Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by modulusbassist, Oct 27, 2001.
Ugly Warwick, what a waste
<img width=400 src="http://www.guitarczar.com/Auctions/wwkst1.jpg">
Well what happened was someone took the beautiful Spector NS design, deceided to take a tab of acid, use some nasty woods that no one can pronounce, stick one horrible sounding MEC humbucker in it & blah!!!!! It's so nasty!!!!
Maybe the guy bought it on sale and simply stuck it on eBay to make a buck.
"Whoa, dude, this warwicks goin' cheap"...
Actually, it's a streamer standard 5. I looked inside the control cavity of one any there's nothing in there, just the volume and tone pots wired to the output.
It does have a coil tap switch, though. The volume pot is the push/pull kind. Still not worth it.
It's like CBS bought Warwick or something...
The Streamer Standard Series is the least expensive line of basses that Warwick makes.
What really sticks out about them is their 1 piece bridge, as opposed to the standard 2 piece bridge you see on all other warwicks. Also the Streamer Standard's are only avaliable with passive electronics.
I've played one before, I wasn't really to hot on the tone. You can find all the info on them at www.warwickbass.com
P.S. If you wanna check out an awesome Warwick Bass, check out the Corvette Standard.
Should I say that it is a Ned Steinberger design that was licensed to Spector and then to Warwick?
Wenge!! Wenge!! Wenge!!
Something unpronounceable is the Homer Simpson rendition of the "CTRL" key!
And the W. Streamer Standard is very pronounceable.. it is CAROLENA. I believe it is a nice name for a crappy wood.
In fact that Streamer Standard says "Warwick" but it certainly cannot be compared to a real Warwick.
Does this look Nasty?
Flame Maple Body (I can pronounce that)
The Bridge is just amazing...
Ohh... and it is coming to my house very soon.
No, it's actually very beautiful. If I had to choose, I'd rather have this:
<img width=450 src="http://www.ssdbass.com/images/ns6bkch2black.jpg">
<img width=450 src="http://www.ssdbass.com/images/nsjh63big.jpg">
i can't believe i never reconized this before, is it just me of does the warwick headstock look like a piece of poo they just stuck on at the end of the neck?
Warwick did it the right way. Allow people on the lower end of the economic scale to play a Warwick without cheapening their line. As you can see, you can tell the difference right off the bat. MTD & Spector also did it the right way.
hmm...i think the warwick headstock is one of the best looking headstocks on any bass, but to each his own.
and yes - streamer standards are not so cool, streamer LX's are the shiznit. but at least i don't have to feel worse about owning a warwick when the standard is so different looking. it's like the difference between a chevy cavalier z24 and corvette Z06. they're both chevy's, and they're both coupes, but that's it.
Luis, i'd take your streamer 6 over any spector or just about any other 6. (warwicks other 6's are the thumb, which a 6 would be just unwieldy, and the SSI, which the spacing is too big, so the LX is probably the best 6 they make)
Actually Im a Warwick and Spector Dealer.
I had the choice between the USA BOlt On 6 String and the Warwick.
I had a choice, I choose Warwick.
On the Other Hand, the USA NT 6 String is Amazing, but I simply cannot afford its price.
I love that headstock , specially that big W
But I also like the original Spector Headstock, not the 5 string or 6 string. That "S" in MOP looks great.
Thanks for the input! But you wont be taking Mine!!!
I don't think that it is ugly, as I have seen basses that are far uglier, but you can't expect that bass to look as nice as one that costs around 3-4 times as much. Just my opinion.
Well, look at the Ibanez Soundgears or the Fender Squiers. Just because it's cheaper, doesn't mean it has to look different. (notice I didn't say "ugly").
Maybe it is just me, but I do see a difference between those basses, mainly in wood types and the different kinds of hardware on basses. When it comes to Warwicks, any way (as I didn't mean to sound like I was talking about all kinds of basses) that these different options are important to the looks of the bass. Some of the Warwicks people posted here obviously have more expensive wood. Nevermind, I am stupid.
I don't make any sense.