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, RS210, RS212 Review Thread
- Thread starter Andy Brown
- Start date
- Status
yes, to level out the 3 settings, thats what its meant to be.
i use this, when have to change between electric- and doublebass.
i'm not sure about this, it defenitly affects the masterlevelcontrol and i always feel, that the tube poweramp saturation comes earlier with a highgained presetlevel. but i can altough be wrong with my personal mind illusion.
yes, to level out the 3 settings, thats what its meant to be.
i use this, when have to change between electric- and doublebass.
i'm not sure about this, it defenitly affects the masterlevelcontrol and i always feel, that the tube poweramp saturation comes earlier with a highgained presetlevel. but i can altough be wrong with my personal mind illusion.
You are correct... if you are pumping a higher level signal (either from the pre gain control or the preset level) you will be pushing the power amp more, and by definition, the limiter will kick in at a 'lower' master volume setting. So, +1 on the impact. It's just not anything 'magical' about that control per se though... it's just the impact of a higher level signal from the pre hitting the power amp (I think).
I'm having fun with this amp. Lot's of subtle (and not so subtle) tonal variations in there, and a nice 'chest thump' capability.
Mine should arrive today with a Bergantino HS410. I will write a full review once I've gigged with it this Saturday evening.
I'm playing at an outdoor music festival this Friday night. Last year the stage I was on was backlined with an Eden rig. Not sure what to expect this time, but I'm going to carry the rh450 to use with whatever cabs they have there, and will provide some info as well.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
If you use very little of the tube emulation, is the volume significantly reduced as a consequence? I ask because of your comparison to the drive control on the B1500; on mine, there is a noteworthy gain/volume reduction when I reduce the drive control.
I'd love to find a small, lightweight, head that's versatile enough to provide both a clean sound (iAmp, B1500), and the warmth of a Walkabout or my old Ampeg fliptop, with ample power.
I eagerly await your post-gig report.
Not really gain per se, but if you turn up the tube sim it does add a bit more perceived volume. I'm not sure if the signal really gets that much hotter, or if the extra harmonic detail in the mids just makes it seem louder. It's not drastic such that it's hard to deal with, and it certainly doesn't limit the amp reaching it's full output capability when it's off. All in all, the volume of the head stays pretty constant when adding or removing Tubetone compared to many heads that have a similar emulation circuit.If you use very little of the tube emulation, is the volume significantly reduced as a consequence? I ask because of your comparison to the drive control on the B1500; on mine, there is a noteworthy gain/volume reduction when I reduce the drive control.
I'd love to find a small, lightweight, head that's versatile enough to provide both a clean sound (iAmp, B1500), and the warmth of a Walkabout or my old Ampeg fliptop, with ample power.
I eagerly await your post-gig report.
As for the Walkabout or fliptop, the RH450 can definitely do that warm tone by comparison. It also does a pretty good job of clean, but I don't think it's as quick as the B1500, nor quite as clean and hi-fi as the iAmp (which is rather sterile IMHO). The clean tone of the rh450 is still on the warm side like a LMII, but not quite as quick.
I Just got my RH450 yesterday and I am playing it through a SWR Working pro 4x10 and 1x15 until UPS gets here with my rebel stack. I was looking for some starting off settings and never saw any here so I thought I would just throw up what I have now just to see what people might say or like about it. Maybe get some settings from others to go off when my RS stuff gets here. Here goes....and when I say Freq Set, I mean the freq adjustment in Shift mode. 0 would be 1 light at the top on and +4 would be the top light on and 4 more......
Boost / cut Freq Set
Bass 0 0
Lo Mid +3 -5
Hi Mid +3 -3
High -3 -2
Tube 7
Comp stright up at half way.
I am using a Fender Jazz 24 with actives set all to 0
Hope this may help and gets others posting their settings.
Boost / cut Freq Set
Bass 0 0
Lo Mid +3 -5
Hi Mid +3 -3
High -3 -2
Tube 7
Comp stright up at half way.
I am using a Fender Jazz 24 with actives set all to 0
Hope this may help and gets others posting their settings.
If you use very little of the tube emulation, is the volume significantly reduced as a consequence? I ask because of your comparison to the drive control on the B1500; on mine, there is a noteworthy gain/volume reduction when I reduce the drive control.
I'd love to find a small, lightweight, head that's versatile enough to provide both a clean sound (iAmp, B1500), and the warmth of a Walkabout or my old Ampeg fliptop, with ample power.
I eagerly await your post-gig report.
Since the RH450 has a true input gain knob (the Carvin does not), this is not really much of an issue.
If anything, the volume decreases a touch when engaging the tube emulation at low levels, but it is very subtle. The volume will increase a bit once you get that tube emulation control cranked up a bit, but it's not significant. I think this is due to the circuitry attempting to emulate a full tube amp versus a solid state amp. This control not only adds warmth, but that bit of tube compression even at relatively low levels, and of course that 'complexity' at higher levels that results in a touch of volume increase. Nice.
The good news, is it has a similar tonal impact as the Carvin drive control at low levels (i.e., slightly on through about 10 o'clock). The even better news is that it doesn't impact volume to the point that it is an issue, and with the separate gain control, and the ability to adjust the volume levels across the three presets, it is easy to get radically different tones at very close to the same volume.
Of course, it's not going to put out the massive wump of the B1500, but so far, it is surely near the top of the '500-600 watt' class lightweight heads regarding punch and perceived volume. Pretty darn nice.
The cab and bass voicing would very much impact these settings, so hard to compare across users.
If my math is right, your settings result in:
- A low mid boost centered around 250hz
- A high mid cut centered around 1K
- A reduction in the upper mids and treble starting around 800hz.
So, a bump in the low mids, a dip in the upper mids (a pretty substantial one, since your hi mid and treble shelving are overlapping, and a general reduction in treble from the lower treble up.
That's a pretty good EQ setting with most cabs for 'smooth and old school punch'.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Hi guys, I'm curious how these cabs do when close to a wall with the rear port. Most clubs I play I'm pretty close to the wall, maybe a foot or two away. I'm thinking it would get pretty boomy sounding. Let me know if you guys have some experince with this, thanks.
Just spent an hour or so really A/Bing the F1 and LMII with the RH450 using my Sadowsky and my Bergantino AE410. Interesting, at least in the basement!
The F1 really is a different beast... quicker, cleaner, tighter, brighter than the LMII and especially the much darker and woolier RH450. Those heads would definitely appeal to different users. The F1 almost sounded a touch sterile next to the RH450. Of course, that 'tight and bite' really works well in a mix for those who like it modern and clean.
Interestingly, I could get the LMII to sound VERY similar to the RH450 with the tone settings that I like (a slight boost to the low end in default mode and a slight cut in the upper mids, which the tube emulation on just slightly), by just cutting the upper mids with the LMII at a similar level and frequency, and dialing the VLE all the way up to noon.
That made it clear to me how relatively 'dark' the RH450 is voiced, since I don't view the LMII as that sizzly. It was VERY similar to my experience when I compared the LMII when they first came out to the Thunderfunk550b I was using at the time. It was almost like someone lifted a cover off the cabinet when you went from the TF to the LMII. I get a similar experience going from the RH450 to the LMII. Of course, those who want a more vintage sort of thing would find the more relaxed, organic top end of the RH450 a good thing, but it's amazing how close you can get with the VLE on the LMII/III. Also, you can surely brighten up the RH450 with EQ, but that's not really what it's about IMO.
Regarding volume, the two heads seem similar. When really pushed (which is not a very pleasant thing to do playing solo in a basement), the RH450 will get louder, but only with that more compressed 'tube emulation' sort of gentle compression, which is not that pleasant to my ear. So, for those who like it relatively clean, I would say the output and total volume capability is a tie. For those who dig the tone of a tube amp quashing and grinding a bit, the RH450 will REALLY crank, but again, get a little compressed and midrangey when you really dig in and wump (which is part of its design goal).
It makes me realize two things. First, how good of a job TC did in creating a micro head for those who dig a more old school tone but want relatively lightweight and lots of bells and whistles. And second, how utterly and completely amazing the LMII/III is for the price point. Simply in a class by itself regarding price/value IMO.
If you like a big, fat, warm tone, and don't need to grind, it is very hard to beat the LMII/III. The RH450 is a definite contender for those who love that VLE control engaged tone of the LMII, want a bit more bells and whistles, and also want to grind and grit a little bit (which the LMII/lll will not do).
FYI and IMO!
Edit: Forgot to mention, the 4 bands of semi parametric mids that the RH450 has is a GREAT thing. One of the things I've noticed over the years about the LMII and my F1 is that with certain cabs and basses, I really felt I needed a bit of boost in the low mids to punch up the tone, especially in problem rooms. The RH450 has almost infinite control of the mids (and to be fair, so does the new Markbass F500). Big plus though on the ability to shift the low mids around a bit, and that bass shelving control of the RH450 set high like the default really punches things up!
The F1 really is a different beast... quicker, cleaner, tighter, brighter than the LMII and especially the much darker and woolier RH450. Those heads would definitely appeal to different users. The F1 almost sounded a touch sterile next to the RH450. Of course, that 'tight and bite' really works well in a mix for those who like it modern and clean.
Interestingly, I could get the LMII to sound VERY similar to the RH450 with the tone settings that I like (a slight boost to the low end in default mode and a slight cut in the upper mids, which the tube emulation on just slightly), by just cutting the upper mids with the LMII at a similar level and frequency, and dialing the VLE all the way up to noon.
That made it clear to me how relatively 'dark' the RH450 is voiced, since I don't view the LMII as that sizzly. It was VERY similar to my experience when I compared the LMII when they first came out to the Thunderfunk550b I was using at the time. It was almost like someone lifted a cover off the cabinet when you went from the TF to the LMII. I get a similar experience going from the RH450 to the LMII. Of course, those who want a more vintage sort of thing would find the more relaxed, organic top end of the RH450 a good thing, but it's amazing how close you can get with the VLE on the LMII/III. Also, you can surely brighten up the RH450 with EQ, but that's not really what it's about IMO.
Regarding volume, the two heads seem similar. When really pushed (which is not a very pleasant thing to do playing solo in a basement), the RH450 will get louder, but only with that more compressed 'tube emulation' sort of gentle compression, which is not that pleasant to my ear. So, for those who like it relatively clean, I would say the output and total volume capability is a tie. For those who dig the tone of a tube amp quashing and grinding a bit, the RH450 will REALLY crank, but again, get a little compressed and midrangey when you really dig in and wump (which is part of its design goal).
It makes me realize two things. First, how good of a job TC did in creating a micro head for those who dig a more old school tone but want relatively lightweight and lots of bells and whistles. And second, how utterly and completely amazing the LMII/III is for the price point. Simply in a class by itself regarding price/value IMO.
If you like a big, fat, warm tone, and don't need to grind, it is very hard to beat the LMII/III. The RH450 is a definite contender for those who love that VLE control engaged tone of the LMII, want a bit more bells and whistles, and also want to grind and grit a little bit (which the LMII/lll will not do).
FYI and IMO!
Edit: Forgot to mention, the 4 bands of semi parametric mids that the RH450 has is a GREAT thing. One of the things I've noticed over the years about the LMII and my F1 is that with certain cabs and basses, I really felt I needed a bit of boost in the low mids to punch up the tone, especially in problem rooms. The RH450 has almost infinite control of the mids (and to be fair, so does the new Markbass F500). Big plus though on the ability to shift the low mids around a bit, and that bass shelving control of the RH450 set high like the default really punches things up!
Should be a zero issue if the ports are designed correctly. As long as you don't block the rear ports (i.e., literally put them up against the wall), you should be fine. Any sound coming out of a port is low enough to be omnidirectional, which means it doesn't really matter where the port is.
poptart
Commercial User
Just spent an hour or so really A/Bing the F1 and LMII with the RH450 using my Sadowsky and my Bergantino AE410. Interesting, at least in the basement!
The F1 really is a different beast... quicker, cleaner, tighter, brighter than the LMII and especially the much darker and woolier RH450. Those heads would definitely appeal to different users. The F1 almost sounded a touch sterile next to the RH450. Of course, that 'tight and bite' really works well in a mix for those who like it modern and clean.
Interestingly, I could get the LMII to sound VERY similar to the RH450 with the tone settings that I like (a slight boost to the low end in default mode and a slight cut in the upper mids, which the tube emulation on just slightly), by just cutting the upper mids with the LMII at a similar level and frequency, and dialing the VLE all the way up to noon.
That made it clear to me how relatively 'dark' the RH450 is voiced, since I don't view the LMII as that sizzly. It was VERY similar to my experience when I compared the LMII when they first came out to the Thunderfunk550b I was using at the time. It was almost like someone lifted a cover off the cabinet when you went from the TF to the LMII. I get a similar experience going from the RH450 to the LMII. Of course, those who want a more vintage sort of thing would find the more relaxed, organic top end of the RH450 a good thing, but it's amazing how close you can get with the VLE on the LMII/III. Also, you can surely brighten up the RH450 with EQ, but that's not really what it's about IMO.
Regarding volume, the two heads seem similar. When really pushed (which is not a very pleasant thing to do playing solo in a basement), the RH450 will get louder, but only with that more compressed 'tube emulation' sort of gentle compression, which is not that pleasant to my ear. So, for those who like it relatively clean, I would say the output and total volume capability is a tie. For those who dig the tone of a tube amp quashing and grinding a bit, the RH450 will REALLY crank, but again, get a little compressed and midrangey when you really dig in and wump (which is part of its design goal).
It makes me realize two things. First, how good of a job TC did in creating a micro head for those who dig a more old school tone but want relatively lightweight and lots of bells and whistles. And second, how utterly and completely amazing the LMII/III is for the price point. Simply in a class by itself regarding price/value IMO.
If you like a big, fat, warm tone, and don't need to grind, it is very hard to beat the LMII/III. The RH450 is a definite contender for those who love that VLE control engaged tone of the LMII, want a bit more bells and whistles, and also want to grind and grit a little bit (which the LMII/lll will not do).
FYI and IMO!
Edit: Forgot to mention, the 4 bands of semi parametric mids that the RH450 has is a GREAT thing. One of the things I've noticed over the years about the LMII and my F1 is that with certain cabs and basses, I really felt I needed a bit of boost in the low mids to punch up the tone, especially in problem rooms. The RH450 has almost infinite control of the mids (and to be fair, so does the new Markbass F500). Big plus though on the ability to shift the low mids around a bit, and that bass shelving control of the RH450 set high like the default really punches things up!
Ken
I have to agree with you about all of this - I have been trying these three amps (plus the STL6/MAX which is more glassy with a tighter low end than the others) for the past few weeks and I hear the same.
Mark
I'm doing a fly in this weekend, but will be driving to a gig outside of Chicago next weekend and this will be making the trip.
Hello! I hope all is well.
All this stuff sounds so good, I could be happy with any of it... MB, TC, Genz, whatever. That RH450/Bergantino AE match-up is pretty cool... old school meets punchy and aggressive. I like it!
- Status
