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

Warwick Streamer S-I5 / LX5w questions

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by Bassosaurus, Sep 3, 2005.


  1. Bassosaurus

    Bassosaurus

    Aug 27, 2005
    Warwick Streamer Stage I 5 (has 20mm string spacing)

    Warwick Streamer LX Wide Neck 5 (has 20mm string spacing)
    -------------
    I'm considering one of these, but there are none in town. Maybe someone can help me out w/ a coulple questions:

    1) How does the weight compare to a Thumb-5 . The maple is much lighter, but there is more wood on these wide-neck Streamers.

    2) I hope/assume they balance better than a thumb 5???

    3)Does the Streamer LXwide have a larger body than the standard LX - is it the same size as a Streamer Stage I.

    ~ Bass((o))saurusWarwick Streamer S-I5 / LX5w questions
     
  2. Bassosaurus

    Bassosaurus

    Aug 27, 2005
    :bag:
     
  3. Fuzzbass

    Fuzzbass P5 with overdrive Supporting Member

    I don't have much experience with Thumb or Streamer LX basses, but I owned a Streamer Stage I 5 for a few years. It definitely balances better than the Thumb, probably because the body is heavier, and the top horn extends to the 14th fret rather than the 16th.

    I liked mine a lot! It was a '98 with Basslines pickups and MEC preamp. I loved the 20mm string spacing, and the super-chunky neck profile and overall weight weren't a problem for me. It had the lovely Warwick growl.

    FWIW: the main reason I sold it is because I just switched to fiver back in Y2K, and I'm still trying different ones to see which work best for me: after all, the best way to know for sure is to own and use one for awhile.
     
  4. Bassosaurus

    Bassosaurus

    Aug 27, 2005
    :bag:
     
  5. Senor SQUID

    Senor SQUID Guest

    Jan 11, 2004
    I agree w/ Fuzz. They balance 100 X better than a warwick thumb 5 but I think they might be heavier. I used to own a Stage I 5 string and it was about 12lbs. Great sounding bass just too big for me.
     
  6. Woodchuck

    Woodchuck

    Apr 21, 2000
    Atlanta / Macon (sigh)
    Gallien Krueger for the last 12 years!
    If you have a chance to get a Stage 1 5, DO IT!! I got rid of mine, and have regretted ever since!!!! I play a Sadowsky now, and I love it, but if I come across another Stage 1 5, I'd trade it in a heartbeat!!!
     
  7. Bassosaurus

    Bassosaurus

    Aug 27, 2005

    Dang I like a bigger bass but 12# is awful heavy! I'd thought since they were maple they might be even lighter despite their larger size. Maybe I could get one w/ some light swamp ash wings.

    Still stoked to try one. Thnks all for your input - anyone else?
     
  8. I don't get the Thumb balance issue entirely - my Thumb 6 balanced perfectly, but then it has a larger body than the 5's & 4's, and a much thinner neck than the current production models.
     
  9. Senor SQUID

    Senor SQUID Guest

    Jan 11, 2004
    Very True. I have owned Thumb 4's and 5's and I think the 5's balance the worst
     
  10. Bassosaurus

    Bassosaurus

    Aug 27, 2005
    bump :bag:
     
  11. Daywalker

    Daywalker

    Apr 13, 2005
    SOCAL
    Having owned/played all basses in question....

    1) Much lighter indeed. The wider spacing doesn't make up for the weight much at all.

    2) They balance very nicely, much nicer than the Thumb does anyways.

    3) None of the body sizes change with with neck sizes. From 4 to 6 string Warwicks, the only width changes happen in the neck.
     
  12. Bassosaurus

    Bassosaurus

    Aug 27, 2005
    Thanks for the info!

    Warwick now has specs listed on a pdf file at there site.

    The stage I-5 weighs in at 10.56# while the Thumb 5 is a hefty 11#er.