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

[wateroftyne]

[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.

[wateroftyne]

...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.

Edited September 2, 2011 by wateroftyne

[Paul Clifton]

I don't get it - I personally find the TC has too much punch and whump if anything - what I am missing is the glassy top end. Lots of low frequency bark, not enough top end bite. Great for low mid and low end grunt. Are you sure you didn't have a duff one?

[EBS_freak]

I know what you mean. My experience with it was very similar, in that it made a "noise" and you could really attack the bass and the amp would respond - but not in half as spectacular a fashion as I would have hoped for. It didn't have the attack that I am used to - and that's not a tube emulation thing. It's a lack of body as WOT describes. I even thought it was the cabs - I've never been convinced that they are big enough for the drivers in them - changed the cabs, no difference. Still lacking in something. It doesn't have the top end I like either - just the muffley bottom end, which I don't really dig.

The last time I had that kind of experience was with Line 6. It kind of (and I mean "kind of") sounds OK on a recording, but live, well, for me, they just don't react like an amp should. Again, lacking the "whump" that is talked of here. IMO of course.

Edited September 2, 2011 by EBS_freak

[thodrik]

[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]

There are many amps with more headroom than the Walkabout. People looking for oodles of clean headroom would probably be better off looking at other amps. For me the best thing about the amp is that it can achieve an old school grit sound at a useable volume level (ie not pissing off soundperson). I have amps that are much 'louder', but none that have the same tone. It truly 'whumps' in my view!

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1360560' date='Sep 2 2011, 11:35 PM']I don't get it - I personally find the TC has too much punch and whump if anything - what I am missing is the glassy top end. Lots of low frequency bark, not enough top end bite. Great for low mid and low end grunt. Are you sure you didn't have a duff one?[/quote]

Yes! A lack of bite. I ran the treble full out in a test I was doing - that should have taken my head off in quite a nasty manner. Nowhere near... and the bottom end, just muffle. Depends what you definition of whump is. If its a ball of mush, then yes, it whumps. If your definition is that you can feel the bass jumping out of the speaker trying to pin you against the wall (OK, I exagerate), then no, it certainly doesn't whump. Nowhere near.

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='thodrik' post='1360567' date='Sep 2 2011, 11:41 PM']For me the best thing about the amp is that it can achieve an old school grit sound at a useable volume level (ie not pissing off soundperson). I have amps that are much 'louder', but none that have the same tone. It truly 'whumps' in my view![/quote]

Have you been introduced to Ashdown?

[thodrik]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1360571' date='Sep 2 2011, 11:44 PM']Have you been introduced to Ashdown?[/quote]

Have done, but didn't think that the old school tone was anything near the same quality that I got from the Walkabout. In my opinion anyway. The Walkabout overdrive sounds a lot more natural than the Ashdown ABMs I have tried. The drive on the ABMs just had a bit of the 'we stuck a 12AX7 in there and we are hoping for the best' type of 'valve' sound in comparison. A lot less rich and less clarity (I didn't say wooly!). Still I don't mind the Ashdowns, just not my thing.

Edited September 2, 2011 by thodrik

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1360571' date='Sep 2 2011, 11:44 PM']Have you been introduced to Ashdown?[/quote]

Ashdown is woolly rubbish! I went from an Ashdown AMB 500 into an Ashdown 2x10 and 1x15 to an EBS HD350 with two Proline 2x10s and it was like going from a Fiesta to a Zonda. I would never touch Ashdown again. My favourite amp was my EBS because of that glassiness I like, but the TC definitely hits me in my gut much more than you seem to have found: in fact I would say that is the defining quality of the tone - punchy low midrange push.

[EBS_freak]

Yeah, about the Ashdown comment. I was taking the piss.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1360581' date='Sep 2 2011, 11:54 PM']Ashdown is woolly rubbish! I went from an Ashdown AMB 500 into an Ashdown 2x10 and 1x15 to an EBS HD350 with two Proline 2x10s and it was like going from a Fiesta to a Zonda. I would never touch Ashdown again. My favourite amp was my EBS because of that glassiness I like, but the TC definitely hits me in my gut much more than you seem to have found: in fact I would say that is the defining quality of the tone - punchy low midrange push.[/quote]
Bloody hell that was a change! I went from an ABM to the Shuttle which was maybe a Fiesta to a 911 rather than a Zonda but still had to relearn how to play as the mistakes were not so easy to get away with

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1360586' date='Sep 3 2011, 12:02 AM']Yeah, about the Ashdown comment. I was taking the piss.[/quote]

Thank God - you scared me a bit there

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1360588' date='Sep 3 2011, 12:04 AM']Bloody hell that was a change! I went from an ABM to the Shuttle which was maybe a Fiesta to a 911 rather than a Zonda but still had to relearn how to play as the mistakes were not so easy to get away with [/quote]

Yeah it's like having to learn to play all over again lol

I chose the TC over the EBS for portability, but (despite having no wattage issues with the TC lol) I have to say tonally the EBS is in a different league.

[thodrik]

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1360590' date='Sep 3 2011, 12:06 AM']Thank God - you scared me a bit there[/quote]
Me too!

[stingrayPete1977]

Controversial I know but as for whumping I haven't heard any 10's that whump. It's a personal taste thing and EBS freak will tell you himself that I can't get on with EBS 10's even 8 of them! when I see an Ampeg 8x10 it's always being used for full on valve sound rather than whump, to me lots of tens or eights still don't thump like a 15, a fifteen on it's own sounds too wooly to me , 1x12 can't handle everything a pair of tens will but the bottoms better, 2x12 for me is perfect as you get a dose of that 15 whump, the spread and tightness of some tens yet with a tweeter in the mix you can get some glassiness too (not EBS glass but enough for most folk).

What gets me is the comments about amps, any make including the TC RH236, being this loud or that much louder than the other but they use a pair of 1x12s or one 2x10 cab, I've seen loads of folk say they are thinking of upgrading from a 450 to a 750 or a gb 600 to a 900 when their cabs will be running out of all this whump we hear about long before their existing head will?

[EBS_freak]

Not all down to the speaker size, more down to the cab design...

[Raggy]

Tried the RH450 out on several occasions because I really wanted the features but it just didn't have the shove and bottom end I was after. I preferred my LM3.

Does seem strange why TC have gone so quiet about it since the one response.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1360602' date='Sep 3 2011, 12:28 AM']Not all down to the speaker size, more down to the cab design...[/quote]
As you know I've tried;
A 1x10,
A 2x10,
A pair of 2x10's,
A 4x10,
3x 2x10's,
A pair of 4x10's,
4x 2x10's,
And an 8x10.

Not all at the same time though

Various makes and cab design but still no full fat whump for me

Fwiw the best whump yet was from a Peavey TNT with a 1x15 black widow, just not loud enough.

[thodrik]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1360606' date='Sep 3 2011, 12:36 AM']As you know I've tried;
A 1x10,
A 2x10,
A pair of 2x10's,
A 4x10,
3x 2x10's,
A pair of 4x10's,
4x 2x10's,
And an 8x10.

Not all at the same time though

Various makes and cab design but still no full fat whump for me

Fwiw the best whump yet was from a Peavey TNT with a 1x15 black widow, just not loud enough.[/quote]

I always thought that the Ampeg 4x10hlf provided excessive amounts of 'whump'.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='thodrik' post='1360610' date='Sep 3 2011, 12:43 AM']I always thought that the Ampeg 4x10hlf provided excessive amounts of 'whump'.[/quote]
I usually only hear it as a staccato 8th note whump from a plectrumed p bass though, For a fingered whole note B from an active 5'er I think you need watts and inches still more tens helps and sharpens the rest of the range up for sure but for a rumble without farting I'm not convinced.

I saw the chilis at Manchester a few years back at the sport city stadium, the PA was long vertical rows of small speakers (probably big but in context to the venue size if you know what I mean?) it sounded crap, I'd never see a band there again

[JTUK]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1360467' date='Sep 2 2011, 09:50 PM']My comment isn't based only on bass chat members (and I've never been on talk bass) I'm talking about other people I know in the real world that felt something was missing, none of them are currently class D users now.[/quote]


I am -pretty- sure this will be the case

I've never jumped on this bandwagon and now probably never will.
The thing about lightweight is the compromise and maybe it needs time to tell.

Maybe NEO will be the same.

For me, an amp at 20lbs is fine, and for about that weight, you can get a bollicking amp, IMO.

I never felt Markbass, for example, amped up, or not the LM ll/lll types,
..and I would be sceptical about others as well.
I think they are capable of sounding great at low volumes..and also there are many traditional amps out there that don't amplify to above 3/4 of their rated output very well at all.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='JTUK' post='1360749' date='Sep 3 2011, 10:30 AM']I am -pretty- sure this will be the case

I've never jumped on this bandwagon and now probably never will.
The thing about lightweight is the compromise and maybe it needs time to tell.

Maybe NEO will be the same.

For me, an amp at 20lbs is fine, and for about that weight, you can get a bollicking amp, IMO.

I never felt Markbass, for example, amped up, or not the LM ll/lll types,
..and I would be sceptical about others as well.
I think they are capable of sounding great at low volumes..and also there are many traditional amps out there that don't amplify to above 3/4 of their rated output very well at all.[/quote]

I have no problem with it to be honest, I could use a Markbass or a TC or my Genz gear without fussing over it. I was watching a bit of the Reading footage and most people were using amps smaller than what we are hearing about around here not having enough volume etc, Where are they using them? I cant see a situation where I would want anymore volume than I have at my disposal now so if the TC is keeping up or beating the 600w Genz it should be fine power wise for most gigs, Its just the sneaky trick that has took the cherry off for many, I just cant see why some people cant understand why that would upset some owners though.

[stevie]

To be fair to TC, there is a temptation for any manufacturer to exaggerate the performance of their product if they can get away with it, and bass amp makers have been getting away with it for a long time now. Not so in the hi-fi sector, where you can be sure your product will be bench tested by a number of popular magazines, or in the prosound market where the media publish proper tests and many end customers are able to carry out their own in-house measurements. Oddly enough, some hi-fi amp makers (notably Nad and Rotel) have tried to earn brownie points by publishing deliberately conservative specs - knowing that the true measurements will actually be published.

Until Bass Gear magazine started publishing their tests, we had to rely on the honesty of bass amp manufacturers. Not surprisingly, some have proved to be more honest than others. What's interesting about the Bass Gear measurements IMO is how generous they are to the makers. 2.5% distortion at 1kHz is not a very stringent test for an amp, especially an amp whose role is to produce bass. I suspect the reason they have chosen to do this is that they would seriously embarrass their potential advertisers if they were to use the FTC standard - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power[/url]. However, thanks to Tom Bowlus and his crew, I think amp makers will now think twice before following in TC's footsteps by simply thinking of a number and doubling it. For this we should be grateful.

Without testing, you can get a rough idea of the output of an amp by checking the output devices. I had a Trace Elliot 200W amp that used exactly the same output devices as my Rauch PA amp. The Rauch is rated at 120W and probably has a beefier power supply. I found this quite interesting at the time, as Trace has always had a reputation as one of the 'louder' amps for its rated output. When I bought myself a 300W Trace amp, I decided to check out the output transistors on the internet, and various sources (including the manufacturer of the transistors) told me that those devices were not capable of producing 300W. It was still a good amp, however, and plenty loud enough.

I think we have been labouring under the assumption for a long time that our amps are a lot more powerful than they really are. This might explain why the TC 450 doesn't sound less powerful than other amps in the 300 to 500W range - smoke and mirrors from the TC marketing department notwithstanding.

Edited September 3, 2011 by stevie

[Musicman20]

Good post Stevie, exactly why to my ears it seems to compete against a Shuttle 6.0, 9.0 and LM3/F500. Probably all have exaggerated specs, to some extent.

I do think the Bass Gear magazine is fantastic, but Im always dubious to make any assumptions based on a test anyone made that we can never really know is accurate. As they have been through changes in their testing methods, how do we know what they are doing now is 100% accurate? We don't.

I won't sit and type up my side of the fence with TC, but what I see here is fans of real tube low end 'bloom', as you seem to get with some of the Mesa amps, etc, and now the Genz STL900 who don't gel with the RH450, and I get that. It isn't aimed at that tone, and to me, I find I have to cut the bass a LOT on the STL900 to get close to my normal tone.

Granted, I like a moderate amount of low end push, but I don't like it really full and overpowering. I've learnt over the years by consciously watching how I tweak on the fly that my sound (mine, not necessarily anyone else) is in the low mid area, with a small amount of sheen on top, but not overly glassy or trebly, otherwise I may as well get the guitar out.

[Doddy]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1352204' date='Aug 26 2011, 11:21 AM']A lot of players don't get to gig much and just play at home, record, etc, so as much as the gig is 80% of the reason we may buy amps, there are more uses, for me, that I find important.[/quote]

If you just use an amp at home then the whole thing about the volume and wattage is pointless......you
may as well use a Peavey Microbass or something.You don't need a 450 or 200 watt amp.

I quite like the TC heads-not enough to pay full whack for one though. As far as this whole thing about them
exaggerating the figures,I think the problem is the difference is nearly double.If it had been putting out
400 watts no one would kick off too much,but it's a big difference between 236 and 450. Let's face it,
how many people would have easily dismissed the RH450 if it had been marketed as a 250 watt head?