TC Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread II

**Chef** · #1 08-29-2011, 10:47 AM

con't from here:
TC Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread

Jarrett · #2 08-29-2011, 10:48 AM

In.

Hope Uffe finds it. "We were going to give full refunds, but we couldn't find the new thread"

Low Class · #3 08-29-2011, 10:49 AM

IMO, After over 1100 posts on the original thread the only thing to add to this discussion is a statement from TC.

c-ba55 · #4 08-29-2011, 10:51 AM

I just wanted to reply to a post near the end of the last thread about resale value. One can easily research this in the talkbass classifieds and on ebay.
On talkbass, asking price was $650-700 until the RH750 came out. Then it went to about $500, and it has stayed there post-release of the infamous test. Not enough people care to move the market, bottom line.
On ebay, which by the way has final selling prices, not asking prices like talkbass, you can see it selling at $550 repeatedly.

I think many people give talkbass community a good deal relative to the general public. I know I do.

JimmyM · #5 08-29-2011, 10:54 AM

I hate when you give Ken the last word in a thread

aborgman · #6 08-29-2011, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Kind of disagree here. If one amp has a different hi pass filter, it is going to sound way different than another amp putting out the same wattage in a different range. Every amp sounds quite different, and the relationship between, tone, tonal preference, and even volume with wattage is a moderate correlation at best.

As Tom correctly states, 'wattage isn't everything', and in the case of some of these new amps, 'wattage isn't even really that much of anything'.

It is if you're going to claim the performance is "the same".

All one needs to do is look at the BGM burst tests to see the performance won't be "the same" - an amp with 450W actually on tap will be able to generate a significantly higher crest factor at the output at high levels.

JimmyM · #7 08-29-2011, 11:04 AM

I do not care if watts aren't everything. Anyone who has heard the output of a 10w amp vs the output of a 1000w amp knows that watts are definitely something, and they shouldn't be totally disregarded as many TC fans are trying to get us to do here. I swear, the internet is the world's greatest place to twist around silly catch phrases and give them whole new meanings from their intended meaning.

dmusic148 · #8 08-29-2011, 11:08 AM

Yeah, but when everybody says the 240 way amp is louder than the 400 watt.......oh nevermind.

Rickett Customs · #9 08-29-2011, 11:09 AM

subb'ed to this one too...

JimmyM · #10 08-29-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmusic148

Yeah, but when everybody says the 240 way amp is louder than the 400 watt.......oh nevermind.

No, go ahead and continue...I'm interested.

dmusic148 · #11 08-29-2011, 11:25 AM

Nah, I'm good.

JimmyM · #12 08-29-2011, 11:29 AM

Uh-huh.

dmusic148 · #13 08-29-2011, 11:34 AM

Nothing personal, Jimmy. I love you man.

KJung · #14 08-29-2011, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aborgman

It is if you're going to claim the performance is "the same".

All one needs to do is look at the BGM burst tests to see the performance won't be "the same" - an amp with 450W actually on tap will be able to generate a significantly higher crest factor at the output at high levels.

No two amps perform the same. My 500 watt Marbass amps sound and feel and react very differently from the 500 watt GK.

No one is saying two amps will sound the same. However, the RH450, given its design goal, wumps like crazy, and performs up to its published expectation, which is why so many love this amp, and why so few returned the amp during the trial period (based on TB posts).

Again, pretty easy to understand, especially if you played the head. Of course, it sounds and behaves differently than all other heads, as does every other head. I don't perceive 'more' of a difference with this head compared to my TecAmp Puma than I do my F500 versus the TecAmp Puma. Each cover similar gigs 'similarly', and each have their own tone, voicing, and 'feel'.

Again, round and round we go. Even the the majority who own the head but are upset about the wattage spec aren't complaining about the performance in any way, and those that are returned the amp during the trial period... which is what a trial period is for.

tombowlus · #15 08-29-2011, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

I hate when you give Ken the last word in a thread

Especially when I can't comment on how I do think that the output power probably is the single most "interesting" stat on an amp (and thereby "box-worthy"), but that even interesting stats should not be viewed in a vacuum.

aborgman · #16 08-29-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

No two amps perform the same. My 500 watt Marbass amps sound and feel and react very differently from the 500 watt GK.

When it comes to power output with reasonable boundary conditions - lots and lots of amps perform "the same".

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

and performs up to its published expectation,

No, it doesn't. 450W/800W is one of the "published expectations"

KJung · #17 08-29-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombowlus

Especially when I can't comment on how I do think that the output power probably is the single most "interesting" stat on an amp (and thereby "box-worthy"), but that even interesting stats should not be viewed in a vacuum.

hmmm... not sure what 'interesting' means here, given your other statements. Maybe we need to have an actual journalist take a look at the magazine and give you some feedback

JimmyM · #18 08-29-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmusic148

Nothing personal, Jimmy. I love you man.

Love you too, bro...this is nothing personal with anyone on here, BTW. I just don't like to see misrepresentation of such a high order. If there were even one little basis in fact for it, I'd say it was slightly dirty pool but they could make a case where they're not lying. But this goes way above and beyond fudging a spec here and there. This is ridiculous.

JimmyM · #19 08-29-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

hmmm... not sure what 'interesting' means here, given your other statements. Maybe we need to have an actual journalist take a look at the magazine and give you some feedback

Nice cheap shot!

adivin · #20 08-29-2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJung

No two amps perform the same. My 500 watt Marbass amps sound and feel and react very differently from the 500 watt GK.

No one is saying two amps will sound the same. However, the RH450, given its design goal, wumps like crazy, and performs up to its published expectation, which is why so many love this amp, and why so few returned the amp during the trial period (based on TB posts).

Again, pretty easy to understand, especially if you played the head. Of course, it sounds and behaves differently than all other heads, as does every other head. I don't perceive 'more' of a difference with this head compared to my TecAmp Puma than I do my F500 versus the TecAmp Puma. Each cover similar gigs 'similarly', and each have their own tone, voicing, and 'feel'.

Again, round and round we go. Even the the majority who own the head but are upset about the wattage spec aren't complaining about the performance in any way, and those that are returned the amp during the trial period... which is what a trial period is for.

I didn't complain about the performance on TB, but I don't really dig it. It's been a bedroom amp for the last 5 months. Don't assume...