Not in my case - I had no reason not to like it.
It was loud, but as time went on I realised something was missing...
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 Staccato Underpowered
- Thread starter Frankdouglas
- Start date
It was loud, but as time went on I realised something was missing...
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
I'm glad you like your amp, and that it meets your volume expectations... but I'm confused by not 'doubting' their publish specs. Even they have verified the GBM tests.
Not the salesman, the UK company dealing with Ampeg direct. To me, its the same...but anyway, I digress.
+1. THere's a learning opportunity here. The amp cannot under any circumstances put out 450 watts. Ever. So what does that say about our expectations? Two things spring to mind. First, going off where the volume control is positioned is a sure way to get duped sooner or later. Heck, you can usually pull it off and put it back on to point wherever you watn. More to the point, depending on the potentiometer used, system gain design, 12 o'clock might be 1/10 power (about half the total loudness available) or way less or way more. It is meaningless to compare different amps by looking at their volume controls. My most-used guitar amp (a Fender Hot Rod) is notorious for having very much of its power available by about 3 on the gain channel. WOW! It's really loud! And it doesn't get all that much louder forom there! And it's a stone b*tch to control volume with precision in quieter situations. I need to turn down 1/16-1/32 of a rotation, on the fly, when I can barely see my amp. Groovy.
Second, we use precious little of all that power we have most of the time. I'd venture to say nobody on these boards routinely averages anywhere near 400 watts as a constant power level playing real music with a real bass. After all, TC's 750 wat" amp doesn't actually put out any more power than the 450 watt amp, no matter what you do. If our speakers were'nt so inefficient, and didn't start compressing so soon, we'd use even less power (a good reason to use more speakers instead of more power)
This Tc thing goes further back. These are worth a read.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/anyone-hear-back-tc-electronic-rebelhead-tryout-512051/index2.html
and
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/tc-electronic-rh450-test-pilot-542659/index2.html
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/anyone-hear-back-tc-electronic-rebelhead-tryout-512051/index2.html
and
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/tc-electronic-rh450-test-pilot-542659/index2.html
The mid-90's SLM 810e's were fantastic, no doubt about it. And you're welcome to your opinion, of course. But I have a completely different opinion of the Vietnamese cabs based on lots of roadwork using rented SVT rigs from all eras, and I agree with the salesman you spoke to who said it sounds as good as any of the SLM cabs.
So for that reason, I'm failing to see how this compares to the TC situation. The guy you bought the 810e from stated his opinion of the sound of the Vietnamese cab. That's a very far cry from this situation with TC.
Taken out of context. That fact was mentioned in the post I quoted. My post was about the power module that cannot do 450 watts continously and TC throwing that figure at the end user telling them that there is at least something in the amp that reaches 450 watts.
Edit: sorry can reach 450 watts
To me, it did. But, i didnt seek revenge. Although, if asked about Ampeg in general, their rather strange service in the UK back then (not sure what has happened now) has put me off.
The threads above re: TC Test Pilots is very interesting. I figure if ANYONE became part of it, that's great. If they didn't, well, thats life. Don't take it to heart. It doesn't need to be taken personally, and I don't think its arrogant of them to chose who THEY WANT. It's their company. I think its marketing/testing combined with a fun opportunity.
This is what has been confusing ... to me ... after reading the BGM article and thereafter. Despite whatever pixie dust was put under the hood, an amp that puts out "only" 236 watts would sooner or later reach its limitations in a live situation, vs., say, a legit 450-500+ watt amp. And yet, with rare exception, there weren't many user experiences of that happening.
It's almost as if that trade-off was never reached. Physics couldn't be defied, or could it?!
Oh, and I hadn't read that RH450 test pilot thread linked to above prior to today, but sheesh! That's the finest example of spam/shilling I've seen in a long time (and I own a TCE head).
Actually, if you have a normal vlass A/B 450 watt head, it might put out 900 watts for the time needed for an attack on a note. Let's assume that. The attack appears to be 10 to 20 dB louder than the beginning of the sustain of the note. If it's 10 dB louder, and your boat anchor is right at the edge of clean on the attack, it's putting out 900 watts on the attack and 90 on the sustain. If the attack is 20 dB louder, it's 900 watts attack, 9 watts sustain. So if you don't miss the impact of the louder attack, which the TC "turns down," it's entirely possible you'll never push the TC beyond its capabilitities, when compared to a higher wattage amp without compression/limiting.
...That's a reason why watts in tube amps are ("as everybody knows" ) louder than SS watts.
Of course TC did not re-invent the wheel with a good limiter, but I think they have implemented it in a nice way, properly blended with the "tubetone" and EQ.
Does it provide super Hi-Fi sound with monster headroom? no, no!. Like a 250 W tube amp, it lacks something compared to a 2000W SS rig based on a PA poweramp!!
But could it sound really loud in a real-gig situation? yes, why not? Tubes can do it and don't defy physics!
Tube watts are not louder than SS watts. That is a BS story that's been floated around for years based on the fact that tubes sound good when pushed past their RMS wattages.
The way clipping happens in tube amps (even more when the use limited impedance in power supplies) makes them feel louder under certain subjectively "tolerable" clipping.
That's why I used quotes, and I also did it to address some people who feel the same loudness.
I bet you'd answer in less than 1 hour
Although my guitar playing buddies beg to differ, my electronics background tells me that as stated, you are correct. However, can't we at least agree/admit that TCE is duplicating the reasons behind that myth, only with a SS amp? It is not just the watts that matter. Personally, I think that they have done a good job of that. Perhaps they didn't explain it properly. But attempting to explain how they "created" the solid state tube would have been futile as well.
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
Although my guitar playing buddies beg to differ, my electronics background tells me that as stated, you are correct. However, can't we at least agree/admit that TCE is duplicating the reasons behind that myth, only with a SS amp? It is not just the watts that matter. Personally, I think that they have done a good job of that. Perhaps they didn't explain it properly. But attempting to explain how they "created" the solid state tube would have been futile as well.
I would never dispute that they've done an excellent job of an idealized tube-emulation amplifier. Probably closer than anyone else, and also they've maximized many of the positive aspects of tubes past where tubes perform.
Ya, I can't dispute that it's probably a fine sounding amp, and their APM circuit was definitely designed to mimic that behavior. My only problem is calling it a 450w/800w peak amp when it's not, and won't even come anywhere near that 800w peak with or without compression, and only mimics a 450w amp with that circuit installed.
Hear, hear; and as I've said before, they would have done themselves a huge favour if they'd emphasized this from the start, and not BSd about the power output. Something like "a 200 W tube amp without the hassle" (
to JimmyM there; I use the term "hassle" advisedly). The "debate" then could have focused on how well they implemented their emulation, not whether they flat out lied.
Hear, hear; and as I've said before, they would have done themselves a huge favour if they'd emphasized this from the start, and not BSd about the power output. Something like "a 200 W tube amp without the hassle" (
I think that's the crux of the whole thing. Marketing literature that said something like "the loudest 250 watts you've ever heard". Or "tube amp performance you can fit in your gig bag". would've been just that, marketing literature, then they could go on to tout their design expertise, etc.
I have to admit that I had to buy a $15 pre tube for my B-15 today and took my SVT to the shop because it developed a slight hum. But the biggest hassle was traffic, which would have happened regardless of topologyHear, hear; and as I've said before, they would have done themselves a huge favour if they'd emphasized this from the start, and not BSd about the power output. Something like "a 200 W tube amp without the hassle" (
Hear, hear; and as I've said before, they would have done themselves a huge favour if they'd emphasized this from the start, and not BSd about the power output. Something like "a 200 W tube amp without the hassle" (
I have to admit that I had to buy a $15 pre tube for my B-15 today and took my SVT to the shop because it developed a slight hum. But the biggest hassle was traffic, which would have happened regardless of topology
Perhaps it should read "without the weight" instead! Personally I think the engineering is genius, but the marketing, stating it IS a 450W amp and making excuses for it after the fact darken the whole thing.
