Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I know everyone hates the TC Electronic RH450...
- Thread starter aquamentus
- Start date
I "retired" my RH450 a couple of years ago as I just wasn't pleased with what "I" was getting out of the amp. DrPepper's thread discussing pre settings gave me the inspiration to take one more shot at using the amp. I hooked the amp up to my NV610 and fiddled with the knobs as was suggested in his post. Well, I'll be danged if I didn't start to get a "decent" tone outta the amp! Many thanks DrPepper for that post!
I use the 450 for rehearsal as I just don't want to drag my Marshall VBA400 (at close to 90lbs!!!) to and from rehearsal, so I have been using 450 with decent success.
It is still very much relegated to a backup position, but at least now, it's not buried away some where!
I use a RS2x10 and single 15 cab at rehearsal where they live and stay.... I really do like the 2x10 and am glad to have it.
Fishheadjoe
I use the 450 for rehearsal as I just don't want to drag my Marshall VBA400 (at close to 90lbs!!!) to and from rehearsal, so I have been using 450 with decent success.
It is still very much relegated to a backup position, but at least now, it's not buried away some where!
I use a RS2x10 and single 15 cab at rehearsal where they live and stay.... I really do like the 2x10 and am glad to have it.
Fishheadjoe
Don't hate the RH450. Great amp. RH750 even better. But about the cabs: Used 2 RS210 for a couple of years, a really good 210 I think. Tried the RS212 as well, but compared to the 210s they were too boomy for my application/basses. But the RS210 is one of the best 210s I've tried - to my ears.
I hear guys describe the 450's tone as baked in old school and others say
the EQ is very versatile & can get modern tones also.
I heard one 450 & 2x10 once and thought it sounded more modern
than old school.
the EQ is very versatile & can get modern tones also.
I heard one 450 & 2x10 once and thought it sounded more modern
than old school.
The RH450 has lots of compression built in that cannot be turned off, combined with a very high hi pass filter (i.e., no deep bass) and a low pass filter that cuts off all treble above 5K. This is an attempt to mimic a tube amp through a sealed, one way cab, and it works nicely. No amount of knob twisting will break through that hi passing and lo passing though, which results, at least using my definition of old school (that fridge sort of 'midrange and not much else' tone).
Given that the RH450 is one of the few amps that uses a digital front end, a few of us (including me) were recruited by TC a few years ago to mess around with the programming of the preamp. Pretty cool... USB into a special RH450 and you could change all the parameters using a computer... lo passing, hi passing, compressor setting, EQ Q and center freq's, slope, etc., etc. Based on our suggestions (along with others I assume), the RH750 has an additional control that allows the lo pass filter to be widened, allowing the head to have more 'modern snap' if you want it. Pretty cool.
That being said, I finally tired of that baked in low end compression, and found that the Aguilar TH350 and 500 gave me similar warm, organic tone, with more true deep bass and a more natural and extended top end.
Edit: Per the OP, again, the RS210 is one of the best sounding 210's I've heard at any price range. That cab with an LMIII or whatever is just full range killer.
Last edited:
I guess it's a matter of how old old school is
To my ears it's definitely more in the tubey/ampeg'ey world, especially the 450 compared to the 750 - the 750 sounds a bit more big down low and open up top. I agree with those saying the eq is versatile, and you can coax a lot of different, useful tones from it. But the basic "tone-DNA" is still more mid-heavy, tube-like "old school" than clear and zingy "modern" - if that makes sense. And of course; to my ears.
Ken says what I think much better than I do myself - and also a technical explanation of why I think it
. And it's a good point: There's nothing old school about the cabs, they'll do a lot of different things, and fit a lot of different heads. Ken, I hope you stick around on talkbass for a long time, even though you stopped gigging!
Ken says what I think much better than I do myself - and also a technical explanation of why I think it
Ken, I hope you stick around on talkbass for a long time, even though you stopped gigging!
Thanks! I pretty much limit my posts these days to stuff I have a ton of gigs on in a variety of rooms with at least a couple different basses, and that are still on the market. The days of being a prototype tester, and/or buying the newest thing to check out is over for sure! Nice to finally not be on the road on the weekends after all these years!
Glad to hear it, Fishheadjoe. Ha, yes I remember you "retiring" your RH450, with extreme prejudice.
What I posted on the semi-para eq was Cliffs notes (and English) version of Alvaro's video. Even though it's on a Markbass, best find ever for me in terms of the RH. I don't remember who posted it, but my thanks goes to them and for Alvaro for making it and jumping in on the RH450 club thread to expand on it.
Pride doesn't prevent me from saying that out of ignorance of the finer points of semi-para eq, I basically twiddled knobs, looking for what sounded good. And that worked out to be hit or miss, for me.
Understanding it better and having a method to follow in making settings really shows me how meaningful the difference can be in "getting it right" and really dialing in a match for a particular cabinet. More than any other head I've tried, the RHs can get to some bad places with more aimless twiddling, looking to find that combination that sounds good. There's just way too much adjustment in there, and much of it significantly affects how well it mates with the cabinet.
From "Meh!" to "Mmmmm" in 2 minutes.
The speakers impedance is at the very high end of what would usually be considered a nominal 8ohm cab. If one wanted to be a stickler about it, could say they should be labeled 10ohms or something I suppose.
Anyway, probably could get away with running 3 on a 4ohm amp provided the amp isn't at the end of its rope at that point. Would also depend on how hard you're running and for how long, and what sort of overcurrent/thermal protection the amp has built in, if any. The marketing dept. took that and ran with it.
I haven't heard the cabs. Just looking at the design, gutshots, etc. from the old TC thread, they do look pretty well done.
Anyway, probably could get away with running 3 on a 4ohm amp provided the amp isn't at the end of its rope at that point. Would also depend on how hard you're running and for how long, and what sort of overcurrent/thermal protection the amp has built in, if any. The marketing dept. took that and ran with it.
I haven't heard the cabs. Just looking at the design, gutshots, etc. from the old TC thread, they do look pretty well done.
This suggests that there is some kind of single, "actual" impedance value for a given cabinet. There isn't. Impedance is measured on a curve that varies with frequency. The rated impedance comes from the value at an agreed upon point on that curve. There are two relevant ratings, 4 ohm and 8 ohm. By industry standards, anything higher than 3.2 is labeled 4 ohm. The standard doesn't technically impose an upper limit, but because the next conventional rating label is 8 ohm and its lower threshold is 6.4, the upper end of the nominal 4 ohm range is 6.3.
The nominal impedance rating convention does not include labeling speaker cabinets as "10 ohms," so if one were truly a stickler, "they should be labeled as "8 ohm,"" as appropriate. I think what you're saying is, more correctly, that some would want a more granular nominal impedance scale. That would be interesting, but it would also mean that all properly labeled cabinets would use that scale. It would probably also cause quite a bit of consumer confusion.
And I suspect you're doing some amount of shooting from the hip. Do you actually know of a source of measured impedance or impedance curves for some variety of cabinets that you base your assertion that the TCE cabinets are outliers?
Do you even have a source for the impedance curves for TCE cabinets? Ken has pointed out that the Bass Gear value is wrong.
Last edited:
Rick Auricchio
Registered Bass Offender
I sold my RS450 and switched to an Aguilar TH500. I just found I wasn't using the TC's presets or adjustable EQ points, and the simpler setup of the TH500 works very well for me.
But I've kept the cabinets. I usually gig with a pair of RS112 cabinets, and I have an RS210 in the band-rehearsal room. Both cabinet types sound great and produce plenty of volume for my uses.
But I've kept the cabinets. I usually gig with a pair of RS112 cabinets, and I have an RS210 in the band-rehearsal room. Both cabinet types sound great and produce plenty of volume for my uses.
I didn't switch to a TH500, but to a GK MB Fusion and a Mesa M9. I was in my "I want to try everything phase" and wasn't using the presets and wasn't a fan of the tuner. Also, it was pretty easy to screw up or confuse the presets. Not overly complicated, but I really only need a 3 band EQ and vol/master controls on most amps to be happy.
The wattage issue p!$$ed me off a tiny bit and my TC carrying bag fell apart almost immediately, but it is a very good sounding amp and has plenty of power for most rooms IME. Also, the compression wasn't terrible. It was good enough for me to use it (and be happy with my tone) on approx 100 gigs in any case.
Big fan of the cabs though.
Not familiar with the TC cabs personally. But I still like the RH450 head.
There's something "missing" in the upper mids that tubes present. And I'm not a big fan of incessant twiddling... But once a decent tone is achieved, saving it is a tremendous value to me. Gives me a place to start in every room.
It's the most tube-like (sounding/feeling) head I've owned so far (even better than many tube heads I've owned!). But I can't help wanting a simpler more direct setup, with the tube sparkle that seems to be missing in the RH450.
I'm mostly a pick player. And there is a certain sound plucking produces in a tube head that isn't available n the RH450. But I didn't hear it in the Eden (WT400 or WT550) or Carvin SS heads either.
Seriously considering the new Mesa Prodigy... And for less weight and money, one of the Tone Hammers...
Need time to go "listen" first, before committing...
There's something "missing" in the upper mids that tubes present. And I'm not a big fan of incessant twiddling... But once a decent tone is achieved, saving it is a tremendous value to me. Gives me a place to start in every room.
It's the most tube-like (sounding/feeling) head I've owned so far (even better than many tube heads I've owned!). But I can't help wanting a simpler more direct setup, with the tube sparkle that seems to be missing in the RH450.
I'm mostly a pick player. And there is a certain sound plucking produces in a tube head that isn't available n the RH450. But I didn't hear it in the Eden (WT400 or WT550) or Carvin SS heads either.
Seriously considering the new Mesa Prodigy... And for less weight and money, one of the Tone Hammers...
Need time to go "listen" first, before committing...
Oh that would have been fun to have access to these params. Would it be possible to have access to this USB and program someday? Wish TC would release it after some time...
Correct.
If the BGM measurements are off (I didn't know that, didn't keep up with the whole "TC saga" after that long thread full of arguements), then I may stand corrected here. The lowest points along those curves were a good 7 ohms, maybe 7.1 or 7.2, rather than the 5.5 - 6 that is common to a lot of "8ohm" speakers, but I guess that info may be off.
The TC ad said you could run 3 cabs on their amp, not on any amp, so the impedance must be on the high side, the amp has a healthy margin of safety built in, or both.
I recently got an RH450 head and RS210 cab and I can, unequivocally, say that it is a tremendous amp and cab. Most guys I have read love the TC stuff.
