Walter Woods Amps History and Development

[Jeff Scott]

.... perhaps, in this day and age, his niche is his personal philosophy and, of course, his demand for the highest quality. When I said his niche has been filled, I was referring solely to the concept of the compact, lightweight, powerful amplifier.

 

[Jerrold Tiers]

I don't think it's comparable to the Mark Bass unit. Construction and components of the Woods amp is impeccable and of the highest level. So are his prices. The Markbass is an excellent bang for the buck amp. They make concessions for construction ease, price point, and other factors that are not even considered in the Walter Woods amp.

They are not in the same league.

I have seen and messed with several WW amps, examined innards, and even have fixed an old "red" one.......

They are well made, in general, that is perfectly true. But they are NOT, IMO, far above Markbass or others as might be expected from the quote. They are quite comparable construction-wise to any good commercial product, and DO have good tone (better than my talent level justifies).

The chassis construction of a WW amp is generally very solid. THAT part is probably more over-designed than most commercial amps. Not all, but most.

The electronics is "OK", with a few "flying" components, lead-supported, and most on a PC board. The PC boards seems in the case of several I have examined, to 'fit" a couple different units, as there were some modification wires and so forth present, some components stretched across to distant holes, etc. Obviously the existing PC board was adapted to new features, as opposed to a new layout.

This is NOT to put down WW or the amps. They are still arguably worth the money and the wait, if you like the way they sound.

No argument about tone, although IMO a WW sounds like a WW, and not like another amp. That may be good, or bad, depending on your taste.

I am just unwilling to consider them quite so far above others in construction as the quote indicates, after having seen several in detail and even worked on at least one.

As for provisions re ongoing service, I understood that he has an arrangement with a 3rd party to receive the records and info in order to at least support the product later. That is both fairly common, and very reasonable, for a one-man operation such as WW.

No, I have never met him. It would have been interesting, though. I'm sorry that I probably won't now, since I am not in the music biz as a daily work any more.

 

[willsellout]

I have to come to Dan's defense here. I have been using WW amps since the early '80s, so I do know a thing or two about them, plus have had many pleasant and interesting discussions with Walter over the years. Until the recent trend toward compact, lightweight, powerful (and some not-so-powerful) amps Walter did have a niche, as no one else was making anything like a WW amp; it is only now that we can truly say his niche has been filled with some excellent amps. Yes, most of them most likely do not have the top-notch components and overall quality of a WW amp but those amps should not be dismissed because of that. Currently, I have a WW Super amp and a Markbass LM II. 99% of the time these days I take the LM II to gigs as it has features that are quite useful in this modern age, like the high quality pre/post-able XLR DI and Speakon output connector, for two example. I love the tone of my Super but I also love the tone of my LM II; in all honesty, I find it easier and quicker to get a great tone with the LM II than the Super. Walter was there first and will always live on in amplification history as the first to do the super compact, high quality amp concept, but I think it is a fitting tribute to him that, finally, other manufacturers have joined him in making our lives easier.

Well said, and this is all I was trying to say. I'm not trying to knock WW or anyone who owns one...just trying to give my view of it. I honestly don't believe I would be that swayed by trying one in person, I honestly can't say I'd be swayed that much trying any amplifier (as I've tried so many in the search for tone). I could be wrong, but from descriptions i doubt WW would be my cup of tea anyway...really, what use am I

Seriously though, I'm sure WW has his place, even still, and his amps are amongst the best; I was just curious to get some honest opinion and insight from owners.

 

[KUNGfuSHERIFF]

Some interesting turns in this thread this weekend. Glad to see it become active again, warts and all.

 

[KJung]

No comment on the Shuttle, as I haven't seen one much less tried one, but my Woods sounds worlds better to me than any of the Markbass amps I've tried. The impression I got is that the Woods can do what the MB can do, but the MB can't cop the Woods tone.
And as far as service goes, while WW may be one guy with a soldering iron and an answering machine, I have yet to hear about a player calling Markbass and getting to talk to the person who designed and built their amp. The one time I had to call about a WW amp, I left a message and he called back from CA to NY on his dime for almost an hour and answered every question I had.
Bassneck, someone should supply you with Mr. Woods' number shortly (he doesn't do email); in the meantime remove the top panel of your amp and see if there's a schematic printout in there.

As others above have posted, the WW is a great amp. I used various models as a primary amp for 20 years or so. When I got my LMII and F1, I sold my WW Ultra Blue Light For EB, the Walter always felt like a compromise to me regarding punch and presence on a gig. The 1200 watt power rating of the Ultra always kind of made my chuckle a bit. It sounds like a very good 500 watt amp to my ears. I will say that the Walter sounds louder and more open at 8ohms than the MB heads, but into a large 4ohm cab (or two 8ohm cabs), IMO and IME the LMII and F1 are just as loud, and more punchy and forcefull, while still being very even and clean. I never could quite come to terms with the lack of upper bass, low mid push from the Walter, no matter how it is EQ'd (IMO and IME).

Of course, only a Walter sounds like a Walter, and if that's the exact tone you are looking for, it makes sense to consider one. However, I in no way view the Walter Woods as 'superior' to the recent MB heads or the AI products IMO and IME. The Shuttle 6.0 or the Eden260 are not, IMO and IME, in the same category of quality and performance as the Walter, MB, and AI heads.

And now, with other high quality, high power micro's coming on the scene (Puma, Epifani, the new MB F500, etc.), there are even more options (at a fraction of the WW price) for even the most picky boutique buyers!

 

[Tom Baldwin]

I never did get a clear understanding of the 90's line where he was using higher power amps with the pre "Electrocoustic" preamp. He made some 100 watt amps, some 225 watt amps, and some 400 watt mono amps right? And then some stereo versions of those.

I've got the jones to get one of the 2nd era heads with the older preamp but I really need a bit more juice than 200 watts.

Toad: I just purchased an MI-200-8, the same model as the one in post #35 of this thread. I'm currently using a Focus2, prior to that an electracoustic green light. I had two reasons to be interested in MI-200-8. The first being a consensus that the MI series preamp sounds different than the electracoustic (tighter punchier low end, perhaps more suitable for Double Bass). The second is that being a stereo model I now have some options on how to run it for different gigs - bridged into mono, it's 700 watts with an 8 ohm load(?). I've also been curious to try the blending thing (mic + pu) but with a separate cab for each. And for low volume gigs, I really don't need the 800 watts that my Focus puts out into the Wizzy 10.

So I'll be interested to see how it all works (won't have the amp for another week or so). There are some things about this model that I found out after reading this thread that I wasn't aware of, like the fact that it's the one model which can't be repaired. Also, I didn't realize the way the EQ section is - and tell me if I'm wrong about this: It's semi-parametric on all 3 tone controls (good) but no separate EQ for each input? (not good)... Thirdly, the only way to run both inputs into one cab is to use bridge mode, a minor point, and finally there is not a pan knob but a crossover. This seems like a useless feature unless you are running two cabs off the same side.

Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to see how this puppy will sound, especially bridged into a VL-208! That cab likes a lot of power, and the most I've put thru it so far is 450 watts.

Another question: What are the two toggle switches to the right of the crossover knobs for?

 

[Tom Baldwin]

I just realized I may have misconstrued the crossover. If the toggle switches are hi and lo-pass filters, does the "crossover" affect the frequency of these filters, or is it in fact a crossover that affects what gets sent to each cab? If the former is true, that would be great - in essence a variable hi-pass filter just like what's on the Focus. Still, all of this tone shaping gets applied to both inputs? Help!

EDIT: I see from the hieroglyphic EQ curve, that's what the crossover must be. This is way cool! And I'm a dumb***!

 

[robgrow]

Nice to see this thread revived. A few thoughts in no particular order...

InThere are four generations of Walter Woods amps:

The original Mini Amp (model MI 100-4 AKA "Ice Cream Sandwich" because of its shape) circa 1970 -- all discrete FET-based preamp (no IC's).

Link Removed

the classic MI xxx-8 series with red anodized aluminum front panel and "WW Amp" logo (late 70's to ~'90) also with all discrete FET-based preamps

Link Removed

The 2nd MI xxx-8 series commonly known as "Sweepers" because of the sweepable EQ (VARI) on the mids only or on all three bands. Multiple preamp options plus mono and stereo power options. New stylized "WW" logo. Preamps now use IC Op-Amps. (early to mid 90's).

Link Removed

the current "Electracoustic" series (mid-late 90's to present)

Link Removed

After the Mini Amp, which only came in one version, there are many variations in the following generations, as Walter offered many options over the years (preamps, mono or stereo, power level, etc.) and also made changes during production.

The original Mini Amp (circa 1970) was somewhat revolutionary in its time, as it weighed a small fraction of what most other amps of the era weighed and was also very compact. And it did this without sacrificing sound quality, to say the least. So Walter introduced the micro amp long before the current crop came along.

 

[Bruno Chevillon]

Hello everybody, I'm a french bass player and I use a WW from many many years without problems during 17 years! (No change the fuse to, incredible). But, in my last tour the amp (the pre-amp is already OK) does'nt work. Impossible to repair that in France, nobody have the technical informations.
I'm so sad because I don't have any solutions to continue with this fantastic amp.
Somebody can help me. The WW is a to channel (not stereo) / orange led.
Many thanks for your answer.

Bruno.

 

[DaLong]

Bought my WW 400watt from my old professor. I can't say enough about it. About 6 weeks ago, the power switch broke. I called Walter and he was very helpful. He overnighted the part at no charge and my speaker guy got it fixed in no time. That, to my knowledge, is the only time the amp was out of commission in the 15 to 20 years its ben around. I am however in the market for a new amp, (suggustions?) because I am play ALOT more electric bass and more rock and roll and metal. The dive bars I have been playing at are not the places I want to bring that amp around. But for DB gigs, there is no equal to me. My DB is not that great (The top is too thin and it has NO bottom end or attack; just middle range) and the Woods can mask some those flaws. I tried an Acoustic Image Focus 2 and it didn't enhance my tone. Bottom Line, I love that amp and will never part with it.

 

[robgrow]

Just thought I'd add this tech tidbit to the thread...

The Walter Woods M300 (green light) Electracoustic and the Markbass Little Mark II have very similar published power specs: 350 watts @ 8 ohms and 500 @ 4 ohms for the LMII and 300 watts @ 8 ohms and 450 @ 4 ohms for the WW M300.

Recently I read the bench test report for the Little Mark II in issue 1 of "Bass Gear." I found it quite interesting that the LMII is actually limited to 220 watts @ 8 ohms, so I decided to measure the power output of my 1997 Walter Woods M300. At 1% distortion, the M300 put out a solid 315 watts @ 8 ohms or 95 watts more than the LMII for an additional 1.6 dB of headroom, which is quite significant.

I've read comments that Walter Woods amps aren't actually as powerful as their ratings indicate. However I've found that's not really true, at least in this case. I've also owned an LMII, and subjectively the M300 has at least as much power and headroom as the Markbass amp.

 

[KUNGfuSHERIFF]

Rob,
What did you use to test the outputs? Multimeter? If so, where do you place the leads?
My '98 MI-100/Electracoustic hybrid came to me through Jeremy Allen, who suffered several failures followed by a rebuild in the WW shop. He said the amp came back to him noticably heavier and never broke down again. I'm wondering if the power section was upgraded, because I've thought during many gigs that there's no way this amp could be putting out its' rated power.

 

[robgrow]

Rob,
What did you use to test the outputs? Multimeter? If so, where do you place the leads?
My '98 MI-100/Electracoustic hybrid came to me through Jeremy Allen, who suffered several failures followed by a rebuild in the WW shop. He said the amp came back to him noticably heavier and never broke down again. I'm wondering if the power section was upgraded, because I've thought during many gigs that there's no way this amp could be putting out its' rated power.

I'm fortunate to have access to some professional test gear, so that's what I used. My amp is a stock 1997 Electracoustic, which has one repair date from the 90's written inside. Just a little disclaimer: I'm not making any claims here, and I have no connection with Walter Woods. I'm simply sharing what my findings were FWIW.

 

[jonno1707]

Does anybody know for sure if there is a difference at all in the pre's of a circa 96 green light stereo 1000 watt elctracoustic and a 2003 Ultra?
They both look identical except the poweramp pan knob...

 

[robgrow]

Does anybody know for sure if there is a difference at all in the pre's of a circa 96 green light stereo 1000 watt elctracoustic and a 2003 Ultra?
They both look identical except the poweramp pan knob...

It seems the general consensus is the later Electracoustic amps sound different than the early versions with 2002 often being given as the pivotal year.

 

[jonno1707]

Why was 2002 pivotal and what is considered different?

 

[KJung]

Just thought I'd add this tech tidbit to the thread...

The Walter Woods M300 (green light) Electracoustic and the Markbass Little Mark II have very similar published power specs: 350 watts @ 8 ohms and 500 @ 4 ohms for the LMII and 300 watts @ 8 ohms and 450 @ 4 ohms for the WW M300.

Recently I read the bench test report for the Little Mark II in issue 1 of "Bass Gear." I found it quite interesting that the LMII is actually limited to 220 watts @ 8 ohms, so I decided to measure the power output of my 1997 Walter Woods M300. At 1% distortion, the M300 put out a solid 315 watts @ 8 ohms or 95 watts more than the LMII for an additional 1.6 dB of headroom, which is quite significant.

I've read comments that Walter Woods amps aren't actually as powerful as their ratings indicate. However I've found that's not really true, at least in this case. I've also owned an LMII, and subjectively the M300 has at least as much power and headroom as the Markbass amp.

I was always very disappointed in my green light Walter from the mid 90's. It seemed VERY underpowered, and really gave up the ghost in the low end when pushed.

I agree the LMII is not the most impressive amp running at 8ohms, but I found in my direct A/Bing that the LMII running into a 4ohm cab EASILY matched the volume of my 2002 Blue LIght Ultra, and has a much more even response from the low mids through the upper bass. The Ultra killed it into 8 though.

Per the post above, the 2001-2003 era Ultra's had a totally different looking interior build than either the earlier 1000 watt blue light Ultra's (I had one from around 1999 and sold it to TBer Ric Vice when I bought my 2002, which Walter said had more ooomph down low). The interior of my (and now Ric's) 1999 1000 watt Ultra looks very similar to the post 2003 to current period Ultra's.

I actually did find my 2002 a little more hefty in the low end punch, but that's not really what those amps are about. For EB, I find the Markbass F1 and LMII to be fuller, fatter, punchier, and just as loud (again into a 4ohm cab).

If I played DB, I'd have a Walter though!

 

[robgrow]

Why was 2002 pivotal and what is considered different?

The answers to your questions are in this thread. Keep in mind that we're talking about very subjective stuff here.

 

[KJung]

The answers to your questions are in this thread. Keep in mind that we're talking about very subjective stuff here.

Good point.... it is probably more of a 'difference' versus 'better or worse', depending on the tone you are trying to achieve. It surely wasn't a 'night and day' difference between the 1999, the 2002 and the 2005 that I've A/B/C'd

 

[jonno1707]

Thanks guys great info here...