=The Warwick Streamer Club=

streamer 1 NT

[video=youtube;hOSCX5k6Oi8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSCX5k6Oi8&feature=channel_page[/video] - Clean Bass Cover Warwick Streamer

and

[video=youtube;PrIE9VD1pf8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIE9VD1pf8&feature=channel_page[/video] - Blood Brothers Warwick Streamer Stage

you be the judge of the sound. I really like the versatility of the streamer stage 1. I can get a more old school p-bass tones, jazz bass, crisp slap tone, and even that low mid growl of a thumb with the right eq. The wide spacing feels like a dream to me although I can understand why others may not like it.
 
Our forum is the best. So it will automatically embed youtube links, so you need only to post the url, without the tags.
I've edited your posts :-)
Nice clips, thanks for sharing, the SSI is killer!
 
nice vids mate! great playing and great sound. i wanna know what sort of set up with your camera/pc you used to do it!
 
I just bought this online. I should have it Friday or Saturday. It is a '91 that appears to be in pretty good condition minus the dirty maple. I have been jones'n bad for mostly a 5'er, but when I saw this, I had to grab it.

With that being said, if anyone wants to trade my 4 for your 5'er, let me know and we can talk... ;) *Edit- This is not going anywhere. I love this THING!!!!

Peace,
Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
+1 looks like this one has seen some action
 
jester said:
+1 looks like this one has seen some action
Click to expand...

I hope it gets here soon so it can see more action this weekend.

I too, love the weather/used look of a bass. When something is worn/used, it has character which I think really contributes to the attitude of the bass.
 
This one has been worn out in a good way.
 
Guys (& Gals, if it so applies), just a quick question, since y'all would be the ones to know: aside from neck differences, are the Streamer bodies relatively the same? I mean, I know the S1 is heavier than the S2, but are the bodies shaped differently between the Stages, the LXs, and the Jazzmans? What about the Streamer $$? Is that body based on the S1? Sorry if this has been covered, if it has please direct me accordingly. Just lookin' to join you guys in the very, very near future...
 
streamerstagenone said:
Guys (& Gals, if it so applies), just a quick question, since y'all would be the ones to know: aside from neck differences, are the Streamer bodies relatively the same? I mean, I know the S1 is heavier than the S2, but are the bodies shaped differently between the Stages, the LXs, and the Jazzmans? What about the Streamer $$? Is that body based on the S1? Sorry if this has been covered, if it has please direct me accordingly. Just lookin' to join you guys in the very, very near future...
Click to expand...


Over the years,the shapes have changed & been refined.
Typically,the bolt on Streamers are slightly larger than neck through models.
I wouldnt say the stage 1 is heavier than the stage 2,in my experience,it's the other way around,but not by much.
The $$ is virtually based on the Jazzman body & LX.
The thing with Streamers I've noticed is that they all balance exceptionally well.Some basses want to be played seated,due to weight &/or balance,but every Streamer I've played,regardless of model,is just as easy to play seated,as standing with a strap.
 
Have I mentioned lately how much I love my SSII?

The SSII friggin rocks!

ha ha!!!!
 

I'll stick my neck out on this as no one else has voiced a concern but I have to confess guys that this doesn't look right to me!

The overall shape, tuner positioning, nut, veneer etc. they all look... wrong! :( It could be the camera angle but it just seems odd to have a non-standard veneer and nut on something like an LX bass. I could understand if it were a NT CS or a Ltd bass but for a straightforward instrument like this to have such an odd combination of maple board etc. On first glance I also thought the body was Spector rather than Warwick. As I say, maybe it's camera angles because the headstock inlay looks fine along with the headstock veneer depth and neck stringers, as well as the bridge assembly. Would love to see better pics of this. ;)
 
I agree that something doesn't look right.
One things is sure - the trussrod cover is ordered through the Warwick Shop, as no Warwick will come with that plate as standard. You can buy all the hardware from the shop, pickups and electronics too...
If it is original, it means it was made somewhere in the mid '90s. The headstock looks a little weird too.
It can be original though, a custom shop...
Jon, the older Streamer BO had a different body shape... It can be one of those with some "out of the factory" modifications.
 
I'm with the two above me. I am not an expert, but I have owned probably 20+ Warwick's over the years and something just does not look right about this one. It is a great looking bass, but the camera angles may be making things look funny.
 
Florin said:
I agree that something doesn't look right.
One things is sure - the trussrod cover is ordered through the Warwick Shop, as no Warwick will come with that plate as standard. You can buy all the hardware from the shop, pickups and electronics too...
If it is original, it means it was made somewhere in the mid '90s. The headstock looks a little weird too.
It can be original though, a custom shop...
Jon, the older Streamer BO had a different body shape... It can be one of those with some "out of the factory" modifications.
Click to expand...

I wondered if it was marriage of two existing Warwick basses with some further mods. The fret wire also looks silver coloured as opposed to the usual brass alloy on factory Warwicks... again maybe a CS neck or a refret possibly?

Don't you just love riddles like this! :lol:

Further pics of the bass inc reverse would be good. ;)
 
Greg said:
Over the years,the shapes have changed & been refined.
Typically,the bolt on Streamers are slightly larger than neck through models.
I wouldnt say the stage 1 is heavier than the stage 2,in my experience,it's the other way around,but not by much.
The $$ is virtually based on the Jazzman body & LX.
The thing with Streamers I've noticed is that they all balance exceptionally well.Some basses want to be played seated,due to weight &/or balance,but every Streamer I've played,regardless of model,is just as easy to play seated,as standing with a strap.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I wear my bass up high (like Stefan Lessard for example) and didn't know how the models matched up. As long as they all have that concave cutaway, I should be fine. I'm still concerned about neck width, but if the S1's neck is wide but relatively flat I feel like I should be ok. I mean, they're all 'Wick Streamers, can't really go wrong...
 
warwickhunt said:
I wondered if it was marriage of two existing Warwick basses with some further mods. The fret wire also looks silver coloured as opposed to the usual brass alloy on factory Warwicks... again maybe a CS neck or a refret possibly?

Don't you just love riddles like this! :lol:

Further pics of the bass inc reverse would be good. ;)
Click to expand...

I am not disputing whether this is or is not the real deal. But I cannot see anything "odd" besides the frets and nut. It could very well BE a CS.

Can you guys point out what is not right on this? I want to be able to spot an "unusual" Warwick too if I see one, thanks.
 
I think John's dead right about the tuners.The E & G tuners seem to be positioned alot lower than usual.More like a 6 string than a 4.Normally,the E string tuner is at the top of the truss rod cover & the G string tuner just above the lower bulge in the headstock.I understand that the non standard nut might've made it necessary to re-position the truss rod cover,but these tuners are alot lower than if that happened.When I first saw this bass,I thought the headstock veneer had either been treated with some cleaning solvent that'd left it pale & stipped the seal,making the pores visible.Then I thought it looked almost wenge-ish,but I dont that that's the case.The frets dont look like they're bell brass jumbo's either.
We've seen a luthier built neck here once before with the original headstock veneer & fingerboard,so maybe this is something similar.But then,maybe not.If that was the case,the tuners positions wouldnt have changed.
Elementary my dear Watson?
;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the shape of the headstock seems to be odd too. Also, the veneer on the headstock seems to be thicker than we usually make it.
 
The neck pocket looks too deep as well.The fingerboard looks like it goes a fret or 2 further into the body & there's less wood after the last fret.
Very fishy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top