TC Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread

[Jarrett]

There has been some discussion around TC Electronics wattage ratings of their RH450 head. The marketing and product specs show it to be at 450 watts, but independent testing came back at a much lower rating. Now TC has come out and said they were aware of this and rated the head on how it felt rather than true wattage specs calling it "quasi-wattage measurements."

The hope is to contain discussion of this topic in a single thread so that other TC Electronics threads aren't cluttered with it.

Here is some background info:


Statement from TC Electronics:

Originally Posted by UKHTCE

Man what a pace you guys are keeping in here. Took a while for me to catch up on the last few days postings.

Really sorry to be so late to this topic, it seems that there a lot of strong comments, inputs, considerations, views points and a couple of misunderstandings here.
Let me try to explain this from the TC perspective, please forgive the lengthy post:

When we set out to design these amps, our aim was to create a great performing bass amp range.
Like any other manufacturer we did lots of homework to figure out what was important to bass players and what may not be. Since you are all aware of the APM technology, I won’t bore you with the thought process behind it, but jump to the fact that we designed a technology very inspired by the behaviour of tube-amps, with the many bass player praises of exactly that effect and sound in mind incl. focusing on the perceived loudness of the rig rather than the bench measured spec.

So what does it do? Well, like Tom proved in his detailed BGM review, it, among other things, squeezes the short term top peaks in order to achieve a high average loudness- or power output over time.
As it clearly shows in Toms review, this effect looks very odd when measuring with sine waves, and as Tom pointed out, Bass signals are significantly different from sine waves which we’ve tried to take into account.

Long story short, we ended up with an amp design that is radically different in its nature from most (if not all) other amps out there.

So why did we rate it 450watts then? Well, like Tom, we performed numerous tests and concluded that the performance power of our amp corresponds to that of a 450watt amp, but with a different dynamic span. While a conventional amp shows higher peaks but also deeper valleys, our amp excels in a high average power output over time, by controlling peaks and pulling up the nitty gritty signals as Tom proved in his tests. In our subjective tests, this exact point clearly mattered more to bass players than the short term peaks.

With these findings in mind we felt that a regular RMS power rating would never be able to express how the RH450 performs for bass players, hence we felt that it would be a more correct representation to rate the amp by its bass performance capabilities as opposed to the bench capabilities.

Admittedly, despite our APM document and reference in our material, in hindsight, we probably should have done even more to explain this radically different approach to bass amplification as well as what the 450watts power rating referred to.

I would like to underline that we did read and approve Toms review in detail before it got posted and I compliment BGM for their attention to detail, of course, but even more so, on their ability to bring a multi-facetted view on bass amps to their readers. We did not object to Toms review because it, in large, corresponds with our internal measurements and listening results highlighting the effects of APM both on the bench and not least during practical bass playing.

Finally, a specific detail that I’d like to get out of the way; Even if the RH450 is voiced a bit to the ‘vintage’ side with less of the really heavy subbass and really glassy highs, the voicing of the amp is unrelated to the APM technology.

I hope this helps sheen some light on what our thoughts behind APM and the power rating has been.

Uffe

[Bassflute]

Originally Posted by Jarrett

There has been some discussion around TC Electronics wattage ratings of their RH450 head. The marketing and product specs show it to be at 450 watts, but independent testing came back at a much lower rating. Now TC has come out and said they were aware of this and rated the head on how it felt rather than true wattage specs calling it "quasi-wattage measurements."

The hope is to contain discussion of this topic in a single thread so that other TC Electronics threads aren't cluttered with it.

Here is some background info:


Statement from TC Electronics:

it's STILL a great amp, and it still is a revolutionary preamp design, but this now confirms all that compression I'm hearing and feeling when I play them. Personally, I like MASSIVE headroom and the peaks and valleys - I want to be able to control it, not have the amp dictate to me what the dynamic range I'm allowed to have. That's one of the reason I went with big rack mount power amps back in the 80's, and one of the reasons I love the Berg IP series, although there is a certain amount of limiting going on in them, it does leave MASSIVE dynamic range for the musician to use. A trumpet has a massive dynamic range, a piano does, why not an electric bass? I do use a compressor in my signal chain (and have since the early 80's), but I'm not squashing my whole sound all the time.

I'm really curious if they've kept the same design 'concepts' with the 750 - is it really a 250? And the Blacksmith, is it, like, 400 watts or something? Hmmm...

Cheers,
Cameron

[Jarrett]

I don't have an RH450, but rather the RH750. It's not my favorite amp I've played but its so convenient I use it as my main amp. I too wonder what the true rating of my RH750 is. If the math is scalable, then it should be around 393 watts or so, but who knows. All I know is it sounds great on the gig and is the most convenient and portable amp I've ever used.

I like my main, but don't like being lied to. I wish TC would have been straight up about these amps, and now I hope they come clean in their marketing and product specs.

I mainly started this thread in the hopes of pulling the derailing comments out of other TC threads and getting it in here to be discussed. We'll see if that pans out or not I guess.

[drpepper]

Granting that as a general principle, misrepresentation is wrong and bad, I'd really be curious to understand what others believe the inherent significance of the misrepresentation in this specific case.

What would have been the actual usefulness of the correct power rating? That is, how would it have informed a decision?

[BurningSkies]

Originally Posted by Jarrett

I don't have an RH450, but rather the RH750. It's not my favorite amp I've played but its so convenient I use it as my main amp. I too wonder what the true rating of my RH750 is. If the math is scalable, then it should be around 393 watts or so, but who knows. All I know is it sounds great on the gig and is the most convenient and portable amp I've ever used.

I like my main, but don't like being lied to. I wish TC would have been straight up about these amps, and now I hope they come clean in their marketing and product specs.

I mainly started this thread in the hopes of pulling the derailing comments out of other TC threads and getting it in here to be discussed. We'll see if that pans out or not I guess.

I'm still keeping an eye on the other thread...as well as threads where people ask about micros, 500w heads, etc. Some people seem pretty quick to gloss over details if it suits them...

[rpsands]

Audible compression you can't turn off if you want a certain apparent loudness. That's the consequence.

[Jarrett]

Originally Posted by drpepper

how would it have informed a decision?

It would help determine the price point for sure. People won't (knowingly) pay $1000 for a 236 watt D-Class amp.

[drpepper]

Originally Posted by Jarrett

It would help determine the price point for sure. People won't (knowingly) pay $1000 for a 236 watt D-Class amp.

What is it that you DO with your watts though???

[Jarrett]

Originally Posted by drpepper

What is it that you DO with your watts though???

Picnics mostly...

[Rickett Customs]

Originally Posted by Jarrett

It would help determine the price point for sure. People won't (knowingly) pay $1000 for a 236 watt D-Class amp.

This must be when it had just came out....... I paid 1/2 of this price for my RH450 (NEW)....but then again i have a few connections up my sleeve

[tsunami1052]

If the RH450 is only 236 watts it sounds louder than any other 250watt SS amp I have owned.

[jkramer5]

Originally Posted by Rickett Customs

This must be when it had just came out....... I paid 1/2 of this price for my RH450 (NEW)....but then again i have a few connections up my sleeve

I don't have any connections and I paid less than half that for a new one from an authorized dealer back in May. The release of the RH750 dropped the 450 in price pretty good. Asking the sales rep "what's the best price you can give me" took care of the rest.

[BurningSkies]

Originally Posted by tsunami1052

If the RH450 is only 236 watts it sounds louder than any other 250watt SS amp I have owned.

If compression is your thing, then that's great.

[Jarrett]

Originally Posted by Rickett Customs

This must be when it had just came out...

I may be wrong, but I thought when they first came out that they were $1000 without buddy deals.

[drpepper]

Originally Posted by Jarrett

Picnics mostly...

I think wattage is used as a guide to loudness, which is the actual comparator. Relative loudness is actually where willingness to pay rests. I think that wattage has become so intertwined with loudness (almost on an intuitive/emotional level) that people have great difficult separating them.

The concepts of being misinformed and being ripped off seem to be intertwined too.

[BurningSkies]

Originally Posted by drpepper

I think wattage is used as a guide to loudness, which is the actual comparator. Relative loudness is actually where willingness to pay rests. I think that wattage has become so intertwined with loudness (almost on an intuitive/emotional level) that people have great difficult separating them.

The concepts of being misinformed and being ripped off seem to be intertwined too.

The ideas of being misinformed and being lied to seem to be intertwined too.

[Rickett Customs]

Originally Posted by Jarrett

I may be wrong, but I thought when they first came out that they were $1000 without buddy deals.

Nowadays they're like $669 @ GC right now. Bought mine when they were valued at $699

[billfitzmaurice]

I guess this means that in addition to 'tube watts' and 'SS watts' we now have 'TC watts' ?

[Jarrett]

Originally Posted by Rickett Customs

Nowadays they're like $669 @ GC right now.

Yeah, I get what you mean. People also are aware they are not 450 watt amps now. But when they were first released they were said to be 450 watt amps going for $999, I believe. That's when the truth would have been really nice to have.

[BurningSkies]

How many TC watts are your cabs rated for?

And on a serous note, if you're heavily compressing your signal, aren't you more likely to hit your thermal limits of your speakers?