I have a walnut faced Mk3 with the stock thin finish and rw board, and a quilt maple faced Mk3 with the thicker gloss finish and ebony board. The second one is noticeably brighter but the difference isn't as big as I expected.
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.
You might find some of the info on this page helpful... Invalid Link Removed . From what you’re saying you look like you should be investigating wenge or padauk.
I love this, great to re-read, thanks Trevor.
Does having a poly/gloss finish compensate and give a bright more punchier tone? Both of my basses have a poly/gloss finish - fretless w/sycamore facings - ebony w/HG Thor epoxy fingerboard, and fretted w/lacewood facings - rosewood fingerboard. I'm not sure if the sycamore is hard or soft, I would assume the lacewood is soft, prior to getting it refinished, it seemed to be very soft, I could press my finger nail on it and it would make an impression. They both seem to be very even in tone with the obvious Wal sound, nice bottom, strong mid's, and snappy top end. Considering the differences in my basses, is the even tonality because of the poly finish?
Last edited:
From what I gather and have read/heard it’s the fretboard choice that really makes the difference in sound. Since these are active basses most of the sound comes from the pickups/fretboard choice and associated string gauge. But I’ve only owned two Wals, so...there are other guys here that have quite the collection.
Keep in mind no two Wals prolly sound exactly alike. They are all unique and possess a sound all to their own!
Keep in mind no two Wals prolly sound exactly alike. They are all unique and possess a sound all to their own!
Everyone has thier different opinions/experiences in this area of discussion. My experiences with Wals are completely opposite of what has been stated here. I have owned 5 Wals and have playing time on 6, all different woods. Including 4 different fretboard woods (well 3 were woods and one synthetic)
There is a really big reason why the consensus is that no other bass sounds like a Wal, and thats because of the electronics and the adjustability internally and with the onboard controls. If you were to have 2 Wals with completely different woods would they sound exactly the same with a mirrored setup and knob positions? No
With small adjustments to set-up and small knob tweaking? Absolutely!!
If you have seen my YouTube videos i had my American Walnut MKII sounding identical to my Australian Lacewood MKI
So, my advise to @bigsnack is to go with your gut and your own preference on the Wal your spending a mint on....and once you have owned it for awhile you WILL find the exact tone that your hearing in your head. We will be here to help you with any adjustments or setup advice if you havent already found "it" with just spending time with your new bass.
Last edited:
I currently fiddling with my MKIII 5'er Beechwood with a RW FB, because its sounding a bit brighter and snappier than my MKII Ebony FB on the bottom A,D,G strings. Which surprised me.
Mostly just for the 3 Tool songs that I'm playing in B. I will be def writing down the changes so i can put it back. Its sounds killer right now for having fun with some RHCP tunes, like Mellowhip
Mostly just for the 3 Tool songs that I'm playing in B. I will be def writing down the changes so i can put it back. Its sounds killer right now for having fun with some RHCP tunes, like Mellowhip
Last edited:
Dean is right, there is alot of adjustability in the electronics of these to taylor your sound: there's volume and low trims in the back, pickup height makes a huge difference in warmer or grittier sound, and the individual pickup poles are adjustable as well.
But I've had to tweak some more than others to acheive the sound in my head.
But I've had to tweak some more than others to acheive the sound in my head.
Last edited:
Yup - @Toolmybass set my bass up shortly after i got it - it played and sounded like night and day after he touched all my "giggle switches". I had thought it sounded great BEFORE i took it over too him - once he did his magic, it blew my mind! Great job Deaner!
Thanks man...but I can't take all the credit. Did we even know how old the strings were on the bass when you got it? Wals for some reason really love new EB Slinky strings. So that, plus a good set up that (usually) slides in between suggested manufacturers specs and the customers preference or style of play. Your new build Paul era is impeccable, which also made it easy(er) to set up.
She sang like a prom date with some new "stiff" strings ;-)
Speaking of, when are going to come by so I can record your sweetie?
Ok here she is,
warts and all. Mine in the middle, one buddy’s pro 1 on the left and my other friends mk1 on the right. And random pro bass neck.
Yes congrats!!...If i were place a new order with Paul, it would be a black poly MKI. I used to own one and i miss is alot.
I would have a tough time picking harware but would probably do gold.
I would have a tough time picking harware but would probably do gold.
Last edited:
I am very happy that its chrome 
So both outside basses are made in 1981 and my bass was built in 1986. The neck shape on mine is slightly different then the others and feels just slightly more "sharp" but not crazy. Long as I don't over analyze I will hardly notice. Mine does sound different then the other MK1. Even after I set it up to be closer to my friends in terms of pickup height and internal trims. Both still sound undeniably Wal but hard to put into words the sonic difference wearing the same strings.
So both outside basses are made in 1981 and my bass was built in 1986. The neck shape on mine is slightly different then the others and feels just slightly more "sharp" but not crazy. Long as I don't over analyze I will hardly notice. Mine does sound different then the other MK1. Even after I set it up to be closer to my friends in terms of pickup height and internal trims. Both still sound undeniably Wal but hard to put into words the sonic difference wearing the same strings.
I am very happy that its chrome
Woods are known to make subtle differences. You add up the body wood, ebony vs rw fretboards and that your whole bass is covered with poly, they will never sound identical with the same setup. It is possible to offset these differences with your setups and different strings/ amp settings etc to get them sounding identical in a band/recorded setting.
But as i have found.... its a bunch of trial and error to get "there" because even changing your pickup knob by 3 notches can change the sound. The tonal combinations/adjustments seem endless sometimes.
I have spent a couple hours already on the MKIII 5'er to match my MKII through my rig, and im not even half way there yet and i “know” what im doing lol
Last edited:
I feel ya. I don't think I could get the character from the wenge faced/rw combo from my poly shot/ebony board bass. Getting the same output level and pick attack flavor seems doable between Wal's. But just like my P basses they will have slightly different character bass to bass. Both have cool subtle tonal differences but same basic heart.
correct, my solid mahog body basses have a character all their own.
Club# 161. Ampegfuzz
