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.
Walter Woods Amps History and Development
- Thread starter Uncletoad
- Start date
I currently own two Walter Woods amps: an original MI 100-4 Mini Amp from the early 70's, and a green-light Electracoustic made in 1997. They couldn't be much different, yet there is the unmistakable Walter Woods genius in both.
The Mini Amp uses all discrete transistors throughout (no IC's), and is totally linear with a class A preamp and class AB power amp section. The FET-based preamp sounds very warm, much like a tube amp. Headroom is rather limited compared to the Electracoustic. Overall though the Mini Amp has a unique, even magical sound of its own. Sounds amazing for upright bass at low volume.
(edit: I recently connected the Mini Amp to a 1970 Ampeg B-15 cabinet and plugged in my early 60's Fender P-bass and was immediately transported back to the 70's. Haven't heard that sound in quite awhile, but, when I heard it again, it was unmistakable. Anyway its a great combination.
)
The Electracoustic amp OTOH uses an IC-based preamp with a class D power amp section. The Electracoustic also sounds great in its own way. Very clean and open with lots of headroom. It is definitely one of my favorite amps of all time. If I could only have one amp, this would be it.
The Mini Amp uses all discrete transistors throughout (no IC's), and is totally linear with a class A preamp and class AB power amp section. The FET-based preamp sounds very warm, much like a tube amp. Headroom is rather limited compared to the Electracoustic. Overall though the Mini Amp has a unique, even magical sound of its own. Sounds amazing for upright bass at low volume.
(edit: I recently connected the Mini Amp to a 1970 Ampeg B-15 cabinet and plugged in my early 60's Fender P-bass and was immediately transported back to the 70's. Haven't heard that sound in quite awhile, but, when I heard it again, it was unmistakable. Anyway its a great combination.
)The Electracoustic amp OTOH uses an IC-based preamp with a class D power amp section. The Electracoustic also sounds great in its own way. Very clean and open with lots of headroom. It is definitely one of my favorite amps of all time. If I could only have one amp, this would be it.
Wow , that's a lot of expensive amplifiers you used to own!
Yes, but owning a Walter Woods is like owning a preCBS Fender, you'll always get your money back out of it(or at least used to before the recession).
That's very true! Now that WW is taking some time off (his wife recently passed away and also he's moved) WW amps will hold their value to those that appreciate them.
I've never owned, but I have gigged with the older style WW enough to know that I like them too.
I've never owned, but I have gigged with the older style WW enough to know that I like them too.
Recently dusted the cobwebs off my WW -- and my chops -- to go out and gig again after a long hiatus.
Since most of you WW afficionados have bigger brains than me, I've a question re: the XLR balanced out on my stereo MI-200-8 WW amp ('93ish)
For live and/or recording, is the balanced out sufficient ? I know Walter stopped putting them in his newer amps (I think ?) and says (according to this thread) to use a passive DI box.
I don't own a DI box and I get "decent" sounds recording from the XLR out via an audio interface hooked to my laptop, but I'm curious how this would transfer in a live situation.
If it is worthwhile to look in to a DI box for this rig, how should it be hooked up ?
Thanks in advance for any guidance on this!
Since most of you WW afficionados have bigger brains than me, I've a question re: the XLR balanced out on my stereo MI-200-8 WW amp ('93ish)
For live and/or recording, is the balanced out sufficient ? I know Walter stopped putting them in his newer amps (I think ?) and says (according to this thread) to use a passive DI box.
I don't own a DI box and I get "decent" sounds recording from the XLR out via an audio interface hooked to my laptop, but I'm curious how this would transfer in a live situation.
If it is worthwhile to look in to a DI box for this rig, how should it be hooked up ?
Thanks in advance for any guidance on this!
I have the same Amp. IME, the DI out on it is very hot
(High Output) and usually distorts the signal in recording. This is why Walter recommends the passive DI box. I have had great success with this configuration.
the hookup is the same as any normal hookup. Instrument > DI in >
DI out to Amp> XLR out to board.
(High Output) and usually distorts the signal in recording. This is why Walter recommends the passive DI box. I have had great success with this configuration.
the hookup is the same as any normal hookup. Instrument > DI in >
DI out to Amp> XLR out to board.
I owned a couple of those amps and used them longer than any other model. I never had a problem with the DI and it sounded better than other other DI I've ever used. Sound guys loved it!! Walter still put the DI on the first Electracoustics, but the signal had a bad hum that he never could fix, so he changed to the 1/4" and recommended the DI box.
So use that DI and enjoy every minute of it!!! NO direct box needed.
So use that DI and enjoy every minute of it!!! NO direct box needed.
Low Class,
I have an early Electroacoustic Ultra (600 watts)and it has a 1/4". He must have removed that really early in the production of the first Ultras. I really wish he hadn't but if Walter couldn't get it to work then nobody could. Thanks again for the scoop.
Ric
Does it have a black plate where the 1/4" is? If so, then yes it an early one. If not, it is not so early. He had to put the plate there to cover the hole for the DI he planned to go there. He even recalled some of them and replaced the DI with the 1/4". Ugly as hell with that plate on it. btw, the early ones were 700 watts @ 8 ohms. I'm looking at the brochure.
Which reminds me, I also owned one of the very few 2200 watt amps he built. He soon recalled it because it was prone to catch fire. Wish I had never sent it back and just put it in the closet.
From the original Electracoustic brochure:
Cool. I have never seen a WW brochure. In fact, I'm jealous with all this talk about "owner's manuals" and such. Don't think he had those in '93.
Thanks for the advice on the balanced outs.
Thanks for the advice on the balanced outs.
I prefer an external DI anyway. It's easier to switch DI's when there is a mysterious FOH problem than it is to wonder if somethings wrong with the interface of the amp itself. With my Ultra, the passive box is best ime. The Whirlwind IMP is very good, but the Jenson equipped Radial JDI is "cleaner" sounding, albeit 3x more xpensive$$.
Had a nice talk with Walter yesterday. He's doing well and is building amps again. He has 5 Ultras in inventory (available in February). He is also accepting repairs, and can service any of his amps he has ever made including the MI 225-8.
Walter also gave me this timeline:
October 1972, first Mini Amp MI 100-4 ("Ice Cream Sandwich").
September 1977, MI 100-8 (slanted red anodized front panel).
1991 MI 200-8 "Sweeper" introduced (vinyl covered front panel).
1995 Electracoustic introduced.
Walter also gave me this timeline:
October 1972, first Mini Amp MI 100-4 ("Ice Cream Sandwich").
September 1977, MI 100-8 (slanted red anodized front panel).
1991 MI 200-8 "Sweeper" introduced (vinyl covered front panel).
1995 Electracoustic introduced.
I am an Ultra 1200 owner (Blue Light), and I recall reading here that Walter recommends using 15" speakers with his amps. Is this true? Can anyone comment the results of using a 15" speaker? Ive always steered away from 15" cabs because of the sloppiness of larger cones, but I think that may be old thinking. Probably modern speaker cabs have mitigated the issues of large cone response. In hearing about Walter's recommendation, I am intrigued about a 15", and would be willing to give it a try if there is a strong consensus that it works. Of course, it all comes down to taste and opinion, but hearing others experiences is valuable......
Maybe way back in the day. These days, there is virtually no correlation between cone diameter and 'tone'. There are 10" and even 8" drivers that go lower and sound fuller than any 15" driver back in the day, and there are neo 15 cabs in small boxes that sound like a very punchy, very loud 110 cab.
IMO, cone size should not really be a primary input in the choice of a cab these days.
+1
Like Ken says there, wouldn't be any reason that a 1X15 would sound better with the Woods. One thing that I have noticed is that Walter's amps have a brighter midrange voicing, so paring them with "darker cabinets' gives you a good match. My favorite cabinet with the Woods Ultra is a Thunderchild 112. Since that amp has significant power you don't want to crank it, but it's loud enough for me. I've done concerts outdoors with that setup and it was plenty loud on the stage. There was a time when only JBL's, Altec's, Gauss, and Cerwin Vega 15's wound handle the low frequencies at louder volumes, those days are long gone. Walter did sell his own speaker cabinet, with an EV orGauss, but there aren't many of those around as there were only 50 or so built.
Ric
