SWR. Hate 'em? Love 'em?

[mettec]

I have a SWR SM-900, Basic 350, (backup amp) and Megoliath cab. Since my SM-900 has been in the shop (That's another story) I have been using my Basic 350 with my Megoliath and it sounds great. I play every weekend in metal band and the 350 still out performs more powerful heads that I have used in the past. To tell the truth, I perfer the 350's tone over my SM-900's and will probably sell my SM-900 when I get it back. I have been looking into the SWR's 550X or 750X as a replacement.

 

[chadds]

\

Yes, I unplug from the speaker, turn amp on & then plug it in. The pop disturbs me & dosen't sound healthy for the cab. It's a SS amp, how can unplugging before turning on damage it? I've used it in the studio as a preamp w/out ever hooking a cab up. Now w/ a tube amp I would never do that. Richard Gear said, "I've purchased all the hamsters".

Remember the good old days when you used to be able to call SWR & they would pickup w/in a few rings & a human answered?

I have used mine in the studio in the same way without speakers. It is the plugging in that is bad. In the SM-400 manual it says don't do it. The Bass 750 manual says you can do it if you are not playing at the time. The pop is no worse then you hitting a good note. No one has ever had an issue causing a degradation in sound or needing repairs for this and amps have been doing it since SS came around.

 

[robb.]

if you plug in a speaker cabinet while playing, you risk shorting the output. that is, if your amp has .250" speaker outputs. dual banana and speakons do not suffer the same risk.

robb.

 

[Blues Cat]

if you plug in a speaker cabinet while playing, you risk shorting the output. that is, if your amp has .250" speaker outputs. dual banana and speakons do not suffer the same risk.

robb.

I always make sure the gain, master & bass's volume is all the way down. No problems. The sound guy who had it before me said he did it that way too. It's been turned on that way for the last ten years, he was the original owner. I guess my concern is the cab is "cold" & a loud pop just fires trough it. When you have the time it's always good to warm the speaker up a little before playing

 

[JLTwarwick]

Well all I can say is that I wish I had discovered SWR year ago. I could have saved a lot of money experimenting over they years. I have an SWR Working Pro 400 attatched to the top of a Goliath III 4ohm 4x10. I made a giant combo out of it. All total I spent $1,400. I've never heard anything that cost double that sound half as good. My band hosted an open mic night so I've had other players use it and they all like it.

 

[adept_inept]

one thing about this thread is that many are comparing SWR to amps that cost 3, 4 times the price. someone always ends up brining up thunderfunk, eden, epifani... these brands are not for your casual player, or 16 year old (like myself) in most cases.

and true, swr could use some more R&D, but hey, fender is good at messing up people's companies, and jus continuing their existence as meagerly as possible.

i'm still in love with the fender roscoe beck iv though.... hah.

 

[BaldBass]

I have an old Redhead (not super) and a Son of Bertha 1X15 I love the combination I play a Rickenbacker 4003, and a 76 Fender Jazz Bass through this rig and am very happy with the tone and the power. Of course I'm not playing to a 6000 seat auditorium but for the smaller venues I play this is a perfect set up for me. Bottom line is Bass gear is like buying a car...some of us like the Chevys and some like the Fords

 

[adept_inept]

all i know is, in my price range, nothing compared to the swr.

i had 400 to 600 bucks to spend. and as much as used is sometimes a good deal, i really wanted something new.

so it was ampeg vs swr, and the swr won. who needs to conform to the ampeg majority anyway?

looking back, i may've done better looking around for a used thunderfunk or eden.. but what's done is done and i like what i have.

 

[jz0h4d]

What is all this nonsesense about SWR watts? I'm an electronic technician and have scoped out many SWR amps. Everyone of them has met or exceeded it's RMS wattage. That's what I said met or exceeded. If you haven't measured the output of an amp, stop trying to guess at it's output wattage.
I've yet to see any circuit changes in the post fender amps.

 

[vision]

What is all this nonsesense about SWR watts? I'm an electronic technician and have scoped out many SWR amps. Everyone of them has met or exceeded it's RMS wattage. That's what I said met or exceeded. If you haven't measured the output of an amp, stop trying to guess at it's output wattage.
I've yet to see any circuit changes in the post fender amps.

I'm sure that the actual output level is good for SWR amps, but what most of us are talking about is "perceived volume". SWR amps put out a very wide frequency range. It requires alot more watts to reproduce sound in the lower frequency ranges, so SWR amps will waste alot of power on this.

 

[jz0h4d]

Vision , sorry that's nonsense.

 

[vision]

Vision , sorry that's nonsense.

Its nonsense that came from SWR's own website. Check the second paragraph below.

Invalid Link Removed

Q: My high-power amplifier doesn't seem to produce as much volume as I would expect. What gives?
A: One manufacturer's 500-watt rating may be completely different from another's. This is an old trick used by amp manufacturers to pump up the actual specifications of an amplifier.

Here's the deal: It takes more power—a lot more power—to drive low frequencies than it does to drive high frequencies. When the amplifier specs are calculated, a commonly used test frequency is 1kHz (1,000 cycles per second). This means that the complete waveform travels 1,000 times in a second, producing a relatively high frequency. If an amplifier can deliver 500 watts at 1kHz, then advertising this amp as a 500-watt amp is not a false statement. The real question is about how many watts it does delivers at full bandwidth, or, in other words, all of the frequencies between 20 and 20,000 cycles (note: all SWR amplifiers deliver full 20 Hz to 20 kHz bandwidth). The fundamental frequency of the low "E" on a bass guitar is around 41.3 Hz. This is a large waveform, and it requires a substantial amount of power to amplify it at high volumes. When you ask an amplifier to reproduce lower frequencies, the amplifier becomes less efficient and therefore produces fewer watts. Realistically, an amplifier should be rated at several different frequencies in order to give an accurate representation of its power-producing capabilities.

An amplifier manufacturer will often put a filter on the amp that doesn't allow it to reproduce frequencies below a certain point. This typically makes the device more efficient and therefore capable of producing a higher wattage specification. In the case of a bass amplifier, if the filter was set at, for example, 20 cycles, then a 30-cycle (low "B" on a five-string bass) fundamental frequency could be reproduced. If the filter was set at 40 cycles, the low "B" fundamental could not be accurately reproduced, although the first harmonic at 60 cycles would sound OK. By placing a "high pass" filter on an amplifier, a manufacturer can publish higher wattage specifications that in reality are misleading because the frequencies the amp can reproduce fall short of the range of the intended purpose.

Another common way to bump up an amplifier's wattage specification is to show the wattage rating at a low impedance. The most common impedance that musical instrument amplifiers are designed to drive is probably 8 ohms (although a 4-ohm impedance is almost as common). Because an amplifier delivers a higher wattage output at lower impedances, it's not uncommon to see an amplifier advertised as 500 watts at 2 ohms. What does this mean at 4 ohms or 8 ohms? Less power!

Make sure that you learn more than what is painted on the front panel of an amp or is included in an advertisement if you're truly interested in the power-producing capabilities of an amplifier. One model's 500 watts may not be the same as another's 500 watts. Check the specs.

 

[fdeck]

An amplifier manufacturer will often put a filter on the amp that doesn't allow it to reproduce frequencies below a certain point. This typically makes the device more efficient and therefore capable of producing a higher wattage specification. In the case of a bass amplifier, if the filter was set at, for example, 20 cycles, then a 30-cycle (low "B" on a five-string bass) fundamental frequency could be reproduced. If the filter was set at 40 cycles, the low "B" fundamental could not be accurately reproduced, although the first harmonic at 60 cycles would sound OK. By placing a "high pass" filter on an amplifier, a manufacturer can publish higher wattage specifications that in reality are misleading because the frequencies the amp can reproduce fall short of the range of the intended purpose.

This is complete bunk. It falls into the literary genre of "marketing explanations of bass amp power," which is a blend of magical realism and science fiction. SWR makes good amps, so they don't need this kind of stuff to win sales. Often, amp makers can be their own worst enemies in terms of dealing with the mystique and folklore surrounding the performance of basic gear. And the best amp makers are no less susceptible to falling for this stuff.

Lower frequencies are not harder to reproduce.

It is my working hypothesis that two amps of the same power rating will have different apparent loudness if they have preamps with differing frequency response and distortion behavior. Since this is such a likely explanation, it has to be ruled out before any more esoteric explanation is worth bothering with.

 

[McGryff]

+1 for Ockham's Razor!

It is my working hypothesis that two amps of the same power rating will have different apparent loudness if they have preamps with differing frequency response and distortion behavior. Since this is such a likely explanation, it has to be ruled out before any more esoteric explanation is worth bothering with.

 

[vision]

Lower frequencies are not harder to reproduce.

If this is true, then why is it that a 100 watt guitar amp will sound WAAAAYYY louder than a 100 watt bass amp?

Remember, we are talking about "perceived volume" here, and not actual volume. Higher frequencies are going to sound louder to the human ear than lower frequencies at the same actual volume. This is why you need to use more power to reproduce lower frequencies at the same preceived volume as higher frequencies. Which is SWR's point about their amps...a 500 watt SWR amp may not sound as loud as another 500 amp because it is producing frequencies down to 40 Hz. The point about filters is valid, just ask anyone who uses a QSC RMX or PLX power amp in their bass rig...when you turn on those hi-pass filters, cutting out extreme lows, the perceived volume is a good deal louder.

 

[vision]

It is my working hypothesis that two amps of the same power rating will have different apparent loudness if they have preamps with differing frequency response and distortion behavior.

Isn't this the whole point here? SWR says that their preamps are putting out a wider frequency range than most bass amps, and this is why there may be a difference in apparent volume.

 

[hands5]

Any old SWR Engineering heads are tops. a little underpowered compared to some with similar power ratings, but the the original heads/preamps were well built, and the tone might not be for everyone, but it was a definitive one.

The goliath 1 and 2 are still some of my fave old cabs, and the goliath jr 1 & 2 were pretty cool too. The triad sounded great, but the 15" tended to get blown if you put more than 250 watts into it. The big ben was OK, the 8x8 was a very cool cab, and the 4x8 sounded entirely different than the 8x8, but was neat as well.

I have not been as impressed with the newer cabs in the pro series, especially the goliath 3. it's ok, but the mojo of the 1 & 2 is missing IMO. I think the pro heads still sound good, but i wish they's keep them simple and take the X/subsonic stuff out and stick with the original rabe preamp.

LA? yuk. Workingman's/workingpro? blah. However, the WM-15 and WM-12 are two of the coolest combos i've ever played, (and I hate combos).

Very good assesment

 

[fdeck]

Isn't this the whole point here? SWR says that their preamps are putting out a wider frequency range than most bass amps, and this is why there may be a difference in apparent volume.

No...

An amplifier manufacturer will often put a filter on the amp that doesn't allow it to reproduce frequencies below a certain point. This typically makes the device more efficient and therefore capable of producing a higher wattage specification.

They are not talking about a difference in apparent volume, but a difference in the wattage rating. Changing the EQ can change the apparent volume, as I said, but not the wattage rating.

What you (and I) are saying is true. The blurb from SWR is what I question. And I am not questioning the quality of their amps.

 

[IvanMike]

Very good assesment

thanks, i thought so.

love 'em or hate 'em, one thing is apparent (IMO). Original SWR engineering heads, goliath 1 and 2 cabs and goliath jr 1 and 2 cabs are an excellent value in the used market. Prices continue to fall for these "no longer boutique" amps and cabs, and guess what? they still work darned well. When my finances improve I'm still planning to aquire an sm-900 and perhaps a grand prix.

 

[chadds]

This is like the stock market. Nothing has changed except that distaste has crept in since Fender's buy. (Yes some folks have had reduced customer service but it sounds about the same at Epifani)
You know that a Steve Rabe era SM-400s that has served you well doesn't know that Fender bought the company. So what's up? People's perception. Beaver Felton (the owner of Bass Central) said to me yesterday that if someone tells you that some gear is better than this gear they are trying to sell it to you or they are just opininated. He said there is a lot of good gear out there. He said, " there are a lot good players playing SWR, better then you and me". This is after knowing I have an SWR rig and I'm asking the price of a Berg 322. Yes, Ampeg sounds different then GK but it's all subjective. If everyone rights in and says that their new quantum killer bass 7000 blows up on the second day that's a service fact. Does it sound better then everything else? That's personal opinion.
I bought two SWR Bass 750 heads when they redesigned the series to X's because I played an X and knew that the stores would be moving their non X heads at a reasonable price.
People didn't abandon Fender when they started bringing out crap in the 70s when CBS bought them. They just bought the older better stuff used. In fact some of the amps and basses that are considered vintage now are instruments that we refused to buy when they came out new. We had 60s stuff at home gigged it regularly and could tell that the newer stuff was different and not in a good way. So watch those trends and don't become biased just look at the facts. And sometimes these facts get confused for someone else's opinion on a forum like this.