Warwick thumb bass advice

[tauzero]

On 15/04/2023 at 18:19, Kev said:

Yeah they changed the horn at least 2-3 times since that 85 of yours.  The older ones felt more ergonomic to me 🙃

 

I have an 87 and a 2000 hanging on the wall opposite me. Identical bodies - the neck on the 2000 was much thicker than that on the 87, and the rear of the headstock on the 87 is carved to thin it either side of a central spine, unlike the 2000, so the neck on the 2000 was heavier relative to the body than that on the 87 (I had the neck on the 2000 reprofiled to the same dimensions as the 87).

[Kev]

36 minutes ago, tauzero said:

 

I have an 87 and a 2000 hanging on the wall opposite me. Identical bodies - the neck on the 2000 was much thicker than that on the 87, and the rear of the headstock on the 87 is carved to thin it either side of a central spine, unlike the 2000, so the neck on the 2000 was heavier relative to the body than that on the 87 (I had the neck on the 2000 reprofiled to the same dimensions as the 87).

Probably not unusual.  The very early thumbs had a different shape than your 87/00 and the modern thumb is a slightly different shape again.  All quite subtle but noticable to a Thumb aficionado, just can't remember the actual years they changed.  I did think there was another change in the 90s so its interesting your 00 and 87 are completely identical.

[biro]

Indeed. Mine is supposedly from 1989/1990 and looks like this:

[tom5string]

Oh, in that period they replaced "black hole wood" for Carrara marble??

[biro]

It's sparklier than that, but weighs just as much

 

[horrorshowbass]

Lads not helping the GAS here 😂 

[Paulhauser]

I have two Thumb NT6 about 10 years apart, one fretted (black nirvana finish with clear coating) one fretless (natural finish) and the body shape is different around the horns area (lower and upper horn)

The pics are terrible as it is hard to catch the difference but you get the idea.... The differences are visible as the lower horn is more protruding one the fretless and anchors a lot better on the leg when seated but the upper horn is farther away from the neck so the fretted is more snug fit.

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Paulhauser

[Paulhauser]

41 minutes ago, horrorshowbass said:

Lads not helping the GAS here 😂 

 The fretted one in my prev post is this, enjoy 😉 😄

 

 

[eude]

14 hours ago, Paulhauser said:

 The fretted one in my prev post is this, enjoy 😉 😄

 

 

That certainly does not help!

[bassbora]

Very late to the party.  Another Thumb owner here.  I bought my 89 NT5 back in 97 and was my only bass for many years.  I was studying at the time and I spent so many hours with that instrument.  I do agree with most of the pros and cons that have been mentioned already.  It is is heavy and the reach to 1st fret is long but I am tall with long arms so this has never been a problem.  I did have a student years ago that loved my bass but he was a lot shorter than me and when he tried it he knew he could not get on with it at all.

 

I do want to say though that I have used it in so many different styles of music and I have found it really flexible.  I was playing a lot of jazz and classical music as well as Motown and rock/metal and I found it great for all of it.  The 26 frets are great and having the easy access all over the upper part of the neck was brilliant.  That makes chords very easy in the upper register and soloing if you are doing that kind of music.  My Thumb has the really thin neck profile which I personally love and EMG pickups and 2 band eq.  I found that you could get so much tonal range from either pickup and in later years I have started to use the neck (if you can call it that) pickup more soloed than ever before.  Maybe my tastes have changed.  I have also found how much impact cutting the treble can have on the sound so you have broader range than I ever explored in the early years but I guess you can say all with in that Thumb sound which I love.  As has been said that B string is quite something.  Crystal clear and totally sings.

 

I have only played my Thumb so I have nothing to compare it with like so many that have replied so maybe I just got lucky with mine.  When I moved into fretless I started with a Stingray but I did not like it I think it was the neck and upper access so the only thing I could think of was Thumb.  So I do have 89 NT6 fretless.  Again its heavy but I have gigged it quite a bit and the neck is even better than on the 5.  And its one of the best sounding and playing bass I have ever played. This is of course just personal preference.

 

And finally just to add to the discussion about other models.  Even though I have almost exclusively  only played Warwicks since 97 I have not had that many of them or different models.  I got a FNA Jazzman which I had for few years and it was a very solid and good bass but I always had this notion of trying out Stage 1 and 2.  I traded the FNA for a Stage 2 and I have to say that bass has taken over as my main bass for the last 8 years.  Its very different from the Thumb and that body shape might be easier to get on with than the Thumb.  There are a lot of different Stremer options NT and bolt on so might be worth exploring that.  I do rotate between these two basses between practices but I would say 80% gigs I go with the Stage 2.

 

I did get a Stage 1 but have to say that doesnt suit me as well.  This again is 5 string like the others but the difference is its broad neck and I have to say I am not a fan.  I find the other neck profiles better but I will keep it and I do use if for practice and I have gigged it few times but I have to say the other two feel more natural.

 

I hope your search for the right Warwick will bring you the right bass for you.

[Lfalex v1.1]

Generic Warwick advice for early 2000s models based on my ownership of a 2002 infinity sn4, a 1997 Fortress MasterMan 5 and a 1997 Streamer LX6

 

I've had 5 Tuners fail on the Infinity (the fifth being an OEM replacement for the first failure)

The metal used in the gears is simply too soft.  I'm not confident in the quality of the Warwick units.  I've purchased some Hipshot units to replace mine. 

 

The nylon Just-A-Nut II is awful. It'll break as soon as you even look at it.

Both the '97 basses have a brass JAN I, which are fine. The later basses have JAN III units, in either nylon or brass. These are fine also. 

 

Both of these issues are a DIY fix,  but it's easier if the bass you buy isn't going to self- destruct shortly after you buy it!

 

[horrorshowbass]

55 minutes ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

Generic Warwick advice for early 2000s models based on my ownership of a 2002 infinity sn4, a 1997 Fortress MasterMan 5 and a 1997 Streamer LX6

 

I've had 5 Tuners fail on the Infinity (the fifth being an OEM replacement for the first failure)

The metal used in the gears is simply too soft.  I'm not confident in the quality of the Warwick units.  I've purchased some Hipshot units to replace mine. 

 

The nylon Just-A-Nut II is awful. It'll break as soon as you even look at it.

Both the '97 basses have a brass JAN I, which are fine. The later basses have JAN III units, in either nylon or brass. These are fine also. 

 

Both of these issues are a DIY fix,  but it's easier if the bass you buy isn't going to self- destruct shortly after you buy it!

 

Not great. Shouldn't have to DIY your bass.

[Lfalex v1.1]

6 hours ago, horrorshowbass said:

Not great. Shouldn't have to DIY your bass.

 

It is 21 years old,  but I've older instruments,  including Warwicks, that have faired better.  The build quality,  fit, and finish are fine. 

 

It's just the quality of some parts that is questionable. 

 

But you're right.  It shouldn't be a DIY project, as it's a repair rather than fettling or modding.

[Kiwi]

I have been gassing for a Status Series II recently but after swapping out the electronics in my Series 1 have managed to get well within spitting difference of the same sound and, in some respect's it's more refined.  So I was also looking at a Moon MBC5TN which, like the Thumb 5 is a through neck with wenge laminates but walnut instead of bubinga.  Slightly different sound and significantly cheaper and over half the price of a Series II these days.  So I've started asking myself whether a Thumb 5 might be do-able.  But whenever I've played one acoustically it's sounded and felt a bit dull compared to what I'm normally used to.  So I don't know...I'm still in two minds.  I do like how they sound on records though.

[40hz]

2 hours ago, Kiwi said:

I have been gassing for a Status Series II recently but after swapping out the electronics in my Series 1 have managed to get well within spitting difference of the same sound and, in some respect's it's more refined.  So I was also looking at a Moon MBC5TN which, like the Thumb 5 is a through neck with wenge laminates but walnut instead of bubinga.  Slightly different sound and significantly cheaper though not cheaper than a Series II any more. Slightly different sound and significantly cheaper and over half the price of a Series II these days.  So I've started asking myself whether a Thumb 5 might be do-able.  But whenever I've played one acoustically it's sounded and felt a bit dull compared to what I'm normally used to.  So I don't know...I'm still in two minds.  I do like how they sound on records though.

Interesting that you picked up on them sounding acoustically dull. Every Warwick I've owned (3 Streamer LX's, a Stage One, Corvette) and played (Buzzard, Thumb, Stryker) have *all* exhibited this, too. To the point that when I mentally think of a Warwick it's the first thing that comes to mind.

[Sparky Mark]

9 minutes ago, 40hz said:

Interesting that you picked up on them sounding acoustically dull. Every Warwick I've owned (3 Streamer LX's, a Stage One, Corvette) and played (Buzzard, Thumb, Stryker) have *all* exhibited this, too. To the point that when I mentally think of a Warwick it's the first thing that comes to mind.

I wonder whether the long sustain and note clarity of NT Thumbs is the result of the vibration energy remaining in the strings rather than being dissipated by the bass body resonating? My experience has been that my lighter weight basses seem to resonate louder acoustically than those made from denser hardwoods.

[horrorshowbass]

This is on FB at minute for £1400, tis lovely.

[Kiwi]

55 minutes ago, Sparky Mark said:

I wonder whether the long sustain and note clarity of NT Thumbs is the result of the vibration energy remaining in the strings rather than being dissipated by the bass body resonating? My experience has been that my lighter weight basses seem to resonate louder acoustically than those made from denser hardwoods.

There's always some selective filtering of the highs when wenge is part of the construction.  Wenge with maple laminates is my favourite combo because the wenge adds midrange growl but the maple keeps some of the highs.   Both seem to have a decent amount of bass.

[Greg Edwards69]

5 hours ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

 

It is 21 years old,  but I've older instruments,  including Warwicks, that have faired better.  The build quality,  fit, and finish are fine. 

 

It's just the quality of some parts that is questionable. 

 

But you're right.  It shouldn't be a DIY project, as it's a repair rather than fettling or modding.

On the plus side, it’s useful that Warwick offer a seemingly complete range of spare parts for their instruments and amplifiers, even for older models.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Greg Edwards69

[LeftyJ]

5 hours ago, 40hz said:

Interesting that you picked up on them sounding acoustically dull. Every Warwick I've owned (3 Streamer LX's, a Stage One, Corvette) and played (Buzzard, Thumb, Stryker) have *all* exhibited this, too. To the point that when I mentally think of a Warwick it's the first thing that comes to mind.

It always seems funny to me how Warwick's slogan is "The sound of wood", when I wouldn't describe their tone as woody at all. All Warwicks I've tried were bright, clanky, a bit scooped and very tight. 

 

Acoustically, my two Streamer LX's aren't nearly as loud and lively as my other basses with more "traditional" tonewoods or even my two Status S2 Classics. I don't really play my LX5 (or my other 5-strings) anymore, my Status 5-string has taken its place a few years ago and is here to stay.

[wright/watt]

Thought I would add my late thought on this topic..

 

I have had three NT4 thumb basses over the years..I now have a January 1990 NT4. Very comfortable and slim neck, weight of a small country 4.8 Kg (lol) Wenge/Bubinga. Transitional stage..old school back plate and dots on the wenge fretboard, but not scalloped on back of the headstock for the Schaller tuners..EMG replacement pickups for the original EMG's like for like. MEC preamp. One for sale at Bassbros at the moment. I have owned this Thumb for 5 years now, and have had not had to adjust the neck once! The most stable trusrod neck I have ever owned. I find the wonderful contoured body on the bass now works quite well with my 57 year old contoured belly (lol) The 89 I owned I deeply regret selling! This 1990 equally comparable..

 

 

1997 version..just nowhere as good, neck profile broader, the Warwick fundamental thump no longer there..

If in the lucky position to own an NT4 Thumb, I personally recommend buying an older version..That said I don't know what the new ones are like, bar very expensive.

 

ps If played through an old school Trace Elliot the bass sings!!

[LukeFRC]

27 minutes ago, wright/watt said:

Thought I would add my late thought on this topic..

 

I have had three NT4 thumb basses over the years..I now have a January 1990 NT4. Very comfortable and slim neck, weight of a small country 4.8 Kg (lol) Wenge/Bubinga. Transitional stage..old school back plate and dots on the wenge fretboard, but not scalloped on back of the headstock for the Schaller tuners..EMG replacement pickups for the original EMG's like for like. MEC preamp. One for sale at Bassbros at the moment. I have owned this Thumb for 5 years now, and have had not had to adjust the neck once! The most stable trusrod neck I have ever owned. I find the wonderful contoured body on the bass now works quite well with my 57 year old contoured belly (lol) The 89 I owned I deeply regret selling! This 1990 equally comparable..

 

 

1997 version..just nowhere as good, neck profile broader, the Warwick fundamental thump no longer there..

If in the lucky position to own an NT4 Thumb, I personally recommend buying an older version..That said I don't know what the new ones are like, bar very expensive.

 

ps If played through an old school Trace Elliot the bass sings!!

Nice streamer too, different pre?

[wright/watt]

11 hours ago, LukeFRC said:

Nice streamer too, different pre?

Thanks, A 1988 Streamer stage 1 with original Bartolini pickups,and a John  East  preamp..was a great bass for the short time I had it😃👍

[tvickey]

I'd been looking for the right Thumb NT5 for a while now, and then I found this... 2016 Masterbuilt with bubinga, wenge and ebony.  It's supposed to arrive on Wednesday coming from Pau, France.

 

 

[horrorshowbass]

Oh lord thats gorgeous