Wal comparison picture

[tommorichards]

I came across this on Instagram, and i thought it showed really well the difference between them. Im not sure if its been posted before, but never the less, its also a beautiful picture. I think the mk2 is proably my favourite from this pic.

[bartelby]

For me it's MKI for 4 strings, MKII for 5s
I'm not keen on the MKIII shape

[JohnR]

All with MKI headstocks.

[Cosmo Valdemar]

Visually, I think the mk2 is the sweetest but if I ever got to order one (!) it would be the mk1 - the extra frets are nice but I prefer to have that extra playing space.
The mk3... Always looked a bit 'off' to me.

[chris_b]

I've owned Mk2 and Mk3 5 string Wals and the Mk3 was my favourite. It balanced well and just felt right.

[Bass_Guardian]

Got a semi!

[LewisK1975]

If I was ever lucky enough to have the choice, it'd be a 4 string mk1 for me.

Just so I could sound like this, listen to how good this sounds (especially the chorus):

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaEN4katH0k&list=PLGIYNBxcSZ3uo0Dv4GUoVf-4yKXu7xmKT[/media]

EDIT just to say if someone could let me know how to sound like this without buying a Wal I'd be ever so grateful

Edited June 22, 2017 by LewisK1975

[mark76]

WAL are definitely more stylish than Warwick. Though both look like funiture (must be a European thing).

[Highfox]

I have a 4 string MKI on order.
Never tried a MK2, maybe I should of first

[kumimajava]

Just out of curiosity, a question to anyone who's played the Mk2: how comfy is the access to the highest frets (22nd-24th)?

[ZilchWoolham]

Pro Bass all the way for me!

[CamdenRob]

Not a massive fan of the MK2 shape myself. I think MK1 for four string and MK3 for fives and sixes

[franzbassist]

[quote name='kumimajava' timestamp='1498148074' post='3322816']
Just out of curiosity, a question to anyone who's played the Mk2: how comfy is the access to the highest frets (22nd-24th)?
[/quote]

Not very, actually, as the cut out is only really at the front of the cutaway. You'll see what I mean in the picture below.



[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1498213675' post='3323146']
Not a massive fan of the MK2 shape myself. I think MK1 for four string and MK3 for fives and sixes
[/quote]

I agree. Having owned many Wals of all three versions, a well balanced (i.e. no neck dive) and not too heavy MKI wins for 4s, and I'd go MKIII every time for a 5 or 6.

[Ian Davies]

Having played all versions and previously owned a mk2 5 string and currently two mk3 4 strings, I find mk3 to be the best ergonomically, weight and balance wise (for me personally). I do love the iconic look of the mk1 though.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Ian Davies

[Kev]

[quote name='mark76' timestamp='1498137817' post='3322745']
WAL are definitely more stylish than Warwick. Though both look like funiture (must be a European thing).
[/quote]

Odd choice of comparison, and there are far more furniturey basses than Wals and Warwicks.

MKII by far the best shape for me, shame about the 4 string neck shape on them all.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Kev

[kumimajava]

[quote name='walbassist' timestamp='1498218054' post='3323178']
Not very, actually, as the cut out is only really at the front of the cutaway. You'll see what I mean in the picture below.
<snip>
[/quote]

Thanks for the pic, and for the clarification - will keep that in mind, should severe temptation for a Wal arise

[Chris2112]

[quote name='kumimajava' timestamp='1498148074' post='3322816']
Just out of curiosity, a question to anyone who's played the Mk2: how comfy is the access to the highest frets (22nd-24th)?
[/quote]

Not very. The heel block is quite large so even though there is space to get in round the front, that big squared-off edge at the back of the body means you can't really get your hand right up to the joint. It's a rudimentary design that doesn't feel particularly finessed or ergonomic but I don't suppose many Wal players flew up the neck.

[mikeswals]

I have several. I recently sold off my last Mk1 (that black one). I love all Wals, but the MK2 and Mk3 are both way more comfortable. The Mk1 believe it or not requires a longer stretch in the first position.


[IMG]http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f224/Negative7bass/16403323_10212307153580771_129602906646382605_o_zpsguqdfgpd.jpg[/IMG]

[TrevorR]

The Mk III basses do play and balance beautifully but I still love the more retro look and feel of my Mk I and Pro...





Who reeeeeeealy needs a high G anyway. I barely need one at the octave!!! Lol!

Edited June 27, 2017 by TrevorR

[chris_b]

[quote name='mikeswals' timestamp='1498512125' post='3325200']
I have several. [/quote]
Mike, nice collection.

[mark76]

What scale are Wal basses?

[franzbassist]

[quote name='mark76' timestamp='1498557993' post='3325458']
What scale are Wal basses?
[/quote]

34" standard

[mark76]

Bloody hell. Trev's a giant

I kinda want a TrevorR signature Wal. It look neat

[TrevorR]

[quote name='mark76' timestamp='1498559719' post='3325475']
Bloody hell. Trev's a giant

I kinda want a TrevorR signature Wal. It look neat
[/quote]

Well, if that's true then I must be the tallest 5 foot 8 and a half inches in the world! Maybe I'm measured in metric feet and inches rather than Imperial ones... that must be il!!

[mikeswals]

[quote name='LewisK1975' timestamp='1498135968' post='3322721']
If I was ever lucky enough to have the choice, it'd be a 4 string mk1 for me.

Just so I could sound like this, listen to how good this sounds (especially the chorus):

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaEN4katH0k&amp;list=PLGIYNBxcSZ3uo0Dv4GUoVf-4yKXu7xmKT[/media]

EDIT just to say if someone could let me know how to sound like this without buying a Wal I'd be ever so grateful
[/quote]

Greg Edwards of Failure was the main reason for me to go down this path. In a heavy rock setting just hearing how clear every note is even when strumming chords, no mud, and that natural gritty grind. I wanted the same bass that could speak that clearly.
(Failure is also why I chose silver on my Mk3)

Edited June 28, 2017 by mikeswals