SWR 400-S vs. Thunderfunk

[DLM]

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?

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by DLM

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.

[DLM]

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.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by DLM

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.

[JOME77]

Originally Posted by DLM

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

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!

[NeedMoreBass]

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.

[Thunderfunk]

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 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. 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

[JazzFusionB0rg]

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

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.

[DLM]

Originally Posted by NeedMoreBass

...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? 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)?

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by NeedMoreBass

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

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.

[brianrost]

Originally Posted by DLM

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? 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.

[Mel Monihan]

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.

[Wilbyman]

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

[carl-anton]

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?

[jerry]

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

[JOME77]

Originally Posted by jerry

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

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!
IMO the Thunderfunk is a step up!

[tornadobass]

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.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Finger Blister

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.

[Lync]

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

[jerry]

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