• 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 RH450 discussion - Tweaking the Preamp

#202
KJung said:
Yeah, that vid was not meant to arrive at a good, musical tone, but rather to use some extreme settings to show the impact of that control.

The other vids are more 'real world' tweaks using subtle shifts in EQ (IMO, that's the way EQ is meant to be used) to sculpt the basic sound of the head into different directions, versus hammering the head to be something it is not. However, if you have a good playback system, the changes are meaningful, and IME come through even in a relatively dense mix.

That being said, my primary finding in this process is that the RH450 sounds great, and just a touch more top end would make it perfect (especially if that could be controlled with the 'tweetertone' type knob). All the other stuff in the software is 'that final 1%' that IMO would probably not be that interesting to the vast majority of players.

I guess I would suggest that the Q on the high mid control be set at 1 octave versus the 2.2 currently (the 2.2 on the low mids is great for boosting, but the 2.2 on the upper mids is a bit wide for cutting), but that is minor.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. A narrow Q in the upper mids lets you cut frequencies a bit deeper to get a nice modern tone without cutting them wide which sucks out all the note distinction. It also seems to let the upper-mid control act more like a "Presence" knob as on the Sansamp BDDI. With a narrow Q, you can dial up some string buzz/grind without adding a lot of that "gank" as you call it.
 
#203
Eublet said:
My thoughts exactly. A narrow Q in the upper mids lets you cut frequencies a bit deeper to get a nice modern tone without cutting them wide which sucks out all the note distinction. It also seems to let the upper-mid control act more like a "Presence" knob as on the Sansamp BDDI. With a narrow Q, you can dial up some string buzz/grind without adding a lot of that "gank" as you call it.
Click to expand...

+1 All the way. That 2.2 works great with the low mids, providing a very musical, natural 'fattening' of the low end/low mids. A tighter fixed Q of 1 octave or 1/2 octave would make that control a bit more useful I believe.
 
#204
KJung said:
+1 All the way. That 2.2 works great with the low mids, providing a very musical, natural 'fattening' of the low end/low mids. A tighter fixed Q of 1 octave or 1/2 octave would make that control a bit more useful I believe.
Click to expand...


+1...I would think in conjunction with raising that LPF a tighter Q there would make sense...but with the LPF at the stock setting the wider Q on the high mid helps compensate with a wider boost and would be missed if narrowed IMO.
 
#205
mothra2 said:
+1...I would think in conjunction with raising that LPF a tighter Q there would make sense...but with the LPF at the stock setting the wider Q on the high mid helps compensate with a wider boost and would be missed if narrowed IMO.
Click to expand...

Depend on if you are cutting or boosting. EBS has a cool midrange control on the 350/650 series of amps... wide Q when boosting, and narrow Q when cutting... perfect!

1 octave is still quite wide, and of course, you can lower the shelving start point of the treble contol to cover part of the upper mids if you need it.

Again, just an idea, and a little selfish on my part, since I almost always cut upper mids, and that super wide Q just takes too much out. The good news is, the RH450 is quite smooth and relaxed in the upper mids anyway, so not much cutting is needed for what I'm going for.
 
#206
#209
I think much of what I'm seeing explains why the default RH450 settings (and Classic450) work so well in a rock environment. If you boost highs, you're really boosting around 1.2k to close to 5K where it then tapers everything off. That's pretty much the rock/grind frequency range. Boosting that probably causes most folks to boost the lows to compensate, and you wind up with a typical Ampeg-like frequency response. Seeing it all from a computer interface means it makes much more sense for me logically, though I already kind of understood it with my ears.

The thing about the upper-mid cut that Ken is referring to is that since the default Q is 2.1 octaves, that means that if you cut upper-mids at 800 hz, that is really extending way up in the 2k range as well, which is too much for some applications. Of course boosting the highs at the same time causes that curve to be less symmetrical, and ultimately is more musical for MOST players who really don't know how to use an EQ properly. Small Q's can really get you in trouble quickly if you don't know what you are doing, but they can also do a lot of things that the wider Q's don't allow if you are a bit knowledgeable and frugal with it at the same time.

All in all, I still think the RH450 is about as close to perfect as you can get without needing this software. A Tweetertone knob would get it even closer, and a single "notch" control would make it a panacea.
 
#210
engedi1 said:
Good points all around! However, I find that I almost never cut midrange unless I am going with a slap tone. Boosting midrange is the only way to be heard in rock gig, using fingers, playing on Flats!
Click to expand...

We are talking about a very specific part of the midrange.. way up top, around 1K or even higher. However, you are correct, so much of this depends on the cab, the instrument, the inherent voicing of the head, and the playing style and tone goal.

With a PBass and a pick, that 1K area gives you the grind (for example, the GK heads 'presence' control I believe boosts around this area with a narrow Q). However, with a more full range instrument with roundwounds, that 1K area can be quite 'ganky' sounding. However, to your point, you wouldn't want to cut a lot above and below that center point, hence my wish for slightly narrow Q up there. Again, 1 octave sounded the best to me, and is still quite wide. The default 2.2 octave Q is REALLY wide IMO... too wide for up there for me. Minor issue though.
 
#211
KJung said:
want to cut a lot above and below that center point, hence my wish for slightly narrow Q up there. Again, 1 octave sounded the best to me, and is still quite wide. The default 2.2 octave Q is REALLY wide IMO... too wide for up there for me. Minor issue though.
Click to expand...

Ken, how fine is the granularity on the Q adjustment?
 
#215
Rick Auricchio said:
Thanks, Vic, for posting the compressor info.

There's lots of room for experimentation with the crossover frequencies as a start. Crossing below 315Hz (say 100Hz) for the lows would seem more logical to me, but I'm sure TC did lots of experimentation before releasing the amp.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and it just depends on what you want to compress... general low end, or just sub lows, etc.

Thing is, compression is a science... even before you get into multi-band compression. I'm no guru on it, but I do know a few things, and trust me, someone could spend a LOT of time playing with this feature alone. I haven't even asked yet, but I bet they logged MANY man-hours on that.
 
#220
JackANSI said:
I don't have control over the more advanced stuff yet (like the filters), but I'm able to switch memories from my Moto Droid as well as change EQ settings (over WiFi). I'm working on getting the tuner on the Droid screen next. :)

Pictures of the interior soon (in another thread) as soon as I complete the BOM spreadsheet.
Click to expand...

How are you communicating with the RH450? Are you using the "special" interface from TC, or did you roll your own?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back