funkle

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!

Yes please!

I explored that idea earlier in the thread. I have since very nearly bought one, because it is basically ideal. The TRBX504 and 304 have exactly the right body woods, neck construction/fretboard, already have routed out control and battery cavities, and the like. They have a Jazz width nut for comfort and decent hardware (though not amazing). They will be made well. You must be psychic @LukeFRCas I have been seriously been considering buying one secondhand in the last few days; would save me the cost of making another neck and would be cheaper. My only reservation has been routing out bigger holes for pickups in different spots to where the pickups currently are and then figuring out how to cover it. Routing out is expensive. Also using a Fender test bed means parts and swaps are pretty easy. But I have definitely been considering it…

Thanks @Kiwi. I’m going to stick exactly to the Wal (and Yamaha) recipe. Rosewood fretboard, 5 piece maple and mahogany laminate neck, no graphite (it was present only in some of the Pro models), and match dimensions/volume of neck and headstock as closely as I can whilst making it more comfortable and look better.

Another interesting Luthier's Roundtable on neck stiffness. Great side discussion on headstock shapes/size/stiffness/mass and dead spots. https://www.bassgearmag.com/luthiers-round-table-5/

Ok, I shot some audio and video, not my best, but it's getting put together as I remind myself how to video edit and upload to Youtube. Will post ASAP The recordings are interesting. There is something of the Wal about it, a bit, and it sounds great in it own right. Very clean. The pickups I think are faithful to the system they have been installed in...I have been wavering here but am going to leave them in place for now. (I have spoken to Aaron Armstrong about custom wind Wal style multicoils and have that there as a backup if need be.) It's a perhaps surprising conclusion, but I actually think my next port of call is to change the neck. I've been considering this carefully as I explore options, and I give you below an interesting quote which helped me firm up my own thoughts. This is from Luthier's Roundtable in Bass Gear Magazine back from 2011 (Tone Primer section) about necks: Even though the body makes up most of an instrument's mass, neck materials and construction are important to tone. Some builders feel a single piece of wood is best, while others take the laminate approach. Some feel that reinforcing the neck with a stiff, light material like graphite improves tone, while others believe the best approach is to make the entire neck out of alternative material. Everyone agrees, though, the neck must be strong enough to withstand string tension. "Laminated necks are more stable," says Bob Mick, but " in general, a heftier neck gives better tone." Ken Smith believes graphite reinforcement evens out a neck's response, while Roger Sadowsky prefers unreinforced, one-piece flatsawn maple necks to laminate construction. "Every few years I make a batch of graphite-reinforced necks just to remind my self it doesn't make much difference, says Sadowsky." They still get acoustic dead spots, and they're not significantly stiffer than our unreinforced necks. However, the fingerboard wood is a significant factor in the sound. It's easier for me to hear the difference between maple and rosewood fingerboard than between an alder and ash body. Garry Willis avoids graphite reinforcement for a different reason: It raises the neck's resonant frequency, and he prefers lower-frequency resonance. Still some feel graphite (a.k.a carbon fiber) makes the ideal material. Rich Lasner says," A graphite neck eliminates sympathetic vibrations that either cancel or favor notes, because the neck's resonant frequency is above the range of the instrument's fundamental. The idea is to give the truest fundamental tone possible, and because of the material's greater stiffness, the notes sustain longer." I'm going make a bet that another key ingredient here is the stiffness of the neck raising the resonant frequency enough to give the sound a significant boost in the mids, giving at least some of the Wal 'punch'. That, plus rosewood or ebony boards, is part of the 'recipe'. It's testable, so let's do it. (As an aside, I note Paul Hermann flat out refuses to do maple fretboards on custom Wal orders, though Pete Stevens did do some during his time. I wonder if this is because it messes with the Wal recipe too much? Ah well, speculative....) I'm going to take some measurements of the neck - it's quite deep as well as having the slightly odd V shape - I would like to try and get as close as I can to the same neck stiffness whilst trying to make it perhaps a touch comfier. That may take some workings out about neck dimensions/volume. I've been talking to @Andyjr1515 about a neck and he's game. I'm going to get a quote from Chris McIntyre too. At this point, I may need to sell some stuff to fund the ongoing experimentation. You may see me in the classifieds more soon. Since I have the Lusithand preamp in hand, I will install that next + record clips whilst sorting out a new neck and then waiting for it to arrive. A new neck is likely to take a few months.

Agree @LukeFRC, spot on in all respects. I especially noticed the chorusy effect on the Wal when playing with the filters and boosting resonance.

Thanks @Owen Yes, the ACG is flat, Alan was clear that the design was clean and clear and flat when I spoke to him as well. I really like the ACG EQ-01. What I’m not sure about is whether the Wal preamp is flat or not. I might have not made that clear in the last post; apologies; it was rather long…

Ok, an update. Living with a Wal for a few days has been quite instructive. First of all, I have to admit I am nowhere near the sound of the Wal. The test bed I currently have sounds beautiful and balanced and even with a relaxed mid range by comparison; the Wal is incredibly mid forward yet somehow still has reasonable top end, with the pick attack adding valuable clarity. I will say swapping to a rosewood neck helped a lot and nickel strings were helpful too, but I’m just not there. Although these pickups I have sound great! So there’s that. Secondly, the Wal preamp is really well thought out. Enough control to be meaningful but not overwhelming, and I understand how to use the system reasonably after practice. There are a lot of sounds in there, and the mids can be tamed back if desired. It’s a really good preamp. Just a comment in passing. Thirdly, the neck is very stiff. Much stiffer than a typical Fender neck, and I can recall other basses I have tried with multi-laminate necks with maple/mahogany which are super strong in the mids. (Some of the Yamaha basses in particular come to mind.) At any rate, the exact same set of Slinkies, same gauge, with same relief and action, feels very different on the two basses. I know the tension must be the same, because physics, but they do not feel the same at all. I found this really surprising. On the Wal, the Slinkies feel really stiff and taut; on the test bed, flexible and easier to bend. My conclusion, rightly or wrongly, is that the stiffness of the neck must have a significant part to play in how the strings feel/vibrate, and therefore affect the sound. So perhaps the multi-laminate build to the neck contributes even more than I thought. I am pondering the next steps. I have several working theories: 1. It may well be the pickups I have now, which have 8000 winds per coil of 42 AWG wire, but otherwise mostly stick to the Wal recipe, are just naturally more balanced pickups than the Wal ones. I am reminded that even passive Wals with no preamp have ‘the Wal sound’. This could be tested by finding another maker to make pickups even more exactly to the Wal recipe - Rautia or Aaron Armstrong. £££ 2. The pickups may be fine, but it could be the neck construction gives more mids than I had realised. This could be tested by building a multi-laminate 5 piece mahogany/maple neck. (Less expensive than a pickup change!!) 3. The pickups and neck are fine, but the preamp is not flat and does a significant amount of tone shaping that I am unaware of which comes into play before the manual tone shaping. I don’t think this is right; I will cite the examples of passive Wal Pros still having the Wal sound as being against this theory. I also still have the Lusithand preamp to try out which is as yet an unknown quantity to me. I’ll contemplate the next steps. I do want to try the Lusithand preamp next. I’m not sure of the value of recording now given how far off I think I am, when comparing in real life.