Double Bass WW question

[chris dammann]

hi,
I know this must have been answered in a previous post on the topic-- i, however, need this really spelled out for me when it comes to electronics. I'm in the market for a walter woods and was wondering how wattage corresponds to bass response. i used a friend's WW from the 80's (made for Frank Proto) for a year or so and loved the sound i got from his rig. sadly, i can't borrow his rig every night of the week... I believe his was the common dual channel 100w version. It had no xlr outs. which brings me to my question: my stand up bass is heavy on the low-end and really responded well to all the top the WW gave it. are the later WW's with higher power levels worth anything to me? or they going to make the low-end sound more electric less woody? thanks for helping a simple minded musician with all this confusing tech stuff.
chris

 

[KJung]

I'm not a DB player, but have lot's of experience with the Walter Woods amps (I sound like one of those Holiday Inn Express commercials!). The newer models, while much higher power, actually are more compressed down low, and brighter in the upper mids than the older models, which were huge down low and almost tubey sounding in the mids.

While the wattage level of some of the current Walter models is very high (he makes a 1200 watt into 4ohms model), IMO, the actual performance is best estimated by cutting those watts in half when comparing to other amp models (Aguilar, Markbass, Eden, etc., etc.). So, don't let the wattage scare you. The Walters are plenty loud though, and for DB, one of the green lights would probably be more than enough.

From my experience with lot's of DB players comparing the newer Walter amps with, for example, the Acoustic Image stuff, if you like a very tight, articulate, accurate and bright DB tone, the Walter seems to be the way to go. If you want it warmer, fatter, darker, the AI stuff also sounds great.

IMO!

 

[Ric Vice]

I'm not a DB player, but have lot's of experience with the Walter Woods amps (I sound like one of those Holiday Inn Express commercials!). The newer models, while much higher power, actually are more compressed down low, and brighter in the upper mids than the older models, which were huge down low and almost tubey sounding in the mids.

I don't know that there's really a lot I can add to this very accurate description of Walter's Amps. Only know that the first version of the Woods has a analog power amplifier. This sounds different than the Electroacoustic's because they have a digital power amplifier. Walter's older amps, the MI series, even the 400 and 600 watt ones can get you in to trouble in the bass end of the spectrum. The louder you play the the more you have to roll of the bass response. While the Electroacoustic is much easier to EQ in the low end. They also work much better with Bass Guitar IMHO, since they have midrange controls that will emphasize midrange for a slap and pop player. So if you want a doubling amplifier they are pretty good at getting the two totally different EQ's you need to play Five String and Double Bass.

While the wattage level of some of the current Walter models is very high (he makes a 1200 watt into 4ohms model), IMO, the actual performance is best estimated by cutting those watts in half when comparing to other amp models (Aguilar, Markbass, Eden, etc., etc.). So, don't let the wattage scare you. The Walters are plenty loud though, and for DB, one of the green lights would probably be more than enough.

Agreed, you can probably never have enough headroom but the green lights pack plenty of punch.

From my experience with lot's of DB players comparing the newer Walter amps with, for example, the Acoustic Image stuff, if you like a very tight, articulate, accurate and bright DB tone, the Walter seems to be the way to go. If you want it warmer, fatter, darker, the AI stuff also sounds great.
IMO!

Very true, and they have Notch/ Lo Pass Filters, Dual use input connectors, a real DI, and Speakon speaker connectors. These things are kind of essential, if you are going to use a mic blended with a pickup. With Walter's Amps you need a additional box to use one in all situations.

Ric

 

[Freddels]

I have an old WW M-100 and it's a really nice amp. I also have an iAmp 500 that sounds good with both DB and EB. It gets that deep bass like the old WW.

 

[robgrow]

I've owned two Walter Woods amps, an M 100-8 from the mid 80's and an M300 (green light) Electracoustic model from the late 90's that I own and use currently. I've also owned and used lots of other amps, including Acoustic Image, Ampeg, Eden, GK, Markbass, SWR, etc., and the Walter Woods M300 is by far my favorite. Sound is what matters most to me, and the WW M300 has the sound I like along with more than enough power for my needs.

Speaking of power, my Walter Woods M300, which is spec'd as 300 watts @ 8 ohms and 450 watts @ 4 ohms, has at least as much headroom if not more than the Markbass Little Mark II I also own, which is rated for about the same amount of power (350 watts @ 8Ω and 500 @ 4&#937. The Little Mark II has more gain, which could be mistaken for more power. Headroom is about the same though. I bought the Markbass amp as a backup, but I really don't like it for double bass and will probably sell it.

Chris, you mentioned Frank Proto... Are you in the Cincinnati area? If you are, you'd be welcome to try my Walter Woods M300 sometime. Just send me a PM if you're interested.

 

[Ric Vice]

I've owned two Walter Woods amps, an M 100-8 from the mid 80's and an M300 (green light) Electracoustic model from the late 90's that I own and use currently. I've also owned and used lots of other amps, including Acoustic Image, Ampeg, Eden, GK, Markbass, SWR, etc., and the Walter Woods M300 is by far my favorite. Sound is what matters most to me, and the WW M300 has the sound I like along with more than enough power for my needs.

As far as the Walter Woods goes I own two of them and they are essentially my only amplifiers (You Can't Really Count the B-15 NC cause it never leaves the house). I do have a somewhat jaded perspective though because, the only other amplifiers I've owned were two Gallien Krueger 200MB's that I really liked, a SWR Baby Blue 2X8 (they no longer build this amp) and a MBS that I tried to love but eventually sold.

Speaking of power, my Walter Woods M300, which is spec'd as 300 watts @ 8 ohms and 450 watts @ 4 ohms, has at least as much headroom if not more than the Markbass Little Mark II I also own, which is rated for about the same amount of power (350 watts @ 8Ω and 500 @ 4&#937. The Little Mark II has more gain, which could be mistaken for more power. Headroom is about the same though. I bought the Markbass amp as a backup, but I really don't like it for double bass and will probably sell it.

If you are talking exclusively about using the Woods as a Double Bass amplifier then the 300 watts will to the trick nicely. You could buy his ElectroAcoustic Ultra, but it costs more, and since there is a "law of diminishing returns" with Double Bass i.e. the louder you play with your stage amp the harder it is to control feedback then It's got plenty of power. Just remember you have to have an additional device to use a microphone, even if it's just one of those three pin cannon to 1/4" plug things from Radio Shack and his DI, if you can call it that, which personally I don't because it's really just a line out, is noisy, so, if your running through the mains you will have to have a good (not necessarily expensive though) DI Box to connect Walter's amp to the mains. Country Man makes an affordable one that has worked for me in the past. Most sound men have one of these, you just need to bring along a really short shielded guitar chord with 1/4" plugs because they don't usually have one of those, at least not a short one.

Chris, you mentioned Frank Proto... Are you in the Cincinnati area? If you are, you'd be welcome to try my Walter Woods M300 sometime. Just send me a PM if you're interested.

I go visit Bob and try it out, cause you can't go to Guitar Center to check these baby's out.


Ric

 

[chris dammann]

Thanks for all the great info. It is really appreciated!! It sounds like i'm looking for the M-100 8 model. It sounds like that amp is the exact same as the one of my buddie's i borrowed. It seemed to have the right frequency response for my instrument (meaning, I could get a lot of volume without feeding back.) With my SWR workingman's 15, I could get the same volume but not without risking serious feedback on stage. I was happy with my SWR, it gave me ten yrs of hard playing, but i think its time for me to get the amp i've been lusting after...
I'm in the chicagoland area, otherwise i would take you up on the offer RobGrow!
Thanks again,
chris

 

[Freddels]

I like my WW M-100 8. It's a single channel model that I bought from WW back in '84. It's 100 watts at 8 ohms and 150 at 4 ohms. You'll have to search to find one. They do come up for sale once in a while but expect to pay more for it now than it cost when it was new.

 

[Ric Vice]

Thanks for all the great info. It is really appreciated!! It sounds like i'm looking for the M-100 8 model. It sounds like that amp is the exact same as the one of my buddie's i borrowed. It seemed to have the right frequency response for my instrument (meaning, I could get a lot of volume without feeding back.) With my SWR workingman's 15, I could get the same volume but not without risking serious feedback on stage. I was happy with my SWR, it gave me ten yrs of hard playing, but i think its time for me to get the amp i've been lusting after...
I'm in the chicagoland area, otherwise i would take you up on the offer RobGrow!
Thanks again,
chris

Chris,
You are more likely to find a MI-100-8 because Walter built them for quite a few years. The pre amp is the same for the MI 100, 400, and 600. He didn't build the higher powered versions for very long because there were problems getting the switching power supply for the 400 and 600. At least that's what I remember Walter saying to K Jung.
I had one that I purchased in 1980 and it's still working great. I sold it to a guitar player who is a close friend of mine. He uses it when he plays bass on gigs.
There is one thing I think you should know, the MI-100-8 is great at low to moderate volume levels, but it's IMHO a tad underpowered compared to the AI Claris and Focus, GK's New MB 500 and the EA Micro and iAmps. So you will be paying at least $1,000.00 for an amplifier with a great pre amp and a small power amp. Great for most Double Bass gigs, but IME, if you have to push it then you're gonna be rolling the bass control way back.
So, what you're paying that grand for is a really great pre amp, with the right EQ voicing for Double Bass. Personally I'd try to find a lower power (not low power) Electro Acoustic like Bob has. There's one listed on ebay right now, it's expensive. For what there asking you could probably by a whole new rig. I'd wait until one comes up on Talkbass.

Ric Vice

 

[LowBSix]

I've never experienced tonal changes at higher volumes. I have the the 450 @ 8 ohms/ 600 @ 4 ohms. Reliable, clean solid amplifier.

 

[Ric Vice]

I've never experienced tonal changes at higher volumes. I have the the 450 @ 8 ohms/ 600 @ 4 ohms. Reliable, clean solid amplifier.

Sorry, it's not really a "tonal" change. IMHO as you increase the volume bass notes have the tendency to lengthen. What you want is a attack, sustain, and especially decay that does't blossom so much in the low frequency range that it begins to blur from note to note. Some amplifiers have a EQ that doesn't address this very well. Walter's older amps have switches adjacent to the bass and treble controls that will back the bass response of by 10 db while the newer ones have the Vari an Ballance knobs to correct this situation. So you are right it's not a tonal change it's a problem with sustain and decay length.

Ric

 

[LowBSix]

I've never experienced any change to the sustain and decay length. At louder volumes it is identical to the lower volumes.

When volume is louder it is easier for the ear to end the end of the decay to the sustain. Having said that; play extremely quiet while much closer to the speaker and it will be identical with the WW.

The Walter Woods amp IMHO is one of the best at reproducing what the bass is putting out; hence the reason they sell and resell for the prices they tend to go out for. You get quality, reliability of clean power.

 

[LowBSix]

Chris, I left you a message on VM. Call me.

 

[DonBox]

Only know that the first version of the Woods has a analog power amplifier. This sounds different than the Electroacoustic's because they have a digital power amplifier. Walter's older amps, the MI series, even the 400 and 600 watt ones can get you in to trouble in the bass end of the spectrum.

I could be misremembering, but in terms of "older" amps, I think the original ice cream sandwich and the MI-100 were both "traditional" amps but that the MI-225 (the original green light/hi-power) was the first Class-D amp Walter did.

I owned an MI-100 and an MI-225 at the same time (bought the 225 new while still in high school :-|).

The main difference as I recall was in the top end - one tended to cut off around 10Khz - sadly I can't recall which one, but I'm pretty sure it was the lo-power. I was playing rock at the time and don't recall there being a low end deficit with the 225, which was my main amp.

I also had a prototype ice cream sandwich for a couple of weeks as a loaner - that thing sounded amazing and I am tempted to snap up the next one that shows up here or on ebay.

Cheers,
DB

 

[robgrow]

Much of the difference in the sound between older and newer Walter Woods amps is in the preamp designs.

The original Walter Woods amps from about 1970 to the late 1980's all have FET-based class A preamps, which give those amps a warm, tube-like sound. Harmonic distortion is relatively high, but it's the "good kind" and is very musical sounding.

The next series of Walter Woods amps, often called "sweepers" because of the swept midrange controls, introduced IC opamp-based preamps. The current Electracoustic models (mid-late 1990's to the present) also use IC opamp-based preamps. Harmonic distortion is much lower in these amps, and the sound is tighter and more defined.