Its a bummer to hear about all this. I'm still digging my BH500 combo, and to me it seems incredibly loud. It has its drawbacks, but it sure sounds good.
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 Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Jarrett
- Start date
- Status
So the comparative significance of wattage, independent of loudness, is that different wattage ratings on equally loud amps can tell you which amp will provide a greater potential for unused power?
Very much where I am.
I just don't get the impression that TCE is going to straighten out. I wonder if there's a slight cultural gap/skew.
It's a great amp. Really cool technology. And it's not like they're the only maker pulling this crap.
It's time consumers demand FTC, EIA, or EIAJ ratings.
Pro FOH engineers do. Home theater does also. It's not a big enough market for government to step in.
A big thanks to BGM for publishing the honest ratings.
TC should shell out some coupons for their other products to people who bought the amp. At least a paid subscription to BGM.
It's time consumers demand FTC, EIA, or EIAJ ratings.
Pro FOH engineers do. Home theater does also. It's not a big enough market for government to step in.
A big thanks to BGM for publishing the honest ratings.
TC should shell out some coupons for their other products to people who bought the amp. At least a paid subscription to BGM.
bongomania
Commercial User
So the comparative significance of wattage, independent of loudness, is that different wattage ratings on equally loud amps can tell you which amp will provide a greater potential for unused power?
The problem is that "loudness" is totally subjective and dependent on psychological and circumstantial factors, while wattage is an objective quantity.
So if they wanted to make a lot of big claims about the amp's loudness, that would be perfectly fine. Making claims about wattage that are not true, is not OK at all.
Is wattage more important than loudness? Probably not, in many cases. But knowing the facts about the wattage is important when making other educated decisions, as part of the larger picture--and if the information we're given is false, then that screws us up.
I would say that it's important to distinguish between loudness and apparent loudness. The TC is not actually delivering the same SPL as an amp of twice the wattage without the ingenious limiter. It's delivering a squashed signal that sounds as loud but also sounds squashed.
This is not a "loud" or "not loud" situation. It's a "loud with a particular tone" or "loud without a particular tone."
The TC450 appears to be loud if you happen to enjoy your tone phenomenally squashed (and chopped off at the high end). If you want to be loud but not heavily compressed (as some players want) this head does not deliver the goods.
So it doesn't deliver "loud but uncompressed" like any other amp that's accurately rated at ~500 watts will.
This is not a "loud" or "not loud" situation. It's a "loud with a particular tone" or "loud without a particular tone."
The TC450 appears to be loud if you happen to enjoy your tone phenomenally squashed (and chopped off at the high end). If you want to be loud but not heavily compressed (as some players want) this head does not deliver the goods.
So it doesn't deliver "loud but uncompressed" like any other amp that's accurately rated at ~500 watts will.
This.
I'm not a particular fan of the RH450, but let's be fair: Power ratings on MI amps have historically always been exaggerated. Accurate numbers with all relevant contextual information (ie; XXX watts continuous at YY% distortion between 20Hz and 20KHZ) are a fairly recent development, and still pretty rare.
In fact, in the context of "brochure-speak", TC's specs on the RH450 are pretty conservative, since they're within 3dB of actual.
Besides, here's an interesting thought: Given that the 236-watt RH450 is as loud as it is, what does that say about the Behringer BX4500H, Eden WTX260, Fender Bassman TV, Markbass LM250, etc.?
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Actually, based on TC's own post, that is exactly what's going on with this head, and there is no point in pretending otherwise.
I like compression (surprise surprise) and I have no problem with an amp being designed to cleverly use compression to emulate a tube amp. In fact I like that idea. So I have zero criticism of the effect, or the idea behind the design. But all it is is a carefully-modeled compression.
Deal with it.
Now, I happen to hold a strong grudge against TC for other past offenses to my sense of right and wrong, but that's a whole 'nother thread from a couple of years ago.
Who makes a nice multi-band [rack] compressor?
I haven't read through the thousands of pre-BGM review posts, but were people saying it sounded like there was a compressor limiter always on even with the spectra comp set to off?
The same BGM article which rated the RH450 @ 236 watts put the SVT @ 200 watts. (IIRC)
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
bongomania
Commercial User
Weeellll... Not as easy to answer as you might hope. The first thing I should clarify is that there is almost certainly more to the TC "tube amp compression" model than just multi-band processing--so I would not necessarily assume that multi-band comps in general will sound/act similar to the TC model.
The rack dual-band comp that has the most popularity and history of use by bassists is the (discontinued) Rane DC-24. It's a great unit, rock solid reliable, with very clean sound. You can still find them on Ebay and in the classifieds fairly regularly.
My personal favorite dual-band units are pedals, made by FEA.
For other options, check out the list at the bottom of this article: Dual band compression
Even with all the marketing issues, I still like my RH750 (RH393), the way it sounds, the features and all that. I'm going to keep it. However I did return a Blacksmith I ordered. Didn't even plug it in, just turned around and gave it back. I really want to know what the real specs are at the price point TC is asking for the Blacksmith. I know the quasi-watts are 1600, but what is it really in RMS?
It says these amps don't have built in compression and peak limiting that you can't turn off to make their wattage sound like more than it is.
And no, power amp specs haven't always been notoriously overrated. Sure, there are a few examples of it from time to time, but you'd be surprised how many companies are honest about their heads' wattage specs.
I wonder if the bass or anything else, during the recording, mixing and mastering process, you listen to through this stereo has been run through a compressor
Every gig you go to with a half decent PA/engineer. Guess what they sound engineer is running the bass through?
That doesn't mean I want to hear it in my rig. Nor do I want the hosue to squash my signal and eliminate all the peaks. I just want them to do what they need to protect their speakers and then stop.I wonder if the bass or anything else, during the recording, mixing and mastering process, you listen to through this stereo has been run through a compressor
Every gig you go to with a half decent PA/engineer. Guess what they sound engineer is running the bass through?
True, back in my really-heavy-rack days I had a Crown DC 300 (150 watts/channel) that on the scope didn't start clipping until something over 500 watts, a little over 250 watts / channel.
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,084
- 46,057
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
Think of how badly it would've beat that other car if it actually met specs though. No amount of rationalization is going to change that. One could also argue that you just don't expect enough.
- Status
