• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Wal Bass Club.

As a complete idiot who knows nothing, after a brief skim here, I think I want the MKIII because they maybe run lighter? Is that accurate?
An 11-12lb bass would not be a good thing for me.
An 8-9lb bass would be more in line with my back, and other basses.

Is there a brief rundown somewhere that explains the basic differences bt MK1-2-3 etc?

I’m not knowledgeable on any of this at all...
My MK1 was a 4 string and I think it was around 11 pounds. My MK3 is a 5 string and it’s 9 something. Definitely a noticeable difference!
 
My brand new MK II is fairly light. I haven’t measured it specifically yet but it is lighter than my EBMM Bongo. I’m not sure if Paul is using lighter mohagany these days or what but it really is quite comfortable with a 3 inch strap. I wore it for about 4 hours the other night without issue.
029C5F6F-FB83-4776-BEC8-79A1C4515A9A.jpeg
 
@Racermech did you ask for it to be lighter when you ordered it? My current Mk2 is 10lbs, I'd say I've not been used to that kind of weight but I heard it's about standard weight for Wal. Unless you asked for less massive woods. To be lighter than a Bongo, that sounds superb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Musicman1901
@Racermech did you ask for it to be lighter when you ordered it? My current Mk2 is 10lbs, I'd say I've not been used to that kind of weight but I heard it's about standard weight for Wal. Unless you asked for less massive woods. To be lighter than a Bongo, that sounds superb.


So, you got me curious...

Per my bathroom scale, my Wal is 10 pounds and my Bongo is 9.4 pounds. I guess the balance of my Wal just feels better. The weight feels like it is in the body more than the neck of the Wal.
 
Hey guys, if anyone here is looking to make the jump from 4 string to 5 string let me know. I am realizing 5ers just aren’t my thing and am looking to maybe trade mine for a 4 stringer. There’s an ad in the classifieds but I figured I’d throw it out here as well. PM me with any questions gentlemen.
 
As a complete idiot who knows nothing, after a brief skim here, I think I want the MKIII because they maybe run lighter? Is that accurate?
An 11-12lb bass would not be a good thing for me.
An 8-9lb bass would be more in line with my back, and other basses.

Is there a brief rundown somewhere that explains the basic differences bt MK1-2-3 etc?

I’m not knowledgeable on any of this at all...

Wals tend to be hefty. Mark 3 5 strings you're probably ranging from high nines to low ten lbs.
My lightest Mk3 5 was 9.7.

If you really do require 8 to 9 pounds then you'll probably have to order a new one with light materials

Paul has been looking at how to use lighter woods without compromising the sound quality of the bass. So if you were ordering from Wal that would definitely be an option. He showed me a lovely (I think Mk III 4 string) a couple of years ago that he'd completed and when I lifted it off the stand I nearly threw it through the ceiling. He'd chosen a light mahogany for the body because he was aware of these issues being raised. However it was no slough in the tome department - 100% Wal tone and punch!
 
Honestly...with the 6 or 7 Wals that I have played. The heavier ones have always sounded better. To my ears anyways. I think I'm going to try and "work" on my buddy and get my Lacewood MKI back. But I'm betting he will want my Jazz as part of the deal. :-( But considering it just sits in the closet and I would never gig with it...it may happen.
 
Honestly...with the 6 or 7 Wals that I have played. The heavier ones have always sounded better. To my ears anyways. I think I'm going to try and "work" on my buddy and get my Lacewood MKI back. But I'm betting he will want my Jazz as part of the deal. :-( But considering it just sits in the closet and I would never gig with it...it may happen.
Something about the look of that lacewood...it’s my favorite looking Wal of all the ones I’ve seen both in person and on the internet. Just has a stunning look. I wish you the best in acquiring it back into your possession again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toolmybass
Honestly...with the 6 or 7 Wals that I have played. The heavier ones have always sounded better. To my ears anyways.

I'm with you on that. I prefer them to be around 10 lbs...it just gives them a really slammin' attack. 11 is too much unessesary though.

But yeah, I'd say comparing my all old ones to the five newer ones I've had, he's generally making them lighter than older era Wals.
 
As a complete idiot who knows nothing, after a brief skim here, I think I want the MKIII because they maybe run lighter? Is that accurate?
An 11-12lb bass would not be a good thing for me.
An 8-9lb bass would be more in line with my back, and other basses.

Is there a brief rundown somewhere that explains the basic differences bt MK1-2-3 etc?

I’m not knowledgeable on any of this at all...

I'd personally recommend a Mk3 for you Alan. Not only do they tend to be a bit lighter as you mentioned, but the body is a little smaller and perfectly contoured, the Mk2 body is a little wide across the lower bouts for me.

Gallery - Walbasses

Basic differences:
Mk1 - short upper horn 21 frets, wider pickup spacing, 4 string only

Mk2 - long upper horn, 24 frets, narrower pickup spacing (4 strings), 4-5 strings

Mk3 - long upper horn, 24 frets, narrower pickup spacing (4 strings), 4-5-6 strings

Same preamp and pickups in all models
 
Gallery - Walbasses

Basic differences:
Mk1 - short upper horn 21 frets, wider pickup spacing, 4 string only

Mk2 - long upper horn, 24 frets, narrower pickup spacing (4 strings), 4-5 strings

Mk3 - long upper horn, 24 frets, narrower pickup spacing (4 strings), 4-5-6 strings

Same preamp and pickups in all models

I have been playing and following Wal for more than 15 years but never noticed the difference in pickup distance between Mk1 and Mk 2/3 before. But I have only owned Mk 1's. Thanks for pointing out.

The difference is very little with the 4 strings judging from the pictures. Also strange that the Mk2/3 5 string has more distance between the pickups than the 4 string. Any idea why they choose to make it that way?
 
Les,
Except for a 6 string, I've had all three body styles and 4 and 5 string.
I measured pickup placements and posted my findings probably 4 or 5 years ago. My main focus was the 4 strings, and yea the Mk1 was spread wider, then the Mk3, and the Mk2 was narrowest.

I also had one of the earliest 5ers, oddly enough the pickup placement on those started out closer for the first two years, and the pickups themselves were also about 5mm skinnier. My theory is, once they refined the preamp in the 5, they probably then pushed the neck pickup placement further forward to get the most booty out of it, as the pickup width change and placement happened together in '88.
That early 5 string I had put out a searing midrange that none of my other 'regular' 5 strings had...would have been the ultimate fretless IMHO.
 

Latest posts