Going low-tech with synth (Casio SA-46)

I bought little cheap keyboard I bought that will arrive in about a week, the Casio SA-46. And if you're thinking of buying one after reading what I write about it here, it's absolutely required you also buy the proper AC adapter for it as it does not come with one (but it can run off batteries).

Why this particular little synth?

It's one of the very few priced well south of $100 that actually sounds good, is built right and is polyphonic (multiple notes can be played at the same time) instead of monophonic (only one note at a time).

Polyphony is only 8-note, and that's good enough for something this size.

The other thing that makes the SA-46 great is something that's very easy to miss. At top right you'll see it says "68-80 SYNTH SQUARE LEAD". What this means is that the SA-46 does in fact have old-style synth sounds in it, which most would characterize as "8-bit sound". It's not 8-bit (probably 16-bit or maybe even 32), but that's what people would describe it as because it's just a set of plain, honest-to-goodness square wave sounds.

In other words, the SA-46 has 12 old-style synth lead sounds. Really basic, no question, but that is exactly what a lot of synth players look for, myself included. These lead sounds can be made to sound huge very easily just by adding in an external reverb effect and maybe chorus to fatten it up slightly. No circuit bending required for this one because it is good enough out-of-the-box.

The other sound I bought it for is the strings, which again has that old-school flavor to it. I mean, what can I say, the SA-46 really has it where it counts and is truly a gem as far as a cheap synth goes.

Small is good

The SA-46 obviously does not have full-size keys, but rather little miniature keys made for kid-sized hands, as the unit is made for young players.

There is a bigger version of the SA-46, the SA-76 (easily spotted by the fact the bottom is orange instead of green); it's a larger synth that has what appear to be slightly larger keys, and a few more features. It's also the same price as the SA-46...

...and that's the part you may be confused by. Why would I purposely buy a synth with less keys and less features when I could get something bigger with more features in it for the same price?

Answer: Small form factor. I seriously like the SA-46's smaller size. In fact, you could call its size "just right" because while small, it's not too small. It's a piece of hardware that can easily be picked up with one hand (and even has a grip indentation in the back), yet still played easily when set down, and can be put away easily as well. Very convenient.

It is a "real synth", even if a very basic one

While true there's no MIDI and only a single headphone output jack, the SA-46 is perfect for home studio use because it's got those old-style synth sounds in it. And heck, you could even use it for bass parts too.

I listed to a few sound samples online of the SA-46 and yep, I was sold. Great little synth for backing tracks with proper old-style square waves and strings.

And like I said above, to find anything with an under-$100 price tag in a small form factor that's done right is difficult - except for the SA-46 which totally nails it.

If you're thinking, "Oh, come on... Yamaha must make something small that's comparable." Nope. There are no cheap new Yamaha keyboards that are small at the moment. The cheapest Yamaha synth right now is the YPT series, and the starting physical size is 61 full-size keys and no smaller.

I do wish Yamaha would start making small inexpensive synths again, because they really did make some great stuff back in the day. Alas, they do not.

Tough to find?

You can find the SA-76 easily in stores, but surprisingly you will not find the SA-46 anywhere as it seems to be an online-only thing.

I'll be happy to get mine, because I haven't touched the keys in a while and I've been really wanting to add some synth into some new stuff I'm writing.

1984 - the 1953 television version!

I had thought that I had seen every single screen adaptation of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. I was wrong. There was one more. It happens to be the first screen adaptation, and the oldest all the way back from 1953 (yes, that makes it 60 years old at the time I write this). And, wouldn't you know it, it's an American version that originally aired on CBS as part of what was called the Westinghouse Studio One series, available as the Studio One Anthology (which started off as radio-only and then was brought to television later).

Okay... so there are four screen versions of this story. The 1953 CBS version which is the one I'm going to talk about, the 1956 BBC television version on YouTube, the 1956 film version, and the made-in-1984 film.

Of the four, the BBC version is the most true to the book, which I have read. And in '56 when it originally aired, there were more than a few viewers at the time who called the program "perverse". If you consider what the standard of entertainment was in the mid-1950s (which was generally very cheery), and how dark and dystopic Nineteen Eighty-Four is, well, you can understand how that would ruffle the feathers of a few people.

But anyway, the '53 CBS version is without a doubt the absolute weirdest screen adaptation of the story I've seen.

First of all, it was written as a play. So if you can imagine what Nineteen Eighty-Four would be like if it were performed on stage live, that is exactly what the '53 version is, artsy-farsty version of Big Brother and all. I'll talk about that more in a moment.

Second, some of the same people who did the CBS program went on later to do the 1956 film. You can basically consider the '53 version a prototype of the later film because of that. And yeah, that does mean the storyline is perverted into a love story between Winston and Julia instead how it's supposed to be told (it's supposed to be the journey of Winston's enlightenment and his defeat).

Third, it is really short. About 50 minutes. This is probably because it was meant to fit into a one-hour television time slot, per 1950's television broadcast standards.

If you watched this without knowing the story first, you would have no clue what's going on. None at all. It just moves way too fast. Huge chunks of the story are left out, and like in the '56 film, the '53 version renames certain characters. For example, Goldstein is renamed to Cassandra. Yes, really.

Big Brother himself is this artsy-fartsy oil-painted like... thing. When you see it you're going to say, "What the frig is that?" Absolutely no resemblance to the way he's described in the book whatsoever. Not even a little.

Telescreens are simply shown as large panes with the best you could do in '53 for what could be considered a special effect. Just some washy-like screening and lighting of some kind.

I'd have to say the best part of the show is Cassandra during the Two Minutes Hate, because what he said was actually written very well.

Most of what he said:

Today you are at war with Eurasia. Tomorrow, perhaps with Eastasia; it doesn't matter. The primary game of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. For if leisure and security and enjoyed by all alike, great masses of human beings who normally are stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves! And once they have done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority have no function, and they would sweep it away.

That's just as true as it was said in '53 as it is today, if not more so; it is the highlight of the program just because of the good writing, and it's very true to the book.

The rest of the program however is just so unbelievably rushed. That combined with actors many times almost literally shouting as if they were performing a play for an audience just gets annoying.

I suppose I shouldn't knock the program too much because it was the first screen adaptation, and Nineteen Eighty-Four is a really tough story to tell visually.

Why did I watch it? Just to "complete the set", so to speak. I had seen the other three and thought that's all there were. So when I discovered this one, of course I had to watch it.

Ordinarily I do not like television from the 1950s, but with 1984 I make an exception because it's just interesting seeing different attempts at telling the same story because each has its own take on it.

Even though the story in the '53 version is told totally wrong in so many ways, I give it a thumbs-up anyway just because it's so weird and unique.

Obsolete guitar gear: Alesis Quadraverb GT

The Alesis Quadraverb GT effects processor is something I owned myself for a long time. I bought it new originally in the mid-1990s (1994 if I remember correctly) and the price tag was $500 for it. At the time, this was one of the best guitar effects units you could buy. It was also priced right because its nearest competition was the Rocktron Chameleon, which cost more than the Quadraverb GT did.

The main difference between the Quadraverb and the Quadraverb GT is that the GT model had basic amp modeling and distortion/overdrive effects whereas the non-GT version did not. In other words, the GT was the "guitar player's version" of the Quad.

The 1990s for the most part was an "anti-pedal" time for guitar players where everyone wanted all their effects in a rack unit with preset switching ability on the floor via a MIDI controller such as the ART X-15. While pedals were still available and always were, guitar stores had mountains of rack unit stuff available for everything you could possibly think of.

The Quad GT does reverb, delay, phaser and flanger very well. It has a crisp, clean sound to it and its digital processing, while primitive today, still holds up quite nicely. The only time the Quad "sounds old" is if you use really washy reverb. But other than that, the GT could still be used in stage or studio to this day.

Where the GT fails is with its overdrive and distortion as it is awful. All you hear is digital nastiness from that - even with cabinet simulation enabled.

The best way to use the GT as far as guitar is concerned is to not use the distortion or overdrive at all. The cabinet simulation is okay, but for dist/od effect you should use a distortion pedal for that directly in the signal. And what I mean by that is guitar to dist pedal to GT and not use the effects loop.

As far as hardware problems go with the GT, there are a few.

The 1/4-inch jacks on the back have plastic nuts holding them in, and they sometimes work their way loose; this inevitably leads to the jacks breaking their connections on the inside where the signal will cut right out. Using plastic instead of steel nuts was a poor decision by Alesis just to cut cost. If you are a GT owner, the first thing you should do is junk those plastic nuts, replace with steel, and use a socket wrench to get a good, snug connection.

The power button has a nasty habit of losing its connection as well after being used for years.

A very common problem is that the backlight on the LCD screen stops working completely, where you have to shine a flashlight on the display just to read it afterward. It's still functional, but with the backlight not working, the unit gets very annoying to use very quickly. Thankfully, replacement screens are available and easy to install.

The GT does not age well as far as its internal electronics are concerned. Being some units are now close to 20 years old, restoration may be needed.

The power supply for the Quad GT is exactly the same as the Alesis DataDisk. It's a 4-pin proprietary (yuck) adapter, and it is absolutely required that if you buy one you must get the AC adapter with it, because there is no universal adapter available that will power the unit.

Worth owning?

No, unless you want that 1990s "warp" style reverb, and that takes a bit of explanation.

Certain digital reverbs made by Alesis when modulated a certain way have a sound that can only be described as "warped". The Quad GT can do this, as can the Midiverb and Midiverb II. However, those units are only sought out mainly by synth guys and not guitar guys.

Anything BOSS makes for multi-effects (yes, anything) will sound much, MUCH better than the old Quadraverb.

Gear update for October 2013

Some fairly major changes have happened recently concerning the gear I own now.

2003 Schecter C-1 Classic: Gone.

Yep, sold. Been wanting to do this for years and finally got around to it. I didn't make much, but that's okay. The new owner is very happy with it.

2012 Fender Modern Player Stratocaster HSS: Gone.

This one was traded out. I just never took a liking to this guitar no matter how much I wanted to like it.

Small side note: While the Modern Player Strat HSS gets a "it's okay" review by most people, those who buy the Modern Player Telecaster Plus have nothing but wonderful things to say about it. For whatever reason, Fender is doing Telecasters a lot better than Stratocasters these days. I don't know why exactly, but the Teles always get the more favorable reviews over the Strats.

Officially, I now own 6 guitars, 4 of which are in good working order. The ones that work are my '89 Squier II, 2010 Bullet Strat, 2005 Yamaha RBX170 bass and 2012 Epi Les Paul. The ones that don't work are the '93 Fender USA Standard Stratocaster (the truss rod is busted in the neck), and the Squier Bullet HH which is in pieces that I'm parting out and selling on eBay.

Concerning the '93 USA Strat, eventually I will get a replacement USA neck for it. I just don't feel like spending the $400 to get one (especially since I really don't need it right now). Yeah, I could put a Mexican neck on it and save money that way, but it's a USA guitar, so I'd prefer to have a USA neck on it.

In other words, the '93 USA Strat is the "I'll get to it when I get to it" guitar. :) In addition to the new neck, a new pickup and control set would be going in as well. Around $500 or $600 worth of stuff all together. I'll get to it eventually.

Soon-to-be-gone: DigiTech GSP 1101, Tascam DP-008, BOSS DR-3 and Behringer Xenyx mixer

I bought something recently that for me replaces all of those things, a ZOOM R8.

Had I known what the R8 was capable of beforehand, I never would have bought the Tascam or the DR-3.

I will have a full review on the R8 soon, but what I can say about it now is that when you use one of those, you literally need nothing else. It has a full effects unit in it with amp modeling, distortion, overdrive, flanger, phaser, delay, wah, reverb, booster, noise reduction filter and more. It has its own drum machine in it. It has a looper. It has 6-band EQ. It is a sampler. There's a lot more to it, but WOW is this thing full of features.

The R8 is the first multi-track I've ever used where you can literally plug in a guitar dry and the unit has enough in it to make any guitar or bass sound great. And with XLR inputs, using a microphone is easy too.

I only have three complaints about the R8. It feels cheap and plasticy, the pad buttons feel weird and it is one of those "submenu hell" type of units (meaning it has a bit of learning curve). But other than that, the R8 does everything right. It is the ultimate sleeper when it comes to home recording.

I'll put it another way. Imagine for a moment if there was one unit you could use where it simply did everything where you need no effect external effect pedals, no mixer, had its own drum machine and all you had to do was plug in a guitar dry and start recording. That's the R8.

Oh, and bonus: No power supply needed. It's powered 100% by USB, which means a cable to the laptop or PC is all that's needed to power it up.

The R8 is not marketed as a multi-track recorder but rather more of an interface. Believe me, it is WAY more than an interface and can do the job on its own in fine style.

More to come on the R8 soon. Possibly with video.

How to sell a guitar on eBay

There has never been a guitar I've parted with where I regretted selling or trading in for something else. I've owned some fairly ritzy axes in the past, both electric and acoustic (one of them was an upper-end Ovation Balladeer with a stereo output). Once I decide it's time to get rid of a guitar, I get rid of it and don't look back.

Lots of guys buy guitars but never sell them. Or if they do sell, it's rare when it happens.

The reason some guys hang on to guitars is because of what's involved with selling one on eBay.

Important note: What I'm going to tell you below is absolutely not the cheapest way to sell a guitar. Not by a long shot. But it is the easiest.

What most people deal with when selling a guitar on eBay, and how to work with it

Once you know all the costs involved with selling a guitar on eBay, you'll feel more comfortable selling that way if that's what you want to do.

Typical scenario:

1. You have a guitar you want to sell, and the guitar is in pretty good shape. Not perfect, but still good.
2. You have absolutely no idea how to ship the guitar properly, nor do you have any packing materials to ship with.
3. You have absolutely no idea how much you're going to lose in fees and shipping.

Here's how it works.

Step 1. Use a gig bag instead of a guitar case no matter what the guitar is

(Tip: If you want extra padding, get the bag for acoustic guitars even if shipping an electric.)

A guitar shipped in a guitar case vs. in a gig bag is the difference between a 18-to-20 pound shipment and a 9-to-12 pound shipment. Use the gig bag to ship with.

If you're thinking, "That's insane!" No, it isn't. All that matters is the bag so the guitar doesn't get scratched up; UPS takes care of the rest. Keep reading.

Step 2. Understand eBay and PayPal fees

A 10% fee will be taken by eBay, and another 3% fee will be taken by PayPal.

Step 3. Understand how to list on eBay

Always post the listing with free shipping, and adjust your price to accommodate for shipping costs and 13% eBay/PayPal fees. Ship free and adjust price. Why? Because it will make the guitar sell faster.

Step 4. Understand how much it costs to ship from a UPS Store

A guitar in a case will run you somewhere between $100 to $150 to ship. Yes, it will cost that much. A guitar shipped in a gig bag will be around $75 to $90. Obviously, this varies dependent on how far it has to ship.

You use UPS Store for three reasons. First, they take care of the packing and boxing and you don't have to pack a thing. Second, they take care of the forms for you. Third, they have full tracking from start to finish.

What you're paying for with UPS Store is convenience. Worth it? If you don't feel like packing a guitar yourself (which is a royal pain to do) and don't feel like dealing with forms, yes it is.

Step 5. Understand how to ship

You always ship a guitar with signature-required-on-delivery and full shipping insurance whether the buyer asks for it or not.

If you don't ship with signature-required and insurance, there are some buyers out there who will try to say "I never received it" and try to get a free guitar out of you. You avoid this by shipping it with signature-required and insurance. If the buyer tries any funny stuff, send him straight to UPS and tell him package was shipped fully insured, and if he did not receive it to contact UPS and file a claim.

Believe me, you do not want to take the risk of not using a signature or insurance when shipping guitars, because it can cost you dearly.

Step 6. Do not sell internationally

Stay within your country borders because otherwise your shipping costs will jump up to an insane level.

Without fail, you will always get a guy who will write you a question on your eBay listing and ask if you ship to his country. Ignore it, because he's trying to get you to change the listing in the hopes you will not adjust your price for international shipping and may even try to get a free guitar out of you as described above. Don't fall for this. Stay within your borders so you can keep your price the way you set it originally.

An example of how much you will lose with all fees taken out

We'll use the example that you sold a guitar for $500 within the US, and the guitar will be shipped 1,000 miles to its destination by UPS Store.

13% of $500 is $65. You end up keeping $435 before shipping.

Assume $100 for shipping with packing by the UPS Store, signature and full insurance. Now you're left with $335.

On a $500 sale, you keep $335, which is close to 33% taken out from what you made.

Yes, that is significant. But at least you now have a very good idea of how much it would be.

Yes, there are many other ways to sell cheaper

The method I listed above is probably one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive) way to sell a guitar on eBay.

But like I said, it is the easiest because there is nothing to pack.

This is the process to ship after your guitar is sold:

1. Get the buyer's shipping address; you obviously need that.
2. Drive to your local UPS Store with the guitar in a gig bag.
3. Ask UPS (yes, you must do this) to ship the guitar with signature-required-on-delivery and shipping insurance for the amount you sold the guitar for.
4. Pay the shipping fee.
5. Get a receipt with the tracking number.
6. Go home, update the sold listing with said tracking number.
7. Send a message to the buyer that the guitar has been shipped UPS Ground with signature required on delivery and full shipping insurance.

That's it.

Again, there are many ways to do this cheaper, but none easier. You pack nothing, you don't have to fuss around with any stickers or labels, you need no packing materials since UPS Store takes care of it all, and so on. Expensive? Yes. But very easy.