There is a discussion of this a few pages back. In general, I would say yes, you could dial in something very close with the RH450. However, my guess is, from the general description on the TC site, they probably tweaked some of the parameters a bit (i.e., the Q's of the EQ, the attack and release of the compressor, etc.) to give it a bit of its own vibe. But, my guess is, you could get 90% there with the tone controls of the RH450.
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
There is a discussion of this a few pages back. In general, I would say yes, you could dial in something very close with the RH450. However, my guess is, from the general description on the TC site, they probably tweaked some of the parameters a bit (i.e., the Q's of the EQ, the attack and release of the compressor, etc.) to give it a bit of its own vibe. But, my guess is, you could get 90% there with the tone controls of the RH450.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,953
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
The thing with these cabs, including the 210, is that they all have a fairly deep voice, rather than a tight bottom. The 210 is certainly a bit tighter sounding than the 212, but it still has plenty of depth. For me and my tone goals, I just don't know that the 212 is necessary even outdoors. I ran ithe 212/210 combo on it's first outdoor outing at a wedding party. Volume needs were low, and the PA was fairly small, so I didn't go through the PA so that I could push it a bit. It was absolutely wonderful, and reminiscent of a 410/115 rig with all the depth and punch one could ask for. It had a big pillowy bottom, providing a bed for the whole band to sit on. But in general that's not my thing. I do a lot of indoors stuff in smaller stages, or pushed back into the corner of a room at a corporate gig where there is a lot of low-end reinforcement from the surrounding walls. It just makes for too much pillow for me. Dual 210's would be ideal I think, and even those wouldn't be lacking on their own. I actually prefer boosting bass on a tighter sounding cabinet rather than keeping things flat on a deep sounding cabinet. Just a personal preference.
That sounds great, thank you! Having a version with 'RebelHead' on the front it would be very annoying to change the amp...
There is a video at TC Electronic where Ida does an A/B comparison between the two heads. You can hear the difference a bit, but I'm sure it's much more pronounced in person. I can't imagine what Rocco's rig must sound like, with a 410 sitting on top of dual 212's.
FYI... here are the shelving points and frequency center points for the four band EQ on the Rocco head to get you started in at least somewhat matching the tone with the RH450
Tone Control
Bass Center Freq: 125Hz (range: 71-1.12kHz, Gain: +15/-24dB)
Low Mid Center Freq: 224Hz (range: 100-1.6kHz, Gain: +15/-15dB)
High Mid Center Freq: 630Hz (range: 200-3.25kHz, Gain: +15/-15dB)
Treble Center Freq: 6.3kHz (range: 4kHz – 10kHz, Gain: +12/-24dB)
So, on the RH, that would be roughly the following settings:
Bass.... frequency (shift) at around 9 o'clock
Low mid.... frequency again around 9 o'clock or so
Hi mid.... frequency around 11 o'clock
Treble... this control was really changed, since the RH450 shelving start point (i.e., default setting at noon) is much lower than the Staccato's lowest range. So, you would pretty much crank the frequency control pretty much all the way clockwise (i.e., around 5 o'clock) on the RH450.
Whow, excellent information! I will try this tonight just to have an idea how my bass playing would sound with the staccato. Thanks again!!!
I believe there is some built in 'level' differences also (i.e., the Staccato sounds a bit different 'flat'), so not sure what to cut or boost.
Given Rocco's tone, my guess is you would slightly boost the bass, the lo and the hi mid control with the new shelving start points (maybe to around 1 o'clock... just guessing) and then cut the treble control to 10 'o'clock... to remove all upper treble sizzle. Again, just guess.
Maybe Poptart can comment, since he's had both for a while in his shop 'down under' for a while!
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,953
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Or, 'across the Pond,' as the case may be.
+1
I mixed him up with the TBer who runs the shop down under.I don't know that doing just that would give you any kind of idea on what the '51 would sound like at all. TC also made tweaks to the Spectracomp and Tubetone for that head. If the Spectracomp is compressing the three bands differently, or if the frequencies are in different location, that alone would give an entirely different sound and feel. Add to it that the Tubetone could have a whole different vibe going on, not to mention any inherrent voicing (not EQ) in the processing of the bass signal, and it could be a whole 'nother world. For example, consider how differen the Markbass F1 and LMII sound compared to each other, irregardless of the fact that the EQ points are the same.
Of course you can have fun playing with you RH450 and seeing how this experiment comes out, but I wouldn't come to any conclusions about the '51 based on it IMHO.
+1 It seems they did make some other modifications, although my guess is, the impact would be pretty minor. Since the amp itself is identical, as is the preamp (versus the different amps driving the LMII and F1), I would expect that you could get the RH450 to sound virtually identical to the Staccato, especially using minimal comp and tube emulation.
poptart
Commercial User
Well, over here down under the pond, I can report that the sound of Staccato is a bit more complex than just tweaking the EQ. The whole unit just responds differently to the RH450, the compressor has a different feel and I guess is set up with different basic settings and the tubetone also seems to respond differently.
All in all out of the box is just sounds HUGE - through a 410 with a four string it is amazing, so big in the low end but not over rumbly or messy - just HUGE!
I reckon the EQ has some deep lows and low mids, a cut in the high mids and some boost on the high end - sort of scooped, but not the regular "slap" scoop.
It scarred me a bit when I first ran it and I guess it will not suit many, but I reckon it will really ring some peoples bells.
Mark
I'd be curious to hear the A/B with the RH450 with the EQ points matched, and the low end and treble boosted, and the high mids cut using the same EQ points as the Staccato.
I believe what you are hearing, if I'm guessing what they did correctly, is that they not only changed the center points and shelving points of the EQ, but also they have some level differences programmed in (i.e., that the bass setting on the Staccato is actually boosted a bit at 125hz, even when set at noon).
If you have a chance, crank up the bass and treble using those new frequency points, and see what you get (i.e., setting the Staccato flat and boosting the bass and treble and possibly cutting mids on the RH450)!
For lack of a better word, it's just hard to know how much different the "modeling" in the '51 is compared to the RH450. Since everything happening is digital, it could be vastly different despite it looking like the exact same head under the hood, even with the Tubetone and Spectracomp completely off. I think it would be fun to try and make the RH450 sound exactly like the '51, but until someone can manage to do that and give us the exact settings, I'd be a bit leary of drawing any conclusions on the '51 without actually hearing it myself.
Said another way... From what it looks like to me, they could hypothetically have a whole series of heads based on the RH450 that emulate a GK, Eden, Ampeg, or whatever else right out of the box. From that point, knob twisting would change the tone, but the changes would be based on that "modeled" voicing so that you really couldn't make one sound like the other.
Also, for the sake of clarity, I'm not saying that the rh450 is a modeling amplifier. The RH450 has one voice, with an EQ, compressor, and tube emulation circuit. It's not really trying to be a chameleon like the LINE 6 stuff for example. But there is also no doubt that much of the voicing is in the digital processing that occurs in the preamp, and that is an EASY thing for TC to change based on their goals, especially on a signature head for a high profile player like Rocco. Change the DSP parameters, load it on a ROM chip, and it's a completely different head that looks just like all the others. That's a cool thing I think, as long as the DSP is authentic and convincing, which IMO is what makes a lot of the LINE6 stuff so lame. The LINE6 gear tries to do too much and doesn't really do any of it well personally, at least not for live use. The RH450 on the other head does what it does very well.
Said another way... From what it looks like to me, they could hypothetically have a whole series of heads based on the RH450 that emulate a GK, Eden, Ampeg, or whatever else right out of the box. From that point, knob twisting would change the tone, but the changes would be based on that "modeled" voicing so that you really couldn't make one sound like the other.
Also, for the sake of clarity, I'm not saying that the rh450 is a modeling amplifier. The RH450 has one voice, with an EQ, compressor, and tube emulation circuit. It's not really trying to be a chameleon like the LINE 6 stuff for example. But there is also no doubt that much of the voicing is in the digital processing that occurs in the preamp, and that is an EASY thing for TC to change based on their goals, especially on a signature head for a high profile player like Rocco. Change the DSP parameters, load it on a ROM chip, and it's a completely different head that looks just like all the others. That's a cool thing I think, as long as the DSP is authentic and convincing, which IMO is what makes a lot of the LINE6 stuff so lame. The LINE6 gear tries to do too much and doesn't really do any of it well personally, at least not for live use. The RH450 on the other head does what it does very well.
+1 The first thing someone needs to do is match up those EQ points and mess with the level controls. If that doesn't get you 90%+ there (it might or it might not), then it will be a little clearer what the differences are.
My point is, the first step is to match up what we know, and see how similar the tone is. I don't think anyone has done that yet, and hopefully, now that they've published the EQ points, someone will take the time to do it!
+1 and totally agree. Hope I don't sound combative on this one. Just talking about it cause I enjoy it, and hoping most others who read this thread later might gather that there could be a lot of different things going on than what they might realize. After all, it is Bass Amp 2.0 we're talking about here!
+1 and totally agree. Hope I don't sound combative on this one. Just talking about it cause I enjoy it, and hoping most others who read this thread later might gather that there could be a lot of different things going on than what they might realize. After all, it is Bass Amp 2.0 we're talking about here!
Not at all. I'm just noodlin' this also
. It is still amazing to me how punchy this amp is, and how the tone is so forceful and fat and 'chest thumpy', now that I've had this amp for a while. I'm digging the footpedal controller also. I'm not one to go for radically different tones on the gig, but being able to quickly add just a touch of deeper low end and a bit more sizzle to the tone (very cool to be able to program in not just EQ level but also the shelving points, etc.), plus a touch of compression for a slap interlude is pretty cool.I really dig that 'preset volume control' thing also, that impacts stuff, it seems, after the EQ, so it doesn't impact the pre gain, the compressor triggering, or any of that. It's more like having a master volume control for each preset. Brilliant!
Same here. I pretty much have finalized on a default voicing that I store in Mem1. I use it for most all pocket playing. Mem2 is pretty much the same setting with a bit more volume boost, a little more mid and a bit less Spectracomp which I use for quick finger style solos. It gives a little more cut. Mem3 is the same is Mem1, but with a bit more spectracomp, a bit more volume, and a little more cut of high-mids, aka slap city. The footswitch makes it easy to jump back and forth between them all night long. It' not really a necessity at this point, although as I get more used to it I might come to think of it as such.Not at all. I'm just noodlin' this also
I really dig that 'preset volume control' thing also, that impacts stuff, it seems, after the EQ, so it doesn't impact the pre gain, the compressor triggering, or any of that. It's more like having a master volume control for each preset. Brilliant!
I think the RH450 is taylor made for J style basses. I like that I can set the treble shelving point just high enough that I can cut out all the glassy top end I want, yet retain that grindy fret noise in the 2k region. Very cool.
+1 I have a similar thing going on, with my default setting with my primary J type bass in Memory 1 (slightly boosted low end at the default shelving point, and a slight cut of the upper mids at the default shelving point). That's a nice clean but warm and very punchy J tone.
Memory 2 is the 'grind setting'.... slightly less bass boost, low and upper mids flat, and the treble shelving moved up to about 4K and cut a bit... and the tubetone thing at about 10 o'clock... warm, growly, grindy, uber punchy.
Memory 3 is a slightly widened take of my main setting... with the bass shelving moved down to around 125 hz and boosted a bit more (2 o'clock+), the upper mids cut a bit more at a slightly higher center point than the default.. maybe 1K), and the treble shelving moved up to around 4K and boosted a bit for sparkle... and a touch of compression for slap style (this setting reminds me quite a bit of the LMII set basically flat).
Volume is cut just slightly on Memory 1 and 2 so that Memory 3 with that wider tone will stay even and maybe a touch up volume-wise.
Fun stuff!
- Status
