Warwick Bass Comparison: Streamer Stage I and II and Thumb NT

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
11,472
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Aug 28, 2011

This is a quick video I put together to highlight the similarities and the differences between the Warwick Streamer Stage I, the Streamer Stage II, and the Thumb Neck Through basses. It's pretty rare to find all of these in a shop at the same time, let alone just a single one in a shop, so I thought this might be a nice back to back comparison for anyone who was curious about these instruments!

I'm not a Warwick endorser, although I know it's hard to tell ;) I'm a Seattle area bassist and singer, and I'd love for you to leave me a comment here or send me an email, and please check out my site and my other videos!

Thanks for watching. And by the way, which one of these is your favorite?

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (spfairchild)

  • Hey mate, great videos.. keep up the good work! Just thought I'd ask another Warwick users opinion on something. I own the Streamer Stage I 6 (1995 model), and I have found that it is not quite as 'middly/honky' as the usual warwick tones from other basses. Still sounds like one though. Have you found this to be the case? Or could it be the pickup configuration I have used? Im currently using Seymour duncas STC 3A preamp and Basslines that I may swap our for the aguilar. Cheers!

  • @1BassJohn Hey, thanks! I actually found my 1990 SSI 6 string to be more "honky", which I consider to be a descriptor of the high mids/low treble zone, than my other Warwicks. I was also using the Basslines active soapbars, but not the Basslines pre. I would agree though that it doesn't necessarily have that Warwick sound - had less lows and low mids, probably a result of all the maple. But if you want more honk, you can always boost the low or high mids with the Aguilar pre!

  • is warwick or ibanez better at a price of 700 $ ???

  • @giannakisXAXAXA Hard to say, but I feel pretty good about the Ibanez basses in that price range. I had an SR885 that wasn't too much more than that, which lasted me for a good long time and was capable of pretty much anything I wanted to play on it. Some of the less expensive Warwicks I've played have been pretty lousy in construction, but that may have changed by now.

  • @J3v4d3r @J3v4d3r hey! I'm partial to the Aggie, but both sound great. I would say it depends on what you want. If you want a more compressed and mid cut sound, stick with MEC. if you like more mids and throatier low mids, try the Aggie. Sometimes, just a change is nice, even if you end up changing back!

see all

All Comments (49)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @giannakisXAXAXA definitely get a used german warwick, you can probably get one on craigslist for about 700$. i bought a used german corvette standard a few years ago and I've never ever regretted it. It's just a really well-made, great sounding, beautiful bass ;)

  • @giannakisXAXAXA personally, ibanez, the cheaper rockbass warwicks take neck dives for the 5 strings and just feel very light for the 4 strings

  • Mellowship Slinky!!

  • @spfairchild thnx for the advise dude :)

  • the 5 string sounds better of all....

  • Hell yea, Squapusher!

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more