• 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.

Double Bass Walter Woods? Or not...

#201
Looking at the preamp section of the Fuchs 350 it's missing controls in the preamp section of an Electroacoustic that make the Woods unique. I've always felt that the thing that makes a Woods a Woods are the sensitivity of the tone controls and the
the semi parametric mid range with it's Vari control along with the balance control that give the amp the ability to really tailor a Double Bass timbre. It's not "MYBOL". So I'd be hard pressed to give up those EQ controls. Dual channel amps are also
very important to me personally. Just my take however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Admiral Akbar
#202
Just had my MI100-8 gone over by a local guy who cleaned everything and did a few tests on some of the parts. He had never seen one before and was suitably impressed by the quality and design. He even found a replacement for the little red cap that had disappeared years ago.It's great to have it back to mint condition again and working and sounding as great as ever. I'm seeing more and more players,including myself, who are going back to some of their old gear and realizing how good it can sound.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Admiral Akbar, Povl Carstensen, Ric Vice and 1 other person
#203
Povl Carstensen said:
(Warning: rant)
The renewed talk made me bring out my old WW MI 225 "Sweeper" model, which had long been replaced by a Quilter BB 800.
The Quilter has more preamp level, so I can plug in dynamic mics, or condenser mics with just a Rolls 48V supply, directly (thats what I do).
Also I love the two-knob tone shaping of the BB. The Sweeper is a 3 way semi parametric eq. Too many knobs for me. Especially the "mid" used to drive me crazy. Because even with the "level" centered, the sound would change when turning the frequenzy dial. I used to wish my amp came without the "mid" section.
But inspired by a thread here, I bought a TritonAudio Fethead Phantom preamp, which plugs into the Rolls, giving 18 db lift, plus sending 48V on to the condenser mic.
So now I am enjoying ample headroom on the WW. Plus the sweeter sound of it.
And comming to grips with the eq section. With bass and treble turned all the way down, it works as a variable HPF and LPF with a semiparametric mid. I used to think the mid was about removing "ugly" frequenzies, which might well be true for piezo pickups. But now I see it as a way to add "meat and potatoes" to the acoustic mic sound.
So I am back to a Countryman small condenser mic mounted on the bridge -> Triton -> Rolls > WW Sweeper -> MAS 16.
I will probably keep on going in circles...
Click to expand...

Walter steered me away from the Sweeper, he said it didn't sound as good as he had hoped.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ric Vice
#204
Low Class said:
Walter steered me away from the Sweeper, he said it didn't sound as good as he had hoped.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was also slightly disappointed, but was lured in by the extensive eq control possibilities (before the WW I used a TC Electronics 4 band full parametric eq rack module).
But anyway with my new "concept" of HPF, LPF and variable mid, I am quite happy. Then it is only four knobs...
 
Last edited:
#205
Ric Vice said:
Looking at the preamp section of the Fuchs 350 it's missing controls in the preamp section of an Electroacoustic that make the Woods unique. I've always felt that the thing that makes a Woods a Woods are the sensitivity of the tone controls and the
the semi parametric mid range with it's Vari control along with the balance control that give the amp the ability to really tailor a Double Bass timbre. It's not "MYBOL". So I'd be hard pressed to give up those EQ controls. Dual channel amps are also
very important to me personally. Just my take however.
Click to expand...
When are these Fuchs amps coming out? It says on the website “summer”, but summer is almost gone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frank Miller and Matt Power
#207
I think Andy can better answer that question. In regards to the Sweeper Preamp that Walter put on his amps for a short while, I think it was a transition from the MI-100-8 series preamp that led him to the Electroacoustic Preamp. He didn't
build them for very long before change over to the Electroacoustic's. I've never seen one in the wild, and I've been around quite a few Woods amplifiers.
 
#208
Ric Vice said:
I think Andy can better answer that question. In regards to the Sweeper Preamp that Walter put on his amps for a short while, I think it was a transition from the MI-100-8 series preamp that led him to the Electroacoustic Preamp. He didn't
build them for very long before change over to the Electroacoustic's. I've never seen one in the wild, and I've been around quite a few Woods amplifiers.
Click to expand...
There was a guy in Mpls in I believe the 80s or 90s who had a WW that looked different from mine but I didn't know what it did differently. It also had the XLR output. Could this have been one of these?
 
#212
I have a friend in town that has one of these amps. As I recall, at the time these were built something had happened to Walter's component supply chain, because just previous he had been building the higher powered MI-400-8's and MI-600-8's.
A few short years later he began the Electroacoustic models that were also higher powered. Walter felt that folks would want to use their own DI's so he didn't put them on the Electroacoustic amps. Whether that was a wise decision or not
years later remains to be seen. Just my take.
 
#213
Ric Vice said:
I have a friend in town that has one of these amps. As I recall, at the time these were built something had happened to Walter's component supply chain, because just previous he had been building the higher powered MI-400-8's and MI-600-8's.
A few short years later he began the Electroacoustic models that were also higher powered. Walter felt that folks would want to use their own DI's so he didn't put them on the Electroacoustic amps. Whether that was a wise decision or not
years later remains to be seen. Just my take.
Click to expand...

That's what he said, but actually he had trouble with the Electracoustic DI as it was very noisy. There's quite a few early Electracoutics where the DI's were removed and replaced with 1/4" and a black plate covering the hole.. Quite an ugly sight for an expensive amp! The DI in the previous model sounded great.

IMO, other than the power, the Electracoustic had it's shortcomings and was not his best amp.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lee Moses
#215
A question for multiple WW owners: Which model do you consider the overall best? I have the MI-100-8 which I've had since the 80s but it's the only one I've ever owned. It's been a real workhorse but I've wondered if the other models have any particular advantages since Walter tried so many different designs. I don't plan on ever getting another one but am curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srbbass and Admiral Akbar
#216
Low Class said:
Walter steered me away from the Sweeper, he said it didn't sound as good as he had hoped.
Click to expand...
Before I switched over to WW MI-series amps in the mid-90s I was running biamp-able rigs. First a GK-800RB in the mid-80s then rack gear.

Was it overkill for DB? Ah suppose . . .
But done right it sounded really hi-fi. The bands I was playing with dug it.

The thing about biamping is that the low channel needs / sucks a lot more power than the top. As an illustration, the low side of the 800RB was about 300W into 8 and the high side was 100W into 8, and that worked fine crossed at around 125Hz.

If the WW Sweepah ran at 350/350 I see a lot of potential for less-than-ideal sonic outcomes even accounting for the fact that the WW power-amps are Class D.
 
#217
Yes their is a distinct advantage to BI Amping. In the long ago time when P.A. Systems were in their infancy. Altec Lansing had a “portable”version of the Voice of the Theater Cabinets. They would chain them to one another and place the powered extension speakers far from the stage covering the entire Grand Stand at the Indiana State Fair. The 800RB also had a great EQ section that worked well with DB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam Sherry
#218
Bruce Calin said:
A question for multiple WW owners: Which model do you consider the overall best? I have the MI-100-8 which I've had since the 80s but it's the only one I've ever owned. It's been a real workhorse but I've wondered if the other models have any particular advantages since Walter tried so many different designs. I don't plan on ever getting another one but am curious.
Click to expand...
I have an ‘82 MI-100-8 which I use all the time, including last night. Workhorse for sure! I also own an Electracoustic amber light which gives more wattage, tone sounds fantastic for DB and EB. But for some reason, my MI-100-8 just does something special with my FC-equipped double bass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srbbass, Sam Sherry and CryingBass
#219
Admiral Akbar said:
I have an ‘82 MI-100-8 which I use all the time, including last night. Workhorse for sure! I also own an Electracoustic amber light which gives more wattage, tone sounds fantastic for DB and EB. But for some reason, my MI-100-8 just does something special with my FC-equipped double bass.
Click to expand...

‘Just as a way of comparison between the MI series and the Electroacoustic amps, the MI series is a analog amplifier except for the SMPS power supply. While the Electroacoustic has a Class D power amp and power supply. The FET’s (transistors) and MOSFET’s in the MI series (If I understand the technology correctly)
emulate the warmth of a tube amplifier. Just my take with my fledgling knowledge of electronics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Admiral Akbar
#220
Ric Vice said:
Walter felt that folks would want to use their own DI's so he didn't put them on the Electroacoustic amps.
Click to expand...

The problem with the pre/post 1/4" output on the Electracoustic is that the pre out is about 20dB below the instrument input level and the post can be even lower unless you have the channel gains up pretty high. Then when you then add a typical DI, the signal gets attenuated another 10-20dB :meh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ric Vice

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back