Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by AllodoX, Mar 12, 2002.
A warwick-fan's wet dream
A Spector fan's nightmare???
blah, screw spector... gimme warwick !
** runs away screaming like a girl, while being chased by a large group of angry spector-fans **
i'm not a fan of warwick basses even if i have played and tried a lot of them, here in italy they are common both the low end and the high end. i'd like to know what do you think are the highlights of warwick, which model do you like more and why, i have been always intrigued with them but i have never felt really good playing one.
" 5 reasons why warwicks kick butt "
- by AllodoX -
1) The neck
Warwicks have rather thick necks; not wide, but a good radius. This makes the warwick neck very comfortable.
If you feel a warwick neck and then feel a fender neck, the fender feels like a toothpick, because warwick uses very heavy woods for the neck.
2) The body
Warwick basses have relative small bodies ( in exception of the " Dolphin " ), which give them a very nice look while still retaining excellent balance.
Because most of them have hollow backs, they are very comfortable.
3) Construction & quality materials.
Warwick uses rather heavy woods, which make the bass feel very solid.
The typical bridge on warwicks enhance the resonance, and improve overall stringtension.
4) Configurability (sp?)
Warwick basses are very configurable. just like most other basses you can adjust the string height, intonation, neckrelief and pickup height. but warwick basses also have a nut that is adjustable in height, and with 4 screws you can raise or lower the entire bridge, for even more acurate action-settings.
5) the sound ( of wood )
Warwicks have a really full tone, even the cheaper ones with passive pickups ( streamer standard for example ).
Warwicks have real thick tone when played with a pick, a quality most basses lack. And warwicks sound great when played fingerstyle. Other basses sound good in fingerstyle too, but they still lack the humungous lows the warwick has.
My personal favorite is the Streamer LX. I like the LX better than the Stage I and II. I dunno why i like it more, but the stage I and II i played didn't feel as good to me as the LX.
I'm getting an LX-6, OR LX-5 ( not 100 % sure about it yet ) in June.
Allodox, have you ever played an infinity model? I'm seriously considering of buying one, with jazzman pickups, although I've never played one. I have played other Warwicks of course. Great necks, great sound.
no.. infortunately not, alltho i heard great things about them by my bassteacher..
Another thing they have in their favour is they look like Spectors!!!
nah.. spectors don't look as good
You're right, they don't look 'as good', they are in fact much nicer. Heh heh!!!!
This could go on all day!!!!
Happy choosing your new Warwick - I'd like to be in a position again to have try to decide which new bass to get!!
most of them have a hollow back?
what what what what what?
did you guys ever heard of the concept " IMHO " ??
I think he means the sculpted (curved) shape of the body.
Yuk Yuk Yuk Yuk!!!!
AllodoX - correct me if I'm wrong but by when you said 'hollow backs' I assumed you meant that they are concave ie they are curved so your belly fits in nicely (like Spectors)
Beat you! Neener neener
I bet the Warwicks don't have the high tech bend-the-neck-back action by pressing on the headstock like my Peavey bass does! Effectivly lowers the action (and the life of the neck ) without touching the truss rod at all
Just to add my $0.02:
1) My Streamer Stage I V has a wide neck (which is one reason I got it). It's also very thick, which probably contributes to the chunky thick tone. However even as a fan of big necks, I'm still getting used to playing in the upper register! FWIW, the neck on mine has a flattened 'U' profile... or perhaps a sideways 'D'
2) I would say that the shorter bodies on Warwicks when combined with the heavy necks makes them more prone to *imbalance* (neck dive)... especially stubby ones like the Thumb. The horn on my Streamer goes to about the 14th fret... if the body wood was lighter than maple it would probably dive. Because of all the maple, my Streamer is the heaviest bass I own (even heavier than the RB5), and can get uncomfortable after awhile (still getting used to it). It's the only bass that's made me consider a better strap: 2" nylon straps are fine for all my others.
But despite the nitpicks, it's a beautiful bass and has great tone for my Modern Rock<sup>tm</sup> band; even my bandmates dig it.
Here's the money shot on my Infinity 5 prototype:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/christianson10/Xush Basses_files/larg/warwick I2.JPG
I've found this sucker to be extremely versatile and so far it's my favorite all-around fretted bass. It's got a really strong voice, punches thru anything! They got the balance worked out much better on this model, doesn't dive like the thumbs...
One of my favorite 'features' is the contoured body. I really like that shape. I guess the thumbs and streamer have it too. It's quite comfortable.
I've heard some comment that they're not crazy about MEC p'ups, but I love these things. Some of the best tone I've heard on any bass.
So far it's my fretted fav; even if something eclipses it I think I'll hang on to it. I really like the aesthetics and the tone is stentorian! Try one if you get a chance.
Of course I invoke the venerable "YMMV" clause...
I'm going to second everything Mark said above about his Infinity 5. That is an amazing bass! I was really wanting a Thumb, but after playing his Infinity a while, I'm starting to lean that way a little more. It's not as heavy and has a SLIGHT neck dive, but is still extremely comfortable. I believe to newer ones, however, do not have the exposed humbucker as his does, but have the two single coils in the same case. Not a true humbucker. Either way, these things are fantastic! I can't wait to try the set-neck version to compare the two.