Walter Woods owners....PLEASE HELP!!!

I had one of the 100 watt Woods amps and it was a great sounding amp but not enough power. A friend had the 350 watt version and I thought it was plenty loud for most gigs, however, he recently bought a 1000 watt Woods to replace his 350 watt amp.

My "small" power amp (I use rack gear) is 1000 watts and I never felt it was too much. My bigger rig has a 1600 watt power amp. My advice is to buy the highest powered amp you can afford. There is no substitute for headroom.

Chuck

 

I second Chuck, above. I've got the Woods Ultra. Mono at 8 ohm/800 watts and 4 ohm/1200 watts. Go for the higher wattage if your budget allows. Also, you could consider alternative brands. There are lots of really good, and powerful, amps available and at less moola than Walter's. Best of fortune to you!

 

Are the Walter Woods amps good rock amps? Do they have a particular sound? What is the price range?

 

I've got the 1200 watt ultra high. I wouldn't consider it a great rock amp. It has a very clean sound and is made to be very neutral. For my purposes which is playing a variety of styles in different size ensembles it's great. Portable, lot of power, gets a real good sound anywher. Remember it reflects your instrument especially if you pair it with neutral cabs like EA, Epifani etc, so you've got to have a good instrument. I consider it a great amp for working bassists who have to be versatile.

 

GEEK, from my brief experience owning the same model WW that you ordered - and this is my opinion only - I think Walter's wattage ratings are, er, "generous" - maybe not overblown. I found that mine didn't have the headroom I had expected given the wattage rating.

To tell you the truth, I was pretty underwhelmed with my WW 450/650 amp. After I had it for a while, I started thinking about the WT-400 I owned before and wondering if the WW was really worth more than 3 times the amount I got for the Eden. The answer (to me) was a definite NO. IMHO, the only real plus the WW has over high quality mass-produced bass amps is the light weight. And to me it ain't worth $1000+ bucks to save a few lbs. Also, with the WW you don't get a DI out or a tuner out - conveniences that are taken for granted in most amps.

Again, this is just my opinion and I'm not slagging Walter Woods or his amps - they are fine-sounding and well built. I'm glad I owned one because I always thought a WW was the Holy Grail of bass amps. Now I don't get GAS every time I see one advertised for sale.

 

***?! Is that really what they cost now?

Dang, there goes that idea ....

 

Phew, you had me going there ....

 

I went through the whole "should I" thing with the same subject. And I concluded that Eden would suit my "rock" needs better. I know how you feel about Eden, but my conclusions were this:

WW amps were expensive, light, reliable, well built, digital power supply, non-coloring = best for standup bass.

Eden amps were semi-expensive, semi-light for power, reliable, well built, conventional power supply, torroid transformer, sound coloring = better for rock + me.

A SansAmp BDDI in front of the Eden really helps get the click out, and adds grind.

I think you got GAS bad!

 

Good luck with your Walter Woods. I've been really happy with mine. Really small, built like a tank, a versatile pre-amp section, and clean. (You'll have to buy accessories if you want grunge or dirt!) I have passive pickups on my 5 string, and run a Sadowsky outboard and it sounds way heavy when I need it to. I can also dial in a pretty good string bass sound. Anyway, best of fortune to you, and hopefully you won't need to wait too long.