Walter Woods Amps History and Development

[Uncletoad]

Interesting... they are all a little different inside. What year was yours manufactured?

K

June 2005.

Yikes Tom, I didn't realize how many times you're amp has been at Walter's. You'd think he'd have done that last one on the house. It was only like a bit over a year from when he saw it last. Except for my couple weeks with it the thing probably spent most of that year sitting around doing very little.

 

[KJung]

Here's mine, an Ultra from 2003. It looks as though mine hasn't had any upgrades yet. I might have to change that!

I believe the upgrade for that model is pretty critical and involves reliability. I can't exactly remember what the deal was, but the 2000-2003 run of Ultra's had a component placed too close to a heat source, resulting in a few failures. I had run mine VERY hard for a few years with no problems. It developed a scratchy volume pot, so I sent it back to Walter to have that pot replaced. He mentioned that, since I was sending it in anyway, he recommended the minor 'upgrade' to eliminate the small reliability issue. He returned it within a week, and the charge was minimal, and it's been cruising along wonderfully.

Edit: I believe the 'upgrade' has to do with the little green round thing at the bottom left (can you tell I'm not an EE!). If you notice, Tom's and mine have two of them. I believe the issue was moving that thing farther away from the other components. It looks like yours is in the farther away position, so I have a feeling your unit is fine. My Ultra was one of the first 1200's run, so it seems by the later runs of this model, which I believe ended in 2003, he had that issue fixed. So, if my memory is correct, you shouldn't need the upgrade.

Maybe Ric Vice can post his 1997 (I think that's the year) 1000 watt Ultra. That used to be mine, and I 'upgraded' to the 1200 watt version when it came out. At that time, I was talking to Walter once a year or so, just checking if he had new models coming out. He said that he had totally changed the amp design in late 1999, and along with increasing the wattage, he felt the new design provided more low end punch. In my A/Bing of my earlier Ultra and the new model, I did find this to be the case... more 'low end character and volume.

It seems that Walter, for some reason, went back to the earlier Ultra design sometime in late 2003 or 2004, and some have mentioned that the newer units, which sound great, have a little less low end ooomph.

So, Ric, if you could pop the top off, it would be interesting to see in your earlier 1000 Ultra is similar in design to the new 1200 watt Ultra's.

Of course, this is all just 'kind of interesting to know', since they all sound great!

Ken

 

[KJung]

I'm in a Walter Woods frenzy this morning

Since it seems this will eventually turn into a Walter 'mega-thread', I thought I'd post a few observations on matching cabs with the Ultra's. I find the Walter's quite fussy regarding cab matching. I've always felt that there was a little something missing in the lowest mid punch area and deep bass that was very hard to EQ back in, even with the semi-parametric mid and the 'balance' control with some cabs. (For you non-Walter owners, the balance control is very similar to the much posted about Timbre control on the Thunderfunk amps).

My Walter stayed in the house for quite some time, as I prefered a number of other heads with my Epifani UL's and original Schroeder cabs, and also thought the Walter sounded very thin and nasally with a variety of Eden cabs.

Then.... thanks to Tom Bowlus, I tried my Walter with the Bergantino cabs. Holy cow! For some reason, the voicing of the smaller Bergantino's matches up perfectly with the Walter Woods. The treble response of the Bergs (I have an HT210S) is quite refined and natural, which does a good job softening the Walter's quite prominent treble voicing, and the low end of the smaller Berg's is tuned to the lowest mids (IMO), which helps 'plug the hole' that IMO can be missing in the Walter's sound. The small Berg's have resulted in a renewed love for the Ultra!

Also, and this is rather surprising, the Walter sounds fantastic with my new Schroeder 1212L. I hated the Walter match-up with the original small Schroeders (1210R and 1212R), but Jorg has changed the crossover and now has the 'L' versions with neo speakers. The Schroeder 1212L can sound a little 'woolly' and dull with a number of heads IMO (Ashdown, Eden, even Thunderfunk), but with the Walter, the upper mids totally open up, and the low end seems more natural and extended.

Interestingly, IMO the cabs that sound best with the Walter sound the worst with the AI line of amps. I found my Focus to sound rather dull and lifeless in the treble and upper mids, and quite 'woofy' if the lows with the smaller Bergs and the newer Schroeders.

So (whew), for those EBers with Walters, if you are looking for loud, punchy, light and loud, the Berg HT112 (with EX112 extension for louder gigs), the Berg HT210S (the 's' is key, the original HT210 is a totally different cab), with the EX or HT112s exension cabs for larger gigs, or the Schroeder1212L will make you VERY happy with that head.

All IMO and IME.

Ken

 

[spliffnriff]

I remember that there was big deal made over the fact that some models had 2 red bar thingys and others only had 1! I cannot recall what the red bar things are called or do though!!!

Al

 

[tombowlus]

Yikes Tom, I didn't realize how many times you're amp has been at Walter's. You'd think he'd have done that last one on the house. It was only like a bit over a year from when he saw it last. Except for my couple weeks with it the thing probably spent most of that year sitting around doing very little.

I think it went something like this: "born" in 2002, visited the shop for a once over prior to sale in 2004 (no issues, just a conscientious seller), then it met you, Phil, in 2005.

To be honest, prior to sending it to you, I was using that bad boy a good bit. I loved messing with sound guys, and made sure to bring it whenever there was a multiple band gig (like a benefit or something).

Tom.

 

[Uncletoad]

ITo be honest, prior to sending it to you, I was using that bad boy a good bit.

Ah. I thought with such a large Harem it's sister amps would have seen equal time. I'll bet their transistors were steaming.

 

[Ric Vice]

Hey Folks,
I'll have to borrow a digital camera but as soon as I can I'll pop the top of Ken's old Ultra and take a picture. My two cents worth is that once Walter has a design locked in, he still has to make alterations from year to year, since he can't order huge runs of parts like Ampeg, SWR, or EDEN et al. When some part get's discontinued he has to change the amp design slightly. I realize he stockpiles parts, but since he is a small builder, so I don't think that can keep an indefinite supply of all the componet's on hand, It would be really interesting to ask him that question, but he's most likely got better things to do. Like built amps.

When I got my first MI-100-8 way back in 1980's the "Power Supply" falied. Walter got it repaired and back to within two days. Seems he had gotten a bad run of Switching Power Suppiles and had to replace them "all over the world"

Ric

PS: If I pull that one off I'll also pop the top of my MI 400 because
there are lots of similarities.

 

[spliffnriff]

I'm in a Walter Woods frenzy this morning

Since it seems this will eventually turn into a Walter 'mega-thread', I thought I'd post a few observations on matching cabs with the Ultra's. I find the Walter's quite fussy regarding cab matching. I've always felt that there was a little something missing in the lowest mid punch area and deep bass that was very hard to EQ back in, even with the semi-parametric mid and the 'balance' control with some cabs. (For you non-Walter owners, the balance control is very similar to the much posted about Timbre control on the Thunderfunk amps).

My Walter stayed in the house for quite some time, as I prefered a number of other heads with my Epifani UL's and original Schroeder cabs, and also thought the Walter sounded very thin and nasally with a variety of Eden cabs.

Then.... thanks to Tom Bowlus, I tried my Walter with the Bergantino cabs. Holy cow! For some reason, the voicing of the smaller Bergantino's matches up perfectly with the Walter Woods. The treble response of the Bergs (I have an HT210S) is quite refined and natural, which does a good job softening the Walter's quite prominent treble voicing, and the low end of the smaller Berg's is tuned to the lowest mids (IMO), which helps 'plug the hole' that IMO can be missing in the Walter's sound. The small Berg's have resulted in a renewed love for the Ultra!

Also, and this is rather surprising, the Walter sounds fantastic with my new Schroeder 1212L. I hated the Walter match-up with the original small Schroeders (1210R and 1212R), but Jorg has changed the crossover and now has the 'L' versions with neo speakers. The Schroeder 1212L can sound a little 'woolly' and dull with a number of heads IMO (Ashdown, Eden, even Thunderfunk), but with the Walter, the upper mids totally open up, and the low end seems more natural and extended.

Interestingly, IMO the cabs that sound best with the Walter sound the worst with the AI line of amps. I found my Focus to sound rather dull and lifeless in the treble and upper mids, and quite 'woofy' if the lows with the smaller Bergs and the newer Schroeders.

So (whew), for those EBers with Walters, if you are looking for loud, punchy, light and loud, the Berg HT112 (with EX112 extension for louder gigs), the Berg HT210S (the 's' is key, the original HT210 is a totally different cab), with the EX or HT112s exension cabs for larger gigs, or the Schroeder1212L will make you VERY happy with that head.

All IMO and IME.

Ken

That is good information. thanks Ken- always appreciate your input.
I emailed Jim Bergantino several months ago asking him if the WW Super Hi Power (Amber) would be fine with the HT115, he responded that the Ultra would be fine. I however, did not want to wait and find an Ultra, so I bought back my old amber from an acquaitance.
I think the two sound great together, and I can really dial in the tone I want.
It is strange to me that when everyone talks about the WW heads, most discussions fall in the Ultra category, but I know I am not the only one using the SHP Amber!

Thanks
Al

 

[KJung]

That is good information. thanks Ken- always appreciate your input.
I emailed Jim Bergantino several months ago asking him if the WW Super Hi Power (Amber) would be fine with the HT115, he responded that the Ultra would be fine. I however, did not want to wait and find an Ultra, so I bought back my old amber from an acquaitance.
I think the two sound great together, and I can really dial in the tone I want.
It is strange to me that when everyone talks about the WW heads, most discussions fall in the Ultra category, but I know I am not the only one using the SHP Amber!

Thanks
Al

Hello Al. You know, as a long time Walter owner who started off with the Green Light version in the late 80's (I think it was the late 80's?), one thing I found with the Walters is that the published wattage specs don't translate to full, loud, even sound compared to other more traditionally designed amps with a big transformer, etc. I believe my Greenlight model spec'd out at around 350 watts or so into 4ohms. When I compared it to the WT300 Eden that I had at the time, the Eden pretty much blew it away regarding low end output and general volume.

So, I think that most EB players who like the Walter sound try to get as many watts as possible. For example, my 1200 watt Ultra is pretty much equivalent in volume and low end to my 550 watt Thunderfunk.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, since I've never really run out of room with the Ultra on a gig, but if you A/B it with a big 700-1000 'led sled' amp, it's not going to keep up.

Anyway, that's my interpretation on why most pop/funk/rock players that use the Walter gravitate toward the very highest power units.

K

 

[Joelc73]

Since it seems this will eventually turn into a Walter 'mega-thread', I thought I'd post a few observations on matching cabs with the Ultra's. I find the Walter's quite fussy regarding cab matching. I've always felt that there was a little something missing in the lowest mid punch area and deep bass that was very hard to EQ back in, even with the semi-parametric mid and the 'balance' control with some cabs. (For you non-Walter owners, the balance control is very similar to the much posted about Timbre control on the Thunderfunk amps).

Hey Ken,

Great point about the WWU being picky about what cabs it plays through. I was never thrilled with it through my NYC Epi's for some reason. I eventually started using Accugroove's and noticed that my love/hate WWU relationship was moving much closer to love than hate. Interestingly I like my WWU more with my UL Epi's than my NYC's which seems counterintuitive - but for whatever reason it works. The WWU through a 310UL is my "rig du jour" and I'm enjoying it on a lot of levels including both tone and portability.

 

[spliffnriff]

Yikes. I thought that if any cab would be true to it's specs or better, it would be a WW amp! This is slightly disturbing.

Now if only I could trade my super for an ultra.......

Oh yeah, thanks again Ken.

 

[KJung]

Yikes. I thought that if any cab would be true to it's specs or better, it would be a WW amp! This is slightly disturbing.

Now if only I could trade my super for an ultra.......

Oh yeah, thanks again Ken.

Some of us have had the wattage discussion before. I'm not an EE, so I don't know all the technical stuff, but I don't think it's an inaccurate wattage spec as much as how that wattage is delivered across the entire range of frequencies. Many amps have specs that say 'x watts RMS', 20 to 20K, etc. Walter does not publish a range of frequencies. My guess is, from my experience with the sound and performance of his amps, that there is a significant drop in power as you get to the lowest frequencies, but again, just a guess.

Again, hopefully some other WW fans will chime in with their take on this stuff.

Fun thread!

 

[KJung]

Hey Ken,

Great point about the WWU being picky about what cabs it plays through. I was never thrilled with it through my NYC Epi's for some reason. I eventually started using Accugroove's and noticed that my love/hate WWU relationship was moving much closer to love than hate. Interestingly I like my WWU more with my UL Epi's than my NYC's which seems counterintuitive - but for whatever reason it works. The WWU through a 310UL is my "rig du jour" and I'm enjoying it on a lot of levels including both tone and portability.

+1... I actually used the Ultra/310UL on many, many gigs and liked it. The 410UL, though, with it's more mid present voicing didn't work with the Walter very well though... kind of thin and nasally sounding to my ear (of course, it still sounded OK.... gear like that is almost impossible to make sound 'bad')... it just wasn't the best match.

 

[Joelc73]

Here's mine, an Ultra from 2003. It looks as though mine hasn't had any upgrades yet. I might have to change that!

Mine looks exactly like this one. I haven't had mine upgraded either. I remember some talk from the original thread about the WWU's having less low end punch with the new design. I'm assuming an "update" would yield the same results? Ken do you remember anything about that? If upgrading will negatively impact the low end I'd rather just take my chances from a reliability standpoint. Mine's been ultra reliable since I got it back in late 2003.

 

[Brad Maestas]

Mine looks exactly like this one. I haven't had mine upgraded either. I remember some talk from the original thread about the WWU's having less low end punch with the new design. I'm assuming an "update" would yield the same results? Ken do you remember anything about that? If upgrading will negatively impact the low end I'd rather just take my chances from a reliability standpoint. Mine's been ultra reliable since I got it back in late 2003.

That's exactly what I was wondering, too. I'd be interested what sonic differences occur after a major upgrade. Like Ken mentioned earlier, it seems like mine could be fine even without the minor upgrade since the offending component is in the safer position. I, too, would want to keep it just the way it is because it's been bulletproof and I don't want to mess with a good thing!

 

[Reefer]

Mine looks exactly like this one. I haven't had mine upgraded either. I remember some talk from the original thread about the WWU's having less low end punch with the new design. I'm assuming an "update" would yield the same results? Ken do you remember anything about that? If upgrading will negatively impact the low end I'd rather just take my chances from a reliability standpoint. Mine's been ultra reliable since I got it back in late 2003.

The amps that needed the updates were built mostly around 2000(maybe earlier)-early 2002. The updates are for reliability and do not affect the tone. The models with "-2" at the end of the serial # are the ones that sound weaker and have less punch. He started building those in late '03 and put out both designs for a few months during that time. The newer ones also have a shorter warranty period and the warranty is voided if it is run without a speaker load.

 

[KJung]

The amps that needed the updates were built mostly around 2000(maybe earlier)-early 2002. The updates are for reliability and do not affect the tone.

+1... tone is not impacted. Joel, per our PM discussion, looking at the picture of yours, you would not need the 'reliability upgrade'.

 

[Uncletoad]

At the risk of being obvious. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[KJung]

At the risk of being obvious. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Actually, Walter HIGHLY recommends the 'fix' if you have an Ultra manufactured in 2000-2001. From what I understand, most are still OK, but there was a significantly higher failure rate in those units than with other models (per a discussion I had a few years ago with Walter).

When I sent mine back for the pot replacement, Walter HIGHLY recommended that I do the upgrade on my early 2000 model.

If you have a pre 2000 1000 watt model, or a post 2003 1200 watt model.... +1 leave it alone

 

[Uncletoad]

Actually, Walter HIGHLY recommends the 'fix' if you have an Ultra manufactured in 2000-2001. From what I understand, most are still OK, but there was a significantly higher failure rate in those units than with other models (per a discussion I had a few years ago with Walter).

When I sent mine back for the pot replacement, Walter HIGHLY recommended that I do the upgrade on my early 2000 model.

If you have a pre 2000 1000 watt model, or a post 2003 1200 watt model.... +1 leave it alone

Well, there you go. From the horses mouth.

I love these trite expressions.