Using really light electric guitar strings
Going light? Going ultra light? There are some things you need to know.
It usually comes as a surprise to most people when they find out I use 8-38 guitar strings. Or to be technically accurate about it, a set that is usually the specific sizes from thinnest to thickest of .008 .011 .014 .022w .030 .038 (the w in .022w means "wound").
Do I a have a brand preference? Yes and no.
Yes, in that when possible, I will buy GHS GBUL (Guitar Boomers Ultra Light).
No, because since 8-38 is not as common as other sizes, I have the three alternates of Ernie Ball Extra Slinky 2225, Ernie Ball Extra Slinky 2255 (this is a "pure nickel" variant), and D'Addario XL EXL130. Whatever I get literally depends on which is cheaper at the time of purchase.
Set size weirdness
Ernie ball uses a 4 string size in an 8-38 set of .022w, but D'Addario uses .021w as does the Fender 250XS set. I've no idea if this makes any real difference or not due to the fact it's a wound string. On a thin plain string, sure, you feel that. But on wound, not-so much, if at all.
The DR Strings LLT-8 set throws a curve ball by messing with the 3 string size. Instead of 8-11-14-22-30-38 like most other sets, theirs is 8-11-16-24-30-38.
I'm telling you this just so you know there really isn't an absolute standard when it comes to 8-38 set sizes. You will find slight variations from string maker to string maker.
Why I switched to 8-38
While there were several reasons I switched over to 8-38, the main reasons were that I started chording a lot more, started playing surf and country music, and turned the overdrive/distortion way, way down.
For a very long time I used nothing but 9-42 and "light top, heavy bottom" 9-46 sets. But I found that with the styles of music I favor playing now, lighter strings are just better.
What I prefer is action as low and light as I can get it so I can glide across the fretboard effortlessly. This allows me to play for longer periods of time and moreover enjoy the guitar more, so I'm all for it.
Do ultra light strings work on any electric guitar?
Yes, but whether they work for you or not depends on your hands.
If you typically have a tight grip with your fret hand (if you do, you would know it), fretted notes using 8-38 may go out-of-tune slightly.
If you use a strong pick strike with your picking hand, the same out-of-tune issue happens, especially if you favor "power chords" (5th chords).
In other words, 8-38 is not for the heavy-handed player. Even if you switch to a more flexible pick, that really doesn't help much if the fret hand grips hard and/or the picking hand strikes hard.
On the assumption you play with a lighter touch or could learn to, the only thing to know is that you will have to set up your guitar again should you switch to 8-38.
If for example you switch from 10-46 to 8-38, everything has to be readjusted. Neck relief, string saddle height, pickup height, the works.
This may sound like a big project, but it really isn't. You just have to expect it because the woods of your guitar will act differently with 8-38 compared to 10-46.
Have your guitar tools ready if you want to make the jump to 8-38.
Battle of the cheap Squiers: Bullet Stratocaster HT vs. Affinity Telecaster
These guitars are both cheap, but are 50 dollars apart. One is under $200 and the other over. Is one better than the other?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
I'm writing this after having played a Squier Affinity Telecaster and Squier Bullet Stratocaster HT (which by the way has a Shell Pink HSS version available). The HT means "hardtail", which means the strings are top-loaded. No vibrato system, which Fender calls tremolo, meaning no vibrato arm, which everybody calls a whammy bar.
I have owned Bullet Strats and an Affinity Telecaster before. The only thing that's really changed is that the Bullet Stratocaster series is now slightly better with the tuners being changed to screw-down with the securing nut on top. They used to use tuners that were mostly plastic and secured to the headstock with a ferrule. I believe the tuners are all metal now on the Bullet Strat, at least for the HT model.
As for the Affinity Telecaster, there has barely been anything that has changed about it for 10 years or possibly longer - with the exception of two things. New models with serials starting with CS (as opposed to CY) rear-load strings, and the neck pickup finally gets pickguard mounted adjustment screws (as opposed to having to take off the guard to adjust the neck pickup height).
Now as far as which is the better guitar...
...the Affinity Telecaster absolutely obliterates the Bullet Stratocaster in every way. I'm not kidding. Night and day difference. It is absolutely worth spending the extra 50 bucks to get the Affinity Tele over the Bullet Strat.
Does this mean if you want a better Strat, get the Affinity Stratocaster? No. Everybody, including me, hates the headstock logo treatment on the Affinity Strat. It just looks plain goofy, always has, and still does. The Bullet Strat, while inferior, genuinely looks like a better Strat.
However, to get up to par with the Affinity Telecaster in Stratocaster form, you have to bump all the way up to a Classic Vibe Stratocaster just to get it. And that's almost double the price of the Affinity Telecaster.
In sub-$250 Squier territory, Affinity Telecaster is far and away the one to get. Whether it's the outgoing CY serial or the newer CS serial, either is the best thing going for a Squier under $250 at the moment.
Squier Paranormal Offset Telecaster - is it worth it?
400 bucks isn't exactly cheap for one of these.
I recently went to Guitar Center to try out two guitars, the latest Squier Affinity Telecaster and Squier Bullet Stratocaster HT (I'll write more about that later). While there, I spotted not one but two Squier Paranormal Offset Telecaster models. One in Natural and the other in Surf Green.
If you're on the fence whether to get this guitar or not, here are my impressions of it.
This guitar uses the Jazzmaster body shape, so of course it's ridiculously comfortable to play seated or standing.
The neck felt a bit on the thin side but was also comfortable. It's your standard thin C shape, and if you've played a Classic Vibe Telecaster, then you pretty much already know what this neck feels like. The neck finish is high gloss.
Action on the knobs was good but the pickup selector felt somewhat stiff. This is probably something that could be easily cured with a quick spray of DeoxIT D5.
The tone of the guitar sounded like typical Telecaster, which was expected.
I liked the tuners because they are the slotted vintage style, and the round tuner buttons definitely go along well with the guitar since there are curves everywhere.
What I didn't like...
...can be boiled down to just two things.
First, I just can't get used to seeing a Telecaster headstock shape on a Jazzmaster body. I understand the design decision here since the model of the guitar is literally a Telecaster, but this would have looked so much better with a Jazzmaster headstock.
Second, I wasn't feeling the magic with this one, and I know exactly why. There really wasn't any tonal difference between this and a regular Squier Telecaster. To my ear, the guitar felt like it needed something a little extra and it just wasn't there.
But is it worth it?
This is going to sound weird after what I just said, but yes, it is worth buying one.
While I wasn't feeling the sound and didn't like the headstock shape on this particular body design, the fact of the matter is that this guitar is different in a positive way.
Also, the Jazzmaster shape is the ultimate as far as a sit-down guitar is concerned, since the original Fender Jazzmaster was designed to be played seated first.
Ultimately, if you want something Tele that's different and plays easier sitting down, then you want one of these.
On a final note, I can see this model having actual collector value at some point. This is going to be one of those guitars where a bunch of guitar players will say "I should have bought one of these when I saw it" five years from now. It's probably true this guitar won't have crazy-good collector value, but still, I'm fairly certain it will appreciate in just a few years. It's not like this model will be coming back after its run is completed.
Why are so many watches so hard to read?
Even if you have perfect 20/20 vision, this is a problem.
I own what is arguably the most popular wristwatch in the world, the Casio F-91W. I've been wearing this along with my A158 a lot lately.
I wear this watch often because it is, without question, the most legible digital watch. I've owned many digital watches, and the F-91W is always the most readable. Why? Three reasons. Uncluttered display, excellent contrast, and readable at almost any angle.
Casio G-SHOCK digitals all have what I call LCD wash. Tilt the watch back just a little and all you see is a bunch of 8's on the display. And even for non-G models, LCD wash happens routinely.
On the analog watch side of things, the three that are most legible are Timex Easy Reader, any model by Mondaine and the Casio MW240.
Uncluttered display and great contrast are the reasons you can read these so well. White dial with solid black hands, or black dial with solid white hands. No shiny crap at all anywhere on the dial.
Field and dive watches aren't the answer
You would think that all field watches would have the highest level of readability. They don't. The majority of what you see is dials with unnecessary clutter on them.
Dive watches are supposed to be absolute best for readability, but they also fall short. Most of them have unnecessary shiny crap on the dial, a cluttered display, and a crystal that has no anti-reflective coating at all. Ever wear one while driving during the day? Not a good idea. Reflections happen that hit you right in the face. And then when you go to read the time, more often than not the crystal will smack a reflection right in your face again.
Simple, uncluttered and not shiny is the answer
There are only two things that reflect on the Casio F-91W at a very minimal level. The buttons and the crystal. That's it.
On the Casio MW240, it's the same situation. Only the crystal and crown reflect, again at a very minimal level.
Contrast on both is as good as it gets for maximum legibility. Dial design on both is also simple and efficient.
A few models that mostly hit the mark for great legibility
When I say "mostly", I mean that there is still something about the watch that sometimes has annoying reflections, but at least it has superior legibility.
Casio MDV106 - Analog diver that has a super-clean dial. This is, as far as I can tell, the most clutter-free dial you can get on a watch like this.
Citizen BI1045-13E - Analog diver that is also super-clean and amazingly even more legible than the Casio I just mentioned - if you don't mind hands of differing colors.
Timex Modern Easy Reader - This is the newer version. Only get the dark dial version of this because the light dial is awful.
Bulova Gemini 63B173 - This is a Swiss automatic with a clean dial and excellent contrast - a rare thing these days. Black hands and black indices on silver dial. Sounds like it wouldn't work but it totally does. The hands cut through pretty much any glare the crystal would give off. Very nice looker.
Xaviere XV-550 is the semi-hollow Les Paul you want
By default, the Xaviere XV-550 is what guitarists go for when they want a semi-hollow body Les Paul style guitar.
Before getting into this guitar, let's talk about Gibson and Epiphone for a moment.
In the Gibson camp, do they make a semi-hollow body guitar in a Les Paul shape? Sort of. They have two in a double cut flavor, the ES-339 and ES-339 Figured.
In the Epiphone camp, they also have an ES-339.
Another option in the current Epiphone lineup that is a single cut (meaning more like the Les Paul shape guitarists are familiar with) is the Wildkat.
Yet another option is the Epiphone Uptown Kat ES.
But then there is the Xaviere XV-550.
I said at top that the XV-550 is by default the semi-hollow Les Paul shape guitar guitarists go for. The reason I say that is because when you want a Les Paul style single cut shape with a bridge + stop tailpiece and full-size humbuckers with many color options to choose from, the XV-550 is it.
How many color options? Thirteen. Xaviere even offers a couple of maple fingerboard options should you want that.
Is the XV-550 a "true" semi-hollow?
Yes and no. This gets interesting.
From the product page:
The Xaviere XV-550 is a unique blend of solid body and hollowbody. A solid mahogany body is routed to create a hollow interior. No wood is removed beneath the bridge and tailpiece for maximum sustain and resistance to feedback. A SOLID 3/4" maple cap, elegantly carved and bound in cream binding sporting a highly figured Quilt maple top.
If you want to get super nitpicky about it, this is technically not a true semi-hollow. More like a hybrid semi-hollow...
...but you still get that Les Paul style guitar with the Les Paul style bridge and tailpiece and the Les Paul style pickups. That is what matters here.
It does have a 24.75" scale length. It does have a 12" fingerboard radius. The body is mahogany. The fingerboard is rosewood unless you choose a maple fretboard option.
Most importantly: It does weigh under 8 pounds on average (arguably the best selling point of a semi-hollow for many.)
How much?
Under $300.
Yes, really.
"It doesn't look enough like a Gibson"
Well, that's how the guitar is able to legally sold. You can't have the moon and stars for under 300 bucks.
For the price, you get the semi-hollow Les Paul that neither Gibson nor Epiphone even make. And by that I mean they don't make a semi-hollow Les Paul that has all the stuff Les Paul players want. Xaviere, however, does.
Again, this is why I say that the XV-550 is by default the go-to guitar for Les Paul players that want a semi-hollow single cut version. It's your best low-price option, and not a bad one at that.