TC Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread

[lowstrung5]

wvbass;

well, people whether you admit it it or not, we who are outraged are standing guard on the wall for all of you... including the sheeple who want to excuse this conduct.


/s/ Dave

I and others here don't need you or anyone else "Standing Guard on a wall for us. You're no hero for doing this. You have'nt saved anyone from making their own minds up about TC products or what claims they make about their specs. You have merely made it more concrete in peoples mind that there are some viewpoints that are only acceptable if they are in line with your opinion.

"Power to the Sheeple!!!!

 

[vin*tone]

I'd be very interested to read a spec on the Shuttle, Tom. I can't see how they could reach their 600 watts, or even 550 watts without employing exactly the same limiting that is being used in the RH236.

 

[iammr2]

Lessee...popcorn...coke...and a full bladder for a pissin' match...I'm ready.

As long as I can remember, there has never been a set standard for matching power between various companies' amps. There have always been a couple of standards(or methods) and each company picked the one that made their product look the best. Even moreso, they would pick a frequency, bandwidth, and a distortion level to make it look even better. To use specs in comparing amps, we need a standard set of parameters and metrics for each company to measure by. If we had that, specs would mean much more than they do now. Yes, trying the amp out is part of the best way, but specs should also be at least considered.

GB's practice has been used quite a bit before. It may only run at 500 watts continous, but it will(probably) hit those spikes of 900 watts(I'm guessing here folks, so bear with me). This is a tactic that has been used by amp makers for years. The difference between what GB and TC are doing is this. GB's amp can hit the target on the spikes and a much higher distortion level. Many amp makers have done this before. As a matter of fact, many makers who don't quote distortion levels, this is the reason why. I, and I'm sure some of the others here, can remember when 100 watt bass amps used to rattle the room. 100 watts! What has changed? TC on the other hand, can only hit 243 watts at best, no spike, no nada. Yet TC claims their amp is a 450 watt amp. It will never touch 450 watts. May sound like it, but it's not happening. Also, it has no headroom. You can't really dig in and have it change anything is my understanding.

Don't know Uffe, but I can tell you that if my business was on the line, baby or no, I'd be digging in to fix it, whether it's me doing the talking or one of my other people. It's this business that's going to feed that new baby so... I would think he could find 45 minutes in a day for a couple of posts. There has still been no substantive reply from anyone representing TC in almost two weeks.

 

[Lonesomedave]

I and others here don't need you or anyone else "Standing Guard on a wall for us. You're no hero for doing this. You have'nt saved anyone from making their own minds up about TC products or what claims they make about their specs. You have merely made it more concrete in peoples mind that there are some viewpoints that are only acceptable if they are in line with your opinion.

"Power to the Sheeple!!!!

what viewpoints are you talking about? i don't like companies that lie in order to sell more product.

are you saying that you think they should be allowed to do this. i bet i am not the only one who thinks that is unacceptable. in fact i know i'm not.

as far as being a hero...not trying to be one. but i guarantee you, if we do not make a stink about this when we see it done, other companies would do it to. if some of the posts on this thread are to be believed (and i do believe them) then other companies already are.

instead of attacking me- not that i care- you should save your outrage (or whatever emotion you are feeling) for companies that lie in order to increase profit. if you do not care... well, different strokes...

/s/ Dave

 

[::::BASSIST::::]

Wow. That was rude. I apologize for any part I played in getting your dander up. I also thank you for reminding me why I stopped posting here.

Please try to remember that this stuff is going to happen on the web and try not to take it personally. There are alot of wonderful people on this board.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

I'd like to apologize in advance to anyone who is offended by this post. It isn't directed at anyone in particular, and it probably betrays the pent-up frustration of a technophile who spends a lot of his time working with creative types.

Anyway, I can't get over the level of angst portrayed on this and other recent TC-related threads. At first, when I heard about how awful it was that TC wasn't following FTC specs, I was confused. The last time I checked, exaggerated power numbers on MI amps were the rule, not the exception. So I got busy Googling, and was relieved to find that I hadn't been asleep under a rock for the last 20-30 years. In fact, the ONLY companies I could find that used proper, qualified power numbers, were Eden and Epifani.

Sure enough, power "ratings" in our business are still a total free-for-all. The following companies ALL use unqualified power numbers on their websites. This allows them to talk about Instantaneous, RMS, PMP or ??? power output, and measure it at any level of distortion or frequency that suits them.
- Acoustic
- Acoustic Image
- Aguilar
- Ampeg
- Ashdown
- Behringer
- Bugera
- Carvin
- EBS
- Euphonic Audio
- Fender
- Genz Benz
- Gallien Krueger
- Hughes & Kettner
- Line 6
- Markbass
- Marshall
- Orange
- Peavey
- Phil Jones
- Roland
- SWR
- TC Electronic
- Tech 21
- Traynor

You have to admit, that covers a pretty big chunk of the bass amp market...

To recap:

- TC used weird-Alice technology to produce an amp that has a bunch of cool features, sounds like 600 or more watts but only benches at 240 or so clean, and has a funny-looking dynamic envelope when viewed on an oscilloscope.
- TC used a marketing number that split the difference between the perceived and actual power outputs, in a desperate attempt to make the new technology understandable.
- Meanwhile, knowing that their average customer is technically illiterate, the rest of the industry continued to hide behind vague, meaningless numbers. This way, people wouldn't rate their amps as "underpowered" without listening to them, and they couldn't be caught in an outright lie.
- Cartloads of bass players got their knickers in a twist about statistics that they don't fully understand, and TC is now seen as the spawn of Satan, even though their amps are generally recognized as being Seriously Good Stuff.
- The other guys, most of whom exaggerate their ratings at least to some degree in order to stay competitive, and most of whom couldn't produce as good a product as TC if their lives depended on it, have gotten off scott-free.

I'm sorry, but I'm embarrassed by the mob mentality, personal attacks, nonsensical arguments, and lack of intelligence displayed by some people on this thread. Maybe musicians really are as dumb as we are sometimes portrayed...

As always, IME and IMO on all of this.

 

[Hawaii Islander]

Lessee...popcorn...coke...and a full bladder for a pissin' match...I'm ready.

As long as I can remember, there has never been a set standard for matching power between various companies' amps. There have always been a couple of standards(or methods) and each company picked the one that made their product look the best. Even moreso, they would pick a frequency, bandwidth, and a distortion level to make it look even better. To use specs in comparing amps, we need a standard set of parameters and metrics for each company to measure by. If we had that, specs would mean much more than they do now. Yes, trying the amp out is part of the best way, but specs should also be at least considered.

GB's practice has been used quite a bit before. It may only run at 500 watts continous, but it will(probably) hit those spikes of 900 watts(I'm guessing here folks, so bear with me). This is a tactic that has been used by amp makers for years. The difference between what GB and TC are doing is this. GB's amp can hit the target on the spikes and a much higher distortion level. Many amp makers have done this before. As a matter of fact, many makers who don't quote distortion levels, this is the reason why. I, and I'm sure some of the others here, can remember when 100 watt bass amps used to rattle the room. 100 watts! What has changed? TC on the other hand, can only hit 243 watts at best, no spike, no nada. Yet TC claims their amp is a 450 watt amp. It will never touch 450 watts. May sound like it, but it's not happening. Also, it has no headroom. You can't really dig in and have it change anything is my understanding.

Don't know Uffe, but I can tell you that if my business was on the line, baby or no, I'd be digging in to fix it, whether it's me doing the talking or one of my other people. It's this business that's going to feed that new baby so... I would think he could find 45 minutes in a day for a couple of posts. There has still been no substantive reply from anyone representing TC in almost two weeks.

In a previous post, Uffe said he would post a response on Monday. Monday is only a couple of days away (I'm in Hawaii so it is early Saturday evening here). I am also interested in what he has to say.

 

[willsellout]

In a previous post, Uffe said he would post a response on Monday. Monday is only a couple of days away (I'm in Hawaii so it is early Saturday evening here). I am also interested in what he has to say.

Not to mention I sincerely doubt that TC's "business is on the line". Talkbass is not the be all end all. I'm sure TC will be alright regardless of the outcome on this message board.

 

[lowstrung5]

I'd like to apologize in advance to anyone who is offended by this post. It isn't directed at anyone in particular, and it probably betrays the pent-up frustration of a technophile who spends a lot of his time working with creative types.

Anyway, I can't get over the level of angst portrayed on this and other recent TC-related threads. At first, when I heard about how awful it was that TC wasn't following FTC specs, I was confused. The last time I checked, exaggerated power numbers on MI amps were the rule, not the exception. So I got busy Googling, and was relieved to find that I hadn't been asleep under a rock for the last 20-30 years. In fact, the ONLY companies I could find that used proper, qualified power numbers, were Eden and Epifani.

Sure enough, power "ratings" in our business are still a total free-for-all. The following companies ALL use unqualified power numbers on their websites. This allows them to talk about Instantaneous, RMS, PMP or ??? power output, and measure it at any level of distortion or frequency that suits them.
- Acoustic
- Acoustic Image
- Aguilar
- Ampeg
- Ashdown
- Behringer
- Bugera
- Carvin
- EBS
- Euphonic Audio
- Fender
- Genz Benz
- Gallien Krueger
- Hughes & Kettner
- Line 6
- Markbass
- Marshall
- Orange
- Peavey
- Phil Jones
- Roland
- SWR
- TC Electronic
- Tech 21
- Traynor

You have to admit, that covers a pretty big chunk of the bass amp market...

To recap:

- TC used weird-Alice technology to produce an amp that has a bunch of cool features, sounds like 600 or more watts but only benches at 240 or so clean, and has a funny-looking dynamic envelope when viewed on an oscilloscope.
- TC used a marketing number that split the difference between the perceived and actual power outputs, in a desperate attempt to make the new technology understandable.
- Meanwhile, knowing that their average customer is technically illiterate, the rest of the industry continued to hide behind vague, meaningless numbers. This way, people wouldn't rate their amps as "underpowered" without listening to them, and they couldn't be caught in an outright lie.
- Cartloads of bass players got their knickers in a twist about statistics that they don't fully understand, and TC is now seen as the spawn of Satan, even though their amps are generally recognized as being Seriously Good Stuff.
- The other guys, most of whom exaggerate their ratings at least to some degree in order to stay competitive, and most of whom couldn't produce as good a product as TC if their lives depended on it, have gotten off scott-free.

I'm sorry, but I'm embarrassed by the mob mentality, personal attacks, nonsensical arguments, and lack of intelligence displayed by some people on this thread. Maybe musicians really are as dumb as we are sometimes portrayed...

As always, IME and IMO on all of this.

Well said.

 

[Lonesomedave]

steve rolfeca

not offended at all even if you mean me ----

and i freely admit to being ignorant of the technical parameters used by electronics engineers to measure either amp power or anything else, but your post brings up an interesting question that i would appreciate an answer to.

are you saying that if an amp has a power rating of, say, 100 watts RMS, that is not fixed and measurable by anyone. please excuse my ignorance, but i guess i thought it was.

i would have thought, in fact did think until i read your post, that all you had to do was hook up the amp to right measuring equipment and perform certain tests and the RMS power rating would be determined.

if it is so subject to the way it is measured, then how can we make sense of any it? and by we, I mean laymen, bass players etc, who are not electronics engineers.

for example, my dream amp is an ampeg heritage svt. it is rated at 300 watts (i thought RMS but now i don't know); it is, as you know, a tube amp. is it a genuine 300 watts? and since it is a tube amp, what, if any difference does that make?

i have always heard of an expression called "tube-watts" but always thought that was just an old wives tale. is their any truth to the belief that tube amps sound more powerful than SS amps of the same wattage?

is there any point in reading amp specs at all if each company has it's own way of measuring?... or am i missing something in what you said?

just asking. obviously you know more than i do about these things. and i know you like TCE, so not trying to start anything here either, but I have a serious question related to the subject of this thread.

did they or did they not lie about their power specs? from what you said, I have started to gather that it may be difficult to say whether they lied or not, or even that by one way of measuring they may have, but by another way, they may not.

please excuse my ignorance, but i like most on this site really don't know the technical in's and outs.

your thoughts would be appreciated.

/s/ Dave

 

[will33]

steve rolfeca

not offended at all even if you mean me ----

and i freely admit to being ignorant of the technical parameters used by electronics engineers to measure either amp power or anything else, but your post brings up an interesting question that i would appreciate an answer to.

are you saying that if an amp has a power rating of, say, 100 watts RMS, that is not fixed and measurable by anyone. please excuse my ignorance, but i guess i thought it was.

i would have thought, in fact did think until i read your post, that all you had to do was hook up the amp to right measuring equipment and perform certain tests and the RMS power rating would be determined.

if it is so subject to the way it is measured, then how can we make sense of any it? and by we, I mean laymen, bass players etc, who are not electronics engineers.

for example, my dream amp is an ampeg heritage svt. it is rated at 300 watts (i thought RMS but now i don't know); it is, as you know, a tube amp. is it a genuine 300 watts? and since it is a tube amp, what, if any difference does that make?

i have always heard of an expression called "tube-watts" but always thought that was just an old wives tale. is their any truth to the belief that tube amps sound more powerful than SS amps of the same wattage?

is there any point in reading amp specs at all if each company has it's own way of measuring?... or am i missing something in what you said?

just asking. obviously you know more than i do about these things. and i know you like TCE, so not trying to start anything here either, but I have a serious question related to the subject of this thread.

did they or did they not lie about their power specs? from what you said, I have started to gather that it may be difficult to say whether they lied or not, or even that by one way of measuring they may have, but by another way, they may not.

please excuse my ignorance, but i like most on this site really don't know the technical in's and outs.

your thoughts would be appreciated.

/s/ Dave

The SVT is a genuine 300 watts and then some. They're also the loudest, most quality 300 watts you've ever heard. So is fender's 100 watts, peavey's 400 watts, etc. Those amps don't pull trickery. Throw QSC in there too. They do every bit of what they claim to, and then some.

 

[peledog]

For the umpteenth time, and this isn't directed at anyone in particular (since it seems so popular to preface a scathing post with this type of phrase, like it actually excuses you from your intent) - what part of 'don't like being lied to' do you not understand?

Misrepresented 'facts' about a great amp are still misrepresented 'facts'. For those who are more tech-savvy, trying to poke holes in people's disappointment, or arguing that it's 'your own fault' and 'you bought it' - get off your high horse, the lack of oxygen up there is messing with your brains.

For the 'average' bassist, who wants good gear, and is reasonably knowledgeable should not have to have fingers pointed at them saying they're not tech-savvy enough. If we all were, we'd build our own amps. Why do you think a lot of us post here? TO LEARN

There are a number of people genuinely upset about being lied to. If you have no issues with being lied to, go protest at a military funeral, you'll fit right in. Seriously. You contribute nothing of value to this discussion, except to shout from the periphery about nothing related to the issue at hand.

Okay back to the thread. /rant

 

[JimmyM]

Watts have a standard for measurement, but the complicating factor in that is the level of total harmonic distortion involved. Some use a lower number, some use a higher number, some of it isn't within the range of human hearing, some of it is. Many companies publish their ratings at < ___ % of THD.

And there is no such thing as tube watts. The difference with tube amps is that the distortion it produces when you push it is often thought of as quite pleasing to the ear and can sound pretty clean up to a point, so you don't notice it as much.

The Heritage SVT-CL is rated for 300w at < 3% THD, so that means it will hit its 300w mark and give you no more than 3% total harmonic distortion, which in a tube amp is unnoticeable due to the pleasing sound of tubes being pushed up to that point, and is slightly noticeable in a solid state amp at best. < 3% THD in a tube amp is well within the acceptable range for tube amps. A working tuned-up SVT always hits that mark or exceeds it a little, and if it doesn't, there's something wrong. Ampeg has been proven to be one of the most honest companies out there for specs without question. Honestly, it's one of the big reasons I accepted their offer of an endorsement last week. That and they sound great and look so freakin' cool!

 

[Lonesomedave]

peledog

agreed and you know i am basically with you on this, but the question has been raised and i have yet to hear a definitive answer: did TCE really lie or did they not?

i thought it was pretty cut and dried because the owner admitted the amp was not really up to spec, but all the ads for it that i see say "450 watts" i am confused and would like to see a serious answer to this question before we go any further.

/s/ Dave

 

[wave rider]

[...]
- Cartloads of bass players got their knickers in a twist about statistics that they don't fully understand, and TC is now seen as the spawn of Satan, even though their amps are generally recognized as being Seriously Good Stuff.
[...]

In certain genres, SOS would be a Really Bada$$ Thing...

Good observations.

=wr=

 

[vin*tone]

peledog

agreed and you know i am basically with you on this, but the question has been raised and i have yet to hear a definitive answer: did TCE really lie or did they not?..

Yes they did. The RH 450 does not peak at 800 watts by any measure.

Is it a 450 watt amp with heavy limiting in front of it as per the Shuttle B&O module? We don't know.

 

[Lonesomedave]

vin tone:

800 watts? i thought it was claimed to be 450 watts but was in fact more like 236. all the ads for it that i checked on ebay say "450 watts"

am i missing something?

/s/ Dave

 

[fdeck]

is there any point in reading amp specs at all if each company has it's own way of measuring?

My thought is that we would benefit from third-party measurements, such as conducted by Bass Gear Magazine. This will encourage amp makers to either adopt BGM's rating methods themselves, or be more specific about their test methods.

 

[willsellout]

For the umpteenth time, and this isn't directed at anyone in particular (since it seems so popular to preface a scathing post with this type of phrase, like it actually excuses you from your intent) - what part of 'don't like being lied to' do you not understand?

Misrepresented 'facts' about a great amp are still misrepresented 'facts'. For those who are more tech-savvy, trying to poke holes in people's disappointment, or arguing that it's 'your own fault' and 'you bought it' - get off your high horse, the lack of oxygen up there is messing with your brains.

For the 'average' bassist, who wants good gear, and is reasonably knowledgeable should not have to have fingers pointed at them saying they're not tech-savvy enough. If we all were, we'd build our own amps. Why do you think a lot of us post here? TO LEARN

There are a number of people genuinely upset about being lied to. If you have no issues with being lied to, go protest at a military funeral, you'll fit right in. Seriously. You contribute nothing of value to this discussion, except to shout from the periphery about nothing related to the issue at hand.

Okay back to the thread. /rant

ummm, wut?

 

[JimmyM]

ummm, wut?

I have to admit to being lost by that one, too.