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.
TC Electronic RH450 discussion - Tweaking the Preamp
- Thread starter Eublet
- Start date
Rick Auricchio
Registered Bass Offender
As a software guy this makes me happy. XML is easy to work with on all computer platforms.
Aw, Ken, just when we try to stop using vague words like "warm" and "punchy," you add "chewiness." Makes me think of Star Wars...
Yeah, TC's web site could have a web app delivered to your desktop that talks to the amp, libraries of presets downloadable, etc, and as long as the API could be reprogrammed the feature set could be extended any time since XML scales so nicely. LOTS of potential for uber-nerdy stuff here.
Here's a bit of a teaser. I decided to reconfigure my practice space in my basement office for the duration of this little project. Here it is. You can see the midi cable between my PC and the Test Unit, and the Boomerang III for providing a constant loop sound source when tweaking. The TecAmp cab is my 'desk' for the duration
I'll attempt a quick clip of the impact of the variable lo pass. You can hear the amp come alive a touch more way up top, although it isn't night and day.. very nice though.
I realize as I'm messing with the settings just how much I like the amp the way it is, and can see ending up with my favorite settings being default, with the lo pass filter moved up to around 10k for just that hint more of sparkle.
Clip on the way later today.
I'll attempt a quick clip of the impact of the variable lo pass. You can hear the amp come alive a touch more way up top, although it isn't night and day.. very nice though.
I realize as I'm messing with the settings just how much I like the amp the way it is, and can see ending up with my favorite settings being default, with the lo pass filter moved up to around 10k for just that hint more of sparkle.
Clip on the way later today.
Nice little space you have there! I kinda miss my Tecamp M212, 
But, the TC cabs are stop any other GAS at the moment.
But, the TC cabs are stop any other GAS at the moment.OK, here's the first clip, involving the lo pass filter setting control (called 'tweetertone' by TC). I recorded a quick loop, and then varied the filter using the software with the amp set flat to start, and then eventually with the tweeter shelving start point moved up to around 3K and boosted, and finally with a slight cut to the upper mids at the default frequency center point of 800hz, and a boost to the low end at the default 280hz start point for a kind of 'Staccato-ey' tone. Then, to finish the clip, I bring the lo pass back to the default 5K. You can really hear the impact on a decent playback system.
VERY nice IMO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHoweJCv-dE
VERY nice IMO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHoweJCv-dE
When I turned up the volume on my headphones, you could definitely hear the treble cut through. Quite a large difference! Good video, I look forward to getting mine!
In fact, I think just that small feature of tweaking the high end like that would sell this amp to the more modern tone bass players. I definitely think even at this early stage that TC should release this as a program.
So far, the tweetertone thing is the only 'improvement' I can come up with for this amp (it seems quite similar to the Markbass VLE, which is kind of a variable lo pass filter thing, and is very useful).
The idea of baking in frequency and level settings (i.e., different center points to the EQ) is a bit uninteresting to me, since we can get to the same place pretty well with the presets. I guess a bit of control over the 'Q' would be cool, but for most, the simple 1 octave fixed setting is perfect (EDIT: the Q is set at 2.2 octaves on the mid... great for boosting, not so much for cutting... so the Q is pretty useful).
I also guess that the compressor tweaks might be useful to those deep into compressor use, but again, the current default settings sound better than most compressors I've used (at least the stomp box models that most use live).
So far, what this has taught me is that the RH450 is pretty killer in its default mode, but the ability to widen the top end would, as you suggest, open up a whole additional market for this amp. That being said, I'm not sure I would want it baked in... the idea of the 'tweetertone' knob is a very good one. The amp sounds fat and wonderfully vintage at the 5k roll-off default, and I wouldn't want to lose that.
Anyway, so far, fun stuff!
Really having fun with this.
FYI, it seems that raising the lo pass to 10K is the 'sweet spot'. Beyond that, either my 53 year old ears are shot, or the coax tweeter itself rolls off.
In thinking through this more, a simple 5K/10K button or switch (storable in the presets) would probably work fine for 99% of players. I believe this is similar to a switch that GK has on their larger amps (700/1001, etc.) that basically either allows the tweeter signal to run 'full range' or puts a lo pass filter on the signal at a lower frequency to more mimic the warm sound of a paper cone tweeter versus the bright 'horn' tone.
To me, in future products, that would be (I assume) a relatively low cost and easy to execute feature that wouldn't take up a lot of real estate on the front panel. Yes, the tweetertone variable control would also be cool, but probably a bit overkill, since you still have the treble control to really control the top end.
IMO!
FYI, it seems that raising the lo pass to 10K is the 'sweet spot'. Beyond that, either my 53 year old ears are shot, or the coax tweeter itself rolls off.
In thinking through this more, a simple 5K/10K button or switch (storable in the presets) would probably work fine for 99% of players. I believe this is similar to a switch that GK has on their larger amps (700/1001, etc.) that basically either allows the tweeter signal to run 'full range' or puts a lo pass filter on the signal at a lower frequency to more mimic the warm sound of a paper cone tweeter versus the bright 'horn' tone.
To me, in future products, that would be (I assume) a relatively low cost and easy to execute feature that wouldn't take up a lot of real estate on the front panel. Yes, the tweetertone variable control would also be cool, but probably a bit overkill, since you still have the treble control to really control the top end.
IMO!
Have you run it through the Berg?
I think the "power management" aspect of the amp may be the limiting factor in tweakability.
I think the "power management" aspect of the amp may be the limiting factor in tweakability.
I don't personally think so... at least not yet. Seems to me that only comes into effect when the amp is pushed hard, so in light to moderate settings, I'd think it would be of no consequence.
I haven't spent a lot of time with this part yet, but this is the way I currently hear the results as well.
I'm kind of keeping it 'all TC' for this test, in the spirit of signing on for this.
You know, I think it is the massive tweakability of the amp without the software that makes the software a bit less interesting to me than I would have originally thought.
With two bands of hi, low semi-parametric shelving and two bands of semi-parametric mids, and the tubetone, compressor, presets, multiple volume/gain controls, etc., it already is massively more tweakable than anything else I have owned.
The only issue again to me is that they voiced it soft up top to sound a bit vintage and old school (which it does, and which would be a very good thing for many). A simple switch to move that lo pass up to take advantage of the full range of the tweeter (again, my 10K idea), would literally make this amp perfect for me.
IMO of course. Again, I can't speak to the compressor tweaks, since that isn't a major interest of mine, and the compressor already sounds better than almost any other one I've ever heard (with that multi-band design, etc.).
Since they already have the variable lo pass incorporated into the more recent combo's, I feel they've already probably done a lot of listening to customers. Impressive company, IMO.
K
Agreed on these two things for the most part. I've been swamped with work these last two days, and haven't had much time during the day to play with this. At night, the kids get home and I play with the, and then they're off to bed so no playing that late or it would keep them up. The little playing I have done also tells me that the TC guys made a killer head to begin with, and I can find very little to change. I did play with the Q settings a bit, but honestly I like the deafult settings best. Much more musical and smooth, so I changed them right back for now. I'm trying to only test one thing at a time for now, before I start doing different things together. I still think a notch Q would be cool, but I'd really need a boomy gig to test it.
I'm with you at this point though, the addition of a Tweetertone knob would be all I could ask for at the moment. I'm not sure what I would personally change on the RH450 to make it better with this software thus far.
I noticed a similar result with the LPF through the RS210. I'm not going to get into a lot of pairings either for this test, but I do plan to run it into my IP310 for the sole purpose of seeing if a higher LPF is noticeable over what the RS210 provides. I tried doing this through some headphones already and couldn't tell a difference either. I think the IP310 might show it if it exists. I'll post that either way, and that'll be about the end of that. The RS210 top end is wonderful sounding to me, even with a flat, open signal coming into it. I think a 10k or so roll-off is just about perfect for even a modern sounding tone. Anything over that gets brittle and sharp sounding to me.
I can't see anyone accusing the Rs 210 of being brittle... Must be the amp, especially since eublet said due to the not waking up the kids factor, that he has been using headphones only
