# Warwick Dark Lord: 35" scale, and tuned to F#



## distressed_romeo (Mar 10, 2007)

http://www.warwickbass.com/basses/vampyre_darklord.htm

Has anyone tried one of these? Looks pretty nice...


----------



## Desecrated (Mar 10, 2007)

Right of the top off my head:
It looks like the Low F# is out of propotion towards the other strings, Like they just added one really fat string and completly forgott about balance and such.


----------



## Loserchief (Mar 10, 2007)

They could have at least made it a five-string. That's so low that you will never be able to play a hearable groove. All this tuning will imo give you is a lot of feelable pulse. Could be cool for some people but imo it lacks diversity. But i really like the Vampyre basses.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Mar 11, 2007)

If your going down to F# I'd almost require it to be a six string.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Mar 11, 2007)

All_¥our_Bass;418797 said:


> If your going down to F# I'd almost require it to be a six string.



Personally I'd want seven or nine...

I don't think this thing is intended to be someone's primary bass; looking at it, it seems like it's designed to get the best possible tone out of that particular range rather than being an all-purpose instrument. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it means it would probably be more a studio tool than a live one.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Mar 12, 2007)

Agreed. I *WOULD* want more than six if it's gonna go that low. Six strings would be my absolute minimun though.


----------



## skinhead (Mar 14, 2007)

That .175 looks huge! But i think that has some nice definition, warwick does some sick works.


----------



## TomAwesome (Mar 14, 2007)

If that was a 6 string, it would be right on my list of stuff I need. If it does a really good job with that low F#, though, it might be nice to have.. just definitely not as your only bass. Where do you GET a .175 anyway? I have trouble finding anything bigger than .145.

Edit:
If you go to "bass specs", apparently there's a 5-string and 6-string version... Damn!

Harmony Central only has 3 reviews for it, but they all say that the bass kicks ass.


----------



## Variant (Mar 15, 2007)

TomAwesome said:


> If that was a 6 string, it would be right on my list of stuff I need. If it does a really good job with that low F#, though, it might be nice to have.. just definitely not as your only bass. Where do you GET a .175 anyway? I have trouble finding anything bigger than .145.
> 
> Edit:
> If you go to "bass specs", apparently there's a 5-string and 6-string version... Damn!
> ...



Warwick makes it's own .175 for the Vampyre... My Conklin GTBD-7 is set up with an F# on the bottom and I use an SIT .165, which you can order directly from Conklin's website.


----------



## msherman (Mar 26, 2007)

There is a used one at the GC in Manchester Connecticut.
I didn`t have much time to check it out or plug it in, but it did have a very fat baseball bat neck on it.
At 35" the string tension felt good, but I didn`t like the actual feel of the Warwick .175


----------



## knuckle_head (Apr 13, 2007)

I played it at NAMM in January - I think it is the first viable F# a major has put out there.

I have always contended that the low end is best served by 1) lengthening the bass and 2) going thicker than most had until now.

Warwick has it half right at the moment and the F# works pretty well.

I tune my 4 to an octave down E and have only the one bass at the moment (sad for a builder, eh?) - it works perfectly as a primary, though I agree with the consensus that if you are doing 'normal' bass parts as well you would likely be best served with a 6. It's what I want as my personal next bass.


----------

