New amp. Tc electronic?. Help guys :)

[Psharpe89]

So I'll keep this brief; I play in a wedding / function band so versatility is my main aim. Currently using a fender 1958 heritage p bass. Had a line 6 low down300 for about 12 years and loved it but it' breaking my back! Tried Orange, angular and some ampeg but was really impressed with tc electronic- in particular the rh750 head

Issue is; almost every review (predominantly positive) is years and years old. Even trying to really justify the price the difference between the tc rh750 and the bh550 is difficult as each have benefits.

Is there any valid contenders or those who have directly experienced this head? 

[Woodinblack]

Whats the question exactly? They are great amps (well, I have the 450 rather than the 750, but same thing).

I have also played the BH550. Either will do you well. The difference in a nutshell comes down to the RH750 is more.. rock I guess, does valve simulation (and a good one), has a compressor and good eq. The BH550, good EQ, lots of power, probably a lot more hifi but has the two toneprints that can be anything you want (including the specracomp of the RH, and the overdrive, though not at the same time).

However, sounds like you like the RH750 so go for that, or go to a shop with both and try them back to back.

[knicknack]

@Psharpe89 I played in house ands for two local venues here at about the same time, both had TC RS212 and RS210 cabs, one had the BH550 and one the RH750! Style was much the same, general covers/function stuff. Very similar amps to one another, and the toneprints on the 550 were more useful than I first suspected. The 750 seemed a little more vintage coloured to me, and the presets were handy for different basses. I'd say I felt the 550 to be a little tougher as a unit, I've seen a lot of 750s with damaged knobs and plastic. If you want to save a little cash, I'd honestly say I had as good a time with the cheaper of the two! 

[Psharpe89]

Appreciate the response and sorry for being vague; I actually tried the two back to back today and I did prefer the immediate usability of the rh. My in decisiveness was down to two things: the annoying slight overhang on the rh casing and attractive price of the bh. It just concerned me buying something that's been out for so long without hearing more balanced feedback or from those who have owned

Or would anyone suggest something else (similar versatility )

[CameronJ]

Agree with knicknack above, the BH heads definitely seem sturdier than the RH series. I’ve seen many a photo of an RH with broken knobs but nothing of that sort with the BH. I used to own a BH800 and it was fantastic. The EQ was particularly great - very cleverly implemented.

I’d buy one again tomorrow if I had the need for a second head! 

 

[Psharpe89]

Thanks guys. Mental to hear when the bh is the lower end head and is £300 cheaper !

[Woodinblack]

Oh yes, the knobs fall off the RH450 quite often. I got a set of spares with mine!

I am currently looking for a BH550 as a backup though.

[Westenra]

The RH750 can also save 3 presets, which also saves gain levels and the like so if you've got different basses or change tone during a set a lot that's a big help. The centre points of the EQ can also be adjusted which will lead you down a rabbit hole for sure.

To note the RH450 had quite a low high frequency cut off which gave it a vintage tone but some people didn't like it at all so they came out with the RH750 which, using the tweeter tone control, can increase the cut off to get it sounding more hi-fi

Edited January 4, 2018 by Westenra

[Lozz196]

If you`ve been really impressed with the RH750, I`d say go for that. The ears are always the ones that make the best choices.

[Psharpe89]

Thanks for everything guys. I was originally attracted to the bh based on this feed. All I need is a good EQ and connectivity (they are both the same) and build quality seemed obvious but I had no idea the rh was bad in this space. The presets are a defo advantage for different songs as frequently go through hours without a break so no fiddling around is advantageous 

Thanks again.  Now for the hard part- deciding !

[Woodinblack]

The RH isn't particularly bad for that, in that sometimes the knobs fall off in the bag. You can put them back on. It would be better if they didn't, obviously, but it is not really that much of an issue!

I have a flat setting, a 'vintage' tube distortiony setting and a dull crappy blues song setting on my presets, very handy to be able to pick one for a specific song, esp with the footswitch. Note the footswitch also tells you the pitch. The BH has an LED to say if you are at E A D G, and 2 for B and C. The RH has the full tuner for whatever your string is, on full time, doesn't sound much but you don't need another tuner (got caught out when I used another amp that I had no tuner!).

[Westenra]

Also another note;

TC faced quite a lot of backlash from the online bass community about misleading the actually wattage on their RH heads, the 450 isn't 450w and the 750 isn't 750w. You can check over on TalkBass for a more indepth discussion on that.

I believe the BH range are more accurately rated.

[RichardH]

I have never had a problem with my RH450 knobs falling off, nor with it not being loud enough into a Genz NEOX212. I have toyed with the idea of trying other heads, but the RH450 with the footswitch is so darned convenient a package.

Edited January 5, 2018 by RichardH
typo

[chris_b]

I played an RH750 for a year and liked the sound and format. The knobs didn't split on mine!

Eventually I replaced it as my go-to amp with an Aguilar TH500. I just prefer the tone of the TH500.

[CameronJ]

18 hours ago, Westenra said:

Also another note;

TC faced quite a lot of backlash from the online bass community about misleading the actually wattage on their RH heads, the 450 isn't 450w and the 750 isn't 750w. You can check over on TalkBass for a more indepth discussion on that.

I believe the BH range are more accurately rated.

True. Turns out the RH heads are actually something like 236 watts!

None such wattage tomfoolery with the BH series - you get what they say on the tin.

[Woodinblack]

25 minutes ago, chris_b said:

I played an RH750 for a year and liked the sound and format. The knobs didn't split on mine!

Mine don't split, just the volume knob falls off. Maybe I should put a dab of glue or something on it.

4 minutes ago, CameronJ said:

True. Turns out the RH heads are actually something like 236 watts!

Except if you stack them up with a 300 watt amplifier you will find that they are a lot louder into the same speakers. So I never really found it mattered.

 

[chris_b]

1 minute ago, Woodinblack said:

Except if you stack them up with a 300 watt amplifier you will find that they are a lot louder into the same speakers. So I never really found it mattered.

Exactly. That was a bunch of internet users mouthing off, when none of them had even heard the amps in question. If they had they would have realised that the amps were as loud as TC were claiming. So, completely a non issue.

[Alec]

Another happy RH450 user here.

Yes, the knobs are a flawed design and will eventually lose their grip and fall off if they get any kind of abuse (typically in a bag).  But TC will send you replacements free of charge.  Alternatively, a turn of tape around the shaft will get a better grip on the knob (fnar fnar).

The differentiators of this head for me are the decent built-in chromatic tuner (much more capable than the one in the BH), the immediacy of the Tubetone, and the decent compressor.  And the lights round the dials mean no messing about on a dark stage.

My one gripe with the RH450, where the compressor is a shift function, is remedied by the RH750.  I could never justify replacing my 450 with a 750, but that made it just about perfect in my view.  Like Richard above, mine feeds a Genz NEOX212 with more power than I'll ever use.  Makes it very handy when we kitshare too...

[mcnach]

32 minutes ago, CameronJ said:

True. Turns out the RH heads are actually something like 236 watts!

 

 

True. But when they came out people were raving at how loud they were! Remember?

I had an RH450 for a couple of years or so. I didn't love it but it wasn't because it wasn't loud. That goes to show how little an extra 100 or even 200W matter, compared to other factors, and how "wasteful" the very low low end is.

 

[40hz]

Long term BH550 user here. It's a great piece of kit in every way. It's clean, it's clear, detailed and it feels the full 550watts. Stays composed at high volume. Matches really well with the K-Series cabs. The EQ points cut and boost at different frequencies. So you always seem to  be able to dial just the right sound in for the room

The tuner is extremely accurate and quick to respond, the tone prints such as Spectracomp and Tubetone are very convincing and I use them quite often.

I've played it night in and night out in my main band and my functions band and it still feels as tight as the day I bought it. You can't go wrong for the money!

[Psharpe89]

@40hz thanks mate; sounds like your usage is similar to mine and good to hear the review. How are the k cabs. Also trying to look between them and the rs series?

@Alec thanks for the detail. Can' believe the lights for playing in the dark never occurrd to me. Good shout sir! Although the lip of the casing seems to be annoying for seeing the writing and functions on the top unless you have the thing 6ft high. Agree the tuner is much better in the rh but I have a g90 wireless with tuner and boss pedal for back up so this would be a back up back up lol

Edited January 6, 2018 by Psharpe89

[RichardH]

15 hours ago, Alec said:

Another happy RH450 user here.....

Like Richard above, mine feeds a Genz NEOX212 with more power than I'll ever use.  Makes it very handy when we kitshare too...

Ha ha - you put a lot more eloquently than me, Alec. And yes, it's nice to turn up to a gig and know how to drive each other's gear

[Crawford13]

I use a RH450 and I also love it. Great to have different settings for different basses, also it’s incredibly versatile with the tube tone! I think I would miss the presets which I find incredibly handy when playing gigs with other bands and I end up supplying the bass amp. Doesn’t matter what the other bass players do, I am back at my settings with 1 touch of a button.

[xgsjx]

On 05/01/2018 at 16:53, mcnach said:

 

True. But when they came out people were raving at how loud they were! Remember?

I had an RH450 for a couple of years or so. I didn't love it but it wasn't because it wasn't loud. That goes to show how little an extra 100 or even 200W matter, compared to other factors, and how "wasteful" the very low low end is.

 

It's pretty much as much proof as you need that watts don't = volume.  Those saying "I need a 500 watt amp" are fooling themselves.  

[mcnach]

6 hours ago, xgsjx said:

It's pretty much as much proof as you need that watts don't = volume.  Those saying "I need a 500 watt amp" are fooling themselves.  

 

Yup... but when you're starting out all you hear is watts this and watts that... and if you have a 300W combo that doesn't quite cut it, you think "ah, this other one is 500W so it'll be plenty"... 

I had an Ashdown MAG250 head early on, and I used to look at a Peavey 450W head with envy. I didn't really thought much about the fact that my Ashdown was put through a 115 cab, while the Peavey in the rehearsal room was going through a 410 *and* a 115