Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Sonic Diffrence between Eden and SWR
- Thread starter MAJOR METAL
- Start date
SWR = big bottom, light mids, big highs
Eden= medium bottom, big mids, light highs
Together they produce a full range, at least that's how it sounds to me. I have been using an Eden D210XLT with an SWR Goliath III together for the last year - they sound better together than either one on its own IMO.
-Edit: The above comment was referring to cabinets.
There is not a bigdifference in the amps in my opinion, other than clearer highs in the SWR's.
Eden= medium bottom, big mids, light highs
Together they produce a full range, at least that's how it sounds to me. I have been using an Eden D210XLT with an SWR Goliath III together for the last year - they sound better together than either one on its own IMO.
-Edit: The above comment was referring to cabinets.
There is not a bigdifference in the amps in my opinion, other than clearer highs in the SWR's.
It would help if you were more specific!
Are you asking about amplifiers, cabinets, or both?
My general impressions of Eden vs. SWR amplifiers are:
To my ears the SWR stuff sounds clear and thin, while the Edens are warm and fat. Eden is warmer and smoother with a fatter, fuller low end, while the SWRs have more clarity and definition. I like both, but the warmth and fullness of the Eden seems more suited to my playing style, as I think that bass is mostly about powerful bottom, not hi-fi top end.
I had a hard time using a loaner Grand Prix while my WT-500 was in the shop, as the SWR preamp could not duplicate the fat bottom end of my Eden. As well, I found the Eden EQ section to be a lot more powerful and responsive than the SWR.
As for cabinets:
My general observation is that SWR cabinets tend to have more of a "hi-fi" top end to them, but are scooped in the middle frequencies. Eden's cabinets tend to be rounder sounding and have more abundant low mids, although the new XST series is supposed to be much flatter sounding.
Quality wise, both should be similar.
Are you asking about amplifiers, cabinets, or both?
My general impressions of Eden vs. SWR amplifiers are:
To my ears the SWR stuff sounds clear and thin, while the Edens are warm and fat. Eden is warmer and smoother with a fatter, fuller low end, while the SWRs have more clarity and definition. I like both, but the warmth and fullness of the Eden seems more suited to my playing style, as I think that bass is mostly about powerful bottom, not hi-fi top end.
I had a hard time using a loaner Grand Prix while my WT-500 was in the shop, as the SWR preamp could not duplicate the fat bottom end of my Eden. As well, I found the Eden EQ section to be a lot more powerful and responsive than the SWR.
As for cabinets:
My general observation is that SWR cabinets tend to have more of a "hi-fi" top end to them, but are scooped in the middle frequencies. Eden's cabinets tend to be rounder sounding and have more abundant low mids, although the new XST series is supposed to be much flatter sounding.
Quality wise, both should be similar.
I am interested how an Eden combo would par against a SWR Redhead on the bottom end and which would bring the acoustic propiertys out of a semi hollow more.
Finger Blister said:Originally Posted by 12bass
It would help if you were more specific!
To my ears the SWR stuff sounds clear and thin, while the Edens are warm and fat.
Err, you completely misquoted him. He separated that comment with a specification that that is what he likes/dislikes about the heads, as well as commenting about the cabinets.
I've played extensively through both an SWR SM-500 and an Eden WT-400 and the SWR=clear, hi-fi and Eden=warm with lots of low mids characterization is generally correct when both amps are set to flat.
That said, the Eden brightens up considerably and can produce painfully sparkly highs if you play with the EQ. The SM, IME, is harder to warm up. If you want vintage thumpy tones, the Eden is the better choice.
That said, the Eden brightens up considerably and can produce painfully sparkly highs if you play with the EQ. The SM, IME, is harder to warm up. If you want vintage thumpy tones, the Eden is the better choice.
I have been playing SWR for 2 years now...pretty much it is a hi fi sound, It's good, just not what I'm looking for...I'm hoping to get an Eden Navigator soon
MAJOR METAL said:
If you are talking about the Eden Metro compared to the SWR Redhead, expect the Eden to have more low mids and a fuller overall tone. The Redhead will likely sound clearer, and more transparent. Which is better is subjective. What do you want to hear?
FYI, Bass Player magazine chose the D210XLT as the best standalone cabinet in their 2x10" shootout a few years back, and the Metro uses a version of this cabinet with a rack space added for the amplifier.
Really, your best bet is to look around and try each and listen for yourself!
For what its worth SWR to me is very clean, not like EA, but in a Cold sort of way. I am talking about the heads here.
Eden, the WT 800 to be specific, I have played through and it was loud as hell and WARM. Very clear but warmer. keep in mind I play through an SVT so pretty much everything is clear compared to that!
The SWR Superredhead is a fav of mine because it is clean but has some warmth as well.
I have run a 15 off the redhead and get the same results.
Keep the Funk ALive!!!! or in your case the Metal!!!!!
Eden, the WT 800 to be specific, I have played through and it was loud as hell and WARM. Very clear but warmer. keep in mind I play through an SVT so pretty much everything is clear compared to that!
The SWR Superredhead is a fav of mine because it is clean but has some warmth as well.I have run a 15 off the redhead and get the same results.
Keep the Funk ALive!!!! or in your case the Metal!!!!!
Hmmm... well, all I know is this:
When you pair an Eden WT600 head with an SWR GIII cabinet, you have a winning combination (according to me, and any bassist who has ever played through my rig, and any musician who has ever shared the stage with me.)
FWIW
When you pair an Eden WT600 head with an SWR GIII cabinet, you have a winning combination (according to me, and any bassist who has ever played through my rig, and any musician who has ever shared the stage with me.)
FWIW
I'm a big fan of Eden (WT800 & Nav user) but I actually prefer the Redhead over the metro. Very nice combo amp. Not so with other SWR/Eden comparisons according to my tastes.
You might also consider an SWR strawberry blonde for a nice semi-hollow/acoustic tone.
I've owned a WT-300 and an SM-400. They're quite different amps.The SWR is clear, very low noise, and full sounding with a precise EQ. The Eden, indeed was fatter, but somewhat noisy and a somewhat quirky hyper-sensitive EQ. My own preference is for the SWR...I thought the Eden was a bit too dark for my tastes.
OTOH, I own both a Goliath II cab, and an Eden 210/15 stack. The Eden cabs seem a bit clearer than the SWR, a bit more focused. The GII is really thick sounding and produces almost the same amount of sound as the two Eden cabs combined. Right now, I'm leaning toward the Eden cabs for focus, but both are very nice.
OTOH, I own both a Goliath II cab, and an Eden 210/15 stack. The Eden cabs seem a bit clearer than the SWR, a bit more focused. The GII is really thick sounding and produces almost the same amount of sound as the two Eden cabs combined. Right now, I'm leaning toward the Eden cabs for focus, but both are very nice.
I use Eden now but had a redhead for a bit.
For me the SWR was "weak" sounding. Thin and lacking in the thump bump dept. It was trasparent, which is good and bad. But "weak" is the best way I could describe it.
The Eden is alot more full and had a more substantial sound. To me has a beter eq and more tweakabilty. Some described it as hyper sensitive. But it is because it is much more powerful. A small knob turn goes along way. It is also semi-parametric.
For me the SWR was "weak" sounding. Thin and lacking in the thump bump dept. It was trasparent, which is good and bad. But "weak" is the best way I could describe it.
The Eden is alot more full and had a more substantial sound. To me has a beter eq and more tweakabilty. Some described it as hyper sensitive. But it is because it is much more powerful. A small knob turn goes along way. It is also semi-parametric.
I'm using a SWR Goliath Jr. 2x10" + Son Of Bertha 1x15" with a Hevos Tube-Preamp and QSC PLX1202 power amp, and I wouldn't describe my tone as "cold". It doesn't sound the way a sauna would feel like, but it's reasonably warm with transparent, sparkling highs. Nice midrange, too. I once played an Eden 210XLT and IMHO it sounded cheap and honky, Peavey's 210 seemed much smoother to me.
Nevertheless, I like Eden's CXC-Series alot, FAST transient attack, less honky low-highs (how paradoxical!)
Johannes
Nevertheless, I like Eden's CXC-Series alot, FAST transient attack, less honky low-highs (how paradoxical!)
Johannes
