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.
Double Bass Fuchs discontinuing Walter Woods and Acoustic Image service
- Thread starter Don Kasper
- Start date
Out of curiosity: How does the little quilter800 sound with an upright? They seem like the ultimate tiny backup in your gigbag option.
For additional thoughts: Last year I used a Raezer's Edge 700 for a few double bass outside stage pub gigs; It sounded fantastic.
For additional thoughts: Last year I used a Raezer's Edge 700 for a few double bass outside stage pub gigs; It sounded fantastic.
I've been curious about that one also. I still haven't found a class d amp I like.
I've owned three different Walter Woods Amps. I still an have an early 2000's Electroacoustic Ultra. IME Walter's EQ voicing and power output at 8 ohms hasn't really ever been matched by anyone else in a 7.5 pound amplifier. The Grace Felix has the closest EQ selection to a Woods. My new/used GR Bass AT Acoustic combo is a close second and at 20 lbs a joy to gig with. Just my take.
Ressurrecting this almost year old thread:
If Walter's amps are that significant tonewise, how come I've never seen one as a house amp in a studio? It seems like every studio in North America has a couple of old B15s, an assortment of old Fenderbombs, most of them around here also have AI equipment (llikely becuase it was local), but no Woods....Low production volume doesn't explain it becuase they all have a lot of very fussy, expensive, obscure equipment in use.
If Walter's amps are that significant tonewise, how come I've never seen one as a house amp in a studio? It seems like every studio in North America has a couple of old B15s, an assortment of old Fenderbombs, most of them around here also have AI equipment (llikely becuase it was local), but no Woods....Low production volume doesn't explain it becuase they all have a lot of very fussy, expensive, obscure equipment in use.
Who plays the double bass and goes to a nice studio to use an amp?
I always saw my WW as a tool for live work. Part of the appeal for me was it sounded like a nice tube amp and weighed less than 60 pounds, sounded perfect for upright and pretty great for electric. When I did studio work on electric, I always enjoyed using stuff that was too fragile/heavy for me to ever tour with.
These days I use a Grace Designs Felix as my pre and a Quilter as my power amp which gets me close to my WW MI-400. I still prefer the WW but I let my WW live a a comfortable life at home with a Moog synth plugged into it all the time. I never could get along with the EA or Acoustic Image amps.
My Acoustic Image Clarus has been one of my favorite amps since the beginning. Ironically, the original box and paperwork are still on the shelf, usually kept to help with resale, if decided.
That's never been the choice, though. Instead, it's been gigged all along, and is still my main woodshedding amp for multiple instrument and speaker types.
It's had phenomenal value in use, as well as high sentimental value. These values obviously do not equate to market value, instead vastly displacing it. I am happy as a clam to keep using it as long as possible, and it has served me better than I imagined possible. The sadness of the day it no longer works will be equivalent to a drop of water in an ocean.
That's never been the choice, though. Instead, it's been gigged all along, and is still my main woodshedding amp for multiple instrument and speaker types.
It's had phenomenal value in use, as well as high sentimental value. These values obviously do not equate to market value, instead vastly displacing it. I am happy as a clam to keep using it as long as possible, and it has served me better than I imagined possible. The sadness of the day it no longer works will be equivalent to a drop of water in an ocean.
I think this is pretty off topic, but i also can't buy into the WW (or any other amp) tone magic. I get that he was way out front technologically and deserves credit for that, but in the modern world clean class D amps are ubiquitous. Good, natural(ish) DB tone is really just about getting three things right i think: the right impedance for your pickup (most modern piezos seem not that picky), the EQ, and not squashing the signal with compression.
I generally just assume every time someone on TB says, "this amp is magic! Sounds just like my bass only louder," that it's mostly just a happy accident. Probably the EQ just happens to be right for them, perhaps the impedance is just right too. (Nevermind that they usually move on to some other piece of gear a year later haha.)
Two caveats: (1) not everyone wants mbol, so that's a bit of a different story. You might want tube saturation, some compression, thumpy EQ settings, etc. (2) If there's new tech that achieves magical results, it's digital mic modeling. That's the only tech I've encountered that actually gets anywhere close to MBOL (except for actual microphones, of course). Everything else still sounds like a pickup to me.
Edit: I'll add one more caveat. I find it so much harder to get great results (mbol like results) amplified when (1) switching between arco and pizz (which i always do), and (2) when playing thumb position. I think if i only played pizz and never really used thumb position, things would be different.
I generally just assume every time someone on TB says, "this amp is magic! Sounds just like my bass only louder," that it's mostly just a happy accident. Probably the EQ just happens to be right for them, perhaps the impedance is just right too. (Nevermind that they usually move on to some other piece of gear a year later haha.)
Two caveats: (1) not everyone wants mbol, so that's a bit of a different story. You might want tube saturation, some compression, thumpy EQ settings, etc. (2) If there's new tech that achieves magical results, it's digital mic modeling. That's the only tech I've encountered that actually gets anywhere close to MBOL (except for actual microphones, of course). Everything else still sounds like a pickup to me.
Edit: I'll add one more caveat. I find it so much harder to get great results (mbol like results) amplified when (1) switching between arco and pizz (which i always do), and (2) when playing thumb position. I think if i only played pizz and never really used thumb position, things would be different.
Last edited:
Well, I don't know, I've never gotten a better sound than my bass through a Red Eye, Tonedexter, WW, and MAS 16/18. Maybe it's just that I stumbled on the right EQ for each of these boxes. Then again, maybe it's just doing the Hokey Pokey before every gig, because, you know, that's what it's all about!
I have the Bright Eye from Fire Eye, the Tonedexter II, and five MAS cabinets haha—all 6" and 8" based. The Fire Eye products are another one of those unconventional devices that does something unique. I haven't used mine since I got the Tonedexter, though. I don't expect it to offer much benefit when combined with the TD since I'm not blending in much dry signal, but I could be wrong. I think the Bright Eye/Red Eye should be in the signal chain during training for best results, but i have not gotten around to trying this. (I have been very busy with a new day job and relocating in 2025, so havent really been gigging or tinkering with gear much.)
I expect that with that setup you could swap out the WW for any number of other amps and get almost identical results, especially since the TD has such powerful EQ. BUT, i haven't ever actually used a WW, so what do i know.
Absolutely, the RedEye Twin and RedEye clean up the signal making it so much easier to hear what you're doing and play. I've read their white paper something to do with altering treble frequencies by processing them. Walter Woods Amps are a little finicky with other boxes. So you'd have to try it.
I love the idea theoretically, but I can't get the Red Eye to play nicely with the Tonedexter no matter how I route them or train it — I've tried everything! So easy to over complicate a thing in these here waters…
Walter only built a handful of amps with an actual DI, so there's that issue. There are options inside the studio environment to replicate what the amp does without the amp itself ( the same is true for my 64 B-15N. In studio my experience, with Double Bass it's a rare occasion to run a DB through anything at all other than a decent microphone once you're inside the studio. Plus, they're really hard to service (no schematics, no component serial no.'s. I've recorded with mine . It sounded great. Just my take.
I still believe my old WW is the best sounding amp I own but it's become more of a "what if?" issue as far as using it on a regular basis. In my quest for a simple, stress-free rig I don't want to worry about any breakdowns. Using a 40+ year old amp is probably not part of that setup. I can easily live with something newer knowing it's going to be reliable, even if it might not be my total sound of choice.
Last edited:
What seems to be the problem? My Red Eye and Tonedexter II seem to get along nicely together!
