• 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.

#61
I owned a Classic 450 and liked it. I moved it on because it wasn't getting use.

I had read through the whole original thread before and couldn't understand exactly how compression and voicing compensate for lack of watts in achieving a certain "perceived" volume.
 
#62
JB36 said:
I owned a Classic 450 and liked it. I moved it on because it wasn't getting use.

I had read through the whole original thread before and couldn't understand exactly how compression and voicing compensate for lack of watts in achieving a certain "perceived" volume.
Click to expand...

Lows gobble power, voice it high, it sounds louder for the same power use. Ok if you like bright.

Compression- reduce the loudest sounds down to closer to the average loudness. The average loudness can now be louder than before because it takes less power to make the loudest sounds. But you lost your dynamics.
 
#63
JB36 said:
I owned a Classic 450 and liked it. I moved it on because it wasn't getting use.

I had read through the whole original thread before and couldn't understand exactly how compression and voicing compensate for lack of watts in achieving a certain "perceived" volume.
Click to expand...
Easily. It takes way more wattage to push lows than it does other frequencies. So they figure the 810e rolls off at around 60hz, so if you take those out of the equation, the head has a lot more wattage to use on other frequencies. Then you compress everything to where the higher and softer levels aren't as drastic, and you can give an amp a lot more perceived volume.
 
#69
AMJBASS said:
I recently bought a Classic 450 myself and the head just CRUSHES. I have owned almost everything out there and I am extremely happy with TC Electronics. And frankly, I could care LESS about what the published wattage is or isnt.
Click to expand...

caring.png
 
#70
JimmyM said:
I lied? -I- LIED??? How dare you. You show me where I lied, pal. Adding a smiley at the end doesn't make accusations like that OK.
Click to expand...

At the rate you post, I am not going to dig through all your posts to find it. It was a fair while ago before the watts thing came out. You admitted you hated the company for rejecting you for the free amps to try.
then you say this;
JimmyM said:
And while this has nothing to do with my being turned down for a free amp, I'd be a liar if I said it doesn't make me chuckle a little ;)
Click to expand...
 
#75
cheezewiz said:
As far as ampeg, I'm a fan. However, the svt7 I owned didn't impress me. It wasn't that loud, and repeatedly cut out. It was a rev. A, so that may explain it.
Click to expand...

I think that does explain it, Pat. You should borrow my Rev C when you come up tomorrow. :cool:

And for the record, I also find the RH450 to be more than loud enough for my biggest gigs. If you want a little more insight into how our ears/brains process sound - and how this may explain why it's not the peaks, but the overall size of the crest/wave that matters - check out Tom Lees' From the Bench article in issue #7.

Edit: Ah, I see some of you actually read that article! When Tom first sent me that for his "From the Bench" installment, I have to admit, my first reaction was, "What the...?" But after I read it, I was real glad he picked that topic. Even though he's actually a guitar player, that Tom Lees guy is pretty damn smart, if you ask me. :D
 
#79
BurningSkies said:
caring.png
Click to expand...

onosson said:
I could always care negatively ... UNcare, if you will. So it's always possible to care less!

But, you probably couldn't care less about that...
Click to expand...

BurningSkies said:
There's no such thing as negative care.
Click to expand...

It is my impression that you could negatively care. Lets examine the posted graph; this only shows 1/4 of the XY graph...we only care about the Y axis since we have no value or measure for the X (it could be wattage or whatever and this would show the relationship of care to wattage). Now that leaves us with only 1/2 of the whole picture: the positive portion of the Y axis. Once you go below the zero the value becomes negative. But, in our case the term changes from care to hate.

The term "I could care less" implies that we reside on the positive portion of the Y axis, but greater than 0. This means that one actually has some care and it is possible to care less than the current value. "I could care less" is not limited to those that care a great deal. I could care 1 and still care less down to 0. At 0, one is indifferent to the situation. Now, the term "I couldn't care less" is only partially true. Yes, that person has reached then end of the caring spectrum, but can still continue to slide further down the scale into the negative portion of the Y axis and begin hating the situation. The further down he or she goes the more that person hates the situation.

Is it negative care? Technically yes. But the correct term would be any antonym of care, such as hate.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back