• 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 just got bought....

#143
mjmeche said:
Hate to break this to you, but that has been going on since electronics became commonplace and not just music electronics, anything that can be, will be reversed engineered, that is common.
Click to expand...

There's a damn sight of difference between taking a bassman circuit, making a bunch of tweaks, using different tubes, different aesthetics, and using it as a launching pad for a whole other iconic amp, vs basically just making a photocopy of another brand's product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Passinwind and JimmyM
#145
I'm a new TC RH450 owner and have seen many people bash them. Here is my opinion when comparing to my Ampeg 3-Pro Amp that is rated 450w itself. I get as much or more volume with my 450 that I do with the Ampeg 3-Pro. I have gigged it at a couple different gigs so far using the 450 and it amazes me at the quality of tone and headroom I have with it. It is all I could ask for in a amp and I'm well pleased with the overall quality and features that it provides. I'm not bashing my Ampeg 3-pro when saying this because it still is slightly better for me for overall tone but honestly considering light weight and ease of transport the 450 easily wins. They are worth every penny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seamonkey
#147
Which amp? Most of their stuff is just copied wholesale from popular models of the past. Isn't there a bugera 1961? Gee, I wonder what that's supposed to be. It wasn't "hey, let's take a Plexi and make it better", it was more "hey let's copy a plexi but have it made with questionable labor practices in the far east and undercut the original model". That's a lot different from what someone like a Jim Marshall or Randall Smith did. Yes, they started with existing models, but they both used that as a jumping off point to create new iconic amps/companies, which have in turn been copied by others over the years (some more respectable than others, a lot of the Carvin guitar stuff from the 80s/90s were Mesa killers, without being exact clones, more like using the same engineering brief, which of course is easier if you can peek at the other guy's work after he's done and made all his mistakes).
 
#148
Have no idea what a 1961 is but I guess my point was/is that I don't buy an amp because it looks like a particular product. I buy it because I feel that it will do what I need it to do... I hear you though.
 
#150
mjmeche said:
Hate to break this to you, but that has been going on since electronics became commonplace and not just music electronics, anything that can be, will be reversed engineered, that is common.
Click to expand...

+1

Interesting interview with Hartley Peavey:
Invalid Link Removed

...

Jim Marshall told Ken Bran to re-bias the amplifier they had (which was a direct copy of the 1959 Fender Bassman), to accept EL34s, which he did. However, what he didn't do was change the gain structure, because when Leo designed that amplifier, he designed enough voltage gain in it to swing 52 volts. And they had to have that to turn the tube on to get maximum power out of it. Well, if you put an EL34 in the same place you put a 6L6, the EL34 only required about 32 volts to drive it fully on, whereas the 6L6 required the 52 volts to turn it fully on.

So, automatically, completely unknowingly, Jim Marshall invented the so-called "Marshall Sound" by using a different tube. The amplifier was set up for 6L6s but he put a higher gain tube in there, the EL34, and then the "Marshall Sound" was born. That's how that happened."

It is just that the internet wasn't around in the '60's to bash Marshall. I can bet there was some good after bar gig drinking arguments around it!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back