Bogner Shiva vs Goldfinger?

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs' started by theaxedoctor, Jan 28, 2012.

  1. theaxedoctor

    theaxedoctor Member

    Messages:
    118
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    NY
    I'm looking to replace my current live rig with a single 2 channel amp. I've played the goldfinger, and I was really impressed. I haven't been able to play the Shiva so I don't really know how it would compare. Any experience with these models? (especially the 6l6 shiva) Pros and cons of both?

    Btw, my band typically covers The Allman Brothers, Incubus, The Police, Chili Peppers etc, so I don't need too much gain. I just want a versatile and reliable amp with a good clean channel and a good fx loop.

    Thanks.
     
  2. RSRD

    RSRD Member

    Messages:
    4,930
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Location:
    Alexandria, Virginia
    You'll probably need the EL34 shiva to cover heavier incubus...otherwise the Goldfinger would seem to be more up your alley. This is coming from a Shiva die hard.

    Either amp will do clean in spades.
     
  3. DGTCrazy

    DGTCrazy Moderator de Emporio Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,521
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Location:
    Petaluma, CA
    Actually, there's a 90 watt EL 34 version Goldfinger out too if you really need that particular tube tone. That said, I owned both the GF and Shiva, but sold the Shiva (6L6).

    The Goldfinger cleans are much better that the Shiva ONLY when its matched with a Goldfinger Cab with the mixed Celestions. And I get plenty of "Heavy" tone out of the GF when I set up the Omega Channel to 69, with two Gain Stages, using the Boost and the FX Loop as a boost.

    There's other Goldfinger threads, as well as Goldfinger vs. Shiva around here too.
     
  4. splatt

    splatt david torn / splattercell Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    21,974
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    disagree.

    gf45 cleans are great, here, w/a 2x12 w/celestion blues;
    i prefer it to the stock bogner open-backed 2x12 cab,
    though that sounds good to me, too.
     
  5. theaxedoctor

    theaxedoctor Member

    Messages:
    118
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    NY
    Thanks everyone. I heard that the shiva's cleans weren't as good, but I suppose I'll have to try it before I make any decisions.
     
  6. pass it

    pass it Member

    Messages:
    425
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Location:
    fort washington, pa
    My two cents . . .

    I currently have a GF and used to own the original version shivas (el34 and 6l6). Both of these amps have two outstanding channels imo. It can't be over emphasized how good both amps are clean and dirty. A notable difference between them imo is the Goldfinger has more tricks under the hood. The 69/80 option is like having two different distortion channels to choose from (although not footswitchable). I think the Goldfinger can do all of the tones the Shiva does but don't believe it works the other way around. The GF is more versatile on both channels. The two loops are another nice feature but the thing I like about the GF is the extra "gain tone' control on the omega channel. You can really dial in the sound you want at any volume.
     
  7. freaksho

    freaksho Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    The Capital
    i too had a 6L6 Shiva and sold it for the Goldfinger45, which i like just a bit more overall as i'm not really a heavy gain guy. but if i were, i would prefer the Shiva as i'm not a huge fan of the GF's 80 mode. what i like more about the GF is that focus of the mids in 69 mode is higher which is more classic/vintage sounding. and the cleans are indeed more versatile.

    yes the GF's adjustable boost is pretty cool but i wish it worked like Shiva's boost, i.e. uniform amount of gain with adjustable volume. i used to use the Shiva's boost for leads and i could make it as loud as i needed to get on top of the mix. instead the GF gives you adjustable gain but no more volume if you're out of headroom, so it can't be used as a lead boost. they might as well have just made it a wider range gain knob as far as i'm concerned. if i'm at/near max preamp gain the only way i can get a volume boost is to put something in my fx loop, which kinda sucks actually.

    btw any other GF users troubled by the use of diode clipping in 80 mode?
     
  8. Steve Snider

    Steve Snider Member

    Messages:
    6,106
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Salinas CA
    You can use your loop as a volume boost which is variable depending how you set it up. I don't use anything in my loop but have it set up for a nice volume boost on both channels when engaged.

     
  9. freaksho

    freaksho Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    The Capital
    i use my loop for chorus, delay, trem and reverb. so no can do. for now i turn the Depth on my trem to 0 and turn up its Volume control for songs that need the volume bump. i just hope we never write a tune that needs both a boosted lead and trem cuz there's no room on my little pedal board for a clean boost pedal.
     
  10. Steve Snider

    Steve Snider Member

    Messages:
    6,106
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Salinas CA
    Got it!

     
  11. mattmccloskey

    mattmccloskey Supporting Member

    Messages:
    5,113
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    philadelphia
    I just bought a goldfinger. I am really looking forward to it. I love the idea of a high headroom clean with full eq and bright switches, plus a dirty channel with the same and boosts, along with great reverb.

    For boosting volume during solos I have a timeline. I can have presets that feature different delay sounds I like for leads along with a 0-3 db boost. Perfect! I get my lead delay sound plus the right boost in one tap.
     
  12. mattmccloskey

    mattmccloskey Supporting Member

    Messages:
    5,113
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    philadelphia
    Did you get confirmation that they actually use diodes in the 80's mode? They might be just evasive to avoid giving away secrets.

    On the other hand, if it sounds good, it is good. I don't plan to use the 80's mode much, as from what I have heard the 69 mode sounds like what I want.
     
  13. DGTCrazy

    DGTCrazy Moderator de Emporio Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,521
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Location:
    Petaluma, CA
    Yep!
     
  14. mesa/kramer

    mesa/kramer Member

    Messages:
    3,059
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle

    Incubus heavy [​IMG]
     
  15. freaksho

    freaksho Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    The Capital
    using the word "evasive" it sounds like you saw the same thread i did. and yeah that's the only source i have for my statement. i guess i believe it cuz why would Bogner cryptically imply the use of diodes if they weren't there? they know it's not a desirable design element for most players so why even introduce the idea? then again i can't understand why they'd use them - they achieve much higher levels of gain in all their other models without diodes (at least i thought they did). the whole thing is very :huh.

    but you're right it does sound good. at least it sounds good at full tilt, as the subtleties of diode clipping would get lost when mixed in with a bunch of tube saturation. but when you let the notes decay you get that ugly telltale buzz that i've never heard with all tube amps, only certain od pedals.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2012

Share This Page