I've got the Warwick bug.

[xZNHYPERx]

My sound gear has always been as flat in tone as they come and after slobbering over both the Streamer and thumb for months I'm torn between the pair. Its not the sort of buy I'm looking to do twice so I'm asking your advice on what do you think is the more versatile instrument, what will hold its value better between the two, and whats the up keeping of both instruments like, how often does the wood need treating...

Fingers crossed someone will have handled them both, and will have the answers for me.

[Randy_Marsh]

Calling warwickhunt or Bigthumb...

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='xZNHYPERx' post='1191324' date='Apr 7 2011, 02:07 AM']My sound gear has always been as flat in tone as they come and after slobbering over both the Streamer and thumb for months I'm torn between the pair. Its not the sort of buy I'm looking to do twice so I'm asking your advice on what do you think is the more versatile instrument, what will hold its value better between the two, and whats the up keeping of both instruments like, how often does the wood need treating...

Fingers crossed someone will have handled them both, and will have the answers for me.[/quote]
They are very different instruments in look and tone so I think if you try each of them your decision will be very easy to make. I've owned (cough) 'several of each' and I'd take the Streamer every time; IMHO it is more comfortable and versatile.

As for upkeep and waxing - honestly don't worry about it! Regardless of the fact that they are natural and require waxing I don't believe that they need any more care than a lacquered bass. You wipe down a lacquered bass every once in a while, that's all you do with the Warwicks only you apply a little wax when you do it. I've got/had basses that I've waxed maybe once a year with the occasional rub with a duster every now and again and some of my basses were with me for 15-20 years with no ill effect, so long as you aren't living in a Country with high humidity or silly extremes. A tin of wax lasted me 10 years + and I owned 19 Warwick basses at the time... not a big deal honest!

[thisnameistaken]

The Thumb is definitely the more idiosyncratic bass of the two, the Streamer the more conservative. It really depends what you want, but I would let your ears lead you.

Agree with WH that the Streamer is more comfortable - quality Thumb basses are amazingly heavy for such small-bodied basses, and the short top horn means that fret 1 is an inch or two further off to your left than you will be used to. The Streamer is a better design in both these regards, but personally I like the sound and look of the Thumb much more.

[Lfalex v1.1]

Thumbs vary more from instrument, given that there are two core models- Neck Thru and Bolt on. The pick-ups can vary (Bartolini or MEC), as can their placement. AFAIK all have 3 band EQ.

Streamers come in at least 5 variants (in no order);

Streamer LX
Streamer Jazzman
Streamer $$
Streamer Stage 1
Streamer Stage 2

All available in 4 and 5 string models, with the LX and (IIRC) the Stage 1 as 6 stringers as well. they come with 2 or 3 band EQ dependent on model.

Thumbs are very dense and seem heavy for a relatively small body, but that's part of why they sound the way they do.
Thumbs have 26 fret necks, and this can cause balance issues. They also tend to jump off of your lap due to the lower body shape.
No such issues with a Streamer. If you like that shape, do consider the fact that Spector make this body shape also. In fact, Stuart Spector designed it....

[mart]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='1192120' date='Apr 7 2011, 06:52 PM']... In fact, Stuart Spector designed it....[/quote]

Er, wasn't it Ned Steinberger?

(And for some reason, when I first read your post, I thought you were saying Stuart Zender designed it ... brain not quite functioning tonight )

[bassbora]

I have had Thumb NT 5 (89 Emg) for 14 years. Bought Thumb NT (6 Bartolini fretless) and between these two I will never need any other bass to satisfy my needs. I dont care about the weight and they are just amazing. Over on the Warwick forum you will see that the main moderator thinks the Thumb NT 5 are among the best Warwicks there are.

But I have played Streamers as well. Excellent basses and to be honest I guess if one would have been for sale when I bought my Thumb I might swear by the Streamers. I would probably recommend the Streamer. Like everyone says its conservative in shape and sound so it might appeal to more people than a Thumb.

But then again only you can be the judge of this. Hope this was of any use to you.

[ThomBassmonkey]

If you want it to have that Warwick sound and looks whilst being versatile and still able to capture more standard sounds, get the Streamer.

If you want it to sound, look and feel like a Warwick with no compromises, get a Thumb.

It really is that simple, Streamers obviously do the whole Warwick growl thing, but they're relatively versatile instruments (depending on model of course). Thumbs are the Warwick brand in a bass, everything about them is distilled Warwickness.

[TRBboy]

I agree that the Thumb is Warwick through and through. I used to have a Thumb 5 BO, and it sounded incredible and was beautifully built. The only downsides for me were that it wasn't that great to play sat down, it was a little neck heavy, and the single worst thing for me was that first fret felt like it was at full arms length away. This meant that I often found that playing at the lower end of the neck felt slightly uncomfortable.

It's unlikely I would, but if I ever buy another Warwick, I think it would more than likely be a Streamer.

[thisnameistaken]

I haven't played a bolt-on Thumb but neck dive isn't an issue with my '91 neck-thru model.

I agree that the first fret can seem a long way away though. If I had to pound out a riff based around the low F for 5 minutes I would be cursing the ****ing thing when I was done.

But then, if all I have to do is burble out tasty bass in a unique and ear-catching voice all night, I would pat my Thumb as I stuck it back in the gig bag at the end of the night and say "Good boy! Good boy!"

They are lovely and slightly mental basses, definitely not all things to all men. They are also better suited to fingerstyle playing than slap IMHO. They sound great plucked, really snarly and gnarly and nerdy and generally inappropriate. Love it.

[mojobass]

ive got two fortesses and a streamer jazzman! i love the sound of each very versatile and great players, ive never owned a thumb (although alsways wanted too) i guess the thumb would hold value more? but either way a 'wick is a 'wick and theyre great to own you wouldnt regret buying either

[molan]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='1192244' date='Apr 7 2011, 08:56 PM']If you want it to have that Warwick sound and looks whilst being versatile and still able to capture more standard sounds, get the Streamer.

If you want it to sound, look and feel like a Warwick with no compromises, get a Thumb.

It really is that simple, Streamers obviously do the whole Warwick growl thing, but they're relatively versatile instruments (depending on model of course). Thumbs are the Warwick brand in a bass, everything about them is distilled Warwickness. [/quote]

I have to say that I really agree with this.

I've owned a mid '80's Thumb and Streamer and, although I quite liked both, the Thumb really summed up the whole Warwick vibe for me.

This may sound somewhat 'blasphemous' but if you like the idea/look/feel of a Streamer then i'd definitely check out the 'original' version - a Spector

I've owned a few of these & much preferred them to my old Streamer.

However - if you fancy a Thumb, then this '87 is rather nice:












Not that I'm showing any bias here of course - but you could PM me if you like the look of it. . .

Edited April 7, 2011 by molan

[mart]

[quote name='bassbora' post='1192238' date='Apr 7 2011, 08:52 PM'].... Over on the Warwick forum you will see that the main moderator thinks the Thumb NT 5 are among the best Warwicks there are. ...[/quote]
but he, himself, plays a Streamer
In fact he plays a custom Streamer that is designed to sound like a Buzzard

[quote name='mojobass' post='1192453' date='Apr 8 2011, 12:18 AM']... i guess the thumb would hold value more? ...[/quote]
I'm not sure a Thumb would hold its value more - the 2nd hand prices of the more expensive Warwicks (Thumbs, Streamers) and the cheaper ones (Corvettes, Fortresses) aren't very different, so it looks like the cheaper ones hold value better. And they'll certainly be faster to sell. Talking of which, my impression is that Streamers are easier to sell than Thumbs, although I don't have a lot of evidence for that. And who wants to buy a bass just because it'll be easier to sell on?

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='mart' post='1192177' date='Apr 7 2011, 07:51 PM']Er, wasn't it Ned Steinberger?
(And for some reason, when I first read your post, I thought you were saying Stuart Zender designed it ... brain not quite functioning tonight )[/quote]
Mine Neither. It might well have been Ned Steinberger. It certainly [i]wasn't[/i] Stuart Zender!

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='1192425' date='Apr 7 2011, 11:29 PM']I haven't played a bolt-on Thumb but neck dive isn't an issue with my '91 neck-thru model.

I agree that the first fret can seem a long way away though. If I had to pound out a riff based around the low F for 5 minutes I would be cursing the ****ing thing when I was done.[/quote]
My Infinity SN4 suffers with this also. It's the combination of down-sized body, short horns and 26 fret necks.


[quote name='mojobass' post='1192453' date='Apr 8 2011, 12:18 AM']ive got two fortesses and a streamer jazzman! i love the sound of each very versatile and great players, ive never owned a thumb (although alsways wanted too) i guess the thumb would hold value more? but either way a 'wick is a 'wick and theyre great to own you wouldnt regret buying either[/quote]
I have an InfinitySN4, Streamer LX6 and a Fortress MM5. All quite different, yet all identifiable as Warwicks.
The Streamer JazzMan is superb bass.
I'd recommend the OP try as many Warwicks as they can find, and only leave out the ones that you really don't like the look of...
Try Fortresses (now discontinued), Corvettes, Katanas, Vampyres, Dolphins, Thumbs, Streamers and anything else that turns up....

[WILD FROG SHOT]

[quote name='molan' post='1192462' date='Apr 8 2011, 12:33 AM']I have to say that I really agree with this.

I've owned a mid '80's Thumb and Streamer and, although I quite liked both, the Thumb really summed up the whole Warwick vibe for me.

This may sound somewhat 'blasphemous' but if you like the idea/look/feel of a Streamer then i'd definitely check out the 'original' version - a Spector

I've owned a few of these & much preferred them to my old Streamer.

However - if you fancy a Thumb, then this '87 is rather nice:

Not that I'm showing any bias here of course - but you could PM me if you like the look of it. . .[/quote]

Damn you!

I've been clean and GAS-free for 10 months and you've gone and done this! Molan, are you selling your Thumb?

Think i'm with the OP, this bug is catching!

Edited April 8, 2011 by WILD FROG SHOT

[cetera]

[quote]... In fact, Stuart Spector designed it....[/quote]

[quote name='mart' post='1192177' date='Apr 7 2011, 07:51 PM']Er, wasn't it Ned Steinberger?[/quote]

It was indeed Ned Steinberger, for Stuart Spector in 1976.

[cetera]

[quote name='molan' post='1192462' date='Apr 8 2011, 12:33 AM']This may sound somewhat 'blasphemous' but if you like the idea/look/feel of a Streamer then i'd definitely check out the 'original' version - a Spector

I've owned a few of these & much preferred them to my old Streamer.[/quote]

+1

[Brave Sir Robin]

Thumbs are crazy. Had a BO 5, really heavy, peculiar balance, difficult fret access at the neck, fat wenge neck, but sounded like nothing else. Not a huge range of sounds, but real agressive tone, with that low-mid growl and purr and some nice zing on top.

I think you'll be more at home on a streamer, but if you decide on a thumb, highly recommend you try one with a strap and all for at least an hour, if your back can take it! Try the vettes as well. You don't need to spend massive amounts.

[Chris2112]

There is nothing else like a Thumb. I used to have a 1999 BO 4 string, it was incredible. Such a fantastic bass.

[GarethFlatlands]

A friend of mine has a BO Thumb and I use a Streamer Pro M. I love the grunt and the low end the Thumb has but the Streamer has a more versatile sound while still retaining some of the Warwick growl.

Our recording engineer today was lusting after my Streamer which was a nice complement considering the strings haven't been changed in at least a year.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='GarethFlatlands' post='1194110' date='Apr 9 2011, 10:25 PM']Our recording engineer today was lusting after my Streamer which was a nice complement considering the strings haven't been changed in at least a year.[/quote]

Hehe. The last time I took my Thumb to see a luthier he offered to buy it off me. For £500 more than I paid for it. I turned him down.

[machinehead]

The Streamer stage 2 is a good compromise between the Streamer and Thumb. Or maybe is the best of both worlds?

As much as I love the sound of a Thumb bass the Streamer stage 2 is my favourite all-round Warwick.

Frank.

[cocco]

I had a streamer stage 1 5er that was defiantly the least useable/useful to me bass I've ever had. It just didn't cut though at all and the output was quite low. It put me off Warwicks and fivers for a good while. Looking back now I defiantly bought the wrong bass, a bolt on thumb would have been way more up my street (on paper anyway). I was just young and impetuous and into limp bizkit. Only recently have warwicks started drawing my attention again and for me the 2 I would own are the Corvette $$ and the Thumb BO

[GarethFlatlands]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='1194127' date='Apr 9 2011, 10:48 PM']Hehe. The last time I took my Thumb to see a luthier he offered to buy it off me. For £500 more than I paid for it. I turned him down.[/quote]

The guy nearly fell off his chair when I told him I paid £400 for it. Stu only paid £600 for his '94 Thumb. It seems to be a good time to buy Warwicks now, the trend seems to be for more retro basses so the prices are very low for the quality instrument you get.

Back to the OP, try a few different models and configurations as suggested below as both are versatile in slightly different ways. Then go for the one you think is the best deal. I wax mine once a month or so but you might want to do it more if you sweat a lot onto the wood.

[GarethFlatlands]

[quote name='cocco' post='1194290' date='Apr 10 2011, 08:41 AM']I had a streamer stage 1 5er that was defiantly the least useable/useful to me bass I've ever had. It just didn't cut though at all and the output was quite low. It put me off Warwicks and fivers for a good while. Looking back now I defiantly bought the wrong bass, a bolt on thumb would have been way more up my street (on paper anyway). I was just young and impetuous and into limp bizkit. Only recently have warwicks started drawing my attention again and for me the 2 I would own are the Corvette $$ and the Thumb BO[/quote]

I've heard similar things from another guy who owned a Streamer Stage 1. Must be a duff model generally, he now owns 2 Warwicks including another Streamer. The Thumb BO seems to be a classic and the Corvette $$ is one I'd love to try out, along with the Infinity.

And don't worry, I'm sure we all owned at least one Limp Bizkit album.