• 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.

TC Electronic controversy...solved.

#23
Carvin’s B1500 came pretty close to its MONSTER power rating in Bass Gear magazine despite an un-regulated outlet (less voltage can lead to less power in high-powered amps). But that’s another discussion… ; )

Anyhow, the TC using less watts to create more sound can be viewed in two ways. One is it must be bad because they can’t possibly have the natural tone/definition/punch of a true high-powered amp by using compression to achieve the goal. Two is TCE is just farther ahead (technology-wise) and has achieved the natural tone/definition/punch of a true high-powered amp (with less power) where others have failed. From where I’m sitting, more arguments are coming in describing number two than number one (don’t get nasty).

: O
 
#25
Musicman20 said:
If we are playing the wattage game, Ampeg's Pro 7 can come into play. FALSE SPECS:

Ampeg: Pro Series - SVT-7PRO

• RMS power output:
• 1000 watts @ 4 ohms
• 600 watts @ 8 ohms

BGM Testing:

Link Removed

Page 30

Certified power =

4 ohms 763w, 8 ohms 457w

No APM excuse either :P

Both the 450 and Pro 7 are loud amps, but you can't just bring TC into it without this now. Ampeg have lied, and don't, so far, have an excuse. ALL BASSISTS DESERVE TO KNOW...YADDA YADDA YADDA...etc, and so on. Sarcasm now off.
Click to expand...

red-herring.jpg
 
#27
jeff7bass said:
...Anyhow, the TC using less watts to create more sound can be viewed in two ways. One is it must be bad because they can’t possibly have the natural tone/definition/punch of a true high-powered amp by using compression to achieve the goal. Two is TCE is just farther ahead (technology-wise) and has achieved the natural tone/definition/punch of a true high-powered amp (with less power) where others have failed. From where I’m sitting, more arguments are coming in describing number two than number one (don’t get nasty).

: O
Click to expand...

The laws of physics/thermodynamics do have to come into play somewhere along the line unless someone has figured out how to get around them .) Is there any mfg that hasn't let marketing have a say about product naming and ratings? Perhaps that is just the cynic in me. Anyway, some kind of industry standard (ala SAE) would resolve these kinds of problems.
 
#28
Not that loud IME after playing a RH450 for 2 years at lots of gigs and rehearsals.

My Mesa M9 is louder (and a lot more $$$) but the 450 was useless to me at rehearsals with a TC 112 cab. I was running out of headroom a lot. Even at large outdoor gigs with a 4ohn Sadowsky cab, I was pushing the amp and I really hate turning the master past 5. My Mesa is at 1 or 2 tops.

I bet the 750 is great, but to me, TC lied and refuses to come clean. I won't buy more of their stuff likely.

P.s. I love their Rs112 andc210 cabs though!
 
#30
Baird6869 said:
Not that loud IME after playing a RH450 for 2 years at lots of gigs and rehearsals.

My Mesa M9 is louder (and a lot more $$$) but the 450 was useless to me at rehearsals with a TC 112 cab. I was running out of headroom a lot. Even at large outdoor gigs with a 4ohn Sadowsky cab, I was pushing the amp and I really hate turning the master past 5. My Mesa is at 1 or 2 tops.

I bet the 750 is great, but to me, TC lied and refuses to come clean. I won't buy more of their stuff likely.

P.s. I love their Rs112 andc210 cabs though!
Click to expand...

Same single 1x12 cab for the Mesa as the TC?
 
#31
Musicman20 said:
If you think this, you also need to include Ampeg :P
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right. 763 watts RMS should've been marketed as a 750 watt amp, or at least no more than 763. The 914 watts of "burst power" does not count anyway, but still doesn't make it to 1000.

Gonna call BS on that one too. Got to do it across the board. So let's make some noise and see what kind of "explanation" we get from LoUD, if any.

FWIW, the test used 1khz signal @ 5% distortion, just to keep everybody on a level playing field here, charts are provided for broadband power, etc. and they don't hit the advertised claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#34
will33 said:
Yep, you're right. 763 watts RMS should've been marketed as a 750 watt amp, or at least no more than 763. The 914 watts of "burst power" does not count anyway, but still doesn't make it to 1000.

Gonna call BS on that one too. Got to do it across the board. So let's make some noise and see what kind of "explanation" we get from LoUD, if any.

FWIW, the test used 1khz signal @ 5% distortion, just to keep everybody on a level playing field here, charts are provided for broadband power, etc. and they don't hit the advertised claim.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
#35
Loud. Sounds good. More than solved for me.

Those complaining about the wattage claims remind me of those guys that own 10 amps, 17 basses, and know every single spec of each one, but never gig. Certainly its not true for all, but that is the picture that comes to my mind.
 
#37
jeff7bass said:
Carvin’s B1500 came pretty close to its MONSTER power rating in Bass Gear magazine despite an un-regulated outlet (less voltage can lead to less power in high-powered amps). But that’s another discussion… ; )

Anyhow, the TC using less watts to create more sound can be viewed in two ways. One is it must be bad because they can’t possibly have the natural tone/definition/punch of a true high-powered amp by using compression to achieve the goal. Two is TCE is just farther ahead (technology-wise) and has achieved the natural tone/definition/punch of a true high-powered amp (with less power) where others have failed. From where I’m sitting, more arguments are coming in describing number two than number one (don’t get nasty).

: O
Click to expand...

Fine and dandy. Take the 450 watt rating away and say it sounds like 45o watts, but really it's 230 watts. Why be dishonest about it if the technology is so advanced ?
 
#39
cheezewiz said:
Loud. Sounds good. More than solved for me.

Those complaining about the wattage claims remind me of those guys that own 10 amps, 17 basses, and know every single spec of each one, but never gig. Certainly its not true for all, but that is the picture that comes to my mind.
Click to expand...

I do think 230W is pretty useable for most bar situations with a proper cab. But to tell a product is 450W when it is 230W is not good advertisement. Might as well also state that the frequency range is from 1Hz to 23kHz.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back