"SWR" sound?

Axtman · #1 05-07-2010, 11:11 PM

How would you describe the "SWR sound"? I hear these terms and I am not sure what people mean.

bongomania · #2 05-07-2010, 11:28 PM

Clean, no overdrive, unfiltered low end (massive string thump noises), sometimes mid-scooped. Not that SWR's all have to sound that way, but that's the stereotypical SWR thing.

Edward G. · #3 05-07-2010, 11:30 PM

Modern and edgy. Not vintage and deep.

Great, but not everybody's thing.

JimmyM · #4 05-07-2010, 11:34 PM

what's thought of as the typical swr sound is like marcus miller...a little overboosted on the lows and treble. however, swr amps are given a bad rap over that scooped jazz sound. they have a very versatile eq section where you can dial mids back in no sweat. and you can turn the tweeters off in their cabs. used to have an sm-500, played many different ones over the years. originally got one because they had what i thought at the time was the closest sound to an svt in a hybrid. doesn't really sound like one but at the time that was as close as it got.

Edward G. · #5 05-07-2010, 11:36 PM

^
I think the idea is 'What do they sound like before they are tweaked?' 'How are they voiced perfectly flat?'

JimmyM · #6 05-07-2010, 11:44 PM

well the flat sounds are like a not-so-extreme marcus miller. more like victor wooten...he used to use swr. definitely scooped, though.

Edward G. · #7 05-07-2010, 11:55 PM

^
I s'pose the real question might be 'How far do you have to tweak it to get the vibe you're after?'

No size fits all, but the less you have to tweak, the better.

FWIW, the SM-500 is a great all-purpose amp, and can be had fairly cheap on the used market.

Of course, YMMV.

JimmyM · #8 05-08-2010, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward G.

^
I s'pose the real question might be 'How far do you have to tweak it to get the vibe you're after?'

No size fits all, but the less you have to tweak, the better.

i used to feel like that, but after a few discussions on here about it, i finally decided why worry about it? if you're getting the sound you want, it really doesn't matter where the knobs are.

Edward G. · #9 05-08-2010, 12:22 AM

^
Fair enough. I'm not that pedantic about things.

JTUK · #10 05-08-2010, 02:53 AM

The 4 band para was a very powerful tool.
The older SM400's should be run pretty flat with a Jazz and you are there, pretty much.

That is bass max of 12, ditto treble, enhancer between 10 and 2..and whatever minor tweaks you need on the 4 band for the room. With decent cabs that should be a good start off point and you'll not normally need to do much more than that with a decent bass.

If you want to start getting a bit wild, then the 4 band can do that as well..but never run that amp with the bass control really pushing it as that will really suck power from the amp.

The SM series were great amps in my view even if you have one with the ridiculous unusable sub, I am not so sure about some of the newer amps, but the SM's are classics, IMO.
I might add another amp with another voicing but I will not sell it.

Alexander · #11 05-08-2010, 03:10 AM

I owned one for a couple of years - it was my first real head\cab setup and bought it primarily because of the amazing price. I ended up not liking the tone (except for the slap tone, which was by far better than anything I've ever tried). Lots of good low end, but I found the highs sharp and brittle. Some folks would consider them dry or sterile sounding and I would agree with that. Replaced the stock tube and liked the tone a bit better, but still not really my thing.

I moved from that to Thunderfunk and was MUCH happier with my tone - was sweeter and more musical sounding overall. I've since gone to an SVT, which is uber rich sounding. Much more my cup of tea.

powellmacaque · #12 05-08-2010, 05:09 AM

The only SWR I listened as a reference to before becoming heavy into all things bass-related was P-Nut from 311's (who now uses the Hellborg amps).

To me it always sounded like he EQ'd his amp to sound like a GK though... His tone didn't sound very scooped and trebly at all (like most other SWR users I later heard)...

synaesthesia · #13 05-08-2010, 05:31 AM

Well to answer this question properly, there are first of all two components to the typical SWR sound.

The amps have a pronounced low mid bass hump, a bit of a mid scoop when set flat and depending on usage of the enhancer, there will be a low and top end boost.

The cabs have a drop in 2 - 3 K region, and depending on the cab model the mismatch of efficiency in the fostex horn vs 2 x 10s or 4 x 10s exaggerates the sizzle, assuming the L Pad is wide open.

Edward G. · #14 05-08-2010, 12:13 PM

FWIW, I find the 'SWR sound' to sound much better and more satisfying in the mix than it does standing alone. It is very interesting in this regard.

acubass · #15 05-08-2010, 12:20 PM

I never can decide if I like the Aural Enhancer knob or not. When I had the 350 it was always hit or miss. My first "nice" amp was the old style basic black. I could get some old school tones from it when I pushed the lows.

Jim C · #16 05-08-2010, 01:13 PM

I've had a SM400 for over 20 years
With EQ flat, there is an inclredible extreme low freq boost as well as a lot of top
Not so sure that the mids are scooped but rather top and bottom are over emphasized
Output is very clean and no question that the wattage rating is anything but understated

The only preamp tube that made any difference in mine was a Mullard and worth the $40 for a used one IMO

Limiter helps to get closer to a tube amp, and I like Jimmy thought it to be a reasonable SVT simulation back in the day; when I compare my SVT / SM400 / and LMII there is no question that the LMII sounds MUCH more like the SVT

Overall great amps for a clean funk thing & old ones were very well built
Used units have a very low resale and offer a tremendous value

Never did understand why JPJ went that route as the Zep tone he used to have is nothing like an SWR to me; guess he was looking for something completely different

ColinGWood · #17 05-08-2010, 01:33 PM

I found an SWR stack for sale used and scooped it right up. It is a workingmans 4004amp with a 4x10 WM cab.

It does sit well in the mix when I play with my three piece band, but I would like a little more fullness. People are dead on when they describe the sound as very clean.

However, I'm looking for a more "wooly" tone, to fit my punky-rocky-proggy tastes. I've been wanting a VT Bass for some time now, for that reason. It's a great amp but I'm not playing intricate jazzy lines, so consider the situation you're going to use it in.

woody357 · #18 05-09-2010, 08:13 PM

So what could be expected if I were to use a workingman 410 with a GK 800rb head? What kind of tone might I get?

yamaha · #19 05-09-2010, 08:34 PM

Typical tone : Clean, edgy, modern, scooped.

In the cabs dept, I loved every single SWR cab I owned (4 of them) 1x18, 4x10, 6x10 and 8x10. I still have the 6x10 and will keep it forever. I use Bergantino cabs now almost all the time.

In the heads, much more unsure about liking SWR. Huge difference in tones (x series, Sm's, workingmans, workingpros, baby blue, etc..) They all sound very different IMHO.

yamaha · #20 05-09-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woody357

So what could be expected if I were to use a workingman 410 with a GK 800rb head? What kind of tone might I get?

Very clean, decent kit. Workingman's are, IMO, decent mid line cabs. Not very rich, tweeter softer than the foster horn (on goliaths), and don't go very low also. Good cut through the mix. If you buy used, you could get a hell of a deal. If new, I'd suggest something else for that price. GK and SWR match very well in general.