Ampeg PF500 or TC Rh450?

[badboyb]

Hi all.

I am looking for a new small amp.
I have narrowed it down to either the PF500 or the RH450.

Has anyone compared these two?
What are your thoughts?

I like the old school rounded bass sound.
I play a P bass with flats.

I have tried the RH450 and really like it, but also love the Ampeg sound, so am curious about the PF500.

Could I expect volume to be similar? I know the RH450 seems loud beyond it suggested 450watts.

Thanks for any opinions!

[StrangerDanger]

The RH450 is IMHO A LOT LOUDER than the Ampeg. I know JimmyM will stone me for saying this but I wouldnt buy an Ampeg that isnt older than me. The RH450 has a lot more versatility as well. Dont fall into the name branding stuff. I tried the PF500 before I got the RH450 and there was no comparison in my book. You can get the sound you want from the RH450 as well as many others you dont even know you like yet.

[bassguppy]

it should also be taken into account the RH450 does cost $300 more new than the Ampeg.

[lookiel]

I only tried out the PF350 so I'm not very well placed to comment but the RH450 is an incredible amp and the feature set blows away pretty much any other amp.
Granted it's a more expensive but I trust it to be more reliable, more versatile and generally of higher quality than the Ampeg PF series.
That being said, the PF350 I tried sounded pretty good even though it wasn't loud enough for me (and yes I cranked the gain), I can guess the 500 would be great especially at it's price point.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by StrangerDanger

The RH450 is IMHO A LOT LOUDER than the Ampeg. I know JimmyM will stone me for saying this but I wouldnt buy an Ampeg that isnt older than me. The RH450 has a lot more versatility as well. Dont fall into the name branding stuff. I tried the PF500 before I got the RH450 and there was no comparison in my book. You can get the sound you want from the RH450 as well as many others you dont even know you like yet.

I won't stone you for saying that, but Bass Gear Mag does a review of the RH450 in their new issue and discovered it puts out about half the wattage it claims. I haven't heard any official response from TC about it, so maybe they can respond some time in the near future, but Tom Bowlus and Tom Lees have put a lot of work into their testing lab and had it peer reviewed by several heavies in the industry.

Anyway, I could believe that some would prefer the RH450 over the PF500. But while I'm a fan of SMPS power supplies, I'm not a fan of digital emulation as I don't think anything less than a good computer has enough guns to implement it well. Recordings I've heard of the RH450 vs non-digital stuff seems to bear that out in my mind as well. But that's opinion...

For me, between the lower price and the quality of sound (honestly, loudness is something I couldn't care less about), the PF500 is the way to go. And if you're comparing apples to apples (amps in a more similar price range), the SVT 7 Pro would be a more apt comparison, and the 7 Pro spanks the pants off any digital emulation amp IMHO.

[vin*tone]

Jimmy you should read the article down the back on RH450 power management. Definitely an eye opener. Even though its power is rated far lower, that doesn't mean it's quieter.

[::::BASSIST::::]

I owned the rh450 for a few months. Nice amp for sure. The features are incredible. However, tonally it just did not do it for me. Not enough deep low-end. I think the bass hz is 71 if I recall correctly. Just seemed more low-mid / upper bass than good old "bass" IMO.

[arai]

Originally Posted by ::::BASSIST::::

I owned the rh450 for a few months. Nice amp for sure. The features are incredible. However, tonally it just did not do it for me. Not enough deep low-end. I think the bass hz is 71 if I recall correctly. Just seemed more low-mid / upper bass than good old "bass" IMO.

I think the bass is centered at 200 hz. which is why it sounds low mid. If you hit shift you can change it to a lower freq

[StrangerDanger]

Originally Posted by ::::BASSIST::::

I owned the rh450 for a few months. Nice amp for sure. The features are incredible. However, tonally it just did not do it for me. Not enough deep low-end. I think the bass hz is 71 if I recall correctly. Just seemed more low-mid / upper bass than good old "bass" IMO.

Did you try the shift?

[::::BASSIST::::]

Its been over a year since I owned it so I cant remember all the various things I experimented with. But yeah, I did assign the bass to 71hz, still didnt do it for me. Wish I would known about the VT then though. Those two might have been excellent together.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by vin*tone

Jimmy you should read the article down the back on RH450 power management. Definitely an eye opener. Even though its power is rated far lower, that doesn't mean it's quieter.

But it does mean that TC lied about how many watts it has, and that's enough for me to never ever consider buying a product from them. As if their arrogance wasn't enough...

[ian_s]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

I'm not a fan of digital emulation as I don't think anything less than a good computer has enough guns to implement it well.

You're right, but these days the good computer fits on a single chip. It's not a horsepower problem. Doesn't mean it's not hard or that's it done right, but the tech is here and very very small and heat efficient.

[vin*tone]

Ha. Yes they state in no uncertain terms that its a conservatively rated 450 watter. I'd be interested to know how they came up with that figure.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that even educated buyers are put off by unfavourable specs even when they've been shown to be largely irrelevant. You can't market a "loud 240 watt amp" even if you show graphs and test results showing it louder than 450 watt amps. It just won't sell - people still look at the number.

If anyone should be pissed at inaccurate labelling - it's me. But I'm actually glad I DIDN't know of its bench tested rating... otherwise I wouldn't have bought it.... and wouldn't know that it's a very loud, powerful amp.

But I do agree with you. The best strategy they should have employed is using a 300 watt power unit (surely not that much more expensive, difficult to integrate) and created an amp that would clearly outperform a 600 watt amp; then put the challenge out to test against other brands.

[4-string]

Originally Posted by vin*tone

But I do agree with you. The best strategy they should have employed is using a 300 watt power unit (surely not that much more expensive, difficult to integrate) and created an amp that would clearly outperform a 600 watt amp; then put the challenge out to test against other brands.

Cue, RH750.

[badboyb]

Thanks for the responses thus far.

I would like to look at the SVT7pro but it is out of my price range.

I haven't started taking a good look at prices yet, but a preliminary search on ebay shows the PF500 around $400, while the RH450is around $550.
The 7pro is around $800.

As I said, just a preliminary look, and I am sure with searching, I will find better deals.
But for now, it is between the PF500 and RH450.

Any other posters done comparisions on these two?

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by ian_s

You're right, but these days the good computer fits on a single chip. It's not a horsepower problem. Doesn't mean it's not hard or that's it done right, but the tech is here and very very small and heat efficient.

Well then that one chip must be really expensive and that's why you don't see it in $600-700 amps.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by 4-string

Cue, RH750.

"it jams significant power into its compact design - 750 watts (1200 watts peak)"

I wonder what the real numbers are.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by GregC

"it jams significant power into its compact design - 750 watts (1200 watts peak)"

I wonder what the real numbers are.

Judging by what Bass Gear says, about half.

[tombowlus]

I have both of those heads at my disposal, and yes, despite the limitations on peak power, I am going to say that the overall perceived volume of the RH450 is louder than the PF500. They offer very different feature sets, of course, so see which one appeals to you the most. This is actually a really excellent comparison, though I hadn't really thought of directly A/Bing those two before. I'll likely spend some more time comparing them, now.

I will add, though, that IMHO, the PF500 is a real bargain and a heck of a good head for the money (less than half the price of an RH450, new, here in the States).

[badboyb]

Thanks for all replies.