Building a Wal....ish

[Andyjr1515]

Great video and fascinating.  I need to listen to it a few times with headphones on, but through my Bose, your bass in the series settings seems very close to some of your settings on the Wal...

[funkle]

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.  

[funkle]

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.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by funkle

[eude]

That's a really useful video @funkle, thank you.
I might make myself unpopular here, but I actually prefer the tone of the Wal(ish), it gets close to the Wal tone, but has so much more to play with.

I'll bet if you had a body and neck made to similar specs of that Wal, you would be very very close, bar the slight dirty signal when push it, but you could fake that easily with something like a JPTR FX Jive in your signal >> https://www.jptrfx.com/

 

Eude

[Rich]

I would absolutely definitely take the Wal-ish as it sounds right now, it's as close to the original as dammit is to swearing. Obviously I'd take the Wal too because I love 'em, but you should definitely be proud of achievements so far. As eude says above, if you had the pickups & innards built into a multilaminate neck & body akin to the Wal it'd sound just right. Get thee to Mr Shuker/Cringean/otherluthiersareavailable.

And stop posting videos of how good it sounds, because you're making me want one  

[funkle]

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…

[funkle]

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). 

[funkle]

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. 

[Kiwi]

4 hours ago, funkle said:

I'm not sure how to measure the angle on the V shape carve of the neck. It's quite significant.

One of these perhaps?

 

[funkle]

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. 

 

[Andyjr1515]

6 hours ago, Kiwi said:

One of these perhaps?

 

That's what I use

[Andyjr1515]

1 hour ago, funkle said:

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. 

 

 

The area of cross section isn't the key factor when it comes to stiffness.  It is the depth.  The neck works a bit like a steel 'I' beam - the deeper it is, the less it's going to bend  

 

As the construction of a standard neck and fretboard at normal neck depths is plenty strong enough to counteract the tension of the strings, then this means you have a huge amount of leeway of how much wood you take off the 'haunches' either side of the spine.  This affects the feel (the 'chunkiness' ) and the weight...but not the stiffness.

 

Stiffness for a timber neck will be predominately affected by: the total neck depth; the neck and fretboard timber species; the trussrod and slot; any stiffening inclusion, such as carbon 'rods' (the most effective being actually not rods but solid or hollow rectangles where, again, the depth, not the width, is the critical factor) 

[Andyjr1515]

Hmmm...I've just thought of someone who might still have a genuine Wal fretboard that he may not have a use for 

 

 

 

Long shot, but I'll contact him

[Rich]

My Pro 2E has two carbon rods running the length of the neck... I think EW had abandoned these by the time the Customs got well into production?

[Andyjr1515]

4 minutes ago, Rich said:

My Pro 2E has two carbon rods running the length of the neck... I think EW had abandoned these by the time the Customs got well into production?

Yes - and the Pro 1 (?) had that flat wide one (which, given the above, was an 'unusual' choice) , although that seems to have been also relatively quickly dropped.  You can see the plate in the thread I have just posted above of @Fishman's Wal save/rebuild a couple of years back.

[funkle]

3 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

 

The area of cross section isn't the key factor when it comes to stiffness.  It is the depth.  The neck works a bit like a steel 'I' beam - the deeper it is, the less it's going to bend  

 

As the construction of a standard neck and fretboard at normal neck depths is plenty strong enough to counteract the tension of the strings, then this means you have a huge amount of leeway of how much wood you take off the 'haunches' either side of the spine.  This affects the feel (the 'chunkiness' ) and the weight...but not the stiffness.

 

Stiffness for a timber neck will be predominately affected by: the total neck depth; the neck and fretboard timber species; the trussrod and slot; any stiffening inclusion, such as carbon 'rods' (the most effective being actually not rods but solid or hollow rectangles where, again, the depth, not the width, is the critical factor) 

Andy, really helpful explanation.
 

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

[Andyjr1515]

46 minutes ago, funkle said:

Andy, really helpful explanation.
 

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

Yes - it does.  And here you can play some tunes (if you excuse the pun).  You can take a stiff timber species for the mains and bendier splices or vice-versa.  You can add a touch of warmth or a touch of grit.  Mind you, judging the best combinations takes a hefty dose of guesswork... 

 

But there's a maker I seem to remember who market this with loads of choices of mixes of timber for necks on their custom top line (is it Warwick?  Can't remember.  Someone here will know).

[Kiwi]

32 minutes ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Mind you, judging the best combinations takes a hefty dose of guesswork... 

 

Or a huge amount of experience with a very limited number of species.  I don't really trust luthiers who use too many species in their builds, they can't or don't guarantee any particular outcome tonally.  Unless they use loads of laminates and then the outcome tends to lack character.

[funkle]

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. ) 

[Kiwi]

29 minutes ago, funkle said:

Ibanez Soundgear and Yamaha TRBX multi-laminate necks are quite skinny, 19.5mm at first fret going to 21.4mm at 12th fret.

The earlier Ibanez Soundgear basses at least can be a bit whippy because they're too thin...despite laminated necks, which kind of supports Andy's suggestions about depth. 

[Andyjr1515]

Interesting video but, of course, only just touches the surface in terms of the decision making process. 

 

It's a big and fairly complicated topic because, like many things in a bass construction, everything affects everything (another way of putting my oft-quoted belief that 'guitars and basses are a series of compromises held together by hope'  )

 

40 minutes ago, funkle said:

Long story short I think I can safely go down to 20.5mm - 21mm depth at 1st fret and be content with the decision.

Absolutely.  

Two problems with going to or below 19mm:

- A player issue: quite a few players will end up with hand cramp due to the position of the thumb and resulting muscle pull directions of the fingers.  Some of that, of course, depends on your hand size

- A practical issue: a truss rod slot is, as a rough minimum, 10mm deep at the adjuster position underneath the nut.  The fretboards are usually around 6mm deep in the middle.  The amount of wood underneath the trussrod for a 19mm deep is, therefore, 3mm max in the centre and less either side of the truss rod slot due to the curve of the neck profile.  And just under the 1st fret is where the truss rod is applying all of its force downwards.  And yes - trussrods sometimes come through the bottom of the neck...

 

52 minutes ago, funkle said:

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.

Not quite.  If the laminate wasn't there, then it would be the base wood.  So if it is a maple neck, then a mahogany or walnut splice will reduce the stiffness because those timbers bend more easily than rock maple.  If it is a mahogany neck, then maple inserts will increase the stiffness.  If it is a maple neck, then ebony inserts will increase the stiffness.   Ditto the fretboard wood. And that - although how much of this is detectable to the average player (and almost always not detectable to the average audience  ) is the topic of many debates - is why adding mahogany inserts to a maple neck is thought to add a touch of warmth and adding ebony inserts to a mahogany neck is thought to add a touch of mids and treble.   

 

[Andyjr1515]

Oh...and the grain direction of the timbers also makes a big difference.  As I say - everything affects everything  

[Rich]

Ah but what about the tonewoods? 

*runs away quickly*

[LukeFRC]

1 hour ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Oh...and the grain direction of the timbers also makes a big difference.  As I say - everything affects everything  

I was going to ask - a maple neck with softer wood laminates would be stiffer than a maple neck if the grain was arranged correctly? 

[Andyjr1515]

1 minute ago, LukeFRC said:

I was going to ask - a maple neck with softer wood laminates would be stiffer than a maple neck if the grain was arranged correctly? 

Well, maybe - but as most decent neck woods are quarter sawn, then I'm less sure about that.  What we need is that guy in the video doing us a demo