• 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

#141
I don't like to quote myself, but I put this up towards the end of the closed thread, and it seems to be pertinent still.

My summary of the thread so far and some propositions.

1a. There are some who don't like the amp and have rational and legitimate reasons for their dislike.

1b. There are some (perhaps the majority of users, but of course I have no figures to substantiate this) who do like the amp and have rational and legitimate reasons for doing so.

2a. Almost everybody who has expressed an opinion here takes a profoundly negative view of the misrepresentation of the amp's specifications in all the official supporting documentation available. The reasons for holding this view have been sufficiently rehearsed and do not bear repeating.

2b. Nevertheless, there is a small number of contributors who do not appear to have taken moral issue with the official figures. These people seem on the whole to regard all such published figures by all relevant bodies as variances from the truth and therefore inherently untrustworthy, and could claim that any contrary expectation is simply naive.

3a. There are some who are satisfied with the explanation regarding the derivation of the official figures offered by a prominent TCE executive.

3b. There are some who remain dissatisfied by this explanation, and are sceptical regarding its motivations.

It seems to me that anyone can hold either position from 1, 2 and 3 in combination without fear of logical inconsistency. A careful reading of the thread may well reveal examples of all logically defensible positions (and doubtless several indefensible ones). No new positions have appeared in some time, and no new arguments in favour of the established ones, with the possible exception of the technical discussion informing the positions in "3".

I'm not sure where this discussion can go from here, but FWIW, I feel it needs to go elsewhere than it has already been.
Click to expand...
 
#142
Well aren't you Mama's special little angel?

:D

Just kidding...actually, there's nowhere it can go. However, people considering a TC amp as a purchase have the right to know, and those who wish silence on us who speak up about it need to realize that people have a right to know.
 
#143
JimmyM said:
Well aren't you Mama's special little angel?

:D

Just kidding...actually, there's nowhere it can go. However, people considering a TC amp as a purchase have the right to know, and those who wish silence on us who speak up about it need to realize that people have a right to know.
Click to expand...

...And you don't need to buy 3 of their 8ohm cabs, you can use any 3 8ohm cabs.
 
#144
JimmyM said:
Well aren't you Mama's special little angel?

:D

Just kidding...actually, there's nowhere it can go. However, people considering a TC amp as a purchase have the right to know, and those who wish silence on us who speak up about it need to realize that people have a right to know.
Click to expand...

:D You bugger!

You know by now, I hope, that I've not tried to shut you up (as if that were possible!), and have on several occasions posted in support of your right to speak out, and in defense of the general propagation of truth, justice and the American way (even if I am Australian).

And yes, I am mama's special little angel (or was, at least) :).
 
#146
So I fall into the "like the amp, don't like the misrepresentation" camp.

But I first tried the amp based on reviews by Ken Jung and others, not based on its wattage rating. It worked as well at today's gig as it did the first time I played it, even though the power output spec is different.

I'm OK with others pointing out the issue, but it would be nice if the discussion existed in one place in a sticky thread, so the issue doesn't get raised in every RH450/750 thread. People could just post a link to it.
 
#147
Spaldo said:
I'll try one at a gig one day, then I'll weigh in :D

(Slow day, Vin?)
Click to expand...

Hey Andy. You're welcome to take mine for a spin one day.
Not sure if it's your thing to be honest but you never know. I'd be real interested to hear what you think.
Wow.

TC 2.0 owners are a passionate bunch.
Click to expand...
Dunno if I agree with you there... Most RH450 owners think it's a bit of a yawn actually.
 
#148
JimmyM said:
The only ones who really get mad when we bring it up is a small handful of owners. I get it, but sorry, that isn't my problem.
Click to expand...


I think it's part emotional attachment, part rationalizing the price paid (how much for how much), and part plain just liking their amps and not wanting somebody dumping on that.....all of which are completely normal, human things to do, whatever else may really be going on.


JimmyM said:
Hey, if you're happy with the amp and happy with being lied to in order to entice you to buy it, that is your right as a free Norwegian.
Click to expand...

This just makes me laugh, so I read it again and it still makes me laugh....thanks Jimmy. Sig material there.


Rick Auricchio said:
So I fall into the "like the amp, don't like the misrepresentation" camp.

But I first tried the amp based on reviews by Ken Jung and others, not based on its wattage rating. It worked as well at today's gig as it did the first time I played it, even though the power output spec is different.

I'm OK with others pointing out the issue, but it would be nice if the discussion existed in one place in a sticky thread, so the issue doesn't get raised in every RH450/750 thread. People could just post a link to it.
Click to expand...


Totally understandable....and respected. Aside from all the bickering, etc. I don't think most people have a beef with it being a good sounding rig, or sounding loud, or has bad tone or anything. It's the marketing hype, "pulling the wool over the eyes", and blatantly doing so that rubs some of us the wrong way. This isn't some marketing goofball's screwup, it's company wide all the way down to manuals signed off on by engineers.

Doesn't mean they sound bad, don't sound loud, or don't get the job done. It's just that there are plenty of other good sounding amps out there who do do what they claim to do to put up with this, which I think is more sad than anything. It lowers standards across the entire industry instead of raises them when it could've done just the opposite if they hadn't been so foolhardy as to think this somehow would've gone unnoticed. You've got a company here who makes some of the most used and well respected studio gear/live sound gear there is that's used industry wide in top studios and on million+ selling records and tours who then tries to pull something like this thinking they're immune to backlash.

Perhaps it's a "symptom" of modern corporate culture that says "to hell with what people think, their memories aren't that long anyway, let's make as much as we can right now" but that's no excuse either.
 
#149
JimmyM said:
The only ones who really get mad when we bring it up is a small handful of owners. I get it, but sorry, that isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

I think a few non-owners are also getting a little tired of the same old arguments. If we peppered the Ampeg threads with negative views, Im sure it wouldnt really be seen as helpful. It would be to a certain extent, when its realistic and actual gigging experience of the products, but its getting to the point where its quite tiresome to come on here and see the same thing over and over.

I would also think the majority of owners of TC products (and anything else, probably):

A. Don't come on here.
B. Don't really care.
C. Realise that internet forums can be a hinderance as well as a help when it comes to buying.
 
#150
Musicman20 said:
I think a few non-owners are also getting a little tired of the same old arguments. If we peppered the Ampeg threads with negative views, Im sure it wouldnt really be seen as helpful. It would be to a certain extent, when its realistic and actual gigging experience of the products, but its getting to the point where its quite tiresome to come on here and see the same thing over and over.

I would also think the majority of owners of TC products (and anything else, probably):

A. Don't come on here.
B. Don't really care.
C. Realise that internet forums can be a hinderance as well as a help when it comes to buying.
Click to expand...

It's also getting tired to read it's getting tired. As said before facts are what they are. If you interpret that as peppering threads with negative posts, so be it. But please go complain to TC about it. They are the ones in the wrong.
 
#151
I have not read through this entire mess, but again, the experience the OP had is IMO literally impossible without user error. In other words, with the input gain set correctly, there is no way to 'max out the master volume' on this head, given the volume taper used on the master volume control.

Not sure if he has responded to this (which I mentioned on the first page of the thread) or not. My guess is, he had the secondary, programmable post EQ volume setting set very low.

As everyone pretty much agrees with, these heads are loud as heck, regardless of the wattage rating. The OP's experience makes little sense to me. If he said he didn't dig the rather processed and somewhat compressed tone of the TC head at all volume levels, I can understand that (that is not 'good or bad', but it 'is' and some dig it and some don't). However, saying it was 'soft' with the master volume maxed makes literally no sense.
 
#154
I know Watts is a physical absolute -And I AM troubled about the physics not being close to what is advertised

BUT - on the other hand I find my RH750 more loud and ground-shaking than my previous Mesa Boogie M9 900w head ..... So advertising the RH750 as 240W would be false advertising as well IMO - regardless how things are done in the head..

I am sure that is the dilemma TCE Marketing have been in - then you can agree in their chosen route or not... Regardless I have an extremely powerful head that exceed my expectations
 
#155
Musicman20 said:
I think a few non-owners are also getting a little tired of the same old arguments. If we peppered the Ampeg threads with negative views, Im sure it wouldnt really be seen as helpful.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? EVERY Ampeg thread with the possible exception of the Ampeg club and the Portaflex club is peppered with negative views.
 
#156
Obviously all threads will have negative views, but we don't necessarily 'bite' everytime Ampeg is mentioned. Everyone has the right to a view, but once its mentioned a few times, I think thats enough. What does anyone gain from NEGATIVE COMMENTS towards a company?
 
#157
hogbob said:
I know Watts is a physical absolute -And I AM troubled about the physics not being close to what is advertised

BUT - on the other hand I find my RH750 more loud and ground-shaking than my previous Mesa Boogie M9 900w head ..... So advertising the RH750 as 240W would be false advertising as well IMO - regardless how things are done in the head..

I am sure that is the dilemma TCE Marketing have been in - then you can agree in their chosen route or not... Regardless I have an extremely powerful head that exceed my expectations
Click to expand...


The truth can never be false.

IMO they would've been better off saying "performs like a 450 [or 750] watt amp." As long as you're happy holding down the instanteneous burst at the beginning of a note, that's IMO provable (which also proves that 450 and 750 watt amps don't use more than 260 watts except for very short periods of time . . .)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back