funkle

Fantastic @Andyjr1515! I’ve got this week off and will be doing some recordings with the Lusithand preamp. I also managed to get some photos of the Wal circuit boards, before I had to give the bass back to its rightful owner. It looks like (according to a friend who knows about these things) that it’s a state variable filter design. I would not be the best person to ask, but there you go. He’s going to have a shot at working out a circuit diagram, we’ll see if it’s possible. Oh, and it looks like the potentiometers are made custom by a company called Radiohm. Here’s an old ‘for sale’ thread with what they look like - https://www.basschat.co.uk/topic/343198-sold-wal-mk1-and-later-control-pot-set/

Ibanez TMB105 is very cheap and sounds good.

Yeah, I think that’s one of the 2 ‘Wal-deras’ floating about. I clocked it a few weeks back on Reverb when it popped up. It reinforces my desire to achieve the Wal tone without the price tag.

I picked up @ped's G&L L2000e. It's an absolute beast; G&L humbuckers are powerful. I'm digging it so far but would not have gotten so much vintage bass for the money if it has been a Fender, Ernie Ball, etc....G&L seems undervalued.

I assume there’s a way to do a HPF with a resonant peak in Reaper, somewhere. It’s got everything. However, when you take the signal out into software, it’s already had the ‘per pickup’ filtering done onboard the bass. I don’t think there’s an easy way to simulate ‘per pickup’ filtering after the signal is already outside of the instrument.

The other thing I notice, although I find it harder to quantify it, is that the low end out of the Wal is really quite 'tight' sounding - it's a mid machine, not a low end beast. The current 'Wal-ish' platform has way more low end no matter how it is set (parallel, series, single coil) than the Wal. I did a quick screenshot of EQ settings I have been messing with to cut enough lows to get the Wal-ish to sound more like the Wal in the low end. It's not really applicable to anyone else's situation, but just to offer context of how much low end has to be trimmed to match what a Wal seems to be like. (Ignore the gain setting for the HPF graph below, it's not relevant; the cut off and shape of the HPF is though. It's centred around 73Hz , 12 dB/octave shape.) The second EQ shape there is how much I have been boosting the mids to get a similar hump in the low mids as what the Wal has. Again it just gives a flavour of how strong the Wal system as a whole is in that area.

I have been spending a bit of time playing the Wal Mark 1 through a frequency analyser in order to work some things out and understand how the Lusithand preamp and it compare. I have been using a not particularly scientific method of playing the same chords in roots and fifths across all strings - E, A, B - location depending on whether I'm trying to get more bass sounds out of the instrument or treble sounds. Used a pick too. Pulled the resonance filter boosts in and out to try and work out where they have their effect. First of all, there is information coming out of the pickups right up to about 7k. The balance between what is above about 2k and below it is quite different - heavily weighted towards the mids - but it does have treble information present. I was wrong to say before there was not much above 3KHz; it's there. Pick attack switch appears to give a 5 or 6 dB bump centred around 6kHz. (Band pass, I think, not shelving, from the shape). [This also depends upon how the pot for this is set within the cavity). I think - and it's finicky to work out - but it looks (and sounds) like the low pass filters work down to about 80 - 100 Hz, and I think a 5-6 dB boost when the switch is pulled out. I think they work up to around about 2.5 - 3KHz. CORRECTION 24/6/22: The Wal website itself states the filters give a 10 dB boost when pulled out. Nuno tells me his filters on the Lusithand go down to 170 Hz and up to 4.5 kHz. I could hear the ACG EQ-01 filters went very low; I think they went lower than the Wal. I wish I had tried to work it out when it was installed. I may take some photos of the preamp boards and see if anyone is able to help me work out what is going on electronically. It's well out of my abilities.

How do you like that, the Wal-ish will have an actual Wal fretboard! I know any Indian rosewood would probably do, but there’s something very romantic about the notion…

Thanks @LukeFRC, I thought if I was doing the R&D myself, I might as well share it. That was the original thinking behind the thread anyway! And I still have a lot left I want to get through, there’s plenty left to experiment with. It’s costly in time and money, but I think worthwhile. I probably should put some kind of link to this thread on Talkbass, there’s a lot of people there doing similar experiments to me out there and who share the same goals.

Briefly returning to an earlier topic, pickup spacing, as with the Wal Mark 1 in hand and the original post from Mikeswals on Talkbass (https://www.talkbass.com/threads/wal-bass-club.367800/page-316#post-18986378), I can extrapolate the pickup spacing for the basses that Mikeswals measured. That plus the information from @Richgives us a good showing of pickup spacing on different Wals; I don't know of this info existing anywhere else. Reassuringly, I can replicate the measurements Mikeswals has done on his Wal Mark 1 on the one I have borrowed. [Even if pickup spacing has been a bit 'eyeballed' in past builds, this post will hopefully represent the best available information that is out there.] These measurements/extrapolations are all for 4 string Wals. UPDATE 8/1/23 - I have measurements for a Mark 2. In summary... Wal Pro 2e (direct measurements) From centre of the 12th fret to the centre of the front pickup, 295/296mm For the same measurement for the rear pickup, 379mm. Wal Mark 1 (direct measurements) From centre of the 12th fret to the centre of the front pickup, 299mm For the same measurement for the rear pickup, 384mm. Wal Mark 2 (extrapolated) From centre of the 12th fret to the centre of the front pickup, 309mm For the same measurement for the rear pickup, 386mm. (EDIT 8/1/23: I have a Wal Mark 2 owner telling me their pickups measure out at 303mm to the centre of the neck pickup and 382 to the bridge.) Wal Mark 3 (extrapolated) From centre of the 12th fret to the centre of the front pickup, 307mm For the same measurement for the rear pickup, 384mm. I have had to go back and edit my original post on this, as I find from re-measuring today that I was slightly off with my original Mark 1 measurements (by 2mm on front pickup and 1mm on the rear). Super annoying. Ah well, not much I can do about it now. It will make some difference to the build, but given I am within the spacings used between the different models, I am comfortable. I guess it's interesting that the Mark 1 actually has the greatest distance between the pickups of any of the Wals.

@slowburnaz I think I see what you mean about trying to describe the sonic difference between the 'Old Way' of multicoil wiring and the 'New Way' from listening to the samples on your website through my studio monitors. The differences are there, and noticeable, but subtle. Nonetheless I suspect I'll end up there at some point as I'm naturally curious....

I'm definitely not Nuno, but I'm pretty sure @garfo is.

Thanks Chris, I’ll go check the sound samples. I will say I think running the signal chain through Amplitube adds some lovely and very gentle harmonic distortion, which to my ears mimics very well what happens with your pickups + Lusithand preamp together. However, the pickups on their own are very clean, as the demonstration with the ACG preamp shows well, no additional colouration from the preamp there. I might gently suggest the recording chain you are using might have a just a touch too much colour in it…perhaps worth having multiple samples, some with Amplitube and some without? And brilliant, you have your website up and running now…well done, reckon you should get some interest. 😝

The pickup maker (@slowburnaz) who made the pickups I am using has already offered to wind me a set as you describe just like the Mark 1/2/3, and Aaron Armstrong can do this as well, after checking. It may eventually be another test, although if I can get ‘close enough’ this way I will be impressed. If I go that way, I would definitely get the Double NFP Special. I do wonder how much difference the ‘Pro’ vs ‘Custom’ pickup wiring makes. Has anyone quantified it?@slowburnaz. @garfo

I have strongly suspected this, as you know from my previous posts. Others are sceptical. Although I hope to show it in video once I have a new neck, would you mind sharing the basis on which you make this statement?

Aha, thank you, will try that. I just thought it was meant to be like a Wal! EDIT: that worked perfectly, thanks for the advice, I am clearly an idiot...at least now I know it can be wired up both ways.

I just swapped over to the Lusithand pre, the Double NFP. I'll give some first impressions. The controls are volume, LPF front pickup with a pull switch to activate a resonance boost, LPF pickup rear pickup with pull switch for resonance boost, and pickup blend. Because of how small my test bed control cavity is, it has needed some creative positioning, so the volume knob is nearest the output jack and the blend the control nearest the fretboard. It works fine for a test. (The blend knob works the opposite way around to that on the ACG - that's messing with me, but of course it works the same way that it does on the Wal preamp. ) My first impression is...it sounds fab. This is exactly what I was looking for. It has to be adding harmonic distortion, because the system sounds 'gnarlier'. It's not that it doesn't sound clean, but it's not pristine. When I dig in now, there's a lot more grit out of it. The ACG/East system has been commented previously to be very clean, and it is. It's a beautiful sounding preamp. It also goes lower in terms of the LPF knob frequency; the Lusithand cuts off a higher. The difference is quite noticeable. I do miss the ability to blend back in the treble, as found on the ACG, or the 'pick attack' bump that is on the Wal. I do think Nuno should consider this. I will tell him. But overall my first impression is that it sounds really really good. I hope it comes through in recordings, which I will sort as soon as I can. I think we may have solved the 'grit'/preamp side of things. The test bed doesn't have the mid bump/compressed 'push' to the mids yet of the Wal basses, but it really is sounding a lot closer overall. I am really pleased.