been there, done that. its the part that the saddle sits in vibrating against the bottom of the bridge plate that it slides on
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.
Impressed with Warwick hardware!
- Thread starter theophilus762
- Start date
been there, done that. its the part that the saddle sits in vibrating against the bottom of the bridge plate that it slides on
Yeah, if you think they all have thick necks and are heavy then I really have to wonder if you've ever played more than one or two Warwicks before.
I too was very impressed with the adjustability, having recently picked up an '06 Corvette. and being used to an Ibanez with a very thin, narrow neck it wasn't hard to get used to.
My Wick Buzzard is definitely my heaviest bass. The hardware is pretty cool... I like it a lot but its hell on my back!
On the weight/neck thing; I've got two Warwicks, a German Fortress One, and a $$ Corvette. The Corvette is absolutely heavy with a thick neck. The Fortress One however, is very light, thin neck, low action, really different than the vette. I haven't played any other models, so don't know if the old Fortress is not the norm in those regards though.
My $$ corvette is pretty light. Im thinking my next bass might be a Warwick thumb 
i have to agree with the tuners since the ones on my Darklord are stripping like mad ... i'm just glad the ones on my vampyre SN and LTD are holding out.
what hipshots are they if i may ask? cause the rattling on my darklord is annoying...
-*-
i bought my first wick blindly, and i was reading all these talkbass stuff about "baseball bat necks" ... but seriously, coming out of a J-bass, i never felt the need to adjust to the neck ... it felt very natural.
you know what basses i had to really sit down and adjust to?
-Pre EB MM stingray
-ibanez BTB
-ibanez ATK
those basses were a pain to play especially at that time when i wasn't used to anything out of the J-neck.
-*-
not all warwicks are heavy, rather... all basses made of Bubinga/Ovangkol are heavy.
Hipshot Ultralite tuners are direct drop ins for the Gotoh tuners.
Schaller makes the bridge for Warwick.
Alembic had been making their own adjustable nuts since Hans-Peter was still in diapers, probably.
My corvette only weighs just over 8.5lbs. And whilst some think the neck is too thick, I find it very comfortable - certainly no thicker than your average P-bass.
I love the fully adjustable bridge too, especially the changeable string spacing. I changed mine from 19mm to 18.5mm and it makes all the difference
I love the fully adjustable bridge too, especially the changeable string spacing. I changed mine from 19mm to 18.5mm and it makes all the difference
Be aware if its a just a nut 2 itll break someday. Just replaced my broke nut (lol) with jan3...
I love my 10lb bubinga vette!
I love my 10lb bubinga vette!
Should be:
Warwick is light years ahead of everybody on stealing design. (and taking credit for it...)
I don't own any Warwick basses, but I do like their sound. I own a Wick combo, and I love it (and have received many compliments on it's sound and design).
At the risk of pissing the Warwick lovers off, it's my opinion that (most of) the hardware on their basses is nothing new, exclusive, or revolutionary. It's been available on other basses for a long time.
All the stuff you mention, the awesome bridge (a thousand ways to customize it, easy string access, locking, etc.), easy cavity and rod access, etc., are available on my (non-Warwick) bass as stock hardware.
Admittedly, one thing it does not have is the adjustable nut - which sounds great, in theory. I have heard the downside to them (and confirmed in this thread) is that many eventually break. Also, I've never needed my nuts adjusted (giggity), so I'm not sure about that particular trade-off.
My stock tuners are hipshot, and I love them. They're just great.
Not hating on the Wick's or their hardware. Not at all. Just sharing my thoughts.
-K
At the risk of pissing the Warwick lovers off, it's my opinion that (most of) the hardware on their basses is nothing new, exclusive, or revolutionary. It's been available on other basses for a long time.
All the stuff you mention, the awesome bridge (a thousand ways to customize it, easy string access, locking, etc.), easy cavity and rod access, etc., are available on my (non-Warwick) bass as stock hardware.
Admittedly, one thing it does not have is the adjustable nut - which sounds great, in theory. I have heard the downside to them (and confirmed in this thread) is that many eventually break. Also, I've never needed my nuts adjusted (giggity), so I'm not sure about that particular trade-off.
My stock tuners are hipshot, and I love them. They're just great.
Not hating on the Wick's or their hardware. Not at all. Just sharing my thoughts.
-K
The Warwick hardware components allow a lot of tweaking...but:
1. the reason behind it is simple: their basses do need a lot of pampering and adjusting quite often; I've owned probably more than 30 basses during these past few years, from the cheapest models to the more expensive stuff - the only ones that need constant attention are my Wicks.
2. the quality of those components is nothing to write home about it: the paint peels off easily, the nut breaks often, and so on.
3. last, but not least: the whole system is not very user friendly, and if you're doing a set up for the first time, it will drive you crazy.
IMO the reason why most folks are either loving or hating the Wicks is that a player has to cope with a lot of particular features (from their neck dimensions, down to the body shapes, weight, hardware, or even the way those balance) in order to play a Warwick bass - some find the transition smooth, others end up hating it.
1. the reason behind it is simple: their basses do need a lot of pampering and adjusting quite often; I've owned probably more than 30 basses during these past few years, from the cheapest models to the more expensive stuff - the only ones that need constant attention are my Wicks.
2. the quality of those components is nothing to write home about it: the paint peels off easily, the nut breaks often, and so on.
3. last, but not least: the whole system is not very user friendly, and if you're doing a set up for the first time, it will drive you crazy.
IMO the reason why most folks are either loving or hating the Wicks is that a player has to cope with a lot of particular features (from their neck dimensions, down to the body shapes, weight, hardware, or even the way those balance) in order to play a Warwick bass - some find the transition smooth, others end up hating it.
Yeah Warwicks are not for the weak. If you're afraid of advancements in design, you should probably stick with Fender
Warwick Tuners. The tuners on my Streamer are fine, they work great. The problem is the bushings that hold the tuners on. They are the cheapest, crappiest piles of cheap crap I've ever seen. They are one step above plastic. I replaced mine with some machined solid brass bushings I bought from a fellow TB'er, I think he charges $20 for a set. There's a night/day difference in the quality, and they look awesome.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Warwick Tuners. The tuners on my Streamer are fine, they work great. The problem is the bushings that hold the tuners on. They are the cheapest, crappiest piles of cheap crap I've ever seen. They are one step above plastic. I replaced mine with some machined solid brass bushings I bought from a fellow TB'er, I think he charges $20 for a set. There's a night/day difference in the quality, and they look awesome.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
I think the faulty nut was replaced with the new just a nut 3. I love my warwicks! Perfect body size and weight, not torching perfect balance. Yea playing my 7lbs ibanez is sweet at times but I love the feel of my Warwick. The set up does take more time than say a fender but I don't need to adjust my wicks every season. Just in between string changes when I go from low B to high C
That is such a great looking bass. Like I said before, I love the Warwick sound (and the looks, by damn, are just sexy).
It's good to hear from people like you, updating us on the JaN3. It's good to know (hope) that that issue was resolved. For the money one must spend on those basses, I'd expect the nuts to hold up to all sorts of abuse...
-K
It's good to hear from people like you, updating us on the JaN3. It's good to know (hope) that that issue was resolved. For the money one must spend on those basses, I'd expect the nuts to hold up to all sorts of abuse...
-K
Having owned a few Warwicks, I can also say the hardware has the potential for problems because of all that adjustability. I've seen and heard of mean failures with their adjustable nut, and I know they've updated it once or twice to hopefully make it a little more dependable. Many people believe that having a nut suspended by a couple of screws like that detracts from tone, and I can understand that.
To me, a properly setup bone nut doesn't need adjusting ever. At some point it might need replacing though. And I dont need an adjustable bridge either. Adjustable saddles are of course common and necessary. Many high end basses do without the hardware additions on the Warwicks, and those basses IMHO have increased stability and tone because of it. I agree with the comment about German over-engineering, at least as it applies to Warwick. I'm not knocking their basses because I like having choices. It's just that I've never seen a reason for why Warwick chooses half of what they do in their designs.
To me, a properly setup bone nut doesn't need adjusting ever. At some point it might need replacing though. And I dont need an adjustable bridge either. Adjustable saddles are of course common and necessary. Many high end basses do without the hardware additions on the Warwicks, and those basses IMHO have increased stability and tone because of it. I agree with the comment about German over-engineering, at least as it applies to Warwick. I'm not knocking their basses because I like having choices. It's just that I've never seen a reason for why Warwick chooses half of what they do in their designs.
+1 to all this. I've always equated owning Warwicks as something similar to folks owning Harley's or Ducati's. They're always looking at them, rubbing them down, and having to pamper them to keep them running. They can be expensive, but they do often look, play and sound good. Nothing wrong with any of that of course. It's just not how I want to a bass to be. I've gotten rid of many basses over the years because I was constantly fiddling with them. Even a few Fenders and some Stingray5's come to mind, but my Warwicks drove me crazy because of the constant adjusting and waxing. I don't really enjoy sitting around staring at an instrument that I own, at least not after the first week. It needs to be able to go long periods of time without attention outside of nothing but a string change. I might just be my experience, but that ain't a Warwick. YMMV
I also love the "strap lock" system included standard with Warwicks.
I had no trouble at all going from Ibanez 885 to Warwick Thumb BO 6. I just adjusted my thumb position & all was simple after that. Same thing when I got my Conklin BDGT-7. Adjusted my thumb and I was good to go.
I had no trouble at all going from Ibanez 885 to Warwick Thumb BO 6. I just adjusted my thumb position & all was simple after that. Same thing when I got my Conklin BDGT-7. Adjusted my thumb and I was good to go.
