TC Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread

[GrowlerBox]

Lonesomedave -- no offense, but I think you need to pause for breath here. Despite not being the author of the OP, you've taken it upon yourself to define the parameters of the conversation (i.e. this is a thread about TCE's lies, any discussion of the amp's "qualities" is off-limits), and yet you now want a technical discussion of power measurements. This might be a good time to go and read the BGM article (see link in any of Tom Bowlus' posts).

The somewhat hysterical tenor of a number of your posts is precisely what gets otherwise genuine (and widely shared) concerns dismissed as "fringe", rendering them useless in furthering a rational debate with a view to correcting the situation, insofar as that is possible. Hawaiian Islander is right on the money here, in my view: we pretty much have a consensus regarding the misinformation, and are awaiting a meaningful response from the company, apparently delayed by a developing domestic situation in the suburbs of Copenhagen. The rest, as they say, is noise.

 

[vin*tone]

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

yeah they describe it as 450 watts (800w peak) in the manuals.

They can almost justify the 450 watt claim by explaining its power management doohickey but 800 watt spikes is just flat out BS.

*.... unless of course Uffe can explain it.

 

[will33]

So, fhis thing will likely be over 1000 posts before Uffe gets to respond so I guess there will be a lot of citing previous posts and arguing facts and reffering to stuff. Basically more opportunities to dodge the issue.

No doubt they've had plenty of time to dream up a politically correct, blame dodging, smooth sounding response. Too bad....

While I really love love and puppies, I know better than to think it's all about love and puppies.

 

[Duke21]

Years ago, AMD started rating thier CPUs based on apparent speed, not actual clock speed, because they could do more work in a cycle, yet had slower clock speed than an Intel. A "2400+" was maybe only a 1.9G chip. No one complained because they got the job done and were a good price.

Looked at this way, what TCE has done is nothing different. If it has the same apparent loudness and function as a "450 watt" amp, then shouldnt they be allowed to call it a 450?

I guess the question is whether it really does play as well as a 450, even though its only a 236? If you hook up the same cabs to a real 450 watt amp, are you getting more headroom? More volume? Based on reports in this thread, their amp "feels" like a 450. A 450Watt amp is really only 200-225rms, so not a big amp any way you slice it.

The bigger problem is people paying 1K for an asian made, relatively low wattage amp and then complaining about headroom. Thats like paying 50K for a Kia and then complaining that its not a porsche. If you guys dont like them, send them back and get refunds.

The AMD cpu's were way cheaper than Intel, so people (including me) accepted this and used them. In addition the AMD did perform well in some applications like gaming but the Intel CPU were stronger in more serious calculations.
The TCE amps are not the cheapest in the class D category, so many doesn't like the idea of paying 999$ for a 236w amp where could buy two GK MB200 or almost two GK MB500 for the same money.

 

[Lonesomedave]

growlerbox;

ok, well sorry you feel that way but..

as far as my wanting to control the aspects of conversation... well let me say i may be the latest one to bring that up, but i am not the only one.

this thread was about (and to support my argument, i invite you to look at the op's original couple of posts) whether or not TCE lied to their customers/potential customers. not about the quality of the amp.

i will say to you as i said to H I that i am not trying to control anything, but that to try and muddy the waters of this thread with "oh what a great amp it is" does not do any good. it was a suggestion not a command, and you are free to take it or not.

as to whether i am hysterical, well, hysteria is in the eye of the beholder. i will say this and you can buy it or not... i am a very reasonable guy who does not like being lied to. have i been lied to here.. the jury is still out but from available evidence, the answer appears to be yes.

if it is yes, then i deeply resent being put on the defensive by apologists for TCE who take the attitude that "it is a great amp and you all are just nitpicking and other companies do it anyway". in fact, i resent it so much that i will not be put on the defensive but instead will go on offense.

i urge you to look at my profile and see my posts and threads. i really am a sweetie pie.

sorry if you don't like the tack i have taken on this particular thread (Naw, not really-----) but i am not going to step back or anything. i will be nice and calm as can be unless someone tries to put me on the defensive about this.

you seem to express surprise that I, a known maniac, could ask technical questions etc right after being sharp with other posters, well sorry. I am a calm and a civil person; as proof, I invite you to look at the last exchange between myself and vin tone.

i notice you have not expressed similar calls for restraint about any other posters in this thread. how about Peledog's last post. that was rather sharp. why just me?

oh well, don't care. here is my bottom line on this subject and you can like it or lump it: either TCE lied in order to sell more product or they did not. as I said, the jury's still out and i have not formed any definite conclusions on the subject but I am leaning toward their having told lies. in looking back at some of my posts, the one thing i regret is that i had come to the conclusion that they lied, and i seem to have done so prematurely-- my only excuse is that the owner admitted the amp did not produce 450 watts and yet allows it to be advertised as a 450 watt amp... well, we'll see.


if there is an honest explanation or if they they didn't then no problem.

if, however, they did tell lies, then no problem either because i am not their customer and never will be... but i will not (repeat NOT) be lectured to by their apologists as though I and not the lies is the problem. nor can they change the subject which is did TCE lie or did it not. not is it a great amp. not well everybody else does it!

you can either accept that explanation in the spirit it is offered or not, i don't care. but when you tell me to step back and take a breath, don't you think you are being just as condescending to me as H I apparently thought i was being to those who wanted to use the thread for purposes other than the OP intended? just asking.

anyway, no harm, no foul. i am willing to be friends with anybody here regardless of how much i may personally disagree with them on any particular issue. please save your advice, it is not needed.----

/s/ Dave

 

[wateroftyne]

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.

This reflects my experience of nearly a year for gigs with the RH450. Something bothered me about the way it handled dynamics. In the end, I had to let it go... way before any discussions about output figures.

(I have no axe to grind against TC. The amp has lots of great features and a great design. Just sharing my experience.)

 

[GrowlerBox]

growlerbox;

ok, well sorry you feel that way but..

i notice you have not expressed similar calls for restraint about any other posters in this thread. how about Peledog's last post. that was rather sharp. why just me?

oh well, don't care. here is my bottom line on this subject and you can like it or lump it: either TCE lied in order to sell more product or they did not. as I said, the jury's still out and i have not formed any definite conclusions on the subject but I am leaning toward their having told lies. in looking back at some of my posts, the one thing i regret is that i had come to the conclusion that they lied, and i seem to have done so prematurely-- my only excuse is that the owner admitted the amp did not produce 450 watts and yet allows it to be advertised as a 450 watt amp... well, we'll see.

/s/ Dave

Please see post #885; you are not being singled out, but have very suddenly become very vocal on this issue, and more power to you for that.

As to the jury being out ... I think that is manifestly not the case. The reported spec is not a true reflection of the actual output of the amp; that was established with the publication of BGM's review. What that means to the various users of the amp and others is a more personal issue, and all opinions are welcome. The so-called apologists have for the most part acknowledged the misrepresentation, but wish to make other claims for the amp. You do not. Both positions have merit.

Peace out.

 

[Lonesomedave]

growlerbox:

peace and love



/s/ Dave

 

[gregbackstrom]

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.

I had to smile when I read this post. I've owned--and still own, in some cases--amps from nearly half the manufacturers on your list. The only two of them I would NEVER purchase another product from under ANY circumstance are Epifani and Eden.

The other manufacturers may have misstated an aspect of their product(s), but at least their gear worked and their owners or staff didn't lie directly to me. This is BY FAR the most important measurement to me.

 

[JimmyM]

There are people on both sides of this issue trying to make the other side quit talking about it. We got ran out of the RH450 review thread, for example, which is complete and utter crap. So don't single Dave out for looking for a gag order...it's happened WAAAAAAY more from TC fans trying to shut us up.

 

[makohund]

The AMD cpu's were way cheaper than Intel, so people (including me) accepted this and used them. In addition the AMD did perform well in some applications like gaming but the Intel CPU were stronger in more serious calculations.

Not only that, but they never once lied about anything. The numbers that were bumped to match Intel were nothing but names and model numbers. The clock frequencies they ran at were right there in the specs and manuals, with no fudging whatsoever.

Very different situation. Or rather, faced with a similar problem as TC (describing performance beyond the usual measure), they came up with a better solution IMO. A name that reflected relative performance, but absolutely factual specs.

 

[Duke21]

Not only that, but they never once lied about anything. The numbers that were bumped to match Intel were nothing but names and model numbers. The clock frequencies they ran at were right there in the specs and manuals, with no fudging whatsoever.

Very different situation. Or rather, faced with a similar problem as TC (describing performance beyond the usual measure), they came up with a better solution IMO. A name that reflected relative performance, but absolutely factual specs.

Yes the real CPU speed were well documented.

 

[vin*tone]

OK here's a question:

Using the Spec sheet from the 125ASX2 as an example...

Link Removed
250 watts @ 1% THD, 550 watts @ 10% THD

If the RH450 is limited at 240 watts, how powerful would the TC amp module be without the limiter? 450 watts perhaps?

If I make an amp using the 125ASX2, can I call it a 550 watt amp? Or does it depend on the amp design?

 

[1n3]

... 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.

(long list of manufacturers)

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

Yup, that's a big chunk. It's not hard to believe that all of these companies give non-referenced/unqualified power numbers on their website. Unknown is whether more details about the ratings are available elsewhere. What's most important to me is that the numbers are reasonably accurate. I have been under the impression that while some companies may push the envelope a little, they wouldn't publish a number that wasn't defensible and reproducable; that would be risky. Maybe that's complacent and naive of me... But I would need more evidence to believe that bass amp power ratings have become a "total free-for-all".

Even if ratings are more widely exaggerated than I think, that's the "everyone else does it" defense. Didn't work for me when I was a kid, and it shouldn't in this case.

A third-party rating requirement would be a solution, if not a perfect one. But if market pressures are causing otherwise reputable makers to fudge their power numbers, third-party ratings would solve that, and provide a level playing field. In the meantime, a big thanks to Bass Gear Magazine for their good services!

Other random thoughts -

I notice that no manufacturers have posted here. That's no surprise, but it's our loss. I'm feeling some sympathy for them. The "watt race" has gotten crazy - so many players seem to regard sub-500w amps as crap. Hopefully, the RH450 debacle will educate a few folks on that score.

I think the CPU analogy is poor. Computer performance is much more complex, and most metrics of system performance are easy for owners to measure. Amp performance is comparatively simple, but few of us have the ability to measure it.

GrowlerBox - I have appreciated your posts here, most among the RH450 owners or defenders; always thoughtful.

 

[JimmyM]

Thinking any sub-500w amp is crap is the work of dopes and people who play way too loud

I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more honest companies out there than dishonest ones, BTW. Several companies on that list have already been proven to be relatively honest by BGM, and a select few have been proven to be extremely honest.

 

[aledeville]

It's wrong of TC to hide information.

However, I find it interesting WHY they do it. For that reason I remembered the thread about the new Tech21 1969 head. It's power rating was 300. Nobody heard that amp up to this point, but everybody was shouting about the low wattage of the head and that would be not up-to-date and whatever. Nobody heard it, but people were judging!

Every tube amp manufacturer has the advantage to say, that "this is tube watts - this is more than ss watts". At least this is the argumentation in forums. TC does not have that advantage - so a low wattage head would be blamed instantly for having not many watts. This is a real problem.
I have to be honest with myself - I wouldn't even TRY an amp rated under 250W and a hundred and something at 8 ohms.


Another thing is the testing method. Was that with a sinus wave?

The Heritage SVT-CL is rated for 300w at < 3% THD

Why do they rate it at <3 percent and not 1 like all the others? What would be the output then? This is no rant, just curiosity.

- 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.

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...

A really big + to this!

To finish, I may have to state, that I tried the RH450 (since it was rated with 450W ) but I didn't like it at all. I thought it was horrible.

 

[Duke21]

Yup, that's a big chunk. It's not hard to believe that all of these companies give non-referenced/unqualified power numbers on their website. Unknown is whether more details about the ratings are available elsewhere. What's most important to me is that the numbers are reasonably accurate. I have been under the impression that while some companies may push the envelope a little, they wouldn't publish a number that wasn't defensible and reproducable; that would be risky. Maybe that's complacent and naive of me... But I would need more evidence to believe that bass amp power ratings have become a "total free-for-all".

Even if ratings are more widely exaggerated than I think, that's the "everyone else does it" defense. Didn't work for me when I was a kid, and it shouldn't in this case.

A third-party rating requirement would be a solution, if not a perfect one. But if market pressures are causing otherwise reputable makers to fudge their power numbers, third-party ratings would solve that, and provide a level playing field. In the meantime, a big thanks to Bass Gear Magazine for their good services!

Other random thoughts -

I notice that no manufacturers have posted here. That's no surprise, but it's our loss. I'm feeling some sympathy for them. The "watt race" has gotten crazy - so many players seem to regard sub-500w amps as crap. Hopefully, the RH450 debacle will educate a few folks on that score.

I think the CPU analogy is poor. Computer performance is much more complex, and most metrics of system performance are easy for owners to measure. Amp performance is comparatively simple, but few of us have the ability to measure it.

GrowlerBox - I have appreciated your posts here, most among the RH450 owners or defenders; always thoughtful.

Maybe computer performance is more complex, but then TCE didn't stick to the simple wattage test which BGM did. It is TCE which made this issue "complex" with all of this "perceived loudness just as 450w". So AMD analogy is valid, I think.

 

[PhiDeck]

Enough with "sinus wave". It's "sine wave"!

 

[Hawaii Islander]

Sine = sinus = sinusoidal wave. They are all the same thing.

 

[aledeville]

Enough with "sinus wave". It's "sine wave"!

Oh dear, you have problems.
English is not my native tongue