What? The RH 750 redefines 236W once again? Now it's 750W?
They are good pre-amps with small monitoring amps built in. Too expensive though.
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
What? The RH 750 redefines 236W once again? Now it's 750W?
They are good pre-amps with small monitoring amps built in. Too expensive though.
I'm just trying to work out what your specific issue is - and yep, I disagree with you. They' are crossing the regular convention of how an amp is measured because it's not a conventional amp. They're not hiding it either - putting a sheet on their site explaining how they got their rating. Yes it's in a complex pdf, that's because it's a complex thing. If the amp is running off a 450 watt RMS module and it delivers to the consumer as a 450 watt amp then I don't see that as being dishonest. It would have been FAR cheaper and easier to leave the APM out of it and please the few people who are obsessing about the technical bench test but at the cost of how they want their amp to sound and feel.
What I take issue with is that the internal module doesn't seem to be 450 watts RMS.
If we're going around in circles its because we agree to disagree.
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
Well, that's one thing we can agree on. The power if run uncobbled, TC rates at 450w peak in a RMS rated world. I find them digging their heels in on that to be fairly silly too.
But back to this...It doesn't deliver a 450w amp to the public. It delivers an amp that produces 236w. Just because it's loud, and somewhere buried in the interior is an amp that theoretically can produce 450w at a 20ms burst if you put it in a different theoretical amp that didn't have APM doesn't make it a 450w amp. Amps are rated on output. The amp has no potential to ever put out 450w.
Their little PDF not only isn't complex...it just dances around their APM in a dodge.
If they were being honest, you wouldn't have to march past the specs on their website calling the amp: 450W (800W inst. Peak @ min. Load)...before you have to click on through to an embedded PDF to get some kind of 'actual' number that has a relationship to the amp's output.
I'm happy that they've updated their PDF, but its just more jive until they actually LIST CORRECT OUTPUT SPECS on their website and their manual.
...How can they even justify listing 800w at all?
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
Bryan R. Tyler
TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
- May 3, 2002
- 28,948
- 20,932
- Disclosures
- Reviewer: Bass Player Magazine
Does anyone else list power in the way they're doing it? I've only read output power from every other amp manufacturer I've seen. The guys at TC aren't stupid nor are they new to this- I'm sure they know that when people look at the power rating, they're going to assume it's the output.
...I put it to you that they are actually rating their amp in exactly the same way as any other manufacturer. ie: right after the power section. In a conventional amp that happens to be at the output terminals, in the RH series that is before the APM.
Their amps are not conventional so IMO they have every right to publish its spec that is some way makes sense to the consumer, 750 and 450 models.
Their amps are not conventional so IMO they have every right to publish its spec that is some way makes sense to the consumer, 750 and 450 models.
Bryan R. Tyler
TalkBass: Usurping My Practice Time Since 2002
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
- May 3, 2002
- 28,948
- 20,932
- Disclosures
- Reviewer: Bass Player Magazine
That's like selling a car and saying it goes 120mph. You get it and they tell you, oh it only goes 120mph if it's sitting on tractor trailer that's going 120mph. Just because technically there's a way to measure something getting to a spec doesn't mean it's honest or a representation of how the product will work.
According to the signal flow chart in my RH450 manual, the APM is before the power amp. Right after the power amp is the output terminal.
Here's a better fit, real world example.
When Mazda released the Rx8, their print ads listed 250 hp in all the pre-release and initial release info. These statistics were correctly based on the right way of testing these things for production cars, as a minumum with an accepted variance below. The problem, as it happenned, was that it was based on a small sample size, of a car whose engine is very different and complex from most. It has a wankel rotary engine that is unlike anything produced in the last decade, and only very briefly and in limited numbers during hte 70's and 80's. The way the engine breathes air and drinks fuel varies widely from car to car, and thus engine programming one of these cars is a process.
And that is where the problem arrises. Once the cars started selling, people would go straight to a dyno and get numbers that were not jiving with print ads. At that point, with a larger sampel size, Mazda had to reduce the figure to 238. IN doing so, they were required to offer full refunds or significant after the fact benefits.
Now, I understand that there is far more consumer protection on cars, but it is an example that parrallels closely. It's odd tech that can easily outperform conventional measure, but it is what it is. In the end You have to sell it as a 238 watt amp that sounds louder then some 450 watt amps. Even attempt to compare it to "tube watts". I have no skin in the current conflict, but I do own a second hand Rx8. I just thought a real world example might help explain.
.
I was more unhappy that they sent me an electronic coupon for a free footswitch with purchase of the head in lieu of a real consolation prize. A discount on the head or no consolation prize at all would have been better than only offering a footswitch if you buy something. But yeah, I freely admit that it was totally lame of them to base who they chose on the number of Myspace friends they had rather than credentials, especially when Myspace was well on its way to becoming irrelevant. I'm happy for those who got them, and a few of the folks they chose like John Wentzen actually deserved to be chosen. but I thought they missed an opportunity by not choosing me, since it seems my recommendations actually sell gear for companies
Did I overreact? Probably. But in the end, it all worked out for me. Ampeg loves me and I love them
And it is over two year since you where rejected.
It really does seem like sour grapes. You are all over these threads. I know, yes, people have a right to know. But it seems it is your mission to put as many people off tc as you can.
You mention how they missed an opportunity by not choosing you, because you have a influence on what people buy. You seem very proud.
I have asked before but did not get a straight answer, who are you? what are you credentials?
That's what they get for lying. Blame them, not me. I never tried to put anyone off buying TC amps until this news came out. But it's so blatantly false...the most blatant misrepresentation of specs that I've ever seen in 35 years of playing...that I'm not the least bit sorry about it if I have.
Right. And why shouldn't I be? Do you know why I get respect? Because of two reasons...1. I'm just as liable to tell someone NOT to spend their money on gear, even if they want to spend it and I think they have gear that's suitable enough for their needs without spending more money. And B. I don't ever BS people. I don't ever say a product I like can do something it can't, I don't ever recommend a product to someone whom I don't think would like that product, and despite now having an endorsement, I don't go chasing endorsements, and I would never accept any endorsement offer if I didn't believe 100% in the product and the people who make it. Now tell me why I shouldn't be proud of that.
Not that I need to explain myself, but since you asked so nicely...I play oldies shows with many of the top artists of the 50's and 60's. A partial list of whom I've worked with on a regular basis is ex-Sha Na Na frontman Bowzer, Lesley Gore, Mitch Ryder, Gary Puckett, Freddy Cannon, The Tokens, Lou Christie, The Shirelles, Wanda Jackson, Johnny Tillotson, Little Anthony and the Imperials, The Crystals. Plenty more, too.
Jimmy's a pretty straight talkin guy and if he thinks an amp company needs a smackdown he'll give it to em. That goes for Ampeg as well.
Thank you, Vin. I may disagree with you about the significance of what TC did, but much respek!
Not sure I agree with me either right now. My understanding of whats under the hood was a little backwards. I thought the APM was processing the signal out of the power amp. Not so.
According to that document the RH450 does have a 450w power amp, but it's limited by their "Active Power Management" technology. Judging by the graphs it looks like it's just a compressor, but anyway,
Is there a way to turn off the APM and let the amp behave as a plain old 450w head? If not they should design that in. It would do a lot to mollify the critics.
I never played one, never heard one, just sayin'
You have this kind of 'half right'. The RH450 is actually a 250 or so watt amp that puts out much more volume than one would think (i.e., like a 500 watt amp) due to the complex power management system they have built into the power section. It works quite well for the tone goals of the amp. However, if you remove that circuitry, you would have a 250 watt amp, not a 450 watt amp.
Kind of a moot point, since there are plenty of more neutral platform amps out there if you wants that sort of vibe. For the kind of 'tube amp through an old one way sealed cab' sort of vibe that the TC designers were going for, the design works quite well.
Not really. As I understand it, the module in the TC can do 450 for very brief peaks, but is more like 240 RMS. I think that, for example, the old school GK amps can put out somewhere around double their rated watts for brief peaks. Certainly a fair number of power amps have the ability to well exceed their steady state RMS power for brief peaks, with reasonably limited distortion. So you have to double the GK specs to compare to the 450 that the TC doesn't allow it's amp to produce ever.
IDK about the EU or elsewhere, but it is not clear to me that there would be any legal recourse other than some kind of individual or class action suit by purchasers who believe themselves to have been duped. The FTC power rating regulation only applies to amplifiers for home use, so neither TC nor anybody else in the MI business has to follow it. AFAIK, there's no other legal standard in the US. So consumers of pro gear need to be able to understand specs, and hope for fuller specs from manufacturers, and/or rely on third party testing like Bass Gear Mag to confirm power claims.
