New TC Electronic heads

[The59Sound]

8 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

I was possible complimentary about it for a few weeks... until the novelty wore off and I realised it was a steaming pile of poo.

Since then, I no longer come to conclusions about amps until after the honeymoon period has worn off.

[wateroftyne]

3 minutes ago, The59Sound said:

OMG I have a stalker.

Seriously though, I was wrong. It's pure cack.

[LukeFRC]

1 hour ago, wateroftyne said:

OMG I have a stalker.

Seriously though, I was wrong. It's pure cack.

Or it’s unbelievably good... but with a flaw that makes it cack ...

[jezzaboy]

On 10/08/2018 at 18:35, wateroftyne said:

OMG I have a stalker.

Seriously though, I was wrong. It's pure cack.

Ah the old honeymoon period. We have all been there, some of us many times 😊

[geoham]

On 08/08/2018 at 23:04, wateroftyne said:

What's your source?

My understanding is that the lower wattages on the RH series are due to something called 'Active Power Management', but this is not the case on the BH550 / BH800. This is my source:-http://forum.tcelectronic.com/topic/16804/new-bh500-and-bh800-tech-spec-and-wattage/, it's stated by Morten Ehlers, who works for TC.

[wateroftyne]

1 hour ago, geoham said:

My understanding is that the lower wattages on the RH series are due to something called 'Active Power Management', but this is not the case on the BH550 / BH800. This is my source:-http://forum.tcelectronic.com/topic/16804/new-bh500-and-bh800-tech-spec-and-wattage/, it's stated by Morten Ehlers, who works for TC.

That doesn't confirm the spec of the BH550. I'll have to remain sceptical.

[grandad]

2 hours ago, geoham said:

My understanding is that the lower wattages on the RH series are due to something called 'Active Power Management', but this is not the case on the BH550 / BH800. This is my source:-http://forum.tcelectronic.com/topic/16804/new-bh500-and-bh800-tech-spec-and-wattage/, it's stated by Morten Ehlers, who works for TC.

Thank you for that link.

[Merton]

On 11/08/2018 at 20:44, jezzaboy said:

Ah the old honeymoon period. We have all been there, some of us many times 😊

Are we talking bass amps or partners now?

[geoham]

3 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

That doesn't confirm the spec of the BH550. I'll have to remain sceptical.

This page simply states:-

“Power Module Rating - 550 W”

https://www.tcelectronic.com/Categories/Tcelectronic/Bass/Head-Amplifiers/BH550/p/P0CIN/Specifications

But the RH450’s page states:-

“450W (800W inst. Peak @ min. Load) TCE Power rating and Active Power Management”

Edited August 13, 2018 by geoham

[ped]

Well, I love my BH800. 

[wateroftyne]

42 minutes ago, geoham said:

This page simply states:-

“Power Module Rating - 550 W”

https://www.tcelectronic.com/Categories/Tcelectronic/Bass/Head-Amplifiers/BH550/p/P0CIN/Specifications

But the RH450’s page states:-

“450W (800W inst. Peak @ min. Load) TCE Power rating and Active Power Management”

Many Class D's state that their power rating is c.500w. But they ain't.

[LukeFRC]

But Its kinda irrelevant - it’s like a 100w valve amp keeping up with a 300w solid state amp...

well that’s because the valves are introducing compression...

and the 300w solid state amp having more heft than thr 800w class D ... because the class D has a burst power of 800w and way less long term... 

... which in some applications is fine and in all types of amp a good enough amp exists.

personally I think TC got a lot of the tech and ideas behind the RH range right - even if in reality it wasn’t quite the finished article. They should have been more up front about their amp  ratings and were daft not to have been. The real interesting test would be to hear if the blacksmith is still cack or if that solved the problems (ie the RH450 was just underpowered and tying to make up for that) 

[wateroftyne]

1 minute ago, LukeFRC said:

But Its kinda irrelevant - it’s like a 100w valve amp keeping up with a 300w solid state amp...

well that’s because the valves are introducing compression...

and the 300w solid state amp having more heft than thr 800w class D ... because the class D has a burst power of 800w and way less long term... 

... which in some applications is fine and in all types of amp a good enough amp exists.

personally I think TC got a lot of the tech and ideas behind the RH range right - even if in reality it wasn’t quite the finished article. They should have been more up front about their amp  ratings and were daft not to have been. The real interesting test would be to hear if the blacksmith is still cack or if that solved the problems (ie the RH450 was just underpowered and tying to make up for that) 

I agree - it is irrelevant, and the marketing is mischievous at best.

When they (and I'm not just talking about TC here) create a '500w' head that can lay it down with the sheer authority of my 100w valve head, my ears will prick up. I'm a bit bored of false dawns, TBH.

[MoonBassAlpha]

My band is acting as backing group for a singer-songwriter, and he has called us Thrust. Wouldn't have been my first choice, tbh!. Did wonder about sponsorship when I saw these amps though.

I would have preferred National Thrust, but that got pooh-poohed

[RandomBass]

So is THRUST the new HEFT? Or just a Danish translation?

😎

[grandad]

7 hours ago, RandomBass said:

So is THRUST the new HEFT? Or just a Danish translation?

😎

No, no. THRUST is a compressor trying to emulate a tube-like sound. Nothing could ever replace HEFT. HEFT is indefinable and buried to deep in the psyche of dedicated bassists. It cannot be defined or supplanted only aspired to.

Edited August 15, 2018 by grandad
grammar

[The59Sound]

Does FOH have 'heft'? Because that's where your signal goes... 

[RandomBass]

4 minutes ago, The59Sound said:

Does FOH have 'heft'? Because that's where your signal goes... 

Yes. Little known fact that FOH originally stood for Full Of Heft.

[LukeFRC]

14 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

I agree - it is irrelevant, and the marketing is mischievous at best.

When they (and I'm not just talking about TC here) create a '500w' head that can lay it down with the sheer authority of my 100w valve head, my ears will prick up. I'm a bit bored of false dawns, TBH.

Nah if they made that then someone else would be complaining then that you couldn’t turn off the valve like compression in the class D head that gave it the heft and authority that you like...

 

[jensenmann]

Any realworld experience with the BQ250 available?

[stewblack]

If you're knowledge enough not to get caught out by such number crunching and mischievous marketing then they won't influence your purchasing decisions. If like me you find all the numbers and their subsequent dissection by wiser heads a little difficult to follow then you'll probably ignore them and they won't influence your purchasing decisions. 

So really the numbers make no difference to any of us and consequently everybody is happy. I choose my amps based on such considerations as colour, size, name, weight, lights and handle design. If they turn out to sound nice and they're loud enough I keep them. The TC combo I bought here sounds nice. When I link my BF cab to the extension speaker socket it sounds even better and is plenty loud.

I can't comment on its pre baked thrusting hefts I'm afraid as I'm not entirely sure I understand their use or effect on my sound. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by stewblack

[BassManGraham]

I have been generally underwhelmed by all T.C Electronic heads and combos I havd tried. OK tone print is clever and fun, but power wise they do not come close to GK, Markbass, etc.

I have a BH250-208 which is a tidy good value little practice combo, but even with an extension cab cannot compete with our drummer!

But, I see Thomann are currently selling the BQ500 for €205 / £175 (free delivery) which to be fair is less than a decent preamp, DI or FX pedal!

At this price GAS and curiosity get the better of me, so I am setting THRUST to stun, and getting prepared to be underwhelmed all over again.

I will report further when it arrives in several weeks time!

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by BassManGraham

[JapanAxe]

Ladies and gentlemen, please observe the rear panel of the Trace Elliot elf, specced on their website as '200W continuous into 4ohms'. So how can it put out 200W when it only consumes 30W? They're all at it...

And yes I know that's the 120V version, but you still can't magic an extra 170W from nowhere!

[stewblack]

I think this should put the whole debate to bed

"So... where does this bring us? As you have probably seen in amplifier spec sheets, manufacturers rate the output of their amplifiers in watts RMS. For example, let's consider the vintage amplifier Kenwood Model KA-9100. This amplifier is rated to put out 90 watts RMS per channel into an 8 ohm load. Technically speaking, the term "RMS" is not defined when referring to power (watts)! RMS is a valid term when referred to voltage or current, but not power! Watts are watts, period! Despite the term "watts RMS" being an incorrect term, it stuck with the community and has become the accepted way to rate an amplifier's output. The reason that audio amplifiers are rated in "watts RMS" is because they are rated to deliver that amount of power using a sine wave signal. Because amplifiers are rated this way, their peak power output will be twice the RMS rating. So, for the Kenwood KA-9100 (which is rated to deliver 90 watts RMS into 8 ohms), the peak power is 180 watts. Most amplifiers cannot sustain output at their peak capability for too long (and the characteristic of most music signals is such that this is not necessary anyway). So, despite "watts RMS" being a technically invalid term, it is used with audio amplifiers because of the sine wave signals that are used to determine their power output specifications.

Question: What are (at minimum) the rail voltages necessary for an amplifier to deliver 90 watts into an 8 ohm load? It is not too hard to figure this out. We simply look at the equations for power:

P=VI = I²R=V²/R

In this case, there are two known items: power (90 watts) and resistance (of the speaker, 8 ohms). Plugging these numbers into the equation (P=V²/R) yields a value for V of 26.83 volts. Is this the answer to the rail voltage question? No... REMEMBER, if we applied 26.83 volts of DC (note: DC) across an 8 ohm speaker the power to the speaker would in fact be 90 watts. However, amplifiers are rated using sine wave input signals, and (as described above) we need to apply more voltage to a load (for a sine wave) in order to get the same amount of power that would be delivered by a DC voltage. For sine waves, the multiplication factor is 1.414. So, if we take the voltage of 26.83 and multiply it by 1.414 (the square root of 2), we get a value of 37.94 volts. This value is the absolute minimum rail voltage needed for an amplifier to deliver 90 watts (with a sine wave signal) to a load! Had we mistakenly determined that 26.83 was the correct rail voltage, the amplifier would begin to clip as the output tried to exceed 45 watts of output. Note that 45 watts is exactly one half of the 90 watt value. This shows that by increasing the rail voltage by a factor of 1.414 results in the amplifier having twice as much output capability! This can also be deduced by looking at the equations for power."

Full article here http://www.rocketroberts.com/techart/powerart_a.htm

[JapanAxe]

5 hours ago, stewblack said:

I think this should put the whole debate to bed

Not really.

30W in, 200W out.

Huh?