BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
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 RH750 ???!??
- Thread starter boriology101
- Start date
- Status
I use the RH750 with the 322. I love it and so do other musicians I've played with.
Vin, Uffe said that power amp module is capable of doing 450w bursts for 20ms before the APM stuff is added on. That still isn't a 450w RMS amp. That's closer to a 450w peak amp, or at least it sounds that way to me. I could be wrong...micros aren't known for having much in the tank past their RMS rating. But 20ms bursts makes it sound like that 450w is a peak figure. Still, if it's accurate, I'm wondering why take a 450w amp and add stuff that makes it s 236w amp that performs like a 450w amp? Seems like a long way to go for nothing.
Uffe said "The raw power module inside the RH450 actually is capable of delivering 450watts RMS into a 4 ohm load, at bursts of 20ms with the APM disconnected."
I believe this is the most-discussed sentence of Uffe's second post. Most of the ensuing discussion focused on the 20ms bursts, and your speculation here seems as good as any. I find the phrase "raw power module" more interesting, since it could describe performance with a different power supply. Otherwise, he could have said simply "the RH450 is capable of...".
Why, indeed. I suspect the answer is - because that's the limit of the RH450 power supply. I posted this speculation on the other thread, and so far, this interpretation seems to be mine alone.
But it's ambiguous, and I doubt Uffe will be back to clarify. If he were inclined to do follow-ups, you'd think he'd address the apparent typo in the RH750 rating.
Well he's also said it is 450 watts RMS so there's ambiguity in his statement there - and yea I think it needs to be clarified before calling him a liar. It certainly doesn't look good.
I can understand it. If they think that volume peaks that last 2/100ths of a second are not integral to the apparent performance of the amp then why keep em in there? So it looks good on a lab bench test?? Agree with it or not - it's a design decision.
Are you saying that the 450 and 750 should both be rated at 236 watts?
Honestly, watching from a far it looks like you guys love your amp, you aint happy about the watts thing but hey if it sounds good what are you going to do about it now? A guy like me who doesn't have it, obviously wouldn't buy it now but if you do have it, you're enjoying it.
Dont sweat it boys & rock on!
Dont sweat it boys & rock on!
Remember, your Streamliner900 uses a 500 watt spec'd ICE power module. Both Genz and TC use a bit of impressive circuitry on the back end to result in amps that overperform versus their actual power level (as tested by what most consider 'standard' methods based on accepted criteria).
I personally am impressed by both the Genz and the TC power amp circuity that allows performance higher than would one would expect by the power module under the hood. However, as one who likes Genz very much, I would be a bit careful throwing stones at TC.
This is what those who have not played the amp don't understand. I would think it would be much easier to just plop a standard limiter on an OEM power module and be done. However, if you play both the TC and Genz amps that use this pretty amazing power management circuitry, you will hear that the amps do actually peform quite differently from other amps, and more mimic the response of what most here describe as the natural tube compression at the power stage. My guess is, it would have been less expensive/complicated (as you say) for them to just, again, plop in an OEM power module, clamp the back end at 450 watts, and market the amp as yet another 'typical' micro amp.
Quite amazing to me, and again, unless you play one, it is hard to describe. You might or might not dig it (I have a feeling you would actually LOVE the RH450), but it is definitely a different vibe versus the 'typical OEM/limiter' design of many amps.
Again, if you are mad at TC for that spec inaccuracy, that is another issue. However, for many of us (even those like me that are not aligned with any company and enjoy really trying to evaluate the real world performance of various heads and cabs, doing direct comparisons, and being pretty critical if something doesn't live up to its promise), the TC amps are very, very, very impressive on both the feature set and the actual performance in the gig versus similarly spec'd amps.
KJung said:
It is an amazing 236 watt amp. Imagine how amazing it would have been if it was actually 450 watts.........
No idea! Haha. But, Ken hits the nail on the head with regards to the actual performance and the work thats inside the amp, and it doesnt just 'clip' like the LM2, for example.
- Aug 25, 2001
- 1,260
- 0
- Disclosures
- Owner - FretSpot.com; Vice President - Springfield Music
Vic was right - I don't concern myself with all of the technical details and other mumbo jumbo. Ya know, I'm just a regular bass player that plays in and around the Springfield/Branson area. I say the RH750 feels nearly twice as loud because where I used to put the RH450 at 12:00, now I put the RH750 at 3:00 for the same volume level.
Always better not to really use the master volume level as any indication of maximum output. I'm sure the 750 has more maximum volume, but my guess is your difference in master volume setting either means they used a different taper on the master than the RH450, or more likely, that you have your secondary preset volume settings hotter.
A more powerful amp will have a bit more maximum volume, but won't necessarily be louder early in the volume taper.
Just FYI.
Hey guys, I want to start recording my live shows using my rig which includes the TC RH750, any suggestions on a good professional portable recording device?
bassclef04 said:
I like my Zoom H2 a lot. If possible, I record direct from the board. It records well with the built in mics also, but some experimenting with placement is needed IME.
I bought a Zoom R16 about a year ago, still haven't tried it. One of these days...
I finally got an opportunity to spend some quality time with my new RH750 and my Rob Allen MB2. And what a nice combination. I've made a RA preset, cutting the bass a couple of notches at a cutpoint around 9 o'clock, boosting the low mids a little at a cutpoint around 1 o'clock, leaving the high mids flat, and cutting the treble a bit at a cutpoint around 1-2 o'clock. Tweetertone, compressor, and tubetone all the way down. This gives me a piezo-clack free, warm tone, that totally brings the "wood" out of the RA, and literally makes it sing. Very, very inspiring tone, it's always been a bass that was hard to put down, and now it's even harder. It's just cool to have a rig that can handle both my basses well, and the preset function makes it a breeze to change between them. Now I'm hoping for a gig where I need to bring both 
i know it's a crummy iPhone shot, but it looks good too
i know it's a crummy iPhone shot, but it looks good too
Attachments
Argh maaaan, please turn your computer 90 degrees to the right in order to see the rig in the post above...
Incidently, IF you want to see a close up, hi res pic of just the bass, it's the first pic that hits you when you go to www.roballenguitars.com/. Maybe there's still one or maybe two who I havn't bored to death with this yet
Incidently, IF you want to see a close up, hi res pic of just the bass, it's the first pic that hits you when you go to www.roballenguitars.com/. Maybe there's still one or maybe two who I havn't bored to death with this yet
- Status
