I was referring the slightly bemusing responses of people basing amp tone on spec rather than tone. Totally agree with you that lying about a spec is fraudulent, but ultimately the reaction of some people seems to suggest the amp is a less worthy tone monster now and it's laughable.

[JTUK]

[quote name='Merton' post='1352791' date='Aug 26 2011, 05:44 PM']....... I was referring the slightly bemusing responses of people basing amp tone on spec rather than tone. Totally agree with you that lying about a spec is fraudulent, but ultimately the reaction of some people seems to suggest the amp is a less worthy tone monster now and it's laughable.[/quote]


hmmmm people do it a LOT here when talking about their fave piece of kit..... certainly cabs.

FWIW, I think Gareth is defending TC as he is pretty close to them, but, AFAIK, that came about AFTER he purchased their products so was obviously impressed enough to pay retail and use them.

I think TC have a decent line-up on what little I know about them but I have stated that their amp performance seems to be configured to the cab range..or vice-versa, but what would be so unusal about that. Maybe they have a controller type mapping to get the best out of their cabs but that is well known. Nobody slams Martin, for that..and Bose did something similar years ago, IIRC.

You aren't going to build a line that is incompatable. As for the watts thing.... probably is a bit clumsy and a PR own goal but watts is an arbitary figure to all intents and purposes as no one can turn round and say that sounds like 500watts being pumped out. It is either loud enough for your use or it isn't. Even getting half of that as real power doesn't mean much and I am sure there are plenty of examples of loud amps at such and such and quiet. For me it is useless anyway..as I play very lightly and anyone will be able to produce far more volume from a given setting than I will, for sure.

My whole thing about lightweight is to give it time to show up a trend. Maybe stuff made in China will be so expensive to repair that that negates the cost savings. I like things made well enough that I can take it to a decent tech..and they will be able to repair the specific problem rather than have to replace a whole board and do it quicker and cheaper.
I like it more that the build quality is such that only an accident will require repair in 20 years of use, or so...

I say again..VERY impressed with the RH750 with a RS210 in a closed demo room and I'd expect that amp and 2 cabs would do a good job for me.
Will I buy one..? no! but that is because I am more than happy with what I use anyway. Oh..all U.S made as well.

Having said that...wouldn't go near an Ampeg as the EQ is useless, IME. Very good if the plug-in sound works straight away every time, but IME, only the Valve jobs do that,
Don't talk to me about the cabs, tho. Doubt any of that is currently U.S made either..!!

[Merton]

Think we're singing from the same hymn sheet here

[aldude]

I do think TC are being treated a bit harshly here. If I understand it correctly, TC have made a power management system that makes their watts sound louder than other solid state amps' watts. But nobody will really believe or understand that. People know (or believe anyway) that "tube watts" are louder than "solid state watts", but will people believe that TC solid state watts are louder than other manufacturers' solid state watts? Probably not.

So, for people to be persuaded to buy the amps, they will have to be marketed in a different way. Unfortunately they seem to have chosen a way that a lot of people do not agree with. But I do agree that if the above is true, they had to do something, as selling the head as a 230W head would probably affect sales quite a lot. Perhaps they should have chosen a different marketing angle, like "230 tube watts" or "watt volume maximiser system" or something.

Still.... does anyone know the power output at 2.7 ohms?

[Prime_BASS]

Personally, I'm in the camp of "lieing is bad". I realise a lot of manufactures do this but 236 is a far cry from 450watts, regardless of how well it "manages" it's power.

Don't get me wrong I like it, it's loud, it's full of useful gubbins.
Reason I changed back to markbass. To me it performs better at rehearsal and gig levels. Thats about it.

If you like what it does don't let the power rating bug you. Simples

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

[quote name='aldude' post='1352875' date='Aug 26 2011, 01:58 PM']Still.... does anyone know the power output at 2.7 ohms? [/quote]That brings up the second part of the TC epic. They state that three of their 8 ohm cabs may be used, but not three of anyone else's. Why? Because their cabs aren't 8 ohms.
Impedance is based on the driver DCR, with DCR being approximately 0.7 x impedance (Z). The average 8 ohm cab therefore has a DCR of 5.6 ohms, plus or minus 10%. The DCR of the TC cab is 7 ohms, making it a nominal 10 ohm cab. They don't call it a 10 ohm cab of course, and the only logical reason why is to not upset the 'I can't use a 10 ohm cab, I won't be able to get all of the watts out of my amp' crowd. I suppose that would upset them all the more if they knew they only had half the advertised watts to begin with.
Obviously TC has tested them amp with three of their cabs and found it works. Only they know if they've done so with three 8 ohm cabs, and whether it works with them or not.

[dan670844]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='1352057' date='Aug 26 2011, 09:53 AM']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...[/quote]


Good luck with the lightweight head, I have never seen heard or played anything so far with a switch mode power supply that can really push bass in a dynamic way, I heard switch modes struggle to deliver a dynamic current load quickly that is needed for good low end thump. It is possible though I think Proel has a good power supply module but its very expensive

Have you ever played Ashdown's 427? thats 427 watts RMS clean FTC 10hz-20khz that's very loud in anyone's books again, very expensive and they prob make a loss on everyone they sell! Heavy is not be be used lightly haha with this unit!!

I think Early SVT's are loud due to the high quality high band width transformers they had in them modern ones dont have the same transformers i guess are so expensive....

I think the problem is nobody is prepared to pay for the expensive of a 'proper' job the TC electronic Shuttle, Markbass etc is good enough for most people and they can't really justify spending that much more than the £600 price point. I have learnt over the years never to go for gear that is so heavily endorsed its usually crap.

So over to you you did it with the cabs.................. I will stick with my bipolar QSC until you come up trumps!!

[dan670844]

[quote name='aldude' post='1352875' date='Aug 26 2011, 06:58 PM']I do think TC are being treated a bit harshly here. If I understand it correctly, TC have made a power management system that makes their watts sound louder than other solid state amps' watts. But nobody will really believe or understand that. People know (or believe anyway) that "tube watts" are louder than "solid state watts", but will people believe that TC solid state watts are louder than other manufacturers' solid state watts? Probably not.

So, for people to be persuaded to buy the amps, they will have to be marketed in a different way. Unfortunately they seem to have chosen a way that a lot of people do not agree with. But I do agree that if the above is true, they had to do something, as selling the head as a 230W head would probably affect sales quite a lot. Perhaps they should have chosen a different marketing angle, like "230 tube watts" or "watt volume maximiser system" or something.

Still.... does anyone know the power output at 2.7 ohms? [/quote]

Its probably nothing clever they probably just have a compressor/ filter working on the lo end of the signal to tidy it up, trace elliot where doing this in the late 80's 90's with the SMX makes a big difference as a lot of current is wasted down there and the voicing of the amp prob helps here two

[fender73]

I'll stick to my old 150 watt Laney Head.....which is probably only 120 watts?

[nottswarwick]

I guess the bass terror maybe is not classed as lightweight? That same source measured it at 500 actual rms watts so they have cracked it? Or is that a traditional psu?

[mikhay77]

Paid my credit card off today,owed 450 quid but give em it in TC pounds so only paid 230 quid so got it much cheaper!

Edited August 26, 2011 by mikhay77

[Musicman20]

Over on talkbass, Uffe from TC has stated he is going to discuss the APM/Wattage in more depth on Monday. It seems he had a lot more pressing matters (a newborn baby!) on his mind, which puts the ridiculous witch hunt into perspective.

[bobbytodd]

if it sounds right and the person it happy with it whats the fuss

[Lozz196]

[quote name='bobbytodd' post='1354037' date='Aug 28 2011, 01:15 AM']if it sounds right and the person it happy with it whats the fuss[/quote]
Seems a fair point to me. I had a TC amp for a while, the Classic 450. Used to use it at 3/4 on volume for gigs. If that was only using 100ish watts, well they were loud watts then!

I think it would only really be a problem f people were buying the gear and finding it hideously under-powered. At that point, the claims would be detrimental, but as said, if all the owners of the gear are happy with it, no fuss.

[Merton]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='1354092' date='Aug 28 2011, 08:46 AM']Seems a fair point to me. I had a TC amp for a while, the Classic 450. Used to use it at 3/4 on volume for gigs. If that was only using 100ish watts, well they were loud watts then![/quote]

The position of the volume control has no bearing on output power rating

[quote]I think it would only really be a problem f people were buying the gear and finding it hideously under-powered. At that point, the claims would be detrimental, but as said, if all the owners of the gear are happy with it, no fuss.[/quote]

Indeed, the fuss is more about TC apparently lying in their marketing blurb, which I can understand, however ultimately if it works for someone then great

[lojo]

I sold my rh450 after coming to the conclusion i dont like/need tons of features, and now use an ampeg pf500, which gives me the plug n play tone I was after from the tc, I went through the terror in between but found that too harsh

The interesting thing is that with all these 3 heads, when doing small gigs and relying mainly on backline volume , I seem to always end up with the volume in around about the same position

[Musky]

So to sum up - compression at high volumes aside (which, to be fair, it's seems designed to do) nobody's actually disappointed with the volume!

I gave up on the TB thread I linked to towards the bottom of the second page as people were starting to get into a tizzy over the whole thing - something I'm glad hasn't happened here. For the conspiracy theorists, I do think TC have acted unethically over this issue and they could have phrased their marketing in a much better way that wouldn't have worked to their detriment. Although perhaps I'm expecting too much for a marketing department to act ethically.

It does show up how quoted wattage figures are such a poor way of of relating volume though. Maybe we can now start answering questions about minimum wattage for gigging with '236w'.

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1353856' date='Aug 27 2011, 08:03 PM']... which puts the ridiculous witch hunt into perspective.[/quote]
I can appreciate why you feel the need to defend TC/Uffe but tbh it's hardly a 'witch-hunt' and at the end of the day if TC state that an amp is 450w and it turns out to be significantly nowhere near that (assuming that you are using the same rating/scale as everyone else) then they have lied or at least be economical with the truth, end of.

[jackers]

does this thread really still need to be open? lol.

everyone is aware of the fact the amp isn't actually 450W, and now the arguments are just going in circles.

[lojo]

[quote name='jackers' post='1354146' date='Aug 28 2011, 10:19 AM']does this thread really still need to be open? lol.

everyone is aware of the fact the amp isn't actually 450W, and now the arguments are just going in circles.[/quote]

Half the content on most forums is the same, but it's also half the fun, stop checking in when you've had enough, as mods generally only shut down when it gets personal or off topic

Edited August 28, 2011 by lojo

[markstuk]

As an RH450 owner I'm mildly disappointed by the claim, but otherwise blissfully unaware that it's a puny weedy amp in any way shape or form..


[quote name='lojo' post='1354159' date='Aug 28 2011, 10:44 AM']Half the content on most forums is the same, but it's also half the fun, stop checking in when you've had enough, as mods generally only shut down when it gets personal or off topic[/quote]

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='markstuk' post='1354160' date='Aug 28 2011, 10:49 AM']As an RH450 owner I'm mildly disappointed by the claim, but otherwise blissfully unaware that it's a puny weedy amp in any way shape or form..[/quote]

Pleased as punch with mine - Cheers lojo!

I knew about wattage disparity before buying, but it's certainly loud enough for me and I love the tone and portability.

Coming from a marketing background, I can't see this fake claim as being any more unethical as quoted car mpg figures or health claims for diet drinks We live in a hyped world, you can only make a decision on a product and its value by trying it yourself.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Paul Clifton