TC Electronic RH450, RS210, RS212 Review Thread

[Eublet]

Okay, so I was a bit bored this morning with work, so I decided to get out all my TC stuff and play around a bit. Specifically, I decided to do some more comparisons between the rs210 and rs212 individually to see if the difference is as big as I remember.

First, let me say that since I acquired both cabinets, the onlyt time I've used the rs212 is under the 210 at a gig. At home I pretty much just use the rs210 for noodling. I've settled on my EQ settings pretty much based on the rs210. I think this might be part of the cause of my error in assuming the rs212 is a bit boomy.

Side by side, as I heard it this morning, the rs210 is a bit scooped sounding compared to the rs212. As such, it seems to have more low-end rumble. The rs212 by comparison is thick and fat, with a very noticeable low-mid bump that really sounds good when solo'ed. I had the rs212 before the 210, and I did an A/B with my Genz NeoX 212 at that time. I was reminded this morning that in that comparison, the rs212 sounded VERY rich and full compared to the upper-mid presence of the NeoX. It's pillowy, but doesn't necessarily have a deep sub-low feel. I bet dual 212's would sound excellent!

The rs210 by comparison reminded me of some of the SWR cabinets, with a deep bottom, somewhat shy low-mid, and plenty of clarity and punch in the upper-mid. Actually, it reminds me of the Eden 210xst I used to have. The programmed rh450 settings I settled on worked great with it alone, but on the rs212 it was a bit off in terms of getting the exact sound I prefer.

So I spent a good bit of time tweaking the settings on the head to get a great sound with the two cabs stacked. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about this combo. Standing within 5 feet of the stack, the rs210 just doesn't sound right to me. 20 feet out in front, it sounds great though. If I sat down on the floor up close to the rig, the rs212 sounds WONDERFUL to me.

Here's the thing. I can make the RS210 sound wonderful by itself, but when combined with the rs212, it kind of throws it all off. Where I'm standing seems to change the sound too much since I get more or less of the 212 depending on distance from the rig. It makes total sense that on these smaller venues when I'm on top of the rig that I'm trying to dial in some of the low-mid I want in the rs210, which is causing the rs212 to rumble a bit. Being close to a wall or a corner only makes the problem worse.

As a result of all this, I don't think being indoors or outdoors has much to do with my perception of this rig. Rather it's just how far out in front of it I'm standing. Now that I think about it, even indoors on bigger stages it has always sounded great if I was 10+ feet in front of it, even if it was near a wall. The ability to hear what's coming out of the 212 is what pleases me the most.

So at this point, I'm not sure which direction I should go in. I think I could make dual rs210's work by EQ'ing them. After all, I really dig the single rs210 by itself. However, the rs212 by itself sounds just a bit better to my ear. Of course, it's a bit larger and heavier, but not to the point that it's much more difficult to handle. I always use a hand cart anyway, even with smaller single-driver cabinets.

So maybe I'll just pickup another rs212 and see how it goes. At this point, I really don't know that I can recommend the mixture of these two cabs at all, unless you are always able to get far enough out in front of the rig. If I had one more of either cabinet I think I could test this a bit and know for sure.

 

[KJung]

Cool.

I've always been a big fan of using two identical cabs when using a 2 cab stack, per your experience above. The 210/212 mix and match that TC sent out in that 'test pilot' program always seemed strange to me.

If you dig the 210, two will be better, and if you dig the 212, two will be better. The mix and match is usually a bit of a mess IMO and IME.

I'm kind of interested in their 2 x 112 deal.... given that is 4ohms, you should get 'all that and more' compared to a single RS212.

 

[Smallequestrian]

So at this point, I'm not sure which direction I should go in. I think I could make dual rs210's work by EQ'ing them. After all, I really dig the single rs210 by itself. However, the rs212 by itself sounds just a bit better to my ear. Of course, it's a bit larger and heavier, but not to the point that it's much more difficult to handle. I always use a hand cart anyway, even with smaller single-driver cabinets.

Well if you use a handcart, then I suppose it wouldn't matter, but personally the RS212 is basically the most awkward carry of any sub 60lb cab I have had to deal with. I would not want to deal with hauling around one of those, let alone two. If they could cut 10 lbs off the weight it would be much more manageable, but the dimensions of the cab while good for the sound, just don't lend themselves well to ergonomics.

The 2x12 sounded pretty good to me, but at 8 ohms, it wasn't any louder than my Mesa 112 that I had at the time and the Mesa was much eaiser to carry.

And like Ken said, I am however looking forward to the RS112, the handle is well placed on that one and the size of it will be about perfect.

 

[KJung]

Well if you use a handcart, then I suppose it wouldn't matter, but personally the RS212 is basically the most awkward carry of any sub 60lb cab I have had to deal with. I would not want to deal with hauling around one of those, let alone two. If they could cut 10 lbs off the weight it would be much more manageable, but the dimensions of the cab while good for the sound, just don't lend themselves well to ergonomics.

The 2x12 sounded pretty good to me, but at 8 ohms, it wasn't any louder than my Mesa 112 that I had at the time and the Mesa was much eaiser to carry.

And like Ken said, I am however looking forward to the RS112, the handle is well placed on that one and the size of it will be about perfect.

Even with a cart, I couldn't quite come to terms with two RS212's.

It seems to me the sweet spot of these cab combinations would be either two RS112's (allowing that more full, fat 12 tone described by Eublet in a managable modular set-up, running at 4ohms) or two RS210's for those that need maximum volume.

That would besically be the equivalent of a 4ohm 410 (which is what I use with this head) or a 4ohm 212. Both those configurations can easily handle the output of the RH450, and IMO give you the maximum wump per size and weight, given your tone goals.

The 8ohm 410 makes no sense to me whatsoever with this head, either alone, or in combination with any other of their cabs. Strange decision on that one.

 

[Eublet]

Well if you use a handcart, then I suppose it wouldn't matter, but personally the RS212 is basically the most awkward carry of any sub 60lb cab I have had to deal with. I would not want to deal with hauling around one of those, let alone two. If they could cut 10 lbs off the weight it would be much more manageable, but the dimensions of the cab while good for the sound, just don't lend themselves well to ergonomics.

Moving it around is not a big deal to me. Ergonomically it's easy to pickup since it's narrow and you can pull it right into your chest. It's much easier to move than a 410 or diagonal 212. But of course it's not really light. I'm with you on that. If it was 10-15 pounds lighter, it would be a very attractive cabinet.

The 2x12 sounded pretty good to me, but at 8 ohms, it wasn't any louder than my Mesa 112 that I had at the time

I've not played with the Mesa 112, but I find this hard to imagine. The rs212 absolutely burries any 112 I've used, and it even has a bit more wallop than my NeoX 212. It's not just volume, but it just moves more air. Lots of brute force IMO.

And like Ken said, I am however looking forward to the RS112, the handle is well placed on that one and the size of it will be about perfect.

I thought I would like this cab when it first came out, but the more I look at it, the less I want one personally. The depth of the 212 is kind of awkward because on a small stage it needs a lot of room front to back since you have to keep the rear port off the wall a bit. The 112 would be even worse since the driver is practically sitting on the ground, yet it would still stick out 3 feet from a rear wall. IMO it would have made more sense to make the 112 about as deep as the rs210, yet make it about two thirds of the height, and put the port on the front.

 

[Eublet]

The 8ohm 410 makes no sense to me whatsoever with this head, either alone, or in combination with any other of their cabs. Strange decision on that one.

It makes sense to me in that the efficiency of the 410 should be 2-3 db higher than either of the dual driver cabs. So the smaller cabs need more wattage per driver to even out the volume discrepancy. But personally, having played through 410/210 combos in either 8/8 ohm or 4/8 ohm configurations has never really seemed to make much difference to me. It all winds up sounding like one big 610. However with a 410/212 I wonder what it would sound like. The 410 is deeper physically than dual 210's, so I'm guessing it has more bottom also so that it might match up better with the 212. I would never need or want that config personally.

 

[KJung]

I thought I would like this cab when it first came out, but the more I look at it, the less I want one personally. The depth of the 212 is kind of awkward because on a small stage it needs a lot of room front to back since you have to keep the rear port off the wall a bit. The 112 would be even worse since the driver is practically sitting on the ground, yet it would still stick out 3 feet from a rear wall. IMO it would have made more sense to make the 112 about as deep as the rs210, yet make it about two thirds of the height, and put the port on the front.

I would never consider just one. If I'm reading the spec's correctly, two of these would give you the exact same size as the RH212, but in a more easily moved modular format and also allowing the head to run rull power at 4ohms.

I agree, if you were looking for a small 112 cab, this would probably not be it. However, if you are one who digs the RS212, two RS112's would 'fix' the 'cumbersome' schlepp/weight issue, and also be a more appropriate impedance for a single 212 solution with a moderately powered head. IMO. Three would really be killer IMO!

 

[peterpalmieri]

I've been silently following along for some time.....

The RH450 looks like a nice fun little unit. I haven't heard anything yet though that makes these cabs that appealing accept that they're designed to work well with the head...Not that small, not that light and not that easy to carry...

 

[KJung]

I've been silently following along for some time.....

The RH450 looks like a nice fun little unit. I haven't heard anything yet though that makes these cabs that appealing accept that they're designed to work well with the head...Not that small, not that light and not that easy to carry...

+1 Not much GAS for me for the cabs, but they look pretty nice, and for non-neo loaded cabs, the weight isn't too bad on the RS210's. The format is nice with the coax tweeter... nice and thin width profile. The RS212 is WAY deep though, and that form factor does nothing for me, especially only coming in 8ohm version.

The two coax 112's are a bit interesting though, even though they are very deep.

 

[Eublet]

Follow up post. I've done some more A/B'ing with the 210 and 212. I programmed settings for each cab that gives me my sound, so take note that both need a slight EQ tweak to be ideal for me.

For fingerstyle, I think I like the RS210 better regardless of volume. It brings out the jazz bass grind I dig so much. It also sounds best at lower volumes for slap.

At higher volumes, slapping on the rs212 is just wonderful. The notes are fat and punchy without sounding clanky. The rs210 just can't quite get there regardless of how I tweaked it, so this is the only area where I can see that the rs212 really pulls away from the rs210. That's not to say the rs210 sounded bad. Quite the contrary. It sounds great and wonderful also, but when I move the speakon over to the rs212 while the volume is up, there's just a "wow" factor when slapping.

All in all, two great sounding cabinets that each have their strengths. If I had to pick two right now, it would be dual 210's, mostly because of the great tone they bring in an easily manageable format.

 

[Eublet]

I've been silently following along for some time.....

The RH450 looks like a nice fun little unit. I haven't heard anything yet though that makes these cabs that appealing accept that they're designed to work well with the head...Not that small, not that light and not that easy to carry...

The rs210 feels very small to me, and somewhat light. The handles are near the top, so it's easy to pickup, and your hands are only 14" apart when doing it. It's easy to hold at chest level for extended periods of time. The cabinets texture, along with the large rubber feet on the rh450, make it easy to pickup the entire rig and move it without having to take it apart. The head won't slide off unless you try really hard to force it. It's the most easily manageable 210 I've seen.

The 212 is a bit heavier, but other than that it's just as easy to move. The form factor of the 212 is only a disappointment to me when you have little room to work front-to-back on a small stage. You wouldn't think that extra 5+ inches would make that much difference. Perhaps it's just me. In the band I've been with for a while now, I stand between a conga player on one side, and a djembe player on the other. I have a thing about wanting to see a percussionist's or drummer's hand movements in my peripheral vision. When we play on small stages, these guys are sitting behind me if I take the 212, as I'm forced to stand about 4-5 feet from the wall. They might have their backs only a foot from the wall. It feels very odd to me not being able to see either of them unless I make a concious effort.

 

[Smallequestrian]

I've not played with the Mesa 112, but I find this hard to imagine. The rs212 absolutely burries any 112 I've used, and it even has a bit more wallop than my NeoX 212. It's not just volume, but it just moves more air. Lots of brute force IMO.

The Mesa is probably one of the biggest 112's available (Cubic Inches volume), and puts out a lot of low end. Its a beast of the cabinet. With the Little Mark, the the RS212 didn't get much louder. I'm surprised that the RS212 is louder than the NeoX 212 though, I don't have any experience with the GB, but for some reason that surprises me.

Of course I successfully gigged with just one Mesa 112 on occasion, so I suppose the absolute volume isn't much of a concern for me in reality.

 

[poptart]

The 212 works really well with the 410 for a bigger stage set up - I am not a huge fan of mixing speakers sizes per se as there are some negative implications tonally, but put the 212 on the bottom and the 410 on the top (similar to the 2 x 212 + 410 that Rocco is using) and hey presto - Big Sound! I have stacked the 410 with a 210 and 212 and it was just silly, at full volume it had a really big sound that started to sound more SVT even without the tubetone engaged. Not super clean like the MB/Berg/Tec gear at high volume, but I liked it and for rock styles of music the RH gear seems to work perfectly!

 

[Eublet]

The Mesa is probably one of the biggest 112's available (Cubic Inches volume), and puts out a lot of low end. Its a beast of the cabinet. With the Little Mark, the the RS212 didn't get much louder.

I can believe that volume increases would be minimal and hard to perceive fully in some contexts. In a band situation with lots of volume, I'd expect the amount of air being moved by the rs212 to be significant over any 112. The two drivers and two large ports on the back should really give a lot more feel than that Mesa cab I'd think.

I'm surprised that the RS212 is louder than the NeoX 212 though, I don't have any experience with the GB, but for some reason that surprises me.

Not so much a volume increase as it was "wallop". The voicing of the RS212 is different...a bit fuller sounding with a deeper bottom end. The NeoX is a smoother, more hi-fi cab with a tighter low-end. Many people have compared it to the ae410 tonally. The RS212 by comparison sounds more like a heavy-weight. Just two different flavors of good IMO.

Of course I successfully gigged with just one Mesa 112 on occasion, so I suppose the absolute volume isn't much of a concern for me in reality.

I gigged a single NeoX 112 many, many times and it worked great. Volume was seldom the problem even at very loud settings. The GB 112 is also large compared to others, and moves a good bit of air for a 112. I still preferred using the 212, even at gigs that the 112 could handle, just because it felt like there was more happening. It just felt better. The same was true of my Schroeder 115+. PLENTY loud, but just not much feel (other than a killer punch), so I ultimately lost interest in it.

 

[Tom7]

Okay, so I was a bit bored this morning with work, so I decided to get out all my TC stuff and play around a bit. Specifically, I decided to do some more comparisons between the rs210 and rs212 individually to see if the difference is as big as I remember.

First, let me say that since I acquired both cabinets, the onlyt time I've used the rs212 is under the 210 at a gig. At home I pretty much just use the rs210 for noodling. I've settled on my EQ settings pretty much based on the rs210. I think this might be part of the cause of my error in assuming the rs212 is a bit boomy.

Side by side, as I heard it this morning, the rs210 is a bit scooped sounding compared to the rs212. As such, it seems to have more low-end rumble. The rs212 by comparison is thick and fat, with a very noticeable low-mid bump that really sounds good when solo'ed. I had the rs212 before the 210, and I did an A/B with my Genz NeoX 212 at that time. I was reminded this morning that in that comparison, the rs212 sounded VERY rich and full compared to the upper-mid presence of the NeoX. It's pillowy, but doesn't necessarily have a deep sub-low feel. I bet dual 212's would sound excellent!

The rs210 by comparison reminded me of some of the SWR cabinets, with a deep bottom, somewhat shy low-mid, and plenty of clarity and punch in the upper-mid. Actually, it reminds me of the Eden 210xst I used to have. The programmed rh450 settings I settled on worked great with it alone, but on the rs212 it was a bit off in terms of getting the exact sound I prefer.

So I spent a good bit of time tweaking the settings on the head to get a great sound with the two cabs stacked. I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about this combo. Standing within 5 feet of the stack, the rs210 just doesn't sound right to me. 20 feet out in front, it sounds great though. If I sat down on the floor up close to the rig, the rs212 sounds WONDERFUL to me.

Here's the thing. I can make the RS210 sound wonderful by itself, but when combined with the rs212, it kind of throws it all off. Where I'm standing seems to change the sound too much since I get more or less of the 212 depending on distance from the rig. It makes total sense that on these smaller venues when I'm on top of the rig that I'm trying to dial in some of the low-mid I want in the rs210, which is causing the rs212 to rumble a bit. Being close to a wall or a corner only makes the problem worse.

As a result of all this, I don't think being indoors or outdoors has much to do with my perception of this rig. Rather it's just how far out in front of it I'm standing. Now that I think about it, even indoors on bigger stages it has always sounded great if I was 10+ feet in front of it, even if it was near a wall. The ability to hear what's coming out of the 212 is what pleases me the most.

So at this point, I'm not sure which direction I should go in. I think I could make dual rs210's work by EQ'ing them. After all, I really dig the single rs210 by itself. However, the rs212 by itself sounds just a bit better to my ear. Of course, it's a bit larger and heavier, but not to the point that it's much more difficult to handle. I always use a hand cart anyway, even with smaller single-driver cabinets.

So maybe I'll just pickup another rs212 and see how it goes. At this point, I really don't know that I can recommend the mixture of these two cabs at all, unless you are always able to get far enough out in front of the rig. If I had one more of either cabinet I think I could test this a bit and know for sure.

Wow. That was well written, Jason. And well thought out for that matter. Thanks.

 

[tombowlus]

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.

I didn't have a ton of time to spend playing around with this, but I was able to try these settings out on the RH450 compared to the Staccato '51 (though the RS410). First off, set flat, the '51 has gobs more low end to it. I mean a lot! So, I ended up using Ken's settings, above, but cranking the bass all the way up on the RH450. This got the two fairly close, but you could still certainly hear differences. I had the feeling, though, that with more time and tweaking, I could have gotten the two fairly close.

That being said, as others have noted, the compressor seems to respond differently on the two of them. The same goes for the tube emulation. I'll need more time to explore these differences, but it's apparent that they are there, right from the get go.

Later, Tom.

 

[KJung]

I didn't have a ton of time to spend playing around with this, but I was able to try these settings out on the RH450 compared to the Staccato '51 (though the RS410). First off, set flat, the '51 has gobs more low end to it. I mean a lot! So, I ended up using Ken's settings, above, but cranking the bass all the way up on the RH450. This got the two fairly close, but you could still certainly hear differences. I had the feeling, though, that with more time and tweaking, I could have gotten the two fairly close.

That being said, as others have noted, the compressor seems to respond differently on the two of them. The same goes for the tube emulation. I'll need more time to explore these differences, but it's apparent that they are there, right from the get go.

Later, Tom.

Holy Beejebus! I don't think I've ever had the RH450's bass control past 2 o'clock. That Staccato must have MASSIVE low end. Now I understand what Poptart was talking about when he said that head 'scared him'.

Not sure if that is good or not, but I guess Rocco digs it!

K

PS I just copied those center points from the Staccato spec sheet. It's at the bottom of the spec sheet for that amp.

 

[ToddGia]

How would this amp ( RH450 )compare to a walkabout ?
has any one had a chance to compare them ?

thanks
Todd.

 

[petersland]

Holy Beejebus! I don't think I've ever had the RH450's bass control past 2 o'clock. That Staccato must have MASSIVE low end. Now I understand what Poptart was talking about when he said that head 'scared him'.

Not sure if that is good or not, but I guess Rocco digs it!

K

PS I just copied those center points from the Staccato spec sheet. It's at the bottom of the spec sheet for that amp.

+1 That's alota Bass.
Using the 210, 212 and 450 head, my Bass control is @ 10'oclock, Low Mid @ 11. I still have waayy tooo much.
Still experimenting. Pete

 

[Eublet]

How would this amp ( RH450 )compare to a walkabout ?
has any one had a chance to compare them ?

thanks
Todd.

Walkabout is a great sounding head. Nice and warm, so in a way they tend to favor each other. The Walkabout doesn't have near the wallop of the RH450, nor any of the more popular micro heads like the LMII or Shuttle 6. I really like it, but just feel it needs a bit more juice personally. That said, it has more than enough power for most of the things I would ever do. I could be happy with one easily most of the time.