• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

TC Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand some folks downplaying of this or not thinking it's a big deal. I imagine some of these same folks would raise holy hell if they were sold a six pack that had 3 beers in it or ordered a steak and were given a plate with a half a steak on it and told it's all about percieved volume.

The fact is, it's not fudged, it's not optomistic, it's a bold faced lie and when confronted about, they keep making excuses and trying to perpetuate the lie as if repeating it often enough will somehow make it true. If they want to make amps this eay, fine. If people like them and want to buy them, fine. The problem starts when they knowingly, intentionally tell people it's something it's trying to separate them from their money and then not owning it when called on it. If you rip somebody off and they don't know it, you still ripped them off.

I just find it amazing how many people are willing to let this go as if nobody has any standards anymore. No TC for me thanks, on principle alone, no matter what it sounds like. They should've been touting their design, not trying to pull the wool over it. In my perfect world folks would get run out of business for stuff like this. They claim their stuff does twice what it does, don't forget that. Same tomfoolery goes for the cabs too. Nameing what's essentially a 12 ohm nominal impedance (11.something) as 8ohms then saying you can use three of their cabs in this system but only 2 of anybody elses, which may be true but again all the deception of why you can do that and how it works.
 
Okay, so, for these people who know what watts are, how they work, what they mean, and evaluate the relative wattage of amps completely independent of loudness, what other aspects of comparison are informed by wattage? What is the significance of wattage completely independent of loudness? This is exactly what I've been curious about.

And I can appreciate the range of reactions to being intentionally misled. Never said I didn't. What I don't get so easily is the difficulty people seem to have in separating their reaction to being lied to from their opinion of the amp.

If one of these people who have a higher level understanding of watts bought an RH450 and was happy with its performance prior to learning the true wattage, I'd have difficult understanding the logic of their opinion of the amp itself changing.

No one's telling anyone not to like an amp. If you like it, you like it. If you like the way it sounds, its loud enough for you, then you're set. That doesn't mean that we have to like the company or what they've done. :)

For me, wattage is also a measure of potential dynamic, of uncompressed expression/fidelity of and to what I feed the amp, of the ability to produce the lower end of the spectrum without power amp limiting, and in my case, the lack of additional harmonic distortion.
 
I don't understand some folks downplaying of this or not thinking it's a big deal. I imagine some of these same folks would raise holy hell if they were sold a six pack that had 3 beers in it or ordered a steak and were given a plate with a half a steak on it and told it's all about percieved volume.

The fact is, it's not fudged, it's not optomistic, it's a bold faced lie and when confronted about, they keep making excuses and trying to perpetuate the lie as if repeating it often enough will somehow make it true. If they want to make amps this eay, fine. If people like them and want to buy them, fine. The problem starts when they knowingly, intentionally tell people it's something it's trying to separate them from their money and then not owning it when called on it. If you rip somebody off and they don't know it, you still ripped them off.

I just find it amazing how many people are willing to let this go as if nobody has any standards anymore. No TC for me thanks, on principle alone, no matter what it sounds like. They should've been touting their design, not trying to pull the wool over it. In my perfect world folks would get run out of business for stuff like this. They claim their stuff does twice what it does, don't forget that. Same tomfoolery goes for the cabs too. Nameing what's essentially a 12 ohm nominal impedance (11.something) as 8ohms then saying you can use three of their cabs in this system but only 2 of anybody elses, which may be true but again all the deception of why you can do that and how it works.

+1. Dead on.

It was funny though, in the other thread when someone explained that I should expect and embrace such lies and since that's the way of our society, what's the big deal...
 
I like the amp, hate the lie. Pretty separate for me. Had they not lied, I would be planning on keeping the amp indefinitely. But since they did lie, I am going to use the amp until I find a suitable replacement. As soon as I can find a good sounding 500 watt, 5 lb amp that has a built in tuner, the RH750 is history.
 
This reminds me of the tech world, back when the Intel-AMD war was really heating up. AMD came out with a 'performance rating'. So it wasn't really the clock speed of the CPU, but rather the comparable Pentium chip's speed. Went a long way towards clearing up all the different ratings. Who knows, maybe it'll happen in the watts world too.

There is a standard by which amplifier power is measured and when measured by that standard, tc's are almost exactly one half of what they claim.
 
Theres something about TC that rubs me wrong... I dunno but I won't be getting any of their stuff with reports like this & that combo that came up on the hot deals thread that had a lot of problems right out of the gate.

Go ahead & flame me but its just an observation, opinion.
 
No flame Tuna, I agree. I've had both the BG500 (hot deal combo) and the RH750. Buttons were flying off those combos like crazy. I babied mine with no breaks, but took it back within the 30 day window. Amp sounded freaking great, but all those reports rubbed me the wrong way.

Now this deal. RH450 making 236 watts. My bet is the RH750 and Blacksmith wattage specs are lies too, we just haven't learned them yet. I'm waiting to hear what the real wattage of my RH750 is. I bet the Blacksmith is going to be the real shocker though.

So far we've got:

B series heads/combos with crappy buttons that break immediately
RH450 proven to have about 53% of its stated wattage
RH750 and Blacksmith using the same APM technology as the RH450 and very likely having 53% or less of their stated wattage as well

TC's bass amp reputation is going down like the Titanic.
 
Okay, so, for these people who know what watts are, how they work, what they mean, and evaluate the relative wattage of amps completely independent of loudness, what other aspects of comparison are informed by wattage? What is the significance of wattage completely independent of loudness? This is exactly what I've been curious about.

Power handling of a set of speakers in a cabinet.

Let's say I have a nice cab. Let's say I've determined that based on that cabs' specs, I've decided that an amp with a standard RMS measurement of somewhere around 400-600W available on tap would be a good choice for me to drive it with.

The TC amps look like a good choice. They sound good... which one? Hey, the RH450 looks just right. I dig the tweetertone on the RH750, but don't really need that, so why spend more on extra wattage beyond what I wanted? I can use the cash saved on strings and stuff. So let's buy the 450.

But wait a minute... that's wrong. Turns out to get what I wanted, I should've bought the RH750 instead. The cab actually could make use of the extra output.

Of course it's an inexact science, and one can use less or more power for a cab with no issue. Matching cabs with amps is pretty subjective and full of opinions regarding both tone and power matching. But either way, it's good to know real numbers, so they can actually be taken into account when making those decisions.

And I can appreciate the range of reactions to being intentionally misled. Never said I didn't. What I don't get so easily is the difficulty people seem to have in separating their reaction to being lied to from their opinion of the amp.

I have no difficulty separating. I dig the amp. I'm impressed with it, and what it is capable of across the board. On paper, at least. I think what the BGM article shows it can do does it far more justice than that stupid quasi-made-up rating. I'd written off the RH750 thinking it was 750W RMS. Seeing the real peak output of the "450W" version is only about half that, but the average output was actually higher than a comparable 450W RMS amplifier... that's actually interesting. I would expect the RH750 to do the same, and wouldn't have written it off so quickly. It puts it close enough to what I wanted to make it worth bothering to try it out, to see if I liked the sound or not.

Yes, it's just a fancy comp/limiter. But seems to be a darn good one, in a compact and convenient package.

If one of these people who have a higher level understanding of watts bought an RH450 and was happy with its performance prior to learning the true wattage, I'd have difficult understanding the logic of their opinion of the amp itself changing.

Finding out that they could have happily given TC more money for the more powerful version, for even more performance (however slight), while still keeping within whatever margins/ratios of cab power handling vs amp power delivery they were originally aiming for.

Or finding out that they are putting out nearly what their cab can handle after all, and maybe they should have tried some other options before committing to it.

Who knows why. But there are plenty of reasons.

Stupid car analogy: Let's say I bought a car that supposedly has silly, ridiculous amounts of power. And it appears to have all of it... but who knows. I haven't found a stretch of road yet that I could possibly use it all on yet, and especially not legally. Now If I decide to go have a little fun and do a little drag racing at the local strip, I'd fully expect every drop of power I paid for to be there. And if it isn't? I'd get spanked, and be pretty ticked off about it.

I don't care if the car really does have a top speed of whatevermilesanhour they based the quasi-ratings on. If I'm looking at HP, torque, weight, and gear ratios, dammit... I expect them to be correct.
 
What I really don't get about this whole thing, is the fact that if the RH450 was really a 450watt RMS amp, I can bet it would have really knocked your socks off, instead of shortchanging with a 230 watt RMS amp, although it does a more than adequate with that. But yes, lying is lying and that is clear. I will continue to use mine.....as far as the amp, I still feel the same before I knew about the real power rating, for it is a good head for a small rig plus the tuner is accurate, the compression is better than most offered (built in) and the tube tone is somewhat usable.

Hell, I ran the pre section ("Insert pre" in the back, out to a mackie 1400i) through a power amp at a gig last weekend and It sounded friggin' awesome! I highly recommend if you need more power, use a power amp with it, works very well.

Is it buyer's remorse? Not totally, but TC needs to learn how to market their specs a little more accurately, or they will find some folks not trusting them on other things, just not a good path to choose for business.
 
Okay, so, for these people who know what watts are, how they work, what they mean, and evaluate the relative wattage of amps completely independent of loudness, what other aspects of comparison are informed by wattage? What is the significance of wattage completely independent of loudness? This is exactly what I've been curious about.

Headroom. It's the reason people have home stereo receivers that are hundreds of watts per channel for a tiny room, as opposed to have few watts and massive compression put on it. It sounds different, and some of us definitely appreciate that...
 
Man oh, man , I think some of you guys on this thread need to jump over to an Ampeg thread and rag on them . I owned an Ampeg SVT3 for a very short time during my 10yr SWR period and I can tell you the TCE RH450 watts blew the SVT3 450watts out of the water . The TCE had way more everything .
Another example , I used an SWR sm400 and then a sm400s , rated 400wt@4ohm and 500wt@4ohm respectively , very nice amps for their time and the RH 450 still kicks their ass . Just more of everything .
I also own a GK Fusion 550 , are you guys gonna get all over GK because this amp specs out at more... than the rated 500watts@4ohm ?
My last comment , for anyone who feels duped on the wattage rating well maybe its time to go buy an amp the old fashioned way the way some of us geezers did it . Go to the music store and play the hell out of the amp . Very Good Discussion Guys !
 
Man oh, man , I think some of you guys on this thread need to jump over to an Ampeg thread and rag on them . I owned an Ampeg SVT3 for a very short time during my 10yr SWR period and I can tell you the TCE RH450 watts blew the SVT3 450watts out of the water . The TCE had way more everything .

No argument there...I had an SVT-3Pro too and my 150w Carvin combo blew it out of the water. So did my brother's GK800RB. SVT-3 was probably the quietest 450watts RMS(!!!) I've ever owned :D

PS, sorry can't comment on the other amps you referenced, but I will say my brand spankin new GK MB500 sure feels pretty damn loud.

PPS, before I get flamed, yes, I have tried the RH450 with TH's 210 cab...
 
Man oh, man , I think some of you guys on this thread need to jump over to an Ampeg thread and rag on them . I owned an Ampeg SVT3 for a very short time during my 10yr SWR period and I can tell you the TCE RH450 watts blew the SVT3 450watts out of the water . The TCE had way more everything .
Another example , I used an SWR sm400 and then a sm400s , rated 400wt@4ohm and 500wt@4ohm respectively , very nice amps for their time and the RH 450 still kicks their ass . Just more of everything .
I also own a GK Fusion 550 , are you guys gonna get all over GK because this amp specs out at more... than the rated 500watts@4ohm ?
My last comment , for anyone who feels duped on the wattage rating well maybe its time to go buy an amp the old fashioned way the way some of us geezers did it . Go to the music store and play the hell out of the amp . Very Good Discussion Guys !

IIRC the Ampeg does rate close to its stated wattage. its how it presents its tonal curve that makes it seem less powerful than it is. Easy to do that if your power is going to low lows and if you have scooped mids as the preset curve to start off with.

And I don't think ANYONE will complain if a amp benches with a GREATER than reported wattage. ;)
 
Man oh, man , I think some of you guys on this thread need to jump over to an Ampeg thread and rag on them . I owned an Ampeg SVT3 for a very short time during my 10yr SWR period and I can tell you the TCE RH450 watts blew the SVT3 450watts out of the water . The TCE had way more everything .
Another example , I used an SWR sm400 and then a sm400s , rated 400wt@4ohm and 500wt@4ohm respectively , very nice amps for their time and the RH 450 still kicks their ass . Just more of everything .
I also own a GK Fusion 550 , are you guys gonna get all over GK because this amp specs out at more... than the rated 500watts@4ohm ?
My last comment , for anyone who feels duped on the wattage rating well maybe its time to go buy an amp the old fashioned way the way some of us geezers did it . Go to the music store and play the hell out of the amp . Very Good Discussion Guys !

RTFM

While I agree the 3pro sounds weak in comparison to some others is has more to do with knowing how to get the most out of it and I'm no ampeg worshipping dude. Very few amps play even with knobs set even including your swr's. Correct for the pre voicing, then adjust and you've got all the fat you need. Most have some meat-n-potatos lowmids scooped out and are paired with a 120hz boom havin' cabs......fix that, then figure out what the hell's going on.:D
 
Matching cabs with amps is pretty subjective and full of opinions regarding both tone and power matching. But either way, it's good to know real numbers, so they can actually be taken into account when making those decisions.

Your explanation and example essentially state the obvious that knowing the wattage can inform a decision and comparison on wattage.

But you're not talking about "matching" wattage, you'd be matching limits. In your example, you say that because your cabinet has a handling limit of 600 watts, you may choose an RH750 as a better match.

People play at an appropriate level for the circumstance they're in, not at the highest possible usage of their cabinet's power handling capacity relative to the amp's maximum power output.

Really, if you were using an RH450 on a particular gig, you may have your master a 2:00 (say that's 150 watts, just to put a number on it). If you had an RH750, to better match your cabinet, the appropriate loudness would be the same and would be achieved at a lower setting...maybe 11:00 on the master. Given the same amp design, that's probably still going to be about 150 watts.

That does nothing to explain how is the higher maximum power of the RH750 is beneficial other than the subjective sense of satisfaction from "matching."


...there are plenty of reasons.

Stupid car analogy: Let's say I bought a car that supposedly...I'd fully expect every drop of power I paid for to be there. And if it isn't? I'd get spanked, and be pretty ticked off about it.

Your car analogy isn't stupid, it's just not a good analogy and doesn't really address my point. Like with the benefit of allowing matching, you're essentially stating the obvious; that knowing the correct power rating allows you to know the power rating, and you're treating that as an end in itself.

A car doesn't win a race by having more horsepower. A car wins a race by being faster or quicker. And I don't know how a car's winning a drag race in your analogy could represent anything other than a amp being louder than another.

Your analogy would be better as something like this "Let's say I bought a car that the dealer tells me has a 4.9L with 450hp. It's a Lotus Exige S, and from driving it around town, it appears to have that. Now, I decide to go have a little fun and do a little drag racing at the local strip and run across a 1994 Ferrari 512 also a 4.9L with 450hp. We race, and I spank the Ferrari. 2 full seconds! As I'm basking in the glory and admiring my new Ferrari (they were shooting an episode of Pinks), Ashton Kutcher comes out and tells me that the Exige actually has a 1.7L with 218hp (they've also be shooting an episode of Punk'd).

Although I'm pissed about being deceived, I have to admit that the Exige's 218hp gave me everything I expected when I thought it was 450hp. The fact that it's only 218hp doesn't change that it beat a 450hp car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.