Dismiss Notice

Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

Walter Woods compared to EA iAmp?

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by berklee46, Apr 18, 2003.


  1. berklee46

    berklee46 Supporting Member

    Dec 19, 2000
    MA
    Has anyone been able to compare a Walter Woods head to a Euphonic Audio iAmp head?

    I've got a Walter Woods Hi-Power amp, but have always been curious about the iAmps.

    I'm curious which you preferred and why.
     
  2. lo-freq

    lo-freq aka UFO

    Jan 19, 2003
    The Republic of Texas
    I do recollect some TBers who have compared the two.

    If you do a search you should be able to find the posts.
     
  3. berklee46

    berklee46 Supporting Member

    Dec 19, 2000
    MA
    Thanks, but I did several searches before I posted, and didn't find a thread that seemed to compare/contrast the two amps. Many that came up in the search were more statements that they are in the same league.

    If you've found a thread, or threads that compares the two amps, rather than just mentioning both in the same thread, please send me a link. Otherwise, I'd still appreciate any comments from those that have played both.

    Thanks.
     
  4. LM Bass

    LM Bass

    Jul 19, 2002
    Vancouver, BC
    HI,

    I own both a WW 700 watt amp which is about 10 years old, and an EA Iamp 600. I like the tone of the Iamp better -it is warmer and rounder, and has more fundamentals. The EQ section is great, the connectivity is great, built in tuner, great DI. The Walter I like because it is 7 lbs, but the sound is thinner, and I can't dial in exactly what I'm looking for. His new amps are supposed to sound richer than my old one, FWIW.

    I hold Walter in great respect, as an inventor of a supremely useful technology for double bass players. I mean, I remember seeing the ad for his amps on the back of Rufus Reid's "Evolving Bassist" back around 1980 or so.

    EA has incredible customer service, and they are at the leading edge of speaker design. If the Iamp were only 19lbs, and a little smaller. Hey Wait! ;)
    (Iamp 800!!!)
     
  5. Chris Fitzgerald

    Chris Fitzgerald Student of Life Staff Member Administrator

    Oct 19, 2000
    Louisville, KY
    I own an iamp800, and have played several Woods amps. I'll second everything LMNOP BASS said. The Woods amps - at least the older ones - are thinner sounding, and you have much less control of the tone. Another person who owns both is Mike Dimin, you might ask him as well.
     
  6. LM Bass

    LM Bass

    Jul 19, 2002
    Vancouver, BC
    LMNOP!
    That's funny! The first thing I thought of was NHOP of course (being Danish and a bassist. . .)

    Anyway, I believe Mr. Dimin traded his Walter for an Azola bass, and now just runs the Euphonic stuff. I suppose I will come to the same conclusion eventually. . .;)
     
  7. NeedMoreBass

    NeedMoreBass unregistered

    Feb 14, 2003
    The posts above are correct when stating the iAmp sounds better than the old Walter Woods. But they're comparing apples and oranges. The iAmp does NOT sound better than the newer Walter Woods Electracoustic models. More power, punchier, more tone, more user friendly. ( oh yeah, did I mention it only weighs 7 lbs!!) IMHO.

    :bassist:
     
  8. basss

    basss

    Aug 27, 2001
    NYC
    I just hear Richard Bona playing a fodera 5 string through a WW (green light) through two epifani 112s. A- FREAKIN- MAZING His tone was great. Superfat lows- I don't think he was going through the PA and he lit up a medium sized jazz club (small club). No lack of lows or thin tone. More importantly- what an awesome and entertaining bassist/singer/composer.
     
  9. I've got an original iAMP 500, the ones made by Ashdown, and a WW Amber 700watt Electro-acoustic.

    The iAMP does have great tone, but runs out of headroom pretty quick, especially with a lot of lows. The WW can get equally warm, and has more power than the iAMP.

    The voicings of the two units are somewhat similar, and both are great sounding amps with a nice hint of gruffness when you push them.

    I prefer the WW for all purposes (except pricing), especially since it's so light & compact.

    Aloha,

    Jonathan
     
  10. bucephylus

    bucephylus Supporting Member Commercial User

    Aug 18, 2002
    General Manager TecPadz LLC
    For those of you who have gotten a "thin" sound out of the Woods amps:

    I likewise notice something "missing" with electric basses. Especially Fender passives. However, uprights sound great. So what's the difference? I am not sure. Impedance matching etc. Anyway, what I also discovered is that the Woods has a buttload of headroom. What I also found is that if you get a $75 ART microphone preamp and put the electric through that into the Woods - hold onto your butt. Takes care of all the warmth / fatness / etc. issues. Seems like for all the dough, one shouldn't have to pony up the extra. And, it is a bit of a hassle hooking up all the cabling. But the tone and punch is all there.

    - pt
     
  11. Someone from Euphonic Audio told me that Walter Woods amps don't go below 100hz. I was wondering -
    1) Is that true?
    If so, I would think there would be a noticeable sound difference between the Woods and the EA iamps.
    2)How do the low ends of these two amps compare?
     
  12. lo-freq

    lo-freq aka UFO

    Jan 19, 2003
    The Republic of Texas
    Let me consider this a minute:

    A really expensive bass amp head that doesn't have output below 100Hz.

    Hmmmmm...

    Sounds like a really bad idea.

    If this were true, there would be zero BEADG 5 string bass players using WW's.

    Don't count on this tip being true.
     
  13. emjazz

    emjazz Supporting Member

    Feb 23, 2003
    Boston, MA
    some schmuck at EA blowin smoke up your ars.
     
  14. Actually, I believe this was Larry Ullman of Euphonic Audio. He definitely was not a schmuck. According to him, SVT cabinets also put out very little under 100hz.

    I've heard from more than a few places, including this board, that low frequencies (those under about 80hz) can sometimes muddy the sound. That is one reason bolt-on basses had a resurgence in popularity - the notion that they put out less fundamental and therefore could cut through a band better. So a lack of fundamental, or very low frequencies may not necessarily be a bad thing.

    Has anyone had any real experience with this?
     
  15. emjazz

    emjazz Supporting Member

    Feb 23, 2003
    Boston, MA
    If frequencies under 80 hertz are muddy, then why is every onboard eq set at 40hertz for the bass frequency?
     
  16. LM Bass

    LM Bass

    Jul 19, 2002
    Vancouver, BC
    Well. . .


    I don't think the EA guys would say something like this without cause. Hmm. Maybe we should find out which one said it, in what context, etc. . .

    My Woods amp had no problem reproducing the low "C" on my upright extension, or the low "B" on my 4 or 5-string electric.

    Gary Gilbisco tends to follow these threads, maybe I will ask him to comment.

    LM
     
  17. Chris Fitzgerald

    Chris Fitzgerald Student of Life Staff Member Administrator

    Oct 19, 2000
    Louisville, KY
    I won't say squat about Ampeg amps, since I don't use them. But it should not trigger an "ERROR ALERT!!" to say that low frequencies under 80 hz can muddy the sound. Just ask almost any DB player or recording engineer who records DB. These are the frequencies which bottom out lesser speakers such as those found on stereo equipment.

    Personally, I go both ways with the iamp: for DB, I cut everything below about 80hz, and for BG I use the "Deep" switch, which if I am not mistaken is a 50hz boost. Remember, "muddy" is a subjective term. YMMV.
     
  18. emjazz
    As I understand it, not all frequencies under 80hz are muddy all the time – it depends on the music, the room, the equipment, and masses of other factors. I would think that an onboard eq at 40hz could be used to boost OR lower levels depending on need.

    lo-freq
    Perhaps, but I think I have reliable sources for some of the info. It seems there is definitely some conflicting ideas around. It would be nice to clear this up! One of my sources is Michael Tobias. Mr. Tobias also said the SVT does not produce much in frequencies below 100hz. He went into some detail about how low frequencies and the fundamental to some of the lower notes can muddy the sound and that is one reason why he is building bolt-on basses today. The below is taken from a discussion with Tobias posted elsewhere. He relayed the same basic idea to me in person.
    Additionally, please see quotes from other talkbass members below (hopefully they will see this and respond).

    Marty Forrer
    Chris Fitzgerald
     
  19. lo-freq

    lo-freq aka UFO

    Jan 19, 2003
    The Republic of Texas
    Sorry again. There were actually three statements I quoted and I didn't specify which two were in error.

    Original statement #1:
    -------------
    Apparently, SVT cabinets also put out very little under 100hz.
    -------------
    1st Erroneous statement

    Original statement #2:
    -------------
    There have been posts that describe how low frequencies (those under about 80hz) can muddy the sound.
    -------------
    Statement OK

    Original statement #3:
    -------------
    That is one reason bolt-on basses had a resurgence in popularity - the notion that they put out less fundamental, and therefore cut through better.
    -------------
    2nd Erroneous statement
     
  20. Thanks for the support LM and Chris!!! (was writing the above when you replied)

    I think it was Larry Ullman that said this – he was a grey haired gentleman whose picture used to be on the EA site with whom I presume is John Dong (sp?). It came up when I mentioned Michael Tobias’ comments about the SVT. It would be great to hear Gary Gilbisco comment.