So... The RH450 is actually a 236w head???

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1354555' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:47 PM']WTF would we do for a job then? lol[/quote]
Stretch the truth a little bit.

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='1354558' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:49 PM']Stretch the truth a little bit. [/quote]

Anyone can do that - it takes a marketer to really tell a whopper with a straight face

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1354547' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:41 PM'][b]TC hasn't sold anything that doesn't perform exactly as they said[/b], so accusations of fraud are a ridiculous over reaction.[/quote]

OK at this point its going to be hard to argue a case.

Its only a matter of time before the sh*t hits the fan regarding the other makes I guess, unless we do as we are told by MM20 and listen for ourselves rather than the stories on the web, maybe it will turn out that the others are reaching something like they say? but even if its right GB's figures are inflated I wont be defending Genz-Benz in a passionate manner like so many TC fans trust me I will still use their gear as its good but I cant see a reason for me to defend such a clear piece of false info, I havent designed or marketed it just like most of the people getting in a tiz about TC.

[bigjohn]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1354547' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:41 PM']It's because we know that this is a storm in a tea cup instigated as part of an opportunistic marketing exercise by a competitor to TC.

I have no preference for either of my amps, I use both regularly. They are interchangeable to me in terms of output and as far as my bands are concerned the Staccato is louder, fuller and bassier and they would rather I sold the Thunderfunk!

I would have preferred that TC had adopted a different marketing strategy, but I find the whole "issue" amusing. Who here has ever bought an amp based only on its watts rating? You have? Silly boy![/quote]


I still don't get it. I couldn't care less if some players find the amp is fit for purpose. I'm sure it is from their point of view. However, it's not going to be from others.

What if, for instance, I decided to use a RH450 as a light 450W power amp, using another pre? Would it still be fit for purpose then?

To poo poo the idea that the power output rating of an amp is relevant when purchasing is going a bit far as well...

[crez5150]

There are plenty of companies that have done this sort of thing in the past..... When I was working for a well known Speaker manufacturer we tested the QSC K8 and K10 that is supposed to have an output amp of 1kw...... it hasn't it's more like 5-600 watts...... their marketing states all those speakers are 1000w

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='1354574' date='Aug 28 2011, 05:54 PM']To poo poo the idea that the power output rating of an amp is relevant when purchasing is going a bit far as well...[/quote]

I think the point was that the best test of the power output of an amp is your ears rather the number printed on the front.

[bigjohn]

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1354588' date='Aug 28 2011, 06:01 PM']I think the point was that the best test of the power output of an amp is your ears rather the number printed on the front.[/quote]

Hmm, but that's silly.

To get back to cars, it's like saying the best test of BHP is how fast the car goes.

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='1354599' date='Aug 28 2011, 06:12 PM']Hmm, but that's silly.

To get back to cars, it's like saying the best test of BHP is how fast the car goes.[/quote]

Not really, since we are not saying the best test of an amp's wattage is how loud it goes. We are saying the best test of an amp's power is how loud it goes.

More appropriately then, your comparable analogy would be 'it's like saying the best test of a car's power is how fast it goes'. Ironically that is as good a real-world test of a car's power as bhp, which is an awful way to test a car's power. Unless it's at the wheel rather than the flywheel. Etc

My point is again academic figures versus real world usage.

For the end user, 'I want a powerful car' really means 'I want a fast car'. Therefore a car with 180bhp but 0-60 of 6 seconds is preferable to a car with 240bhp and 0-60 of 7.5 seconds. But on paper you would say the 240bhp one is more powerful.

[bigjohn]

[quote name='Paul Clifton' post='1354612' date='Aug 28 2011, 06:22 PM']Not really, since we are not saying the best test of an amp's wattage is how loud it goes. We are saying the best test of an amp's power is how loud it goes.

More appropriately then, your comparable analogy would be 'it's like saying the best test of a car's power is how fast it goes'. Ironically that is as good a real-world test of a car's power as bhp, which is an awful way to test a car's power. Unless it's at the wheel rather than the flywheel. Etc

My point is again academic figures versus real world usage.

For the end user, 'I want a powerful car' really means 'I want a fast car'. Therefore a car with 180bhp but 0-60 of 6 seconds is preferable to a car with 240bhp and 0-60 of 7.5 seconds. But on paper you would say the 240bhp one is more powerful.[/quote]


Again, I understand your point. But you're not getting mine

If I want a powerful car. It might be because I want it to go fast [b]and [/b]be able to pull a trailer.

Similarly, I might want an RH450 so could use it as a lightweight 450W power amplifier, with an external pre. In which case, the RH either isn't going to sound as loud as it should, or is going to colour the signal from the pre in order to "sound louder" (depending where in the internal chain TC have put their "pixie dust").

[aldude]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='1354621' date='Aug 28 2011, 06:31 PM']...
Similarly, I might want an RH450 so could use it as a lightweight 450W power amplifier, with an external pre. In which case, the RH either isn't going to sound as loud as it should, or is going to colour the signal from the pre in order to "sound louder" (depending where in the internal chain TC have put their "pixie dust").[/quote]

You have a point here. This is a scenario where you might get stung by TC's exotic interpretation of power output.

But, Paul Clifton summarised my own view in post #112, which I will reproduce here, because I couldn't put it better myself:

"The public expect volume to be expressed in terms of watts, so how do you market an amp that is just as 'loud' as other amps, but a lower wattage rating? TC went the easy, sly route by picking a number that correlated to other amps with the same perceived volume output. Marketed as a TC 250 it may have been more honest, but people would have presumed it not powerful enough for their needs."

So, the TC is probably fine for some situations, and not fine for others. However, I don't think this is different for a lot of other amps; some suit you, others don't. This is why there is more than one head on the market (and more than one from a particular manufacturer!). Try the RH450, and if it isn't loud enough or their technology produces a sound you don't like, try the RH750 or something else. To address the overriding issue though, looking at some selling sites the RH450 is clearly marked as having a 450W output which is misleading. Though as stated many times before: rock, hard place and all that.

Also, somewhat OT: another post that makes a dig at others' personal values probably goes a bit far for this particular discussion (or even this entire forum)

EDIT: I am used to loud amps and I used to own the Trace Elliot AH1000-12 that is for sale by Steff at the mo. That thing is truly earth-shattering. I will run the RH450 through its paces tomorrow night in a loud band and post some thoughts about perceived loudness, compression effects and the amount of headroom at the very bottom (which I'm most interested in).

Edited August 28, 2011 by aldude

[wateroftyne]

[quote]Marketed as a TC 250 it may have been more honest, but people would have presumed it not powerful enough for their needs."[/quote]
I see the dilemma, but leaving '450' out of the name would have been a good move. TC's marketing is excellent - I'm sure they could have been more honest about the rating whilst also making it a non-issue.

At least then people like me - who wondered why it seemed to struggle a bit at reasonable volumes - would have been able to understand why.

[Paul Clifton]

[quote name='bigjohn' post='1354621' date='Aug 28 2011, 06:31 PM']Again, I understand your point. But you're not getting mine

If I want a powerful car. It might be because I want it to go fast [b]and [/b]be able to pull a trailer.

Similarly, I might want an RH450 so could use it as a lightweight 450W power amplifier, with an external pre. In which case, the RH either isn't going to sound as loud as it should, or is going to colour the signal from the pre in order to "sound louder" (depending where in the internal chain TC have put their "pixie dust").[/quote]

I hear ya. By the way, you are gonna need high torque, not bhp, to pull that trailer But yes I can see your point in terms of signal colouration.

[thodrik]

I can understand why TC decided to be creative with the wattage. If they had tried to market the product as even putting out 300 watts originally, people would complain that it wouldn't be loud enough. Tech 21 were criticised for building an under-powered amp when they were releasing the VT Bass 1969, as it only gave out '300 analog watts'. Part of the problem is that some people have the mindset that unless it is an all tube amp, anything less than 500 watts is just not 'loud' enough, hence the RH 750!

Personally, I just think TC would have came across a lot better, and more innovative, if they had just been a bit more honest about the specs and marketed along the lines of 'our watts are louder than their watts'. It would still be advertising puff, but easier to take seriously than marketing a 236 watt amp as a 450 watt amp. I don't think that this will really damage TC as the quality of their products are high, but it should act as a wake up call to how they market thier products. While it would be nice to see other companies do this too, I doubt it will happen.

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='thodrik' post='1354641' date='Aug 28 2011, 06:56 PM']I can understand why TC decided to be creative with the wattage. If they had tried to market the product as even putting out 300 watts originally, people would complain that it wouldn't be loud enough. Tech 21 were criticised for building an under-powered amp when they were releasing the VT Bass 1969, as it only gave out '300 analog watts'. Part of the problem is that some people have the mindset that unless it is an all tube amp, anything less than 500 watts is just not 'loud' enough, hence the RH 750!

Personally, I just think TC would have came across a lot better, and more innovative, if they had just been a bit more honest about the specs and marketed along the lines of 'our watts are louder than their watts'. It would still be advertising puff, but easier to take seriously than marketing a 236 watt amp as a 450 watt amp. I don't think that this will really damage TC as the quality of their products are high, but it should act as a wake up call to how they market thier products. While it would be nice to see other companies do this too, I doubt it will happen.[/quote]
I may have misunderstood but isn't part of the issue down to the fact that TC amps would appear to work best when coupled with TC cabs! The whole issue of the mapping (if that is the term used) for TC getting such a decent level out of the RH450 (is it across the range), is due to the fact that the cabs match/marry and work best together. It could account for the fact that when I tried an RH450 I thought it sounded fine at home levels but didn't cut it at rehearsal/gig level; I was using it with a pair of DB112 cabs. I'm not taking the opportunity to do a bit of TC bashing, I tried the amp and found it lacking when used in conjunction with the rest of my gear... hence I didn't dump my Thunderfunk and take up the opportunity of a used TC at a decent price.

I would say that there are plenty people more than happy with their TC amps and if it suits them and their style/situation/other equipment then that is all that matters to them. However, manufacturers can not be allowed to make 'statements' or quote figures for their equipment and not expect to be hauled over the (Internet/www) coals for not being transparent about specs; no matter which manufacturer!

[thodrik]

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='1354800' date='Aug 28 2011, 10:27 PM']I may have misunderstood but isn't part of the issue down to the fact that TC amps would appear to work best when coupled with TC cabs! The whole issue of the mapping (if that is the term used) for TC getting such a decent level out of the RH450 (is it across the range), is due to the fact that the cabs match/marry and work best together. It could account for the fact that when I tried an RH450 I thought it sounded fine at home levels but didn't cut it at rehearsal/gig level; I was using it with a pair of DB112 cabs. I'm not taking the opportunity to do a bit of TC bashing, I tried the amp and found it lacking when used in conjunction with the rest of my gear... hence I didn't dump my Thunderfunk and take up the opportunity of a used TC at a decent price.

I would say that there are plenty people more than happy with their TC amps and if it suits them and their style/situation/other equipment then that is all that matters to them. However, manufacturers can not be allowed to make 'statements' or quote figures for their equipment and not expect to be hauled over the (Internet/www) coals for not being transparent about specs; no matter which manufacturer![/quote]

Agreed on your second paragraph.

As for the first, I read some of Bill Fitzmaurice's posts on the TC cabs in terms of ohms etc, but to be honest it was beyond my very limited understanding of musical instrument amplification! No matter how good or innovative a product though, TC should not be let off the hook for the misinformation in terms of watts, though I think that some of the criticism has been a bit over the top.

[JTUK]

I wonder if the RH750 was a reaction to a lightweight sound accusation..or was always in the product plan at some point.

FWIW.. I though the RH750 very good at a reasonable demo volume.... but something like a Thunderfunk really does keep its sound together when pushed. Not sure that is something that many amps can do...or I would say it is not the norm..IME.

[charic]

IMHO I think its all a missed opportunity. Should have advertised at 250 but let the hype carry it. Then the reputation would have been on a major high after initial doubt.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='charic' post='1355097' date='Aug 29 2011, 11:29 AM']IMHO I think its all a missed opportunity. Should have advertised at 250 but let the hype carry it. Then the reputation would have been on a major high after initial doubt.[/quote]

I'm sure a lot of people would write off 250w right away, see amount of thread (usually TB) that say '300w minimum' instead of the more accurate 'watts don't matter nearly as much as you think'.

[lojo]

Is there a way to really measure output at varying volume settings, if so , then one of the magazines should surely set up a test when reviewing and give some sort of rating or benchmark, which at least would allow you to compare across the board with a level benchmark

As I said before whatever amp I use I always seem to end up with the dial in the same place anyhow

[Dood]

[quote name='lojo' post='1355304' date='Aug 29 2011, 03:05 PM']Is there a way to really measure output at varying volume settings, if so , then one of the magazines should surely set up a test when reviewing and give some sort of rating or benchmark, which at least would allow you to compare across the board with a level benchmark

As I said before whatever amp I use I always seem to end up with the dial in the same place anyhow[/quote]


I think that was the original idea behind Bass Gear Magazine's reviews. They 'go to town' on kit, lifting the lid to look for quality workmanship and at the same time to test manufacturer's technical figures and specifications to see if they agree. I've not read the TB thread but my personal thoughts is that I take a very dim view of any company that tries to pull the wool over the consumer's eyes. Conversely I am pleased when I see an amp exceeding it's rated specs, such as a certain reasonably priced amplifier that in tests chucked out 1100W RMS :0)

[deepbass5]

I think there should be a set criteria all manufacturers should disclose, not just the ones they like and use words to gloss over the ones they don't wish to publish.

[b]Slew Rate[/b] would be high on my list and it means more to us that any other musician. But you never see it. Think Carvin did some years back.

[gafbass02]

Dunno if you guys have seen this yet

Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHTCE
Hey guys,

Thank you for your patience – you’ll need just a tad more of that to get through this very long post, so grab a coffee and a seat.

First off, I realize that this answer should have come a few weeks back, so I apologize for not being faster to respond.
There are a lot of questions, opinions and comments on these many pages but rather than trying to answer them all, I will try to give you some more background of how we designed the RH450 and also why we believe that 450 watts is indeed the most relevant rating of the amps’ performance.

I think I’ve already established our initial target of designing an amp with great performance and sound for bass playing, while not being too focused on the bench measures. Here is a bit more background on our considerations.

We’ve already talked about our Active Power Management technology and its ability to deliver bass relevant amplification and sound as well as higher energy levels than most other 450 watt amplifiers on the market.
We also talked about how this is achieved through tight power control and, among other effects, lower peaks than a comparable 450 watt transistor amp.
The BGM review confirms both of these findings; lower peaks, but more energy and density than the 500 watt benchmark amp used in the review.

Our original findings in subjective tests and measurements concur with Toms findings as shown below in a comparison between a 500watt transistor amp (left graphs) and RH450 (right graphs) clearly indicating exactly these effects.

Our internal analogy and inspiration for this has always been the performance of classic all-tube amps.
attachment 1


Now, of course, the question here is why our amp only measures 236 watts in BGMs tests and yet we call it a 450 watts amps.
Well, the other half of this design is that actual class D amp and powersupply module inside the amp.
The raw power module inside the RH450 actually is capable of delivering 450watts RMS into a 4 ohm load, at bursts of 20ms with the APM disconnected.

attachment 2Attachment 225541

Attachment 225542

[This Audio Precision (”AP”) measurement shows a 1kHz sinus burst (20 ms) that have a peak value of 60V, corresponding to 42.42Vrms  450W RMS in 4 Ohm]
I don’t want to go into a long explanation of measurement setups, but I will underline that the 20ms are closely related to the natural decay of a bass peak signal and the crest factor of bass as discussed in the APM document.
The measurement is of course reproducible, should someone want to take a stab at this.

So, to sum up, we basically had the following dilemma when designing the RH450:
On one hand we had a power module that would be able to supply 450 watts and measure correctly, but with all the downsides of potential hardclipping (as explained in the APM doc), lower average power and density and on the more subjective side; a less bass pleasing and musical sound and response.

On the other hand we had our APM technology achieving great sound and bass performance (at least that’s what our subjective tests said), higher average energy than most comparable (and even a few higher rated amps) with a resulting higher perceived loudness, or ‘power’ if you will, than that of the clean 450 watt transistor performance. Yet, the clear downside, was that APM in a strict bench test would come out with the very odd 236watts result.

So, we debated quite extensively what would be the most relevant rating for the amp; the bench test measure, or the real world performance measure (that corresponds to the actual power module inside).

We chose the measure that we felt made more sense to the bass player and not to the engineer and went with the performance measure that also corresponds to the actual power of the module underneath the APM technology.
Of course, in hindsight, I fully realize that we should have made a bigger fuzz about explaining this to our end-users and regret that we didn’t take on the task to explain this rather complicated matter at an earlier point in time.
I sincerely apologize to those of you have felt that we have let you down in not doing so.

A couple of other clarifications:
Quasi peak watt:
I saw that some of you noticed my comment on facebook using the ‘quasi peak watt’ phrase. Quasi peak is a term that we’ve used internally to relate to the perceived loudness or power. It stems from the Electro Magnetic Compliance world and aims at describing how a noise signal from one apparatus influences another based on how often and how big noise peaks occur.
This somewhat correlates with how our ears respond to the loudness, average levels and peaks.
Still, this simply made the whole thing even more confusing, bad call on my side, sorry.

So what now?
Well, we have definitely learned that we need to explain this whole power scheme in greater detail to ensure that no one feels that we didn’t give them the full story on this unique technology.
Therefore, we will be adding a few articles in the style of the APM doc. To our website underlining how this all relates. You will probably see these come up within a weeks time or so.

What about RH750 and Blacksmith then?
Well, since we are at it let’s not wait for BGM to make another round of measurements, here are the facts:

RH450: Raw power module: 450 watts rms, with APM: 236 watts rms, Spec rating: 450 watts
RH750: Raw power module: 741 watts rms, with APM: 236 watts rms, Spec rating: 750 watts
Blacksmith: Raw power module: 1512 watts rms, with APM: 924 watts rms, Spec rating: 1600 watts

Finally, on a personal note, I have to say that the 450 watts rating of the RH450 IMHO does give you a much better feel for what this amp delivers during playing than the 236watts rms rating.
Of course, this poses a huge question on what measurement(s) really are the most relevant to perform in order to give a bass player a solid indication of how his amp is going to play.

As a bassplayer I wondered for years about the seemingly accepted terms of Tube watts being louder than transistor watts while the term ‘watts are watts’ also seemed to be a set rule. Even more so when I started playing various different bass amp brands and realized that the power rating even between two transistor amps where, by no means, the parameter to compare what I was actually going to get out of an amp in terms of performance when playing my bass.

I hope this sheens some more light on the APM and RH450 case and again, I would like to apologize for both my lack of response and ability to explain this to you at an earlier point.

I will keep a closer eye on this thread but please forgive me if I don’t respond to everything right away, my coming couple of weeks
Uffe

[aldude]

So I gave the RH450 a good workout yesterday. My band is a 5-piece - 1 enthusiastic drummer, 2 enthusiastic guitarists, a singer and me (on bass!). We practice in a church so there's plenty of space to fill up with sound. I ran the amp into a Barefaced Super 12T.

Firstly, the important question, is the RH450 loud enough over all that? Easy answer, yes definitely. Also, we were LOUD and there was no problem at all hearing the bass, it was probably too loud really but I like to push it a bit

However, I could push the amp to a point where it is extremely loud, but not a lot further than that before it sounded like it was struggling - can't explain it really, because I didn't have much time to experiment as the looks from the other band members made me turn it down. The volume control was on about 1/3, I'd say there's a general increase in volume until about 2/3 and above that you notice the struggling. Could be compression or something else. It's hard to imagine a situation though where the amp will ever need to be this loud though, as above a certain venue size and volume PA support tends to be the norm. The overriding feeling for this amp is that it probably doesn't put out 450W (I know this is confirmed but I am trying to describe the feeling for the amp), but then it probably isn't that far off.

The amp itself is heavy on what seems to be the low mids, so everything cuts through nicely, the bottom B string had no problem being heard and you can definitely feel it in your internals down there, which was nice.

I had the EQ set at bass flat, low mids about +3, high mids about +6 and treble about +8. Frequencies on default, I didn't have enough time to experiment with those. I say treble, but there isn't much sparkly top end which is a shame for me as I like that. For this reason I would consider swapping the RH450 for the 750, but only for the tweetertone control, certainly NOT because the amp doesn't put out enough volume - it does.

In conclusion - it turns out TC's 236 watts are plenty for me!

EDIT: thanks gafbass for the above, not sure it adds much to the discussion so is probably a PR exercise more than anything else. What stood out for me though was the comment that 450 represents the "feel" of the amp rather than the actual power output, that is probably a good way to describe this amp, though for many people that is fair enough - who cares what the raw figures are if it sounds good and is loud enough. Interesting though that the RH750 also shows 236W with APM...

Edited August 30, 2011 by aldude

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='gafbass02' post='1355932' date='Aug 30 2011, 08:32 AM']So, to sum up, we basically had the following dilemma when designing the RH450:
On one hand we had a power module that would be able to supply 450 watts and measure correctly, but with all the downsides of potential hardclipping (as explained in the APM doc), lower average power and density and on the more subjective side; a less bass pleasing and musical sound and response.[/quote]
Surely that is the same for ANY amp manufacturer! Supplying the quoted power without clipping is just a given... surely.

[quote name='gafbass02' post='1355932' date='Aug 30 2011, 08:32 AM']On the other hand we had our APM technology achieving great sound and bass performance (at least that’s what our [b]subjective tests[/b] said), higher average energy than most comparable (and even a few higher rated amps) with a resulting higher perceived loudness, or ‘power’ if you will, than that of the clean 450 watt transistor performance. Yet, the clear downside, was that APM in a strict bench test would come out with the very odd 236watts result.

So, we debated quite extensively what would be the most relevant rating for the amp; the bench test measure, or the real world performance measure (that corresponds to the actual power module inside).

We chose the measure that we felt made more sense to the bass player and not to the engineer and went with the performance measure that also corresponds to the actual power of the module underneath the APM technology.[/quote]
So despite knowing that at the output (after the APM technology) the amp delivered 236w TC made the deliberate choice to call it 450w because they felt it better suited their needs!

Off the top of my head I can think of several manufacturers (Marshall, H&K, Peavey) who have all had some kind of technology that boosted the power of an amp (DPM, Dynaclip etc) yet I don't recall a single one of those that elected to take their 'inflated' rating as the true one; they quoted RMS AND mentioned what the peak/boosted rating might be!

[quote name='gafbass02' post='1355932' date='Aug 30 2011, 08:32 AM']RH450: Raw power module: 450 watts rms, with APM: 236 watts rms, Spec rating: 450 watts
RH750: Raw power module: 741 watts rms, with APM: 236 watts rms, Spec rating: 750 watts
Blacksmith: Raw power module: 1512 watts rms, with APM: 924 watts rms, Spec rating: 1600 watts[/quote]
So the RH750 is also rated at 236w... feel sorry for those who elected to sell their RH450 to 'upgrade' to more power!

[wateroftyne]

All this reinforces everything I felt about the RH450. I thought I was losing my mind....