• 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.

Wal Bass Club.

#9,861
I’m generally not into “family photos”, but what the heck...
A29F2243-5F47-41D5-930F-DE4772186440.jpeg


Happy Canada Day to my fellow Canadian’s...and of course an early Happy Independence Day / Fourth of July to my good friends to the South!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Warren Bassett, Element Zero, mikeswals and 7 others
#9,865
bassballs27 said:
I’m generally not into “family photos”, but what the heck...
View attachment 3462593
Click to expand...

Cool! Just noticed your black bass has the earlier narrow pickups and closer pickup spacing they used from the protos on up thru sometime during 1988, when they widened the pickups and moved them farther apart.
My 86 with those pickups and spacing had tons of face ripping attitude...the later fivers just don't achieve that same snarl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toolmybass
#9,866
mikeswals said:
Cool! Just noticed your black bass has the earlier narrow pickups and closer pickup spacing they used from the protos on up thru sometime during 1988, when they widened the pickups and moved them farther apart.
My 86 with those pickups and spacing had tons of face ripping attitude...the later fivers just don't achieve that same snarl.
Click to expand...

So Cool! I had no idea! Thanks Mike!
There is a tonal difference between both my Wals. The pickups and definitely fretboard material contributes to that difference. I love them both differently.
But I have played the 88 in a few jam sessions with a friends I work with. They had no idea what I was using...the Wal shredded perfectly. I could hear my bass regardless of where I was in the room and using almost any amp. Blew my mind...that’s why I have this Thanos grip on this Infinity Gauntlet!!! Hahaha
 
  • Like
Reactions: BWorm
#9,867
mikeswals said:
Cool! Just noticed your black bass has the earlier narrow pickups and closer pickup spacing they used from the protos on up thru sometime during 1988, when they widened the pickups and moved them farther apart.
My 86 with those pickups and spacing had tons of face ripping attitude...the later fivers just don't achieve that same snarl.
Click to expand...
Interesting...at first when you said narrower i thought you meant side to side...but comparing them you can see the difference. I dont see much of one on the spacing though.
@bassballs27 What are your pups size and compared to your new one?
Mine are 1.0810” (or 1 13/16ths)
From bridge to pup is .394” (or 10mm exactly)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mikeswals
#9,868
Toolmybass said:
Interesting...at first when you said narrower i thought you meant side to side...but comparing them you can see the difference. I dont see much of one on the spacing though.
@bassballs27 What are your pups size and compared to your new one?
Mine are 1.0810” (or 1 13/16ths)
From bridge to pup is .394” (or 10mm exactly)
Click to expand...

@Toolmybass

My Zebranowood Topped 2015 MK2 5 pups are 1 and 13/16th” or about 45mm. Bridge to Bridge pup casing looks 13mm to me just about 1/2”.
But between the pups is just an 1 and 17/32”. Pretty much 1 and 1/2”.
Side to side or pickup casing width is 4” bang on.

The 88 MK2 pups are both 1 and 5/8”
Bridge to Bridge pup casing looks like 12mm just under 1/2”.Between the pups is 1 and 1/2” dead on. Side to side, the pickup casings are about 1/16” shy of 4”.

I guess it’s safe to say that pickups size did change from back in 1988 to now.
They are physically smaller.

4ECB39B8-C403-4574-A283-CE47531A977F.jpeg

84CBAE12-013E-49E7-AB48-EC839440332A.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toolmybass and mikeswals
#9,869
Toolmybass said:
Interesting...at first when you said narrower i thought you meant side to side...but comparing them you can see the difference. I dont see much of one on the spacing though.
@bassballs27 What are your pups size and compared to your new one?
Mine are 1.0810” (or 1 13/16ths)
From bridge to pup is .394” (or 10mm exactly)
Click to expand...

Yup, sometime during 88, I figure since they had switched to the 4-trim preamp in late 86 and were able to control low end, they widened the pickups so the poles were now about 1.0" apart (vs about .80 on the narrow ones). And they also pushed the neck pickup 3/8" closer to the neck, so now the forward row of poles are about 1/2" closer to the neck with those changes.
The mid-88 and later fivers are fatter sounding, but man those early ones rip.

And the texture of the early pickups looks like metal instead of wood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toolmybass and bassballs27
#9,870
bassballs27 said:
@Toolmybass

My Zebranowood Topped 2015 MK2 5 pups are 1 and 13/16th” or about 45mm. Bridge to Bridge pup casing looks 13mm to me just about 1/2”.
But between the pups is just an 1 and 17/32”. Pretty much 1 and 1/2”.
Side to side or pickup casing width is 4” bang on.

The 88 MK2 pups are both 1 and 5/8”
Bridge to Bridge pup casing looks like 12mm just under 1/2”.Between the pups is 1 and 1/2” dead on. Side to side, the pickup casings are about 1/16” shy of 4”.

I guess it’s safe to say that pickups size did change from back in 1988 to now.
They are physically smaller.

View attachment 3463094
View attachment 3463095
Click to expand...

Just another thought too...
I’m going to guess the actual pickups are probably smaller than the casings.
How much smaller they are, I’d have to see if I can pull them out.

I’m wondering if the pole faces are different sized too...

Hmm...looks like the 88 has slightly smaller pole faces too by about a 1/32” in overall diameter.
 
#9,871
mikeswals said:
Yup, sometime during 88, I figure since they had switched to the 4-trim preamp in late 86 and were able to control low end, they widened the pickups so the poles were now about 1.0" apart (vs about .80 on the narrow ones). And they also pushed the neck pickup 3/8" closer to the neck, so now the forward row of poles are about 1/2" closer to the neck with those changes.
The mid-88 and later fivers are fatter sounding, but man those early ones rip.

And the texture of the early pickups looks like metal instead of wood.
Click to expand...

Ironically I nicknamed the 88 Wal “Punisher” and I think fits better with this added info! LOL.

The Zebranowood is still “Gmork”, don’t gaze into those knots for too long! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toolmybass and mikeswals
#9,872
bassballs27 said:
@Toolmybass

My Zebranowood Topped 2015 MK2 5 pups are 1 and 13/16th” or about 45mm. Bridge to Bridge pup casing looks 13mm to me just about 1/2”.
But between the pups is just an 1 and 17/32”. Pretty much 1 and 1/2”.
Side to side or pickup casing width is 4” bang on.

The 88 MK2 pups are both 1 and 5/8”
Bridge to Bridge pup casing looks like 12mm just under 1/2”.Between the pups is 1 and 1/2” dead on. Side to side, the pickup casings are about 1/16” shy of 4”.

I guess it’s safe to say that pickups size did change from back in 1988 to now.
They are physically smaller.

View attachment 3463094
View attachment 3463095
Click to expand...
Cool...tnx
 
  • Like
Reactions: bassballs27
#9,874
GHOST AT said:
Looks great love the Wenge top! Does the fingerboard have block inlays?
Click to expand...

I went with traditional dots. I really like the dark facings over the mahogany core, that is a great contrast to my eye. My request to Paul was that I wanted a nice, aggressive high end, as well as the thinnest / slimmest neck profile he could shape that didn't compromise the stability of the neck. The nut width is a little thinner as well (40mm) We'll see how it came out soon!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Toolmybass and mikeswals
#9,876
bigsnack said:
I went with traditional dots. I really like the dark facings over the mahogany core, that is a great contract to my eye. My request to Paul was that I wanted a nice, aggressive high end, as well as the thinnest / slimmest neck profile he could shape that didn't compromise the stability of the neck. The nut width is a little thinner as well (40mm) We'll see how it came out soon!
Click to expand...
The neck profile sounds great, when I looked at full view of your pic it looked like a block at the 12th fret I guess it's the tape. I will have to measure the nut width on my MK 3, I was told by the original owner that it's slightly narrower than standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigsnack
#9,878
Is added neck reinforcement now an option on new Wals? I eventually had Rick Turner's shop add graphite reinforcement bars to the neck of my first Wal--more because of a dead spot issue than any problem with instability--but I didn't find it to make much difference.

LowEndHum said:
Awe man I added neck reinforcement because I originally asked for a 39mm neck width at the nut. But I removed it in favor of lower costs. That was before I had a chance to try out a physical Wal bass.
Click to expand...
 
#9,879
mikezimmerman said:
Is added neck reinforcement now an option on new Wals? I eventually had Rick Turner's shop add graphite reinforcement bars to the neck of my first Wal--more because of a dead spot issue than any problem with instability--but I didn't find it to make much difference.
Click to expand...

Wow, that must have been an expensive venture adding reinforcement after the fact? Too bad that didn’t help with the dead spots.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back