Why is guitar intonation so important?
Guitar intonation can be the deciding factor not only when buying a guitar from the guitar store, but also be the thing that makes you fall in or out of love with a guitar you already own.
On my first guitar (I still own it), my '89 Squier II Stratocaster, you can guess with fair accuracy just by looking at it that it is intonated correctly.
The vast majority of 6-string electric guitars are designed to be used with a string set that has 3 unwound strings, that being the 1/E, 2/B 3/G, and 3 wound strings, that being the 4/D, 5/A and 6/E.
The saddles from left to right look like two sets of stairs. That is the pattern of a properly intonated electric. It is not a Fender nor a Gibson thing. It's an electric guitar thing. When you see the saddles, be they Fender-style bent steel, Fender-style block, Gibson-style wedges/knife edges or whatever it is, if they appear to be in the pattern of two sets of stairs with an incline of left-to-right from bass strings to treble strings, chances are pretty good the guitar is properly intonated.
Why is it important to know this?
If you go to any guitar store and examine Fender vs. Squier, or to be more specific, American (meaning not Mexico) Fender vs. Squier, it's usually true that all the USA Fenders are intonated correctly and NONE of the Squiers are.
This automatically means the Fender will sound better just for the fact chords will be more in tune when the strings are tuned to pitch. The Squier on the other hand will sound "slightly out" until the intonation has been set properly, as will any other low-cost guitar.
An example of physically seeing bad intonation
What I see in the guitar store sometimes in the used area will be a guitar where one saddle will be much further away or back compared to the others. That guitar guaranteed to sound terrible because it's not intonated properly at all. Whoever owned it previously absolutely did not know how to intonate the guitar properly.
This is not exclusive to used guitars, as this happens on new models too. And not just the cheap new models, either. I've also unfortunately seen my fair share of new Fender Mexico electrics where the saddles were never adjusted for proper intonation. One time I picked up a new-model '70s Stratocaster at a guitar store, and noticed the 1/E saddle intonation screw was almost falling out because it was so loose. The Fender Mexico factory actually delivered the guitar like that, because nobody at the guitar store would purposely set a screw that loose. Bear in mind the '70s Strat sells for over $800 new.
If you're asking yourself the question, "Does this mean part of the cost for an American Fender is just to actually have a guitar delivered that's set up right?"
Answer: Unfortunately, yes. I call it unfortunate because properly set up Mexico Fender models play just as good as American models.
On guitar brands other than Fender, you will sometimes see a sticker or hangtag that states "SET UP IN USA." That doesn't mean the guitar was constructed in America, but it was set up by a USA guitar tech before being delivered to the store. I guarantee that guitar will play and sound properly no matter what the price tag says, even if it's just a $299 instrument. Why? Because a proper setup makes that much of a difference.
Should you even bother trying out a guitar that hasn't been intonated?
Yes, because you may really like the guitar even if chords sound bad due to slight off-notes due to intonation not being set.
All you basically need to know is how to spot bad intonation before picking the guitar up so you know what to expect.
When should you re-intonate a guitar you already have?
Assuming that:
- You're not doing anything overly drastic such as switching out a 9-42 size string set for an 11 or 12-gauge set...
- Your saddles stay put and don't vibrate/rattle out of place from regular play, and...
- The neck wood on your guitar is stable...
...you should not have to re-intonate.
This is not to say that you only need to intonate a guitar you own once, just once and never again. There will come a point when you will need to re-intonate it, even if only for small adjustments.
A guitar you own that "falls out" of intonation is one you will quickly grow to hate. While it won't sound bad, having an instrument sound slightly out-of-tune even when the strings are in tune will drive you nuts - even so much to the point where you won't even want to play it anymore.
For those of you that need a specific time reference, if the setup on your guitar hasn't changed (including string size choice,) the general rule of thumb is to check the intonation once a year.
What can fix intonation problems?
Replacement tuners. This actually fixes tuning and not intonation issues, but can be perceived by the player (you) as intonation issues. Having tuners with proper grip is obviously important.
Replacement string saddles. The replacement saddle itself isn't the cure for intonation here but rather the intonation set screw. If you've got an old string saddle or two that rattles out of place, outright replacing the saddle with new set screw cures that easily. If you find a loose set screw but don't want to replace the entire saddle, teflon thread seal tape works. Yes, the same stuff you use when installing a shower head. It's thin and light enough to be applied to a set screw and work. It also cures screw rattles very neatly as well. However, it's not a permanent solution. The tape will eventually fail. But until you get replacement saddles, it works fine for a temporary solution.
Guitar of the week #55 - Epiphone DR-100
Best acoustic guitar value? It just might be.
I've mentioned the Epiphone DR-100 before just because of how low the price is for one. It's actually cheaper than a Squier Bullet Strat, and I'm not kidding. And shockingly, it's a decent, well-made acoustic.
The DR-100 is an all-acoustic guitar, meaning it's not electrified whatsoever. There's no preamp, no battery and nothing to plug in. If you want to electrify it, buy a Seymour Duncan Woody pickup, although if you intend to record at home, you're better off using a traditional microphone (it will sound better, trust me).
I can say with all honesty that just about anyone would be happy with a DR-100. It's made well, it's cheap, and it's easy-to-play.
All you need to know about the DR-100 is that it's a mahogany body with spruce top; this means it will project nicely, ring notes and chords true and provide years of enjoyment.
Lastly, I will say this is a "chorder" acoustic. With the traditional dreadnought shape, you're not supposed to play anywhere near the 12th fret or above due to the fact there is no cutaway. This is fine because pretty much any note after the 9th fret on a full-size dreadnought doesn't ring out very well, so it's really not a big deal.
In other words, when playing a full-size dreadnought, "think acoustically". Don't do ridiculous soloing nonsense that you would on the electric, and you'll be in a good shape.
adventures in getting used to reading an analog clock
When you're used to reading a digital watch, switching to analog is literally learning to read time all over again.
There are tons of unbelievably cool looking clocks for cheap (all types, be it for wall, desk, nightstand use or whatever). Limiting yourself to just digital clocks means you're missing out on a whole ton of cool wristwatches and other clocks.
Believe me, after you see what you can get, you'll want to start getting more analog clocks.
My problem...
...is that I was totally used to a digital display and not analog when it came to telling time. This was a bit of problem when I started wearing an analog wristwatch.
The solution? Relearn the language of how time is told when using analog, which is purposely inexact.
The language of reading time on an analog clock
People get really confused by this, but I can assure you it's not confusing.
The top of the hour on the dial is minute position 12. 1:00pm would be stated as just "one" and nothing more unless you wanted to indicate daylight or lack thereof, i.e. "one in the morning" or "one in the afternoon".
The first large range of time on the dial is 1 to 5 where the word after or past is used.
Minute hand position 1 is five minutes after the hour (e.g. 1:05pm would be "five after one"). Minute hand position 2 is ten minutes after the hour (e.g. "ten past one"). Position 3 is a quarter-hour (e.g. "quarter after one"). Position 4 is twenty minutes (e.g. "twenty past one"). Position 5 is twenty-five minutes (e.g. "twenty-five after one").
The middle of the dial is hand position 6, half. The time of 1:30pm would be "half past one".
The second large range of time on the dial is 7 to 11 where the word of, to, until or the shortened 'til is used, and this is the part that confuses people most.
Instead of counting minutes after the hour, you're now counting minutes until the next hour.
Minute hand position 7 is twenty-five minutes before the next hour is reached (e.g. 1:35pm would be "twenty-five to two"). Position 8 is twenty minutes before the next hour (e.g. "twenty of two"). Position 9 is one quarter before the next hour (e.g. "quarter until two"). Position 10 is ten minutes before the next hour (e.g. "ten 'til two"). Position 11 is five minutes before the next hour (e.g. "five to two").
Round it
This is where the inexact part comes in.
Rounding the minute to the nearest major index makes it easier to tell the time faster, even though it technically results in the time stated being slightly wrong.
For example, if the time on the dial is 3:54pm, the minute hand is closest to the 11 position on the dial, so you round the time to 3:55pm. Since the minute hand is on the second large range of time on the dial, you're counting minutes until the next hour, therefore the time is stated as "five to four," meaning "five minutes until four o'clock".
Generally speaking, the rounding range is two minutes before or after a major index.
Here are two examples of that:
Anywhere from 6:28pm to 6:32pm would be "half past six".
Anywhere from 9:13am to 9:17am would be "quarter after nine".
WHY bother reading the time this way at all?
There are three reasons.
Reason #1: It makes fashionable watches readable
The Skagen SKW6106, much like my Orient Three Star, only has minute indices placed at five-minute intervals. Between those indices? Nothing. What this means is that just from looking at the dial, you basically never have absolutely exact to-the-minute time anywhere outside of those five-minute intervals...
...which is not a problem if you state the time inexactly as noted above.
You will notice that several Skagen brand models are similar to the style shown above, and that doesn't make them "bad" watches. It just means you have to know how to read an analog dial.
Reason #2: Exactness is not required
When I think of people that have a real need for exact times from a watch, I think of those who work in medical, scientific or engineering fields of work.
And I suppose you could also argue that runners, gym rats and college students (as in the kind who time exams) require exactness from their timepieces also.
But for everyone else? It's not necessary to have a watch that's absolutely exact. In fact, it's usually true the only thing that really matters is having a clock to check to make sure you're not too late nor too early for something.
This brings me to the third reason...
Reason #3: A less stressful, "most human" way of reading/telling time
The closest you can possibly get to having nearly-perfect timekeeping is with an atomic digital watch such as any Casio "waveceptor" model.
However, when it comes to reading the time, I'm finding analog is better. It's a "lazier," less stressful, more human way of checking the time.
When I first received my Orient Three Star, I saw there were no minor minute indices on the dial and thought, "Uh-oh. Will I be able to tell time on this thing?" Answer: Yes, of course I can, and easily.
True, I had to learn again how to read time, but it wasn't difficult. And now I prefer it.
Digital is cool and all that, but analog time telling is just easier on the soul, if that makes any sense. I'll be keeping my digital timepieces because I still do use them periodically, but for my daily wearer, it's all analog all the way.
Rich's review of The Prisoner
"Who are you?"
"The New Number 2."
"Who is Number 1?"
"You are Number 6."
"I AM NOT A NUMBER! I AM A FREE MAN!"
[insert evil laugh here]
The Prisoner has had, as I've come to find out, great influence on both film and television for its storytelling and style; it also has a good following even though it only ran for 17 episodes from 1967 to early 1968.
I only found out about this show very recently, and am genuinely surprised I didn't learn of it sooner.
Generally speaking, what most fans of this show come to the conclusion of is that the series starts off great, but the ending is just plain awful.
Do I agree with this? Mostly, yes. I'll get more into that in a moment.
While watching episodes of this show, I guarantee you will pick out scenes that you've seen repeated in other shows and movies. You'll see the obvious influence from The Prisoner everywhere from Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery to certain episodes of Star Trek: Voyager to a whole bunch of other shows and movies.
I wish there were more instances of Rovers
Most episodes of The Prisoner take place in a place called The Village, and that place has many security measures in place to make sure nobody escapes. The most interesting piece of security to keep people in check is what's known as a Rover.
A Rover is a thing that looks like a big white balloon, and you don't know whether it's alive or a machine or a strange combination of both. When it appears, a deafening roar is heard, not-so subtly hinting that it is, in fact, alive... but possibly not because it also makes an electronic style noise as well. The sole purpose of a Rover, as far as I know, is to either recapture or kill anyone who tries to escape The Village.
The Rover is also interesting for the fact that if it even suspects someone may try to escape, it will slowly follow just to make sure whomever it's following stays in line.
The powers who run The Village are the ones that deploy a Rover and it would appear all Rovers "live" in the sea (although in the first episode, a Rover manifests itself out of a water fountain). When one is requested, it shoots up from the sea floor to the surface, and then seeks out the target it's assigned to.
My only complaint about the Rovers? I wish the show had used them more.
Is the show any good?
This is where I talk about "good start, awful ending" concerning The Prisoner.
If you decide to watch this show, I obviously can't guarantee you'll feel the same way I do about it, but these are my observations.
At first, I was really emotionally invested in this show. It started off being mysterious and weird and I wanted to know more. I wanted to know what Number 6's real name was, I wanted to know more about The Village, I wanted to know where The Village was, and so on. There was certainly enough there to make me think, "Yeah, this is worth watching to see it through so my questions will answered to satisfy my curiosity."
Episodes 1 through 9 are great. Episodes 10 and 11 are where things started getting shaky. Episode 12... eh, not liking this... and then from 13 until the end, episode 17, is where everything goes down in flames.
I will say this however: At least there is an end. While true not all questions are answered and it's one of the most awful conclusions to a television show you will ever see in your life (I'm not kidding), it's better than no end.
If you're asking yourself, "Is the final episode really that bad?" Yes, it is that bad. I can understand what the show was trying to do, but ultimately it was just a total mess. Even when the final episode originally aired, viewers at the time were rightly ticked off.
Why the sudden sharp turn into the dumper at the end? One of the original co-creators of the show had left due to disagreements. He had written a far better end, but since he left, his story arc wasn't used. The end result is the mess that is the final episode.
Worth watching?
Yes.
Even though the final episode makes me wince, I still enjoyed watching The Prisoner. It's not like anything else I've seen before.
What I liked best was actually the fact I could not predict what was going to happen next; the show does this in a very good way.
With many TV shows, even for brand new ones made today, you'll be able to easily predict what will happen from scene to scene for episodes you've not even seen before. Why? Crappy writing and reused storylines over and over again...
...which does not happen in The Prisoner whatsoever, and that's good.
Sure, the show may be kitschy and campy at times, but what it does do right it does very well.
It is totally worth flipping over a few bucks to watch this.
Guitar of the week #54 - Reverend Sensei
I consider this one of the better offerings from Reverend just because it doesn't look dopey.
And what is a dopey looking Reverend? The Jetstream model. Everything looks good until you get to that headstock on that particular guitar, and it's all downhill from there.
The Sensei model however, looks way better. And it costs less.
Reverend's Sensei RA FM is specifically designed for rock and metal players, although it could suit any music style.
Outfitted for this particular guitar are Railhammer pickups where you have rails under the wound strings and poles under the plain strings. This actually does make sense, because wound strings vibrate "off the pole" more often, and since there are rails for the wound area, you get more sound out of the string. At the same time, the plain/unwound strings keep their poles for the best possible clarity.
Typical to every Reverend (as far as I know) is a bass contour knob. It's a way of adjusting the overall voice of the sound via a passive bass roll-off. This does help out when switching from amp to direct plug-in and back again, as you can adjust the bass "kick" for whatever you're plugging in to.
Other quick specs: 24.75-inch scale (like a Les Paul), 12-inch radius fingerboard (again, like a Les Paul), medium oval neck shape (like a Fender), 22 medium jumbo frets.
Not exactly like a Les Paul, not exactly like a Fender, but borrows from both, while at the same time having electronics goodies that make it truly a Reverend original feel and sound.
Is the Reverend worth its price? That's up to you, but you do get a lot of guitar for the money. Reverend builds guitars right, no question about that.