Walrus Audio Badwater Bass Preamp

[sunbeast]

Sounds fine but the mid sweeps are really weird. If high mid goes into the 7KHz range where is treble

Listen to the Nate Navarro vid and he sweeps through all the EQ controls (actually makes worthwhile demos of pedals!). You can hear pretty clearly that the High and Low controls are both pretty wide shelving controls so there would be a nice overlap of frequency ranges there. I actually prefer that type of EQ to just 4 or so bands of peaking EQ controls like some other preamps have.

 

[Solude]

You can hear pretty clearly that the High and Low controls are both pretty wide shelving controls so there would be a nice overlap of frequency ranges there.

That part I love. After all the BDDI presence control is just that, a high shelf

 

[sunbeast]

In this day and age, releasing a complete preamp/DI without a cab sim option is dumb, especially since the pedal does offer a drive. The aim for many of us would be to use such pedal as their main “rig” to play straight into the PA. Why offer a DI without a cab sim, knowing the drive will sound fizzy? So many other ones on the market do offer the option….

Yeah, they really missed a trick there.
Semi-parametric mids, compressor, drive, and blend are all good features, but leaving out some kind of attenuation for the drive signal, be it IR-based cabsim, LPF, or a 5K filter on the XLR is just a no-go, especially these days

A drive doesn’t need to sound fizzy by definition- for all any of us know there is already some filtering of the high-end in the drive signal chain (the clips I’ve heard certainly don’t sound fizzy to me, even if I haven’t heard anything particularly to my taste in them yet) and the High band sounds plenty powerful in the Navarro demo to eliminate any fizziness (in fact that may be a great argument for the particularly high voicing of the High-mid band, as you could bump that up while dropping the High shelving control and get a pretty good cab-like resonance up top). The Tone switch attached to the Drive circuit may well also be adding some variable high-end filtering.

I actually generally stray away from IR cab-sim personally. I have found through lots of trial and error that it usually just doesn’t sound particularly good to me, and there are too many variables involved when making an IR to really nail the sound of any particular cabinet (people often forget that there is the whole mic effect involved in an IR, just as there is in a studio or live show that can make or break a miced cab tone- and the tech used to make an IR file is hardly recreating all the variables of what a cab gives you anyway. It’s like a monochromatic painting of a cabinet sound). The beauty of real cab tone is a 3-dimensional stereo thing, and no IR loader will give you that through a simple mono DI- why even rely on that kind of funky and limiting EQ curve if you aren’t playing through a real cab? I much prefer my own EQ curves to accomplish “cab-sim” type sounds, and tweaking those is much more versatile in a live environment than some fixed curve that may or may not jive with the room or band mix (so many of the fixed IRs or cabinet emulation curves used on bass pedals are FAR too extreme IME, and have screwed up otherwise fine bass preamps- I’ve felt that way about every Tech 21 I’ve used, the Orange Bass Butler, and a handful of other modern pedals I’ve demoed). I also think adding expensive digital circuitry to a pedal solely for the purpose of IR loading circuitry is a mistake (raising your pricepoint, complexity, and power requirements significantly for something that frankly often doesn’t work as well or as seamlessly in a mix as many people want it to).

I’ve been playing with driven amp and pedal tones for a few decades and definitely haven’t found my live PA tone improved greatly by any fixed cab-emulation circuitry from a pedal I’ve tried yet. In a live environment I get what I need with some high-cut and usually HPF of some sort (not always necessary if not using a stage rig, as the board often has it too), in a studio basically every DAW has preset cab circuitry that sounds at least as good as what a basic pedal might do at least for monitoring purposes, and you aren’t married to a particular tone after you’ve recorded it as you would be with a fixed tone in an outboard pedal. Do I think live sound in general has improved as a result of more of these kinds of “rig in box” ideas so many bands are using? maybe at least it has generally gotten more consistent gig to gig?

Anyway count me in as someone who has zero interest in another preamp with an onboard IR loader (or any unnecessary digital anything) or even a strongly-voiced cab-sim EQ circuit that I will inevitably leave off anyway! Not every new trend is necessarily an improvement across the board IME, and not every new multi-effect needs to compete in the same playing field as a Quad-Cortex, Helix or Kemper. If the drive is voiced as I like it then a high-shelving EQ onboard (as this pedal has) is probably going to be plenty good enough for me to roll off some of the top end.

 

[Hypocrite]

Out of curiosity, what would you use instead? A lot of us (myself included) have been tearing this pedal down for what it lacks. Im using EBS MB III for reference.

Curious to see which touring pedalboards this pedal ends up.

Personally I use a Darkglass X7 into a DSM Omnicabsim. I think a lot of us tear down new things because they either don't do exactly what we want, or because they do the same as what we already have.

A drive doesn’t need to sound fizzy by definition- for all any of us know there is already some filtering of the high-end in the drive signal chain (the clips I’ve heard certainly don’t sound fizzy to me, even if I haven’t heard anything particularly to my taste in them yet) and the High band sounds plenty powerful in the Navarro demo to eliminate any fizziness (in fact that may be a great argument for the particularly high voicing of the High-mid band, as you could bump that up while dropping the High shelving control and get a pretty good cab-like resonance up top). The Tone switch attached to the Drive circuit may well also be adding some variable high-end filtering.

I actually generally stray away from IR cab-sim personally. I have found through lots of trial and error that it usually just doesn’t sound particularly good to me, and there are too many variables involved when making an IR to really nail the sound of any particular cabinet (people often forget that there is the whole mic effect involved in an IR, just as there is in a studio or live show that can make or break a miced cab tone- and the tech used to make an IR file is hardly recreating all the variables of what a cab gives you anyway. It’s like a monochromatic painting of a cabinet sound). The beauty of real cab tone is a 3-dimensional stereo thing, and no IR loader will give you that through a simple mono DI- why even rely on that kind of funky and limiting EQ curve if you aren’t playing through a real cab? I much prefer my own EQ curves to accomplish “cab-sim” type sounds, and tweaking those is much more versatile in a live environment than some fixed curve that may or may not jive with the room or band mix (so many of the fixed IRs or cabinet emulation curves used on bass pedals are FAR too extreme IME, and have screwed up otherwise fine bass preamps- I’ve felt that way about every Tech 21 I’ve used, the Orange Bass Butler, and a handful of other modern pedals I’ve demoed). I also think adding expensive digital circuitry to a pedal solely for the purpose of IR loading circuitry is a mistake (raising your pricepoint, complexity, and power requirements significantly for something that frankly often doesn’t work as well or as seamlessly in a mix as many people want it to).

I’ve been playing with driven amp and pedal tones for a few decades and definitely haven’t found my live PA tone improved greatly by any fixed cab-emulation circuitry from a pedal I’ve tried yet. In a live environment I get what I need with some high-cut and usually HPF of some sort (not always necessary if not using a stage rig, as the board often has it too), in a studio basically every DAW has preset cab circuitry that sounds at least as good as what a basic pedal might do at least for monitoring purposes, and you aren’t married to a particular tone after you’ve recorded it as you would be with a fixed tone in an outboard pedal. Do I think live sound in general has improved as a result of more of these kinds of “rig in box” ideas so many bands are using? maybe at least it has generally gotten more consistent gig to gig?

Anyway count me in as someone who has zero interest in another preamp with an onboard IR loader (or any unnecessary digital anything) or even a strongly-voiced cab-sim EQ circuit that I will inevitably leave off anyway! Not every new trend is necessarily an improvement across the board IME, and not every new multi-effect needs to compete in the same playing field as a Quad-Cortex, Helix or Kemper. If the drive is voiced as I like it then a high-shelving EQ onboard (as this pedal has) is probably going to be plenty good enough for me to roll off some of the top end.

Good points, I'm not keen on IR-based cabsims either, but that does seem to be the way things are going. I've been using a simple H+LPF at the end of my chain, recently upgraded to the DSM Omnicabsim, and it works great for going direct to the board or just straight through my rig as a HPF, way more versatile than any IR or normal eq that I've used

 

[sunbeast]

Personally I use a Darkglass X7 into a DSM Omnicabsim. I think a lot of us tear down new things because they either don't do exactly what we want, or because they do the same as what we already have.



Good points, I'm not keen on IR-based cabsims either, but that does seem to be the way things are going. I've been using a simple H+LPF at the end of my chain, recently upgraded to the DSM Omnicabsim, and it works great for going direct to the board or just straight through my rig as a HPF, way more versatile than any IR or normal eq that I've used

I also have the Omnicabsim, and prefer it highly to any basic IR loader- though I generally find it is more than I need in most live situations to get a decent live tone (will still use it though because it works!).

As far as slagging on new gear- really there are endless ways to approach voicing a guitar or bass tone, and I'm all for new options coming out and approaching things in a slightly new way (or even totally new way, as was the case when DG first came on the scene). We will all have our own specific preferences for what elements are absolutely needed from what we use, but any of us are gonna make anything sound like ourselves regardless. I still remember what it was like (even before DG existed) when there were only like 5 options for bass pedals and 3 of them were just different takes on a Tubescreamer circuit, and I still was able to make killer-sounding bass tone. I applaud any company adding their own take to the bass field, even if it may not specifically fit my needs.

 

[Hypocrite]

I also have the Omnicabsim, and prefer it highly to any basic IR loader- though I generally find it is more than I need in most live situations to get a decent live tone (will still use it though because it works!).

As far as slagging on new gear- really there are endless ways to approach voicing a guitar or bass tone, and I'm all for new options coming out and approaching things in a slightly new way (or even totally new way, as was the case when DG first came on the scene). We will all have our own specific preferences for what elements are absolutely needed from what we use, but any of us are gonna make anything sound like ourselves regardless. I still remember what it was like (even before DG existed) when there were only like 5 options for bass pedals and 3 of them were just different takes on a Tubescreamer circuit, and I still was able to make killer-sounding bass tone. I applaud any company adding their own take to the bass field, even if it may not specifically fit my needs.

Oh sure, and that's another thing to consider, if New Thing sounds like Old Thing and whether or not that's what we want.

In about 3 weeks I'll be using the OCSD live, can't wait to see how it performs

 

[matante]

I think a wide shelving-type Lows control like this that clearly reaches up into the low-mids is probably a decent way to raise that part of the signal subtly IMO. That said, it is always nice to have more range available on a frequency sweep.
Anyway, these things are all subjective.

I agree with you except for this part. There's no documentation yet that says the low knob goes up into the low-mids. It's entirely possible Walrus simply wants to leave the low-mids alone with the idea that you can turn them up by lowering other things or turn them down by raising everything else. We don't know. Having a low shelving that goes up into the low-mids would be problematic if you just want to boost low-mids a bit and end up boosting 50 hz as well. in any case, whether their design works or not, my point was it strays from what most bassists want/expect and that's going to hurt sales. It does feel as though they didn't do their homework here.

 

[sunbeast]

I agree with you except for this part. There's no documentation yet that says the low knob goes up into the low-mids. It's entirely possible Walrus simply wants to leave the low-mids alone with the idea that you can turn them up by lowering other things or turn them down by raising everything else. We don't know. Having a low shelving that goes up into the low-mids would be problematic if you just want to boost low-mids a bit and end up boosting 50 hz as well. in any case, whether their design works or not, my point was it strays from what most bassists want/expect and that's going to hurt sales. It does feel as though they didn't do their homework here.

I'm basing my ideas of the Lows control on the Nathan Navarro demo where he sweeps all the EQ controls. To my ears it sounds like it does extend into the low-mids. With it boosted all the way as he does in the vid it it might sound a tad extreme (actually not really that crazy, and probably useable for alot of people)- but thats with all the other bands completely rolled off too. With a more reasonable mild boost I'd expect it to not overpower with subs in the least bit. As a fan of passive Fender EQ tonestacks I actually like a gentle wide curve on Highs and Lows like that. Hard to say if there is any fixed HPF going on in this pedal either (thats pretty common in many preamp circuits)

 

[Aussie Player]

This seems cool! Walrus audio has always made great stuff, so it's cool to see a bass specific pedal

Badwater Bass Pre-amp and D.I.

Funny seeing the name "Walrus" on here as I was in that band during the 1970's. We recorded the first 12" single at EMI. We wanted the record to be louder than the player expected and the engineers said that was not possible because the tracks would need to be further apart and the 7" single wouldn't permit that so we innocently asked then "why not master the single on an LP disc? They looked at everyone around the room and said, well technically they could, but it hadn't been done. So we did it.

 

[Lammchop93]

anyone tried this yet?

 

[thornshadow99]

Walrus Audio has a 15% off sale during Memorial Day weekend, for what it's worth.

 

[EncoremMP]

Walrus Audio has a 15% off sale during Memorial Day weekend, for what it's worth.

Went to their site, looks like the Badwater is the only pedal that the discount doesn't apply to

All other pedals show the discount except for this one.

 

[thornshadow99]

Sorry about that.

 

[EncoremMP]

Oh, no fault of yours at all! I for one appreciate the heads up. I am going to reach out to them in bit and see if they will honor it given the blurb says "Site Wide"

 

[rafitoprtx]

I will love to see a Fender Downtown Express vs bad water comparison video.

 

[Pickebass]

I tried one of them this weekend at Spacetone Music in San Antonio. In comparison to the downtown express, I thought the Fender was more useful than the badwater

 

[Nuage420]

My Initial impression.

 

[Nuage420]

Right out the gate I'll never rebuy another B7k or VMT, this just sounds more full. I'll compare this against my Harmonic Booster into Damnationaudio MBD1 for low drive they are in the same territory. High gain the MBD1 has it beat for loud and nasty but the Badwater is actually usable everywhere.
I think the clean eq and low drive tones will let me replace the Harmonic Booster as an always on repurpose the MBD1 to high gain assault. l have used the Harmonic Booster for motown tones that I can kick in so that'll probably happen.

 

[Ian774]

Would you say the lack of cab sim is an issue when using the drive through a PA or when recording?

 

[Nuage420]

Would you say the lack of cab sim is an issue when using the drive through a PA or when recording?

For recording I have endless cab sim options in other places.
Can't answer for live scenarios, sorry