• 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.

Why does my Warwick sound thin? Maple body?

Fenwick

Fenwick

Dec 9, 2012
395
232
Montreal
www.obnoxiousentertainment.ca
#1
My Streamer LX4 feels like a great build and plays very nicely, but the sound is 'thin' compared to say my ATK300, especially when I engage the bridge pup (switching it out). It's not a terrible sound overall, I'd describe it as tight and focused but also bright, thin and nasally. It also cannot hold a candle to the harmonics on my ATK300 (with dead strings vs brand new on the W), nor does it have the sustain.


Anyway, I know there can be a lot of different factors in the sound, although I feel that the two piece maple body might have a lot to do with it. I do think electronics have a big impact but I am also wondering if it's a characteristic of (AAA flamed) maple? Anyone have experience with this bass or similar experiences with maple bodies?
 
#2
Those are 2 different animals. They WILL sound, feel, & play different from each other. It's like a Chevy & Ford; those 2 are different from each other.

No sense second guessing wood choice, blah blah blah. Just play it for what it can do.
 
#3
Granted, I don't expect them to. I think the ATK has more of an old school sound (comparatively) to the Warwick's modern. I guess the reason I brought up the ATK was because I find the harmonics (and sustain, but I chalk that up to string-through and giant bridge on ATK) weak on the Warwick, and wondered if other people have experienced this with maple and/or LX4s.
 
#4
I'm inclined to agree with Sobie18 but I'm very surprised that you think the Warwick has disappointing sustain.
I can see how you would describe a Warwick as "tight and focused but also bright, thin and nasally", whether you liked them or not, but I've also found them very capable of big, fat bottom it's just that you can tell it's not what the bass is happiest doing.
I can't help getting the feeling that there's a defect somewhere here, if your descriptions are fair.

edit for clarity: My experience with Warwicks is having played fairly regularly a Dolphin Pro II and a Corvette $$ as well as testing out a standard Corvette and Thumb in a music shop.
 
#5
Yeah I can only compare it to my ATK and Cort, I'd say the Cort sustain is average, the ATK is exceptional and the Warwick is lacking. Fast attack, but equally quick decay. Almost tempted to post a comparison video because the difference is so drastic.

Thanks for the feedback though, it might be an LX thing or maybe a maple thing too as I havent seen thumbs or Corvettes in maple (they probably exist...). I've also heard other people comment about the inherent brightness of maple basses, dunno if true or not.
 
#6
Those basses with the bubinga/wenge necks are very stable..but tend to make some weird rumblings when you play say, an F# down low. You can't turn up the highs too much, cause you'll hear it. What I'm attempting to describe sounds like a loose truss rod..but it's the wood type. Warwick's fit and finish are about as good as it gets, though. I just wished they used maple for the necks more often.

Maybe try some new strings before you rule your bass out completely.
 
#7
Warwick have been making maple bodied Streamers for almost 30 years. Rickenbacker have been making maple bodied basses for almost 60 years. Maple is a fantastic sounding body wood, it is on the heavy side though.

FWIW I have two Streamers, a neck through SS1 and a LX, neither are deficient in sustain or low end. I'd suggest getting s good setup done on your bass, see if it remedies the problems you're experiencing.
 
#8
Thanks for the feedback guys. For the record, the neck is ovangkol (wenge board) and I also recently switched the strings from whatever D'Addario nickels I bought it with to DR sunbeams.

I'm certainly not suggesting that maple isn't a good tone wood, I'm just curious if it maybe has an inherently bright or (comparatively) thin sounding characteristic (compared to alder or ash for example) or is that more to do with the MEC preamp/pickups? I always wonder if the small size of the LX4 body plays into it's sound too...
 
#9
I'm voting electronics. I bet if you put the ATK's electronics in your 'wick you'd wonder why it's so boomy.

My corvette std is punchy as ****. It doesn't have a boomy low end and the midrange is well-balanced. It sounds a lot like a modern fretless would, in my mind. Changing the pickups from the passive MECs it came with to an EMG J-set with a BTC preamp didn't change the sound as much as I'd thought it might, and I'm even running it 18 volt.
 
#10
The neck wood and fingerboard wood has way more impact on the sound than the body wood. What you should be asking is does the ovangkol neck, which replaced the more traditional maple (Fender, Ric, EBMM, G&L all use maple necks), is doing this.

But I think it's impossible to answer simply comparing apples to oranges within your stable. It seems more likely the tone is fairly native to the Warwick's design and maybe you just got a pronounced example or are more sensitive to notice what you don't like about it than others. I suspect in a mix it will be easy to dial in with some EQ. What's hard to fix with EQ in my experience is a bass that sounds too dark and thumpy from the get-go.
 
#14
gurensan said:
I'm voting electronics. I bet if you put the ATK's electronics in your 'wick you'd wonder why it's so boomy.

Changing the pickups from the passive MECs it came with to an EMG J-set with a BTC preamp didn't change the sound as much as I'd thought it might, and I'm even running it 18 volt.
Click to expand...

Hmmm interesting. Im wondering if I'll end up in the same spot after switching out the preamp and pups.


I've considered that it might be a 'dud' and I think it's more about my own expectations of the sound, the instrument itself seems great.

Im thinking a 2 band Aggie and a Delano PMVC for the P and either a Model J or JMVC for the bridge will help get to the bottom of this quickly. If it's still nasally after a Model J I may end up selling it.
 
#15
Fenwick said:
Hmmm interesting. Im wondering if I'll end up in the same spot after switching out the preamp and pups.


I've considered that it might be a 'dud' and I think it's more about my own expectations of the sound, the instrument itself seems great.

Im thinking a 2 band Aggie and a Delano PMVC for the P and either a Model J or JMVC for the bridge will help get to the bottom of this quickly. If it's still nasally after a Model J I may end up selling it.
Click to expand...

Your own expectations could be a huge factor. Warwicks have that "modern" sound, which has a little less bass to it and quite a bit of midrange punch. They cut in the mix really well but what I've gathered from the bass players I've met & talked to is that boomy bass and low-end distortion is "in" nowadays. My old singer loves the trend but I doubt many soundmen feel the same. I'd suggest leaving it as it is and getting it some watts-time in band practice before changing the pups and electronics out. Then if it still doesn't float your boat, do the change and try it again.

Mine sounds surprisingly like a P when I turn the blend all the way over to the neck pickup but still doesn't get a too-thumpy bottom.

You say it's a great bass, so I wouldn't sell it until you've given it a run for its money. Save the original parts!
 
#16
gurensan said:
Your own expectations could be a huge factor. Warwicks have that "modern" sound, which has a little less bass to it and quite a bit of midrange punch. They cut in the mix really well but what I've gathered from the bass players I've met & talked to is that boomy bass and low-end distortion is "in" nowadays. My old singer loves the trend but I doubt many soundmen feel the same. I'd suggest leaving it as it is and getting it some watts-time in band practice before changing the pups and electronics out. Then if it still doesn't float your boat, do the change and try it again.

Mine sounds surprisingly like a P when I turn the blend all the way over to the neck pickup but still doesn't get a too-thumpy bottom.

You say it's a great bass, so I wouldn't sell it until you've given it a run for its money. Save the original parts!
Click to expand...


This is solid advice. I don't play in a band atm, but my go to sound is all P on this P/J. Except when I play along to a track, often the blend cuts much better (especially for metal) even though it's less pleasant on it's own to my ears. I really do think it has to do with my expectations, but I do appreciate the bass for what it is and will try many scenarios before resorting to a sale.
 
#17
i used to say the same thing about my vampyre SN (maple body) - which i sold so i could try out new basses, until i fiddled with the EQ. try cutting the treble and boosting the bass. my other bass, a vampyre ltd, also has a very modern sound, and since i am into the boomy bass thing nowadays, i switched to flats, cut out all the highs, cut out the mids a bit and boost the lows a little, i get that boomy sound.
 
#18
Here's a followup. There was nothing wrong with the harmonics or sustain on my Warwick. It was all DR Sunbeams, which I've found to be an inferior product on every count. Switched them out for Elixirs, low and behold my harmonics are loud and clear and the sustain is stronger. The G string no longer sounds like a mandolin. Granted, the soloed bridge is still pretty thin, but there is only so much these magical Elixirs will do.

FTR- the 'dead strings' on my ATK were Elixirs too.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back