funkle

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.

I understood your point @Kev, and you made it well. I think you are partly right in some ways, and quite wrong in others. But it is incumbent upon me now to prove it one way or the other, so I’ll try and do so.

It’s good when reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Swapping necks on basses hand profoundly changed the character of the instruments I’ve done it to. I’ve got it up there with swapping pickups as hugely altering the tone of an instrument. There are big limits to my experience though - I’ve only ever done it with Fender bodies/necks (and once, a Status graphite neck). I’ve never swapped between one piece necks and multi-laminates. Wait and see I guess!

I agree with you it's not the Wal tone in that video. Hence more testing... My main working theories are either the Wal pickups are flat response and the system they are built into is extremely mid focused, or the pickups are so voiced that the platform they are built into is nearly irrelevant. (I think of Stingrays when I say this). The pickup makers I spoke to think that the Wal pickups are fairly even in response without large resonant peaks. That leaves us with the other theory, for now. (I've ignored the effect of the body but may yet have to come to that in time). I must admit I started off from the same place as you before this @Kev, but having had a Wal in my hands, I firmly disagree now about the effect of the neck. The strings really feel so different when plucked on a Wal neck compared to a Fender neck that I cannot help but feel that there is something significant happening to how the strings vibrate when plucked. As an extreme example of a similar effect, the Modulus bass I owned had the stiffest neck I have ever felt, and the strings felt super taut (in spite of actual string tension being similar to other instruments). Notes just popped off that bass, and it had a very cool mid-focused kind of tone which sounded amazing with EMG pickups. (Now why did I sell it...) Anyway...since it's easily testable, we'll find out one way or the other soon enough...

OK, some interesting bits about necks. Spent the weekend researching this topic, playing all my different basses, measuring the neck depths, and drawing out the profiles with the profile gauge @Kiwi and @Andyjr1515 recommended. I have been looking at Wal necks online and it appears there are some out there that are as some as thin as 20.57mm @ 1st fret/23.37mm @ 12th fret. (That was a Wal Mark 3.) So it looks like the variation in neck spec even allows what is, for Wal, a fairly thin neck depth, without apparently affecting the 'Wal sound'. The Ibanez Soundgear and Yamaha TRBX multi-laminate necks are quite skinny, 19.5mm at first fret going to 21.4mm at 12th fret. Dingwall multi-laminate necks are typically 21mm at first fret going up to 24mm at 12th fret, no matter the number of strings. The link I gave before - https://www.bassgearmag.com/luthiers-round-table-5/ - has interesting quote by Sheldon Dingwall when asked about whether they use carbon rods: 'It depends on the thickness of the neck. We found that adding 1mm of thickness to our necks added more stiffness than we were getting from two carbon fiber spars. So, we install carbon fiber in our thinner-profile necks, but don’t feel they are necessary in our thicker-profile necks.' That quote was from 2015, and I don't see that they now use any carbon rods in any of their necks, according to their website. I assume this means they think 21mm yields enough stiffness for even their 5 and 6 string basses. For interest, I found a reasonably scientific video on one piece maple necks vs those with carbon rods in terms of stiffness. This really brought home to me how different the forces involved here can be. I am perhaps making too strong a jump here, but if having a multi-laminate neck gives a similar order of strengthening as carbon rods do, then they really are quite significantly different systems to one-piece necks. I don't think I appreciated this properly before. Long story short I think I can safely go down to 20.5mm - 21mm depth at 1st fret and be content with the decision. I know it sounds very nitpicky - why would a mm here or there make such a difference - but it really appears to. (Plus the feel in the hand of a 19.5mm depth vs 21mm or 22mm is quite different, even without considering neck profile. )

Andy, really helpful explanation. Does lamination vs single piece neck construction also affect stiffness? - I had assumed it does but wanted to ask.

Thanks @Kiwi I may just buy one of those. That’s step 1…. Step 2…The pickle I was wrestling with last night was using calculus to describe the resulting neck profile (curve) and also then work out the area under the curve. That would then let me come up with a different, more comfortable profile with an equivalent area under the curve, which would give me the same neck volume, and therefore I hope neck stiffness. I have forgotten all the calculus I learned at school, so not ideal. Looking for online calculators to help over the next few days.

Of course, an easy way to measure the volume of an irregular object would be to dunk it in water and measure how much of that volume of water is then displaced....perhaps not ideal here, lol.

Simply public service info from measurements I have taken tonight. Wal Mk 1 neck dimensions Width @ nut - 42.4mm Width @ 21st fret - 59.50mm Neck depth at 1st fret - 22.64 mm Neck depth at 12th fret - 24.27 mm Neck depth at 16th fret (last fret I can easily measure before neck joins body/changes shape for neck heel) - 25.16 mm I'm not sure how to measure the angle on the V shape carve of the neck. It's quite significant. Headstock Width is 75.75mm at top of paddle tapering out at the widest part of the paddle to 92.55mm Length depends on where it is measured from. Measuring from widest part of paddle at lowest part of headstock, it is 131mm. This ignores some headstock just below it and the 'bump' at the top. Tricky. Depth 15.65 mm. Mahogany laminates are thickness of 4.71mm between the maple layers. Rosewood fretboard depth 4.64mm. I hope to be able to estimate the volume of the neck and headstock and roughly work out whether my preferred neck dimensions and peghead size are roughly equivalent. Assuming the density of the particular boards we choose is similar to what Wal use, I hope to get a reasonable working facsimile of a Wal neck. (Not enough mass at the headstock will affect where dead spots may appear and thickness of neck has a significant impact on stiffness, thus affecting tone. I guess I'm saying both are key to what the resonant frequency of the neck is.... Or so I understand from the various links I posted).

Very kind comments @Richand @eude, I really appreciate them. Lots of favourable comments from the Facebook Wal group and on the video itself, very gratifying. I am going to have a multi laminate neck made as the next step. @Andyjr1515now has my spec sheet, mostly, and is checking it over. (I need to get back to him with dimensions/depth.) He favours ebony over rosewood; we’ll see how the discussion plays out. Will try and wire up the Lusithand preamp next week to take it for a spin too. Video would come a while after that. Think I’ll have to sell my Squier CV 50’s Precision, and if I’m unlucky, perhaps the 1981 G&L L2000e I picked up recently from Ped. Experimentation is not cheap, but it is fun…

Yes, just so. I have felt more progress following his course with just reading my way through it than I have felt in a while. I speak as a reasonably experienced player, but seriously, just start with Book 1 or 2 and just keep turning up. I still need to transcribe/work on band music/etc alongside, but if I could only do one bit of practice a day, I would do Jeff’s etudes for 30 mins a day and call it good. (As an aside, doing them naturally fixed some technical problems I had on the G string and it feels great.)

And series on the pickups is just huge in terms of low end as well. When I turn up the amp in a room, it’s actually a bit overwhelming. I don’t usually feel the need to turn down the bass EQ…but that same bass boost clouds the mids a little I think.

I assure you, this is not the case in real life. There is an unmistakeable mid punch the Wal has that the Wal-ish does not, at least yet. If I add distortion of any sort to the mix, though, the Wal-ish starts sounding very much like the BSSM Flea sound. I deliberately kept everything very dry though.

Ok, video. Enjoy! I swear to goodness this took me ages to figure out how to do, and it's so long I had to do a ton of editing. On the plus side, I've learned a lot and can now make a video in Reaper. I'm still adding time stamps in description, please be patient... @NickA I'm not sure I'll have time today to upload the screenshots I promised of frequency response. Will get to it!

And by the way there are good teachers around - @TKenrickcomes to mind!