Friedman Smallbox vs Bogner 20th Shiva - Clips

Bxlxaxkxe

Amp ho
So the Shiva is new to me as of two weeks ago or so. Digging it for sure. Compared to the Smallbox, which I've had for a few months, I find the Shiva far more aggressive and in your face- a little rougher around the edges but very "alive". The Friedman can sometimes feel a little sterile or over polished/polite. They are two different takes on a similar idea. Both are awesome and addicting to play. Thought I'd share some noodling I was doing tonight.

I should mention that this is the Wildwood Smallbox and I'm using the 3rd channel. Can't get nearly that much gain on the reg SB. Guitar is a DGT.

https://soundcloud.com/bxlxaxkxe/friedm ... -high-gain

https://soundcloud.com/bxlxaxkxe/bogner ... -high-gain
 
First, thanks for these clips! I haven't ever heard such a direct comparison to these two amps.

Both sound really good. The SB has some really nice cut to it, definitely more Marshall-like. I can see the overly polished/polite thing, though. The 20th Shiva sounds really thick, definitely hearing those chewy Bogner low-mids. Sounds angrier, rough, yet, smooth, too, but maybe I'm mistaking the thickness for smoothness. Both definitely seem alive and very much fun to play.

I've had my 20th Shiva for about 2 years now. It can certainly get aggressive... surprisingly so for what I'd expected. Just an all around great amp, VERY versatile, and very fun to play. I've thought about adding a WW-SB to my arsenal for awhile, but haven't taken the plunge, yet.

Do you think they are different enough to warrant keeping both around? Or is it too soon to tell, since you just got your Shiva a few weeks ago?
 
Both sound really nice to me. The Friedman sounds a tad bit more modern with softer edges to me. I liked the Shiva a bit better as I like the rawness for a lack of a better word I suppose. Both of these would remain keepers or me in my amp stable. Both of these produce a very pleasant, usable, excellent tone and sweet note definition of chords regardless of the gain.
 
ChurchHill":1nfp9ina said:
First, thanks for these clips! I haven't ever heard such a direct comparison to these two amps.

Both sound really good. The SB has some really nice cut to it, definitely more Marshall-like. I can see the overly polished/polite thing, though. The 20th Shiva sounds really thick, definitely hearing those chewy Bogner low-mids. Sounds angrier, rough, yet, smooth, too, but maybe I'm mistaking the thickness for smoothness. Both definitely seem alive and very much fun to play.

I've had my 20th Shiva for about 2 years now. It can certainly get aggressive... surprisingly so for what I'd expected. Just an all around great amp, VERY versatile, and very fun to play. I've thought about adding a WW-SB to my arsenal for awhile, but haven't taken the plunge, yet.

Do you think they are different enough to warrant keeping both around? Or is it too soon to tell, since you just got your Shiva a few weeks ago?

The 20th Shiva is ridiculously versatile. The fun never ends.

At this point it is too early to say. I’m preferring the Bogner right now but it’s new and shiny. I may let the Friedman go in favor of trying out something different- maybe a Herbert or Eclipse, but I’m in no rush and will let time tell. I don’t want to regret letting it go.
 
Both great tones but aside from Mesa Marks I tend to prefer more Marshally tones so I liked the SB better.
 
Both sound good. I like the Friedman a bit better though. I've had two different 20th Shivas over the years. Great amp with great features, but I gravitate more toward classic/vintage tones, so the Shiva 20th just wasn't the amp for me.
 
littleguitars":1sjwbhwk said:
Both sound good. I like the Friedman a bit better though. I've had two different 20th Shivas over the years. Great amp with great features, but I gravitate more toward classic/vintage tones, so the Shiva 20th just wasn't the amp for me.

Makes sense. The Shiva has a unique sound that is definitely less classic than the SB
 
Back
Top