I've been using an SWR 400-S for years now. It's been good to me and because I've not tried a lot of gear over the years, I can't really compare it to anything. All I know is that it works for me and sounds good to my ears.

How would you compare the SWR with the Thunderfunk? Would the Thunderfunk necessarily be a step up?

I've been using an SWR 400-S for years now. It's been good to me and because I've not tried a lot of gear over the years, I can't really compare it to anything. All I know is that it works for me and sounds good to my ears.

How would you compare the SWR with the Thunderfunk? Would the Thunderfunk necessarily be a step up?

IME and according to SWR owners I know who've checked out both the ThunderFunk's predecessor (AMP BH-420) and the ThunderFunk, yes. Back-to-back it's hard to believe they're both rated at the same power. The SWR also seems to
require more tweaking to get a good sound.

Bear in mind, it all hinges on what you want. Maybe the SWR is the sound you prefer, maybe not.

Good luck.

Thanks.

Aside from tone, what about reliability, power, etc.? As you probably know, the SWR has a tube pre-amp. Also, it's been stated that the saying, "A watt is a watt is a watt..." isn't necessarily true when comparing similarly-powered amps.

Thanks.

Aside from tone, what about reliability, power, etc.? As you probably know, the SWR has a tube pre-amp. Also, it's been stated that the saying, "A watt is a watt is a watt..." isn't necessarily true when comparing similarly-powered amps.

Can't comment on my TF long term as I've only had it a few months. If it's anywhere near as reliable as the AMP BH-420 (Which I've used for more than ten years) that preceded it, reliabilty should be excellent.

Mine is probably the loudest 400w head I've come across. I rotate several basses and still haven't seen the need to tweak the EQ. At ~16 lb. it's fairly lightweight. It's also extremely quiet when operating... no annoying hiss.

I've been using an SWR 400-S for years now. It's been good to me and because I've not tried a lot of gear over the years, I can't really compare it to anything. All I know is that it works for me and sounds good to my ears.

How would you compare the SWR with the Thunderfunk? Would the Thunderfunk necessarily be a step up?

I've owned at least one SWR SM-400/400S/500 amp since 1989. I've always loved the SWR sound. I tried various preamp/power amp rigs but always migrated back to the SWR head. I recently purchased a TFB-420 and absolutely love it! While the SM-400/500 amps are capable of getting some great sounds, as Brad stated, some sounds can really require some tweaking. With the TF I can get great fretted, fretless, Slap, finger, or pick sound sound simply with slight adjustments of the "Timbre" or "enhance" controls.

As far as power, I long aborted the belief that "watts are watts"! The TF is the loudest 400 watt amp that I've played through. Even powering my 8 ohm Goliath Jr. cabinet the TF produce more clean sound @ 240 watts than the SWR bridged @ 400 watts. Maybe due to the TF limiting design. What ever it is, hearing is believing :hmm:

As far as dependability, I've only owned my TF for a couple of months and it's performed flawlessly. I can't say that I've heard of any problems with the TF amps on TB and believe me, if TB'ers have problems with equipment, you hear about it! :D

OK, here I am stepping on some toes again. I've owned the TF and presently own the SM-400S. The TF is a fine amp but I like the SM-400S. The tube gives it a more natural tone and I threw out the SWR manual on setting up the gain structure and run the master wide open all the time and the pre about 3/4 full. This setting opened up power I've never heard before and really unleashes the tone. Yes the SWR may take a little more tweaking but you've probably owned the amp long enough now to know your way around it.

I've been thinking about this "loudest 400-watts I've heard" comment(s) and I think it might be that it's difficult to get the TFB420's preamp to clip. When an amp puts out a distorted sound it doesn't necessarily mean that you've run out of power. It could be that something upstream clipped and now you're amplifying a distorted preamp signal. I'm not saying anything "bad" about the Bassman 400 amp, BUT :ninja: that clipping indicator they have is sourced from quite a few (5?) different places throughout the signal chain. It's not a "you've run out of watts" indicator... it's a "you've overloaded something" indicator. A nice feature, and something you can use to make sure you don't overload anywhere. And you can certainly overload the Thunderfunk preamp with a very hot instrument signal, but the preamp itself loses power (push) before the power amp does. We did increase the early preamp gain slightly and it gives the amp a punchier sound. :hyper: Of course, this is a complicated thing to figure out as it all depends on how hot the instrument is, and where the controls are set, but basically, as I've said, the power amp can take a very hot signal without distorting. That's probably why it sounds so loud.

Dave Funk

Another vote for the SWR here. Hell - even the guitarist in my band likes to play through my SM-400S :p

It took me a few weeks of mucking around to find 'my' favourite sound with the amp & my FNA Jazzman's preamp, but now I've got it, it's not going anywhere. :)

Just waiting to get my 2 x 210XST Edens now...and ditch the 410 Warwick cab. :hyper:

...I threw out the SWR manual on setting up the gain structure and run the master wide open all the time and the pre about 3/4 full. This setting opened up power I've never heard before and really unleashes the tone.


Let me get this straight...you set the master volume all the way up (about 5 o'clock) and control the volume through the gain knob? :confused: I've got to try this!

As you probably know, the manual says to set the gain to the point of periodic clipping to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio and then tweak the master volume. Can you clarify what tonal results you get with this method? Also, do you do this on every occasion (i.e., from soft solo practicing to loud gigs)?

OK, here I am stepping on some toes again. I've owned the TF and presently own the SM-400S. The TF is a fine amp but I like the SM-400S. The tube gives it a more natural tone and I threw out the SWR manual on setting up the gain structure and run the master wide open all the time and the pre about 3/4 full. This setting opened up power I've never heard before and really unleashes the tone. Yes the SWR may take a little more tweaking but you've probably owned the amp long enough now to know your way around it.

Again, it's all about what tone you're after:D

I can't think of any amp with a preamp tube that I'd really prefer, especially for the kind of full-bodied yet quick response I'm after.

Let me get this straight...you set the master volume all the way up (about 5 o'clock) and control the volume through the gain knob? :confused: I've got to try this! As you probably know, the manual says to set the gain to the point of periodic clipping to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio and then tweak the master volume.

It's funny that the SWR manuals don't advocate running the master all the way up because on amps that have just one volume knob vs. a gain/master setup that is what you're doing already! I understand that tweaking the gain first yields optimal S/N but it's not like the preamps in these heads are overly noisy.

One weird feature of the gain on the SWR amps is that "0" is not OFF. If you keep the master all the way up and set the gain all the way off, some signal will still pass. It's more like the trim control on a mixing board than a volume control.

I have not owned the 400 model, I did sell my SWR 750 when I got my Thunderfunk.I liked the SWR sound, but it did not have anywhere near the flexability of the Thunderfunk.I must admit that I was spoiled though, I had the AMP-BH420, and I loved that amp already.It is all in your ears though, everyone hears things they like and no not like about any amp. Good luck.

I've had the opportunity to check out both of these amps, and I assure you that it's much, much, much easier to get a good tone from the Thunderfunk than the SWR SM/Studio preamp. It's overall just alot more musical. With the Thunderfunk, EQ experimentation yields many unexpected good to great tones, while I felt I was struggling just to find something usable with the SWR.

I was going to say that the biggest difference is a tighter, more musical lower midrange -- but in fact, the TF just wins out in every frequency range.

I was mislead by the visual similarity between the faceplates -- tonally, there's a world of difference.

Will

On my SWR 750 the last little tweak on the gain knob from mayby 3 o'clock to 3:15 produces much more gain difference than going from 12 to 3 o'clock. To me it sounds better and louder finding the sweetspot on the preamp first, and then adjusting the master accordingly. Whenever I find myself doing it the other way around, I know it's because I essentially need more power or more cabs (never tried it on my swr, but my hartke3500 wasn't loud enough)

Question: Does it have any effect on headroom and powerampclip if the mastervolume is at max and the preampgain is adjusted for overall volume?

I still have my SM400 that I have had since the 80's, great amp and tone...........but IMHO the Thunderfunk gets me the tone I'M looking for, a lot easier, and to ME sounds a lot louder than my SWR. I've had my Thunderfunk for a year, and no problems yet. The other thing I noticed between the Thunderfunk and the SWR, is speaker damping. When I tried my SM400 with a Bergie HT112 the speaker was dancing all over the place, with the Thunderfunk the cone hardly moved at the same volume. But what ever works for you.....is the best for you :cool:

I still have my SM400 that I have had since the 80's, great amp and tone...........but IMHO the Thunderfunk gets me the tone I'M looking for, a lot easier, and to ME sounds a lot louder than my SWR. I've had my Thunderfunk for a year, and no problems yet. The other thing I noticed between the Thunderfunk and the SWR, is speaker damping. When I tried my SM400 with a Bergie HT112 the speaker was dancing all over the place, with the Thunderfunk the cone hardly moved at the same volume. But what ever works for you.....is the best for you :cool:

Jerry,
Exactly what I've experienced! I experienced the same extreme speaker movement with my Goliath Jr. III using the SM500 or SM400S. The TF just produces a much tighter and louder sound and the speaker movement is greatly reduced. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I've owned a SM400/400S/500 for the better part of 15 years so you know I like their sound. I just like the TF sound and ease of obtaining sounds (with the TF) better! :D
IMO the Thunderfunk is a step up! :smug:

Thanks for posting the note from Steve Rabe. I suspect the cone movement on the SM-400 is from its low-end 10 hz frequency response, rather than damping. I bet many bass amps roll off above that. And yes, I do see the famous dancing cones on my cabs with the SM-400.

One thing I do like about the SWR SM400 type preamps
is that the circuit really does react to different tube types
and brands.

The Thunderfunk circuit introduces a compression effect even
though it is completely based upon original Steve Rabe designs
which are often copied, but never duplicated.

I doubt a 'Thunderfunk' emulation will ever be found
as an option on any Line 6 or Behringer Processors.
That would be an emulation of an emulation.

Add a rackmount compressor in a SWR SM500/400-S/400
effects loop and you'll get tighter, louder, with greatly
reduced speaker movement too.

I thought Russ Alee was involved in the design of the AMP BH-420 that the TF is based on. I wouldn't consider the TF an "emulation" of anything... it's an evolution of a design... AMP BH-420 to Gibson GB440 to TFB-420.

:D

They also DO NOT have any hidden limiters or compressors. Amps utilizing limiters with their power amps will have more "apparent" volume. As well, amps with limited frequency response (especially on the low end), can have more apparent volume. At the time of design, SWR chose to make the SM-400 as clean and transparent as possible. If the user wanted to integrate a limiter on the output, they could easily do so via the effects loop. Secondly, some amps integrate mid-range peaks in their amps. These can range from 180 Hz to 2KHz. This area is especially sensitive to the ear and has the ability to "cut through" at higher stage volumes

If these "tricks" do work, then what is the problem? How many times have you played an "upper echelon" amp only to have it sound great in the bedroom, but lost on stage?

The Thunderfunk not only has more than adequate headroom-it sounds excellent in the band environment...

Lync

Hey Lync, I take it your happy with your Thunderfunk :bassist: I'm stoked for you :cool:

IME and according to SWR owners I know who've checked out both the ThunderFunk's predecessor (AMP BH-420) and the ThunderFunk, yes. Back-to-back it's hard to believe they're both rated at the same power. The SWR also seems to
require more tweaking to get a good sound.

Bear in mind, it all hinges on what you want. Maybe the SWR is the sound you prefer, maybe not.

Good luck.




I do not have any experience with the Thunderfunk or its predecesor but I have played through an SM400s for about 7 years and I am always longing for more headroom. I love the tone but they do not seem loud for the amount of RMS watts they are rated at. I tried using a Yamaha PB-1 preamp with the SWR as its power amp and it was louder than the when I use the preamp section of the SM400. I also did the same thing when I owned an EBS preamp and I also felt that the EBS was louder.

If these "tricks" do work, then what is the problem?

It's not so much a problem as a difference in design philosophy. Either you want the transparency (which Steve went on to pursue even further in his Raven Labs designs) or you don't give a rat's ass. That's why there are so many flavors of amps available today; there is bound to be one that rings your bell.

I tried using a Yamaha PB-1 preamp with the SWR as its power amp and it was louder than the when I use the preamp section of the SM400. I also did the same thing when I owned an EBS preamp and I also felt that the EBS was louder.

That makes me wonder what my 400S would sound like if I used my GK 700RB's preamp and vice versa.

"Later, AMP offered the Allee-designed BH 420, a two-rackspace, solid-state head that produced 400 watts RMS into 4 ohms; it featured a slightly different 4-band semi-parametric EQ than the [SL-1] preamp..."

Thanks for finding that. And it was a 2 1/2 space amp;)

:D

I do not have any experience with the Thunderfunk or its predecesor but I have played through an SM400s for about 7 years and I am always longing for more headroom. I love the tone but they do not seem loud for the amount of RMS watts they are rated at. I tried using a Yamaha PB-1 preamp with the SWR as its power amp and it was louder than the when I use the preamp section of the SM400. I also did the same thing when I owned an EBS preamp and I also felt that the EBS was louder.

The PB-1 is an excellent preamp IMO. I gave Kevin Brubaker one of mine (I found two fairly cheap over the years) to replace his Navigator. No frills, just usable features and excellent sound. He's driving a QSC PLX 3k series amp into a Bag End S15-D/ Nahas 1-12 rig... in his Rock band.

:hyper:

*****************************




"Evolution of Design" perhaps.
Dodging copyright's, more likely.

Before Steve Rabe AMP was a Power Amp company and
didn't even make a preamp.

The SL-1 Preamp was manufactured by Amplified Music Products
under the design of Steve Rabe of SWR fame
whose original concepts and designs were incorporated
with slight variations into the the Allee-designed
AMP BH 420 and Gibson's GB440.

AMP didn't even make a preamp until Steve Rabe designed it.

Allee made changes so that his ideas barely
passed under the copyright the Steve established under SWR.
Russ Alee has been riding the Steve Rabe gravy train ever since. He never designed a preamp, he just borrows from
Steve Rabe.

Interesting. This is the first disparaging thing I've heard about Russ Alee. Didn't realize he and AMP screwed Steve, as you seem to be saying.

You're saying that the preamp you said Steve designed at AMP, the SL-1, didn't belong to AMP? Did SWR screw Groove Tubes or vice versa over the initial SWR design that was already being used by GT? This is fascinating stuff.

AFAIK Alee went on to Gibson after AMP... where else did the Steve Rabe gravy train take him?

BTW what were the two jacks on the left front panel of the SL-1? It's been a while since I've seen one, I thought they were passive and active inputs. An SWR first?

You're saying that the preamp you said Steve designed at AMP, the SL-1, didn't belong to AMP? Did SWR screw Groove Tubes or vice versa over the initial SWR design that was already being used by GT? This is fascinating stuff.



Steve Rabe had a agreement to let Groove Tubes sell the GT preamp under their name. It was totally Steve's design.

Does the Eden preamp look familar?

Russ Allee: Acoustic, A.M.P., Gibson, Eden

I know Russ worked as a consultant on the WT line, from what I've read. What Steve Rabe designs did he contribute on them? The tube in the preamp? 3 band EQ. The Enhance control?

How long did that relationship last? I'm just curious as to how long "ever since" is?


Care to address the rest of my earlier questions? I really am interested to know the real, full story.

Hey Lync, I take it your happy with your Thunderfunk I'm stoked for you

Jerry man! Thanks for your help...I'm still looking for a new cab(s) to use with it, but the Edens sound great for now.

Lync

Dodging copyright's, more likely.

Finger Blister, no offense, but the original question wasn't that of a moral objective...and if it was, I wouldn't be mentioning Behringer as a positive in your take on things.
:p

Lync

Steve Rabe had a agreement to let Groove Tubes sell the GT preamp under their name. It was totally Steve's design.


I know;). That's not what I'm getting at... but it does bring something interesting up. Was it Steve's idea to do the AMP without a tube while the GT and SWR had them? If so, why?


What I'm not clear on is what FingerBlister is intimating Steve's agreement was with AMP re: his preamp design? Did AMP not own the design they built? Sounds like he's saying they didn't. Did Steve design the BH-260? Was Russ simply a power section designer? This all sounds like Russ did something underhanded... did he?

I don't know one way or another. Since FB opened this can of worms I figured he could provide more of his insight.

:hmm:

I know the history is really interesting, but if we could re-direct back to the original question, that would be appreciated.

SWR 400-S vs. Thunderfunk

I've gotton great feedback and would like to hear others chime in.

Thanks everyone.

[QUOTE=DLM]I know the history is really interesting, but if we could re-direct back to the original question, that would be appreciated.
[/QUOTE

LOL....you mean take it back to the head? ;)

I own a SM-400S and would like more volume - are you suggesting I should try a different preamp to gain more volume?

I *love* the sound I get out of my SM-400S - I always thought I would buy a power amp and run that after the SWR pre? This would get me as many watts as I wanted to pump into my cabs...

/confused

*****************************

"Evolution of Design" perhaps. Dodging copyright's, more likely.
This is insulting; Legally incorrect; And off point for this thread. But since it seems you are carrying a grudge, and are implying that I'm "dodging copyrights" by "evolving a design," If I didn't respond to this, you'd say I was "dodging the truth!"

The AMP BH-420, the Gibson GB-440 were not copyrighted, although they could have been. None of the circuits contained in these amps is patented. I am doing nothing illegal or immoral by building these amps. In order for AMP, SWR, or Gibson to have a legal claim against me they would have to show that I was hurting their sales by building a copy of an amp they already had in production. Since they are not in production, they are not harmed, and have no legal claim (which they wouldn't have anyway since the amp is not copyrighted or patented).

The craze to colorize movies was based on the ability to re-copyright a work if it was significantly changed or improved, as in adding color.

The Thunderfunk circuit introduces a compression effect even though it is completely based upon original Steve Rabe designs which are often copied, but never duplicated.
Huh? The Thunderfunk has a "compression effect" even though it's an "exact copy" of a revered SWR design, but doesn't sound the same, or as good, or maybe even better? Pick one please. :D

Allee made changes so that his ideas barely passed under the copyright Steve established under SWR. Russ Alee has been riding the Steve Rabe gravy train ever since. He never designed a preamp, he just borrows from Steve Rabe.
This is slanderous. A copyright is rarely used in electronics, and is only used to protect the pattern of copper on the circuit board from being exactly lifted by a flagrant bootlegger. It does not protect the circuit at all. That's what a patent is for. No wonder you say "Allee made changes so that his ideas barely passed under the copyright that Steve established" as a way of explaining how he got "away with it." As you may know, I do make some of my living as a writer, and can easily spot verbal gymnastics pretending to establish "facts."

He never designed a preamp, he just borrows from Steve Rabe.
There's a well respected speaker company out there that hired another well respected speaker designer to design their cabs. The designer was paid; The work was done; No one would claim the buyer "borrowed" from the designer. It's the nature of business, and contracts.

Originally Posted by SWR Engineering
features first introduced on a production basis by SWR and developed by Steve Rabe, including: the Aural Enhancer; Side Chain Stereo and Mono Effects Loops; Tuner Send: Real Studio Quality XLR Balanced Recording Outputs (selectable for line or direct, with Adjustable Send ,Mute and Ground Lift functions); separate Independent Inputs for Active and Passive basses; EQ settings down to 31HZ; and Stereo Power Sections.
I take it we're suppose to believe that this says, "Originally invented by Steve Rabbe." It doesn't. It says "First introduced... by SWR." Steve Rabbe "invented" the 31Hz EQ circuit? I invented the 30Hz EQ circuit! He "invented" the "transformerless" DI circuit? Careful now... I believe "Aural Enhancer" is a copyrighted trademark of Aphex. The circuit is called an "Enhancer," and does not work the same way as an Aphex, or BBE unit. "Tuner Send?" Every Fender amp has a "Tuner Send." It's called the second input jack. SWR invented the stereo amp? :p I was the first amp to have an on/off switch! :D


AMP (Amplified Music Products) was started in 1982 by two ex-Acoustic employees, Russ Allee (who designed the legendary Acoustic 360 amp) and Roger Smith. In '83, they hired Acoustic engineer Steve Rabe, who designed the SL-1 bass preamp to accompany the power amp.
Rabe left AMP in early '84 to start his own company, SWR Engineering.

So you're saying that Rabbe was hired by AMP to design a preamp and then AMP "stole" the design? And then Rabbe left AMP and started his own company to compete with them? AMP screwed up by not having SWR sign a non-compete contract!

And Russ Allee, who designed the Acoustic 360, needed to ride the SWR gravy train? :p

And as for the Groove Tube bass Pre, that was actually an SWR Bass Pre, you should know that if you walked out of GT's front door in Sylmar, you'd be looking at SWR's front door in Sylmar. I'll bet that SWR built the GT Bass Pre's, not the other way around.

Dave "Thunder" Funk

Who can I talk to about a Thunderfunk amp?

JB

Dave Funk.

Though I have one you are welcome to check out, if you are ever in the Chapel Hill area.
I think they also have them at Fatsound guitars in Cary, though I am not sure