Walter Woods Amps History and Development

[KJung]

Well, there you go. From the horses mouth.

I love these trite expressions.

Great thread! Thanks again for getting this going. I've found new love for my Walter with the Schroeder 1212L, and am actually going to give it a try again with my 410UL on a series of loud, large gigs over the Labor Day weekend. They are amazing little monsters!

 

[Uncletoad]

More stolen ebay photos. This seems very early. Anybody have one of these that can comment on how it sounds vs. the other incarnations?

 

[Uncletoad]

Last shot of that guy.

 

[Ric Vice]

Last shot of that guy.


View attachment 40021

Phil,
A local bass repairman had one of these he aquired in a trade.
They are very low powered, but they are a Woods amplifier. This is the
first amp that Walter built. I did play through it at his shop and it certianly sounded nice, but I think it's probably more valuable as a collector's piece. They way Walter's Amps are going on ebay they will probably cost a whole lotta money very soon.

Ric

 

[Uncletoad]

This is the
first amp that Walter built.

Any rough idea when this was made?

 

[Reefer]

Any rough idea when this was made?

Mid '70's

 

[Ric Vice]

I got my first 2 Channel MI-100-8 in circa 1980 and I remember that at the time that Walter told me the he had just changed to the new design, that most of us are familiar with. So that sounds right to me. My MI-1008 had the all alluminum design with the slanted face and the shorter side pannels. Reviewing the thread Condor had one in 1979 so Walter may have made the switch even earlier.

Ric

The pic below show the changes to the MI-100-8. Disregard the
vent holes , because I think that change happened later in the 80's

 

[KotBasses]

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.

From reading this thread and other research it sounds like the 2001-2003 WW's were the good years to have (for the electracoustics), since 2003 to current have the -2 serial number and a little bit different sound? If you order one from Walter right now is it the newer design with less lowend and punch (-2 serial)? I wonder why he changed it sound wise in 2003.

Chris

 

[Reefer]

From reading this thread and other research it sounds like the 2001-2003 WW's were the good years to have (for the electracoustics), since 2003 to current have the -2 serial number and a little bit different sound? If you order one from Walter right now is it the newer design with less lowend and punch (-2 serial)? I wonder why he changed it sound wise in 2003.

Chris

If you ask Walter about it he'll say they sound the same. I don't think he intended for the newer design to sound different, but they do. I had one built in '04 and a friend of mine had one built in '05. Not only did they sound weaker than my older one('02), but both of them also had a bit distortion that was quite noticeable. When Walter was asked about the distortion he said there was nothing wrong with them. At that point I immediatley sold mine and will never own another built with the -2 serial #. The distortion, shorter warranty period, and the fact that they could no longer be used without a speaker load convinced me Walter was not building them with the quailty he used to.

 

[Uncletoad]

If you ask Walter about it he'll say they sound the same. I don't think he intended for the newer design to sound different, but they do. I had one built in '04 and a friend of mine had one built in '05. Not only did they sound weaker than my older one('02), but both of them also had a bit distortion that was quite noticeable. When Walter was asked about the distortion he said there was nothing wrong with them. At that point I immediatley sold mine and will never own another built with the -2 serial #. The distortion, shorter warranty period, and the fact that they could no longer be used without a speaker load convinced me Walter was not building them with the quailty he used to.

That's a strong indictment. Are there others that share that opinion?

The 2005 I have is loud as hell and has no perceptible distortion until its at it's extremes.

 

[Joelc73]

With this renewed focus on my WWU I was thinking about how my EQ preferences on the WWU have changed over the last three years. I've definitely settled into a few that work with the cabinets that I use.

I'm curious what some other WWU user's preferences are with EQ in general as well as the "balance" knob.

 

[KJung]

With this renewed focus on my WWU I was thinking about how my EQ preferences on the WWU have changed over the last three years. I've definitely settled into a few that work with the cabinets that I use.

I'm curious what some other WWU user's preferences are with EQ in general as well as the "balance" knob.

I'm getting ready to take the Walter out on a series of gigs over the next three weeks also. With the rather upper mid present Epi410UL, I actually have the 'magic knob' (the effects return) all the way up (which as you know for some strange reason provides more low mid oooomph.... strange!), usually have the bass control at 1 o'clock, and the balance around 11 o'clock (i.e., slightly to the 'bass voicing side'. Everything else flat.

The Walter still provides plenty of sparkly with J style instruments and the Epi crossover, but those three things (effects reture, bass control, and balance) seem to provide enough low end ooomph for loud pop gigs.... not like a big old analog transformer amp, but close enough at 7 pounds

How do you run yours with the 310UL?

K

PS With the small Berg... I pull the effects return to 1/2, same bass control setting, and move the balance to 1 o'clock, since the Berg treble response is a little more mellow and organic... it sounds great!

 

[KJung]

That's a strong indictment. Are there others that share that opinion?

The 2005 I have is loud as hell and has no perceptible distortion until its at it's extremes.

In A/Bing my late 90's 1000 watt Walter (that Ric Vice has now) with my early 2000 1200 watt Walter, I did notice an increase in bass response and, in general, a little more 'balls' to the low mids. From what I understand, the post 2003 Ultra's have a very similar design to the late 90's 1000 watt models. (If we could get Ric to post those pictures of the inside of his, we would know if this is the case.). I do not know if what I was hearing has to do with the extra wattage or the inherent sound of the different designs.

However, it was quite subtle, and the 'other' Walter design sounds great also. I did, however, notice what seems to be more power delivery in the lowest frequencies as being a positive for the loud pop gigs I do.

For DB or smaller type gigs with small cabs, I can't believe anyone could really hear any difference.

Regarding quality or reliability, I have no information one way or the other, except regarding the early runs of the 1200 watt Ultra that has been discussed in this thread.

K

 

[Joelc73]

I'm getting ready to take the Walter out on a series of gigs over the next three weeks also. With the rather upper mid present Epi410UL, I actually have the 'magic knob' (the effects return) all the way up (which as you know for some strange reason provides more low mid oooomph.... strange!), usually have the bass control at 1 o'clock, and the balance around 11 o'clock (i.e., slightly to the 'bass voicing side'. Everything else flat.

The Walter still provides plenty of sparkly with J style instruments and the Epi crossover, but those three things (effects reture, bass control, and balance) seem to provide enough low end ooomph for loud pop gigs.... not like a big old analog transformer amp, but close enough at 7 pounds

How do you run yours with the 310UL?

My setting are similar but I use the "send" knob around 1-2 o'clock. I tend to favor the bass side slightly with my Epi's and the treble side with my Accugrooves. With the 310 I also boost the low mids a bit as well. I don't know exactly what frequencies are where on the vari mid knob but it seems be around 400hz that I'm boosting.

 

[Uncletoad]

So is the low end strength of the 2001-2003 run at the expense of anything? Does anyone have any idea why or how they are different?

I'm still unclear about the distinction of the -2 serial number and how they were different. Why would he produce two models of the same amp at the same time? That seems odd.

 

[KJung]

My setting are similar but I use the "send" knob around 1-2 o'clock. I tend to favor the bass side slightly with my Epi's and the treble side with my Accugrooves. With the 310 I also boost the low mids a bit as well. I don't know exactly what frequencies are where on the vari mid knob but it seems be around 400hz that I'm boosting.

Makes sense. I think the range of that vari knob is from 1K to 100hz... with 9 o'clock being around 500 hz, and 3 o'clock being around 250 hz.... i.e., I don't think it's exactly linear. So, 400hz should be around 10 o'clock (I think). That's from the best of my recollection of how Walter described it to me in a phone call a few years ago, and from what my ears are hearing with that contol.

I can see boosting the low mids a little with the 310UL... I always found the Walter a little 'loose' sounding with that cab versus the 410UL.

Cool!

 

[KJung]

So is the low end strength of the 2001-2003 run at the expense of anything? Does anyone have any idea why or how they are different?

I'm still unclear about the distinction of the -2 serial number and how they were different. Why would he produce two models of the same amp at the same time? That seems odd.

Well, the insides look very different between the two, with the 2000-2003 having that extra 'transformer looking' thing in the lower left, etc. However, I'm not an EE, so don't know for sure. Seems like there are a few more 'heavy duty' components in the 2000-2003 models versus the design slightly before and after that time period.

Again, if you aren't cranking through a large 410 or 212 cab, I don't think there would be a noticable difference IMO.

 

[Uncletoad]

With double bass and the Fishman Full Circle I tend to run it flat. On occasion I'll cut some bass and or boost treble or swing the balance one way or another. That is rare. With the other Chanel I use a Mic flat and blend it in. I've moved the send knob around quite a bit. I'm not sure where I like it best.

The Fender basses go in with a bit of bass boost, around 1 or 2 o'clock, otherwise the same as above.

The better the transducers on both ends the less of a need for EQ.

I've bitched endlessly on the DB forums about the lack of a phase switch and a suitable XLR out.

Walter has said to me that he has no intentions of changing the design again.

 

[KJung]

I've bitched endlessly on the DB forums about the lack of a phase switch and a suitable XLR out.

Walter has said to me that he has no intentions of changing the design again.

Ditto with many of us pleading with Walter over the years to put back in a true DI..... he says he is done with preamp changes for good

 

[Ric Vice]

(If we could get Ric to post those pictures of the inside of his, we would know if this is the case.).
K

Hey,
Since I don't have my own digital camera, I have to borrow one from the school. I should have the pic's up later today if all goes well. They'll be coming soon.

Ric