so was that shot taken before carting all that out to the curb, or after finding it all out on the curb somewhere?
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.
New TC Elec. BH550 & 800
- Thread starter PokeyPrasch
- Start date
Puts out a great bassy kick for me & lots of others. If you (& your bandmates) don't care for it, then you don't. Simple as that. No worries.
As for the WT-550, it's super. Have one of those, too
. Misrepresenting the wattage was a silly decision & they should be held accountable (& are). Other than that, though, the RH450/RH750 are tremendous with power aplenty.
You have to press the shift button and manipulate the center shelving points on the eq. By shelving the bass center point lower and boosting that frequency you may find what you're looking for.
so was that shot taken before carting all that out to the curb, or after finding it all out on the curb somewhere?
It cost about as much as finding it on a curb.
Yeah I played with it quite a bit. Bass Gear Mag has a good article showing EQ curves which was helpful but I did seem to need a bit of knob twistage to get it close to what I needed - and I did find it hard to do without hyping other frequencies in the process. It basically just made me miss my Walkabout. So I bought another one.
People whining about 'peavey bashing' and then turning around and bashing TCE.
Good ol' Talk Bass. Full of double standards, hypocrisy, hyperbole and generalizations.
Good ol' Talk Bass. Full of double standards, hypocrisy, hyperbole and generalizations.
okcrum
in your chest
I don't think you need a processor to split the EQ corners, though you might need one for a fancy display.
"Intelligent" is pushing it pretty hard.
People whining about 'peavey bashing' and then turning around and bashing TCE.
Good ol' Talk Bass. Full of double standards, hypocrisy, hyperbole and generalizations.
Who is bashing TCE?
It is fact that they have and continue to market and sell a ~240 watt amp as a 750 watt amp. If someone was making something up I guess it could be bashing them. In this case, their historical, and current practices are being discussed.
Anybody here that actually have played BH 550/800 and can give some IRL input. I had both the 450 and Staccato for a very short while and they where not for me.
Well, I see your point about that old amp. But this thread is not about that amp. I think it destroys the discussions to bring up a company's old sins in every thread that is about products from that company. To me, that's OT, and continuing to repeat it is bashing, IMHO.
Except they continue to market and sell with those practices. The BH500 uses the same shenanigan marketing. So it should be of note to these new products in the same line.
AFAIK, no one has yet measured the new amps, and TCE have a good technical description of their rationale behind their "power rating" on their website.
I think it is safe to say for this thread that it is already more than duly noted.
When it comes to BH500 (not RH450 or the RH750), they also specify instantaneous peak at min load to be 1000w.
Last edited:
I bet you a penny, that when these new amps are tested, they will use the same shenanigans.
If not then I will be pleasantly surprised, and will use these amps as a shinning example for TCE's turn around.
It would also help if they put that table in the technical description on the actual website for the RH series.
Ah... I love the way you say "shenanigans". It sounds so delicously wicked.
On a serious note: If you read the pdf that is linked to by every spec page on their web site about how their power rating and active power management work, I think their information is accurate enough. I find that the Active Power Management technology warrants a different way to specify a power rating.
Ah... I love the way you say "shenanigans". It sounds so delicously wicked.
On a serious note: If you read the pdf that is linked to by every spec page on their web site about how their power rating and active power management work, I think their information is accurate enough. I find that the Active Power Management technology warrants a different way to specify a power rating.
I think that information is workable too. The issue is, those numbers paint a different picture than what their marketing blurb does, on the main page for the amplifiers. The common browser may not get to that article, or to the very bottom where they publish real numbers. If TCE really believed that there was no issue in the way they market stuff, that information would be publish and used on their sites. Instead you get this:
This looks like a burst and continuous rating for the RH 750. Most people would go, "Ok, cool. This is a 750 watt amp, with a burst potential of 1200 watts."
But when you keep reading, you see that those numbers are not achievable by the amp. Their APM, by their own admission, limits the amp way below that.
They may use a power section that can hit their posted numbers, but by design they dont. Yet they let marketers continue to claim so.
It isnt an issue about how well their amps work, or subjective sound. This is about integrity, and lying to consumers.
If it was transparent, and easy to understand for all consumers, then you wouldnt get new people on the forums surprised about the information that the claimed 750 watt amp, is actually a 236 watt amp.
It's a table. If you put it in context with how the Active Power Management actually works, I find
1) that it is NOT lying, on the contrary a very accurate specification of how their amplifiers work (more accurate than most amplifier manufacturers)
2) that the Active Power Management actually provides the difference between what should dictate the maximum power, the peaks or the RMS signal. A normal, unmanaged amp will distort at lower RMS levels. What TC Electronic is doing is simply making a technical choice of what to focus on.
You call them liars. I say they give you a lot of good information.
And finally: The RH750 is a "worst case" in their table. The BH500 and the RH450 is much better specified and I find that even if the RH750 is perhaps claiming too much, I find that the others are well within specs.
1) that it is NOT lying, on the contrary a very accurate specification of how their amplifiers work (more accurate than most amplifier manufacturers)
2) that the Active Power Management actually provides the difference between what should dictate the maximum power, the peaks or the RMS signal. A normal, unmanaged amp will distort at lower RMS levels. What TC Electronic is doing is simply making a technical choice of what to focus on.
You call them liars. I say they give you a lot of good information.
And finally: The RH750 is a "worst case" in their table. The BH500 and the RH450 is much better specified and I find that even if the RH750 is perhaps claiming too much, I find that the others are well within specs.
By their own admission, the RH750 at peak power, can only hit 450 watts. That information was not provided by the manufacturer until after third party testing was done. There is no mention of any of that until after you get through a tech paper, than 99% of consumers are going to glaze over reading the first page.
The other amps, fall pretty much in line with their marketed power ratings, and their actual burst/continuous power.
If other manufacturers used similar tactics, how would you feel about them blowing up their power ratings?
"Oh if you use the on board compressor on this amp, it will reduce the transients down to the level where RMS value looks more like an amp double the power."
Does that mean every amp with a compressor can be rated at double its output?
In no universe do their amps meet their claims. By their very own designs.
