• 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.

#82
FWIW
TC Electronics now publishes RMS measurements that match Bass Gear Magazine
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Page after page of Marketing, then at very bottom of the very last page
RH450 = 236W "RMS"
RH750 = 236W "RMS"

They specs are available to anyone who is researching the amps.
This is very honest of them. I'm sure you can question any of their dealers and get the same info :D

Anything "Perceived" louder just doesn't hold up in the real mix. It would measure louder if it was louder.
Louder sounds mask quieter ones. I have a real bright flashlight, but it's not so bright in the sunlight.

Turn down the bass and crank the mids and you'll be louder in the mids - but at a trade off.
 
#83
Well, good for TC. This is encouraging to see. OK, I'm done bashing TC. They are now telling the truth, that chart is a perfectly adequate explanation of how the amps work, and that's all anyone ever wanted. Good for them, and I'll say "Salut" and wish them the best.
 
#84
seamonkey said:
FWIW
TC Electronics now publishes RMS measurements that match Bass Gear Magazine
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Page after page of Marketing, then at very bottom of the very last page
RH450 = 236W "RMS"
RH750 = 236W "RMS"

They specs are available to anyone who is researching the amps.
This is very honest of them. I'm sure you can question any of their dealers and get the same info :D
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly when TC updated it, but I posted a link to that info back in September, it's been there for some time now.
 
#90
seamonkey said:
FWIW
TC Electronics now publishes RMS measurements that match Bass Gear Magazine
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Page after page of Marketing, then at very bottom of the very last page
RH450 = 236W "RMS"
RH750 = 236W "RMS"

They specs are available to anyone who is researching the amps.
This is very honest of them. I'm sure you can question any of their dealers and get the same info :D

Anything "Perceived" louder just doesn't hold up in the real mix. It would measure louder if it was louder.
Louder sounds mask quieter ones. I have a real bright flashlight, but it's not so bright in the sunlight.

Turn down the bass and crank the mids and you'll be louder in the mids - but at a trade off.
Click to expand...

They've updated their specs on their website sometime in the past month or so, because I have checked recently. ;)

Now, instead of their bogus ratings, they have this on the 'specs' page of the RH450:

Power module rating
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] 450W (800W inst. Peak @ min. Load)
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Which is much more literal, but still somewhat misleading. The APM link is more prominent and they've gone with 'power module rating' instead of power ratings...I give them a solid C+ on getting their act together.

Its a big step towards them being up front...but you still have to click through to a PDF to get to the actual information as opposed to having it plainly listed in their specs.
 
#91
Is it not the fact that if they made it clear it was actually 200 watts less powerful they'd perhaps lose business? Who'd spend all that money when they could get something else twice, maybe three times as powerful for the same price?

I'm perfectly satisfied with my TCE head, I think it's great. Plenty loud enough, granted not being up front straight away was wrong, but at least they're doing something about it now.
 
#92
Mr Antt said:
Is it not the fact that if they made it clear it was actually 200 watts less powerful they'd perhaps lose business? Who'd spend all that money when they could get something else twice, maybe three times as powerful for the same price?

I'm perfectly satisfied with my TCE head, I think it's great. Plenty loud enough, granted not being up front straight away was wrong, but at least they're doing something about it now.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people wouldn't give it a second look lif it was correctly advertised as say a 250 instead of a 450 even though it might be plenty loud enough for what they need to do. I believe that's one reason, not excuse, but reason.

And if they're updating some manuals/ad copy to show this, good. If ya make enough noise......
 
#94
Mr Antt said:
Is it not the fact that if they made it clear it was actually 200 watts less powerful they'd perhaps lose business? Who'd spend all that money when they could get something else twice, maybe three times as powerful for the same price?

I'm perfectly satisfied with my TCE head, I think it's great. Plenty loud enough, granted not being up front straight away was wrong, but at least they're doing something about it now.
Click to expand...

Mr. Antt, IIRC you purchased yours after the whole ratings situation unfolded. Meaning that you had the information available to you before purchase and you could make an informed balanced decision about this amp knowing how the wattage and APM worked.

There were plenty of people who purchased before everything unfolded, and while the amp may be 'plenty loud', how it gets there was not disclosed and they could not make their decision taking the information into account.
 
#96
tekdiver500ft said:
I suspect they didn't drive it hard enough, or there was some other error. When I heard about this over the weekend, I figured this would come up, so I tested a friend's SVT-7 Pro. With 2.8v RMS into an 8ohm dummy load, I calculated (v*v/ohm) (68v*68v/8ohm) 578 watts. Into a 4ohm dummy load, I got (62v*62v/4ohm) 961 watts. While not up to the published numbers, they are close enough for me. Most other Ampeg heads (SVT, V4, Micro VR, PF-350, PF-500) put out more than their rated power, so this may be an aberration that will be cleared up.

I don't currently own any Ampeg equipment, nor do I work for them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it doesn't seem fair to test it yourself. I could test the RH450/750 and get different results. Who knows?!

The BGM specs are what they are, and Ampeg hve fudged the specs.

I'd like a response from them. Notice how most of us are being quite reserved and aren't personally attacking staff at Ampeg, like some did with TC and Uffe.

Tom said that Ampeg has seen the results and have not changed them. Therefore, they NEED to change their website. NOT 1000W!
 
#98
Since TC never claimed the RH450 being 450 watts RMS, it might as well mean 450 watts perceived loudness. Just 450 without any unit of measurement behind it means nothing. So, it's not lying but marketing based on people reading what they wanna read.

I checked the specs since the first announcement of the TC bass amps and it never ever said RMS but just 450.
 
#99
Menno said:
Since TC never claimed the RH450 being 450 watts RMS, it might as well mean 450 watts perceived loudness. Just 450 without any unit of measurement behind it means nothing. So, it's not lying but marketing based on people reading what they wanna read.

I checked the specs since the first announcement of the TC bass amps and it never ever said RMS but just 450.
Click to expand...

No, they did. They even had it posted on their website for a long time that way.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back