Building a Wal....ish

[Andyjr1515]

Well, a bit of progress with the neck.  Maple is here.  Mahogany spices should be with me mid next week. 

 

And @Fishman  is happy to sell me the Wal fretless fretboard I took off his Wal Pro 1e neck when I repaired the trussrod action and replaced it with an ebony fretted one a year or so as part of his Pro 1e refurbishment  

 

This is a shot back then after I'd managed to get it off in one piece:

 

Should be with me next week

 

By the way - ref the discussions earlier in the thread - you can see the major layer of carbon fibre on that model's neck.  The really unusual thing is that this isn't fully resin encapsulated fibre which they used - underneath the surface, it's loose carbon fibres.  There is a splendid video somewhere on the net of a guy trying to remove it all...what a mess!!!  I did the sensible thing - I fixed the cracked carrier at the heel end to make the rod work again...and got the new fretboard on as quick as I could   (and happily it worked fine  )

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Andyjr1515

[funkle]

How do you like that, the Wal-ish will have an actual Wal fretboard!

 

I know any Indian rosewood would probably do, but there’s something very romantic about the notion…

[LukeFRC]

5 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

it's loose carbon fibres

? What’s the point of that then, Rockwool in the neck next? 

[Andyjr1515]

20 minutes ago, LukeFRC said:

? What’s the point of that then, Rockwool in the neck next? 

       Not sure.  They didn't stick with it for very long - it didn't do it any harm (still great basses and undeniably Wal) but also presumably didn't show any major advantage either and must have added cost and complexity. 

[Kiwi]

18 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

       Not sure.  They didn't stick with it for very long - it didn't do it any harm (still great basses and undeniably Wal) but also presumably didn't show any major advantage either and must have added cost and complexity. 

Especially if they didn't use it properly so never got the full benefit!  It seems like they treated it like a layer of fibreglass.

[funkle]

I have been spending a bit of time playing the Wal Mark 1 through a frequency analyser in order to work some things out and understand how the Lusithand preamp and it compare. 

 

I have been using a not particularly scientific method of playing the same chords in roots and fifths across all strings - E, A, B - location depending on whether I'm trying to get more bass sounds out of the instrument or treble sounds. Used a pick too. Pulled the resonance filter boosts in and out to try and work out where they have their effect. 

 

First of all, there is information coming out of the pickups right up to about 7k. The balance between what is above about 2k and below it is quite different - heavily weighted towards the mids - but it does have treble information present. I was wrong to say before there was not much above 3KHz; it's there.

 

Pick attack switch appears to give a 5 or 6 dB bump centred around 6kHz. (Band pass, I think, not shelving, from the shape). [This also depends upon how the pot for this is set within the cavity).

 

I think - and it's finicky to work out - but it looks (and sounds) like the low pass filters work down to about 80 - 100 Hz, and I think a 5-6 dB boost when the switch is pulled out. I think they work up to around about 2.5 - 3KHz. CORRECTION 24/6/22: The Wal website itself states the filters give a 10 dB boost when pulled out. 

 

Nuno tells me his filters on the Lusithand go down to 170 Hz and up to 4.5 kHz.

 

I could hear the ACG EQ-01 filters went very low; I think they went lower than the Wal. I wish I had tried to work it out when it was installed. 

 

I may take some photos of the preamp boards and see if anyone is able to help me work out what is going on electronically. It's well out of my abilities. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by funkle

[funkle]

The other thing I notice, although I find it harder to quantify it, is that the low end out of the Wal is really quite 'tight' sounding - it's a mid machine, not a low end beast. 

 

The current 'Wal-ish' platform has way more low end no matter how it is set (parallel, series, single coil) than the Wal.  

 

I did a quick screenshot of EQ settings I have been messing with to cut enough lows to get the Wal-ish to sound more like the Wal in the low end. It's not really applicable to anyone else's situation, but just to offer context of how much low end has to be trimmed to match what a Wal seems to be like. (Ignore the gain setting for the HPF graph below, it's not relevant; the cut off and shape of the HPF is though. It's centred around 73Hz , 12 dB/octave shape.)   

 

 

The second EQ shape there is how much I have been boosting the mids to get a similar hump in the low mids as what the Wal has. Again it just gives a flavour of how strong the Wal system as a whole is in that area. 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by funkle

[LukeFRC]

1 hour ago, funkle said:

 

 

The second EQ shape there is how much I have been boosting the mids to get a similar hump in the low mids as what the Wal has.

I’m sure someone who knows what they are talking about would know - but… can you add resonance to a HPF to recreate that shape?

I guess if you are getting it into a computer and can run the audio through a some synth filter module it would simulate how you would do that analogually … 

[funkle]

1 hour ago, LukeFRC said:

I’m sure someone who knows what they are talking about would know - but… can you add resonance to a HPF to recreate that shape?

I guess if you are getting it into a computer and can run the audio through a some synth filter module it would simulate how you would do that analogually … 

I assume there’s a way to do a HPF with a resonant peak in Reaper, somewhere. It’s got everything. 
 

However, when you take the signal out into software, it’s already had the ‘per pickup’ filtering done onboard the bass. I don’t think there’s an easy way to simulate ‘per pickup’ filtering after the signal is already outside of the instrument. 

[Owen]

There is a lot of it about.

 

https://reverb.com/uk/item/52022127-fodera-wal-emperor-2003-crotch-walnut

[funkle]

19 hours ago, Owen said:

There is a lot of it about.

 

https://reverb.com/uk/item/52022127-fodera-wal-emperor-2003-crotch-walnut

Yeah, I think that’s one of the 2 ‘Wal-deras’ floating about. I clocked it a few weeks back on Reverb when it popped up. It reinforces my desire to achieve the Wal tone without the price tag. 

[Andyjr1515]

OK - ref the neck, small beginnings...but beginnings nevertheless.  A brief opportunity has been provided by the long set epoxy I used on @fleabag's neck build having its proper time to cure

 

 

For the Wal-ish one, we have the maple, we have the mahogany and, with great thanks to @Fishman, we have a genuine Wal rosewood fretboard 

 

@funkle measured the mahogany laminates on the Wal he has been using in this project at 4.71mm thick.

 

I don't have a sander-thicknesser, which is what the proper builders would use, but the makita planer-thicknesser is actually pretty accurate

 

 

And that blank is wide enough to be cut in two to ensure absolute match:

 

And so there we go.  Started

 

[funkle]

Fantastic @Andyjr1515!

 

I’ve got this week off and will be doing some recordings with the Lusithand preamp. 
 

I also managed to get some photos of the Wal circuit boards, before I had to give the bass back to its rightful owner. It looks like (according to a friend who knows about these things) that it’s a state variable filter design. I would not be the best person to ask, but there you go. He’s going to have a shot at working out a circuit diagram, we’ll see if it’s possible. 

Oh, and it looks like the potentiometers are made custom by a company called Radiohm. Here’s an old ‘for sale’ thread with what they look like - https://www.basschat.co.uk/topic/343198-sold-wal-mk1-and-later-control-pot-set/

 

[funkle]

So far, my yet-to-be-proven take on the Wal Custom recipe is that it requires:

 

1. Full range neutral pickups (at least, I think so, wait and see)

 

2. A pre-amp with some characterful distortion and which is decidedly not full-range (it cuts out high end which you then ‘put back in’ with the pick attack boost as desired)

 

3. A very stiff neck platform which has a significant effect on boosting low mids, and I think gives a leaner low end. Either that or there’s a HPF in the state variable filter circuit somewhere that trims some of the fat around 50Hz and lower. Or the pickups being wound slightly differently to what I have could be a contributor here. Not sure yet. 
 

4. Some impact from mahogany body. Yet to be determined. I suspect less impactful than the items preceding it. 
 

For interest, I found some other links related to various people’s thoughts on the relative impact of body and neck. Spoiler alert, a lot of tone is thought to be in the neck with relatively little contribution from the body. At least according to some. It seems to line up with what Roger Sadowsky was saying, anyway..
 

https://www.premierguitar.com/amp/bass-necks-adjustability-and-resonance-2651081990

 

https://www.premierguitar.com/amp/bass-bench-can-you-hear-the-difference-between-various-neck-joints-2651066934
 

https://www.frudua.com/neck_influence_in_guitar_tone.htm

 

[Kev]

Still following with keen interest. In my head, most of what you're looking for is still in the Wal pickup design.  The Wal character exists fully in a passive Wal and is enhanced by the pre, so it rules the pre out for me.  Perhaps you're right and it is all in the neck build/material?!!

[funkle]

@Kev only way to know is to keep experimenting….
 

One of the things I have discovered is that subtle differences in recordings are often much more noticeable in real life. I did not expect that. But if I hear small differences in pickup recordings now, I know that they may be much more pronounced ‘in the room’. 

 

I always thought that going straight to DI was the most honest way to get a true bass signal, but through an amp (set flat) and my FRFR Basschat 1x12/horn there is detail sometimes that I feel doesn’t come out in recordings. I wonder why that is.

[Lfalex v1.1]

I just don't think that recordings can do justice to every aspect of a performance (or even series of notes) at once. 

Irrespective of methodology,  something gets lost,  even without compression, EQ etc. in play. 

Maybe it's just the shorter signal path. Maybe it's the complication of ADC/transcription/DAC (assuming digital recording) then replay equipment. 

[Passinwind]

2 hours ago, funkle said:

Fantastic @Andyjr1515!

 

I’ve got this week off and will be doing some recordings with the Lusithand preamp. 
 

I also managed to get some photos of the Wal circuit boards, before I had to give the bass back to its rightful owner. It looks like (according to a friend who knows about these things) that it’s a state variable filter design. I would not be the best person to ask, but there you go. He’s going to have a shot at working out a circuit diagram, we’ll see if it’s possible. 

Oh, and it looks like the potentiometers are made custom by a company called Radiohm. Here’s an old ‘for sale’ thread with what they look like - https://www.basschat.co.uk/topic/343198-sold-wal-mk1-and-later-control-pot-set/

 

Omeg in the UK sell some Radiohm clone parts from the original tooling and their own evolutions of them. I've posted a few times about my experiences ordering custom parts from them, good ones in both cases so far.

[Kiwi]

11 hours ago, funkle said:

4. Some impact from mahogany body. Yet to be determined. I suspect less impactful than the items preceding it. 

I wonder if Roger Sadowsky is assuming the wood weighs the same and has the same density?  If they do then he's correct but jazz basses sound very generic to me anyway...which is why I don't play one.

 

For a bolt on construction, the mahogany will almost certainly have an impact.  It comprises part of the structure that acts against the string tension, so how could it not?  Replace the body with one made out of weakened MDF and see if you get the same timbre!

 

When I had two Smith basses they were identical apart from one having mahogany core wings and the other having flamed maple (and was fretless).  Both had different characters and were through necks!  The maple winged bass was firmer in the mid range and had slightly less low end than the mahogany winged bass.  So that would suggest also that the body wood has some effect even in neck through instruments.

On the other hand, in the mid eighties, Musicman were mating necks to outsourced bodies made with poplar and alder (solid tints), ash and they all sounded like Stingrays and Cutlasses should.   There were even a few examples with mahogany and those owners reported a slight change in timbre.  Some times if the signature tone of a particular bass is wrapped up in the electronics (e.g. Status), then yeah the body wood will have less of an effect than one where the pickups and preamp are relatively clean.

[funkle]

I think you may have answered your own question there @Kiwi.

 

I think through-necks do get more of their tone from the body. I think bolt-ons get much less. It can’t be zero, or otherwise things like semi-hollow bodies would make no audible difference, and they do. But I think it is of much less importance. I hope to demonstrate it. 

 

If you have read the links I have been scattering around in various posts, many of them say similar. (The link in Premier Guitar is quite good, and goes into the physics of why this would be in a little detail.) Roger can be quoted as saying he finds it harder to hear the difference between bodies, but in general, necks are easier to hear the differences between.  
 

And, as you say, Musicman Stingrays and Cutlasses have a certain sound that is bound to the electronics. I have found this to be true as well.  I have owned many different Stingrays, Sterlings, Sterling By Musicman basses, and even a Big Al, which have had mahogany, basswood, or ash bodies. Quite different tonalities if common lore was to guide us. And yet they all could be heard to have a common Musicman sound, even the Big Al.  

(This was the basis of me modifying the cheapest SBMM bass, a Sub Ray4 made from basswood, with an Aguilar pickup and John East MMSR preamp, to get the ‘Bernard Edwards’ type sound. It works perfectly.)

 

I’m pretty sure if I replaced a Musicman body with an MDF one it would sound almost exactly the same. People have built bolt-on electric guitar bodies from Lego, concrete, 3D printer resin, and steel tubes without causing a lot of harm to the tone…

[LukeFRC]

I’ve built bitsas before (MM style) and swapped neck screws for inserts and machine bolts - that made a difference.
Freedom custom guitar research make basses with a dovetail and one bolt that you can torque differently to get different tones, tight for a more modern tone and slightly looser for one more like a vintage fender. 
wal use machine bolts 
 

so far i think a stiff neck bolted onto a mahogany body with fairly high mass bridge would get you in the ballpark. To start messing with pickups and electronics. 

[funkle]

Interesting, I’ve swapped neck screws for inserts and machine bolts and noticed no difference on 2 different instruments. (Jazz and Precision type). All of the joints I had swapped over had 4 screws. 
 

(My Celinders [now singular] all had inserts and bolts, which is what gave me the notion.)
 

Perhaps there is a minimum level of tightness, which, once met, offers no additional benefit for getting a tighter neck joint beyond that point. 
 

I seem to recall 3 bolt neck joints had a bad rep, sometimes?

[MoonBassAlpha]

20 hours ago, funkle said:

Fantastic @Andyjr1515!

 

I’ve got this week off and will be doing some recordings with the Lusithand preamp. 
 

I also managed to get some photos of the Wal circuit boards, before I had to give the bass back to its rightful owner. It looks like (according to a friend who knows about these things) that it’s a state variable filter design. I would not be the best person to ask, but there you go. He’s going to have a shot at working out a circuit diagram, we’ll see if it’s possible. 

Oh, and it looks like the potentiometers are made custom by a company called Radiohm. Here’s an old ‘for sale’ thread with what they look like - https://www.basschat.co.uk/topic/343198-sold-wal-mk1-and-later-control-pot-set/

 

I did have the  circuit diagram,  sketched out by a local luthier. I'll try to find it later 

[NickA]

On 18/04/2022 at 13:19, Andyjr1515 said:

, we have the maple, we have the mahogany

Wot! No hornbeam? 

 

My 1986 Wal is maple, mahogany, hornbeam, mahogany, maple.  My 1991 Wal has no hornbeam.  They sound quite different.

 

Does funkle want an 80s Wal sound or a 90s Wal sound?

😁😁😁😁

 

Ok, so the 1991 has more strings, frets and different pickups.... but the neck wood must make as much difference as the manufacturer of the potentiometers!  ( ie probably none )

 

 

 

 

 

[LukeFRC]

5 minutes ago, NickA said:

My 1986 Wal is maple, mahogany, hornbeam, mahogany, maple.

minor question - is the hornbeam in two bits or one?