TC Electronics RH450 Quasi-Wattage Ratings Discussion Thread

[drpepper]

I don't really follow...have you never heard the rationale that more wattage into the same speaker cabinet (for example) won't make you louder but will give you more headroom? It's why they make amps that are rated up to thousands of watts.

Maybe you can follow it this way...

A claim was made that there are people who have a higher level understanding of wattage that allows them to compare and evaluate amps on the basis of wattage completely independent of loudness. Curious, I asked for some examples of aspects of comparison that dealt with wattage as an independent measure.

"Headroom" was given as an example.

My point was this - Headroom, as in the example given, is still largely defined by loudness. You play to and at an appropriate loudness...you do not play at an appropriate wattage. Of course loudness correlates in some way to various objective measures of sound level strength, but those are all incidental in this comparison.

If I were to present you with the wattage of two amps, one bench tested at 200 watts and the other bench tested at 300 watts, can you tell me which one will provide you with more headroom?

I don't believe you can answer without addressing relative loudness of the amps.

If the claim is that headroom is in evaluated in absolute watts, it's an impossible comparison. If the claim is that headroom is evaluated as relative to the overall power of the amp and as a proportion, then wattage is a meaningless label.

 

[Jarrett]

DrPepper, are you in-house counsel for TC Electronics?

 

[JimmyM]

If the claim is that headroom is in evaluated in absolute watts, it's an impossible comparison. If the claim is that headroom is evaluated as relative to the overall power of the amp and as a proportion, then wattage is a meaningless label.

And yet, those same "meaningless" watts are what people use to describe the TC amp's performance, including TC themselves.

 

[drpepper]

Again, I don't really know any amp manufacturer who lies to the detriment of their wattage rating. Since wattage is a selling point to the general public, it does a company no good to under-report their benched wattage ratings.

The point I was making is that I've never heard anyone complain about getting something extra for free...but people will complain if they're trying to buy a full bag of chips and it only has half as much when they open the bag.

I understand your point. I don't agree with the details of the substance. One of the points I've been making is that the lie and the value are completely separable on a rational level.

I'd argue that if a 600 watt amp were labeled and priced as a 450 watt amp because its performance was comparable to typical 450 watt amp, a buyer discovering the misrepresentation wouldn't have any reason to feel that they got something extra for free. Watts aren't, in and of themselves "something for free," the performance is the something that's being paid for. And the misrepresentation of the specs is still a lie; it's just a lie with different purpose. To have a different reaction to that lie would be from emotion, not reason.

With the chips, a better analogy would be that you find a bag of chips that claims to have 40 chips in it. You compare and find that this satisfies you more than other 40 chip bags. So, you buy this every day for lunch and happily eat it for years. You're never able to count the chips because they're broken into smaller pieces by the time you open the bag and eat them. One day, you get a bag that's freshly delivered and completely unbroken and find that there are only 20 chips. Because of how they're made, the chips are more than twice the size of other chips and equal more by volume than typical 40 chip bags, but they lied in labeling the bag as 40 chips.

 

[Aram]

My point was this - Headroom, as in the example given, is still largely defined by loudness.

I think this is where we diverge in our definitions...one is not any louder with more headroom, it's that a given amp will perform cleaner without breaking up. 200w and 300w may be too close to tell. 200w and 500w, yes, I can tell when I have sufficient headroom with a given cab.

Maybe someone with more technical expertise can better explain this phenomenon, but I do no equate headroom with more volume / loudness. If anything it's about cleaner tone.

 

[drpepper]

DrPepper, are you in-house counsel for TC Electronics?

Absolutely not. I can see them suffering for the misrepresentation and it would (will) arguable be deserved.

 

[drpepper]

I think this is where we diverge in our definitions...one is not any louder with more headroom, it's that a given amp will perform cleaner without breaking up. 200w and 300w may be too close to tell. 200w and 500w, yes, I can tell when I have sufficient headroom with a given cab.

Maybe someone with more technical expertise can better explain this phenomenon, but I do no equate headroom with more volume / loudness. If anything it's about cleaner tone.

Yeah, I don't think you're getting me. Conceptually, you can't compare the potential for headroom by wattage alone. Headroom doesn't exist in a vacuum.

If a 200 watt amp is louder than a 500 watt amp, then it would not provide more "headroom," in real-world use of the term.

 

[bongomania]

Headroom is NOT directly related to loudness, and any attempt to "make them related" in an argument is wrong.

Please look up the definition of headroom before using it even one more time.

 

[drpepper]

Headroom is NOT directly related to loudness, and any attempt to "make them related" in an argument is wrong.

Please look up the definition of headroom before using it even one more time.

You're wrong

 

[bongomania]

Neener-neener waaahhh.... look it up.

Headroom is the range of signal peaks that can pass through a device without clipping (and that includes compression).

A person who wants high headroom wants less clipping--regardless of whether they are playing a small venue or a large one.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Although wikipedia can be sketchy for some things, this is pretty accurate, for reference:

Headroom (audio signal processing) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jnewmark]

Here's another :

Headroom
1) The level difference (in dB) between normal operating level and clipping level in an amplifier or audio device.
2) A similar level difference between normal tape operating level and the level where the distortion would be 3%.
3) The difference, in decibels, between the peak and RMS levels in program material

 

[BurningSkies]

I understand your point. I don't agree with the details of the substance. One of the points I've been making is that the lie and the value are completely separable on a rational level.

I'd argue that if a 600 watt amp were labeled and priced as a 450 watt amp because its performance was comparable to typical 450 watt amp, a buyer discovering the misrepresentation wouldn't have any reason to feel that they got something extra for free. Watts aren't, in and of themselves "something for free," the performance is the something that's being paid for. And the misrepresentation of the specs is still a lie; it's just a lie with different purpose. To have a different reaction to that lie would be from emotion, not reason.

With the chips, a better analogy would be that you find a bag of chips that claims to have 40 chips in it. You compare and find that this satisfies you more than other 40 chip bags. So, you buy this every day for lunch and happily eat it for years. You're never able to count the chips because they're broken into smaller pieces by the time you open the bag and eat them. One day, you get a bag that's freshly delivered and completely unbroken and find that there are only 20 chips. Because of how they're made, the chips are more than twice the size of other chips and equal more by volume than typical 40 chip bags, but they lied in labeling the bag as 40 chips.

Which is why chip bags, boxes of cereal, etc. are always marked by weight...because 8oz of chips is 8oz of chips, no matter how delicious or filling they are. People who offer extraordinary products often sell less by weight for the same amount of money due to the perceived value of the product (more filling, better taste)...

Or, if we're talking about TC chips, they've marked their box with 450 oz., and assumed that since they have the value added of taste (tone) and filling-ness (volume), they've assumed that people won't mind that they've only put in 236 oz. of chips.

 

[peledog]

What's a good price for a 236W amp?

Even though I got a great deal on the RH450, methinks that the 'great deal' is actually par for the course - given the 'new' power rating.

The RH450 is expensive, and now seems like a borderline ripoff.

I'm happy with the sound (except for the lack of crisp highs - which seem to be dull) - but I do feel cheated. Not in terms of the sound - I like it. I'd appreciate honesty, especially when taking into account the power rating as reason to spend the extra cash to get it.

I think I should get a $200 rebate. And while we're at it, another $100 rebate for the RS212. This stinks. Not sitting well with me.

Hey, buy this car - it's 45mpg! Okay, yay!

After third party testing, it turns out to be 23mpg. But man, it sure 'feels' like 45mpg!! (except when I dip into my wallet)

TC Electronic - what are you going to do about it?

 

[KJung]

What's a good price for a 236W amp?

Even though I got a great deal on the RH450, methinks that the 'great deal' is actually par for the course - given the 'new' power rating.

The RH450 is expensive, and now seems like a borderline ripoff.

I'm happy with the sound (except for the lack of crisp highs - which seem to be dull) - but I do feel cheated. Not in terms of the sound - I like it. I'd appreciate honesty, especially when taking into account the power rating as reason to spend the extra cash to get it.

I think I should get a $200 rebate. And while we're at it, another $100 rebate for the RS212. This stinks. Not sitting well with me.

Hey, buy this car - it's 45mpg! Okay, yay!

After third party testing, it turns out to be 23mpg. But man, it sure 'feels' like 45mpg!! (except when I dip into my wallet)

TC Electronic - what are you going to do about it?

Why would you care if the nominal impedance of a cab is a bit higher?

And, your example of the mpg doesn't work at all, since, to virtually everyone's ears, the TC car 'actually gets 45mpg.

Again, if you have a pure ethical issue regarding this, then I guess I understand, and you would also pretty much have to sell any bass cab you own.

The better example would be 'they said the car would get 45mpg due to the new 'super' fragistat coupler. Now I find out the car only has a 'regular' fragistat coupler. Damn... I'm pissed, even though the car gets 45 miles per gallon

Again, I get the consternation in general with a 'pure accuracy' argument, but don't think, again, that the TC 'underperforms' in any way given its published ratings and tonal description/promise.

 

[rpsands]

Because higher impedance = less wattage = less SPL.

Also, if you hook up two of those 12 (8) ohm cabs to a tube amp's 4 ohm tap you might get an exciting surprise

* note, this thing only gets 45mpg when you never drive faster than 23.6mph. you can just keep going 23.6mph forever, but you can't go 45 if you ned to.

 

[Fishheadjoe]

What's a good price for a 236W amp?

Even though I got a great deal on the RH450, methinks that the 'great deal' is actually par for the course - given the 'new' power rating.

The RH450 is expensive, and now seems like a borderline ripoff.

I'm happy with the sound (except for the lack of crisp highs - which seem to be dull) - but I do feel cheated. Not in terms of the sound - I like it. I'd appreciate honesty, especially when taking into account the power rating as reason to spend the extra cash to get it.

I think I should get a $200 rebate. And while we're at it, another $100 rebate for the RS212. This stinks. Not sitting well with me.

Hey, buy this car - it's 45mpg! Okay, yay!

After third party testing, it turns out to be 23mpg. But man, it sure 'feels' like 45mpg!! (except when I dip into my wallet)

TC Electronic - what are you going to do about it?

Take a guess how I feel, given that I was one of the first in on this amp and paid well over $1000.00 for it!!!!!
I'd like to see TC do a complete re-do of their marketing material. I'd like to see them do something for those of us sitting in this boat of lies. They could very easily connect with their retailers and make an effort to make this right, through coupons or what have you... but to date we have seen nothing from them other than a poorly worded "explaination".
Heck, I'd even consider them giving me a "TC credit" toward an upgrade to the 750 as a way of showing me, their customer, good will. I still won't have the 450 watts they promised me in their literature, but I would at least be a little closer.
Fishheadjoe

 

[Jarrett]

Heck, I'd even consider them giving me a "TC credit" toward an upgrade to the 750 as a way of showing me, their customer, good will. I still won't have the 450 watts they promised me in their literature, but I would at least be a little closer.Fishheadjoe

At this point, I doubt the RH750 is 450 watts either... Wondering just how many watts I got for my $999.

 

[coreyfyfe]

The better example would be 'they said the car would get 45mpg due to the new 'super' fragistat coupler. Now I find out the car only has a 'regular' fragistat coupler. Damn... I'm pissed, even though the car gets 45 miles per gallon

I think the better car-based analogy would be that it gets 45mpg but only in the "ECO" mode where your transmission shifts gears like an old lady and you get no responsiveness from the car (I love my car but that's annoying ).

Either way, the best comment I saw on the issue was probably like 4 pages back - you wouldn't call an SVT a 700 watt head. It will sound like a 700 watt head when it's clipping like crazy and compressed, but clean sound, with headroom, it's rated for 300. TC should have rated the head for it's equivalent clean, uncompressed output.

That said, if someone bought the head, isn't having volume problems, and likes the tone, then I'd say they sound like a happy buyer to me and have little reason to be upset. Does it feel like you were lied to? Maybe it does. But does the head deliver on the "promised" perceived volume? Then I think the uproar is a little over the top.

Caveats:
I haven't played the head. I have zero interest in the head. But after reading through the entire thread, I'm still not seeing something worth getting my feathers ruffled over. Then again, I didn't invest the dough...

 

[KJung]

I think the better car-based analogy would be that it gets 45mpg but only in the "ECO" mode where your transmission shifts gears like an old lady and you get no responsiveness from the car (I love my car but that's annoying ).

Either way, the best comment I saw on the issue was probably like 4 pages back - you wouldn't call an SVT a 700 watt head. It will sound like a 700 watt head when it's clipping like crazy and compressed, but clean sound, with headroom, it's rated for 300. TC should have rated the head for it's equivalent clean, uncompressed output.

That said, if someone bought the head, isn't having volume problems, and likes the tone, then I'd say they sound like a happy buyer to me and have little reason to be upset. Does it feel like you were lied to? Maybe it does. But does the head deliver on the "promised" perceived volume? Then I think the uproar is a little over the top.

Caveats:
I haven't played the head. I have zero interest in the head. But after reading through the entire thread, I'm still not seeing something worth getting my feathers ruffled over. Then again, I didn't invest the dough...

Good post. I've owned the head. It sounds like a 600 watt head, and there were literally NO posts from the hundreds of users/triers that the amp sounded underpowered in ANY way prior to the review.

So, the 'little over the top' is IMO accurate. However, I again understand the few who seem upset over a pure 'accuracy issue'.