The one reason why you should buy a Casio A700W
All F91W type watches should be this good.
When you get to know Casio watches, there are a few you become intimately familiar with.
First is the ubiquitous F91W, the most popular watch in the world. After that, the F105W, which is the F91W with a slightly different case shape with the EL (ElectroLuminescent) night light for easy night viewing. After that, the A158, which is the "steel" version of the F91W, and then the A168, the "steel" version of the F105W.
All these watches work exactly the same with just slight variations between them.
Then there's the recently introduced A700W. Acts like an F91W, looks like an A158W, so what's the deal with this model?
Legibility. That is the best reason to get this watch. The second best reason is that it's only 6mm thick. That's not a typo. Ever tried a CA53W calculator watch, which is already ridiculously thin? This is even thinner than that, and it's amazing.
What makes the A700W so legible? Three things. The 6mm thinness, the mineral glass crystal (yes, real glass here and not acrylic,) and the amber night light.
There is basically zero LCD "wash" on the A700W. Lean the watch at any angle and it can still be read without the LCD segments becoming unreadable. The F91W is already amazing at this, and the A700W is even better.
The mineral glass crystal makes the display so clear it almost doesn't even look like it's there. I had no idea a Casio digital display could look this good.
Finally, the amber night light is absolutely perfect. Not too bright, not too dark, looks better than the blue/green EL light on other models, and obviously blows away the cheap green light of the F91W.
Any photo of this watch does it no justice whatsoever. This is something that has to be seen to appreciate fully. You've never seen an F91W type with a mineral glass crystal before, but once you do, this is as good as an F91W type gets.
I call this "F91W type" even though I know it's not the F91W. In fact, it's not even module 593. The module used is 3472, evidenced by the thinness, the night light and the fact the display reads SPL (for "split") instead of LAP when using the chronograph lap feature.
You'll notice the A700W does cost more (and by that I mean about $7 more than a comparable A168.) Worth it? Absolutely. You are paying for a better watch with distinctively better features and not just a variation on a theme.
Good on Casio for doing this. Super thin, super legible, best of the lot, no question about it.
Fretless bass for under $350 USD (way under!)
The rarely seen inexpensive fretless bass. It exists.
Take the Stagg SBF-40, which at the time I write this is not just under $350 but under $300. If you're in the market for a fretless, grab this one now.
What's the big deal with fretless bass?
Fretless electric bass is a weird animal in more ways than one.
First it should be said that if you intend to buy one of these, consider switching to flatwound strings. Not only will it make the fingerboard last longer, but more importantly get "the sound of fretless" by eliminating string drag noise. To my ear, a proper fretless bass sound is one where you hear no drag. This drag I speak of is the sound of your fret hand finger literally dragging on the string as you move it up and down the neck. With flats, there is no drag noise. Also remember that tapewound strings can also get "that sound" too.
Second, fretless bass is a sound that sampling has never been able to recreate accurately. With picked bass, sure, you can emulate that with a synthesizer easily. But fretless? No. You need the real thing. Samplers and synths can't (and will never) be able to recreate the sonic nuances of fretless bass play.
Third - and this is the part I find most interesting - I have no idea why there aren't more cheap fretless basses. One would think all the electric bass manufacturers would be churning out these things since they are cheaper to make due to the fact there are no frets on the neck. There's really no reason why companies that churn out cheap fretted basses by the thousands can't do the same for fretless models. For whatever reason, you just don't see cheap fretless options often. This being true, whenever you see a cheap fretless like the Stagg, you grab it.
The Stagg above is priced exactly as it should be for what it is. Under $300, individual string saddles with a lot of adjustment for easy intonation, easy controls and a design that has no neck dive.
Again, if you want a fretless and want it cheap, get this one. For most bassists or even the hobbyist player that wants to get into fretless for cheap, this is as good as it gets on the low end (ha ha, bad pun yeah I know).
Secret Casio CA-53W calculator watch diagnostic screen, and future watch buys
Nobody has ever shown the CA-53W diagnostic screen until now.
Years ago I actually figured out how to get the CA-53W to display its diagnostic screen, but then forgot how it was done. I wanted to know how to do this, so I searched online and ended up finding just one and only one guy on the internet who knew how to do it...
...sort of. I found this old web page published back in 2012 where the guy was able to get the diag screen to show, took photos to prove it, but then basically said, "Yeah, I don't know how I exactly got the watch to do this. I just kept pressing buttons and somehow made the diag screen show up."
This was not a satisfactory answer for me. I had to figure this out.
I knew that in order to make the screen appear, only the two side buttons are used. After messing around with it for a few minutes, I then got the idea to hold one button and press the other a few times, and ta-da, got it. I then repeated the process to make sure it wasn't just a fluke, got it to work every time, and that's when I grabbed my phone and recorded a video of it.
I'm 100% certain that I'm the first guy to show not only the CA-53W diagnostic screen but more importantly show how to get to it.
Future watch buys
As I'm writing this, I'm wearing a Casio F-91W. Specifically, the F91WM-1B with the gray/monochrome style colorway. It's small, thin, light, digital and without question has the best legibility out of every digital watch I own.
I've said before the F-91W might be the best wristwatch in the world, and my opinion hasn't changed. Whenever I buy other watches, I like them at first, but at some point I will go back to the F-91W or A158 (mine is the gold tone A158WEA).
The only watch I'm considering getting next for now might be the A700W for three reasons. It works just like the F91W, has a better night light and is even thinner at just 6mm. These reasons are enough to go ahead and get one even though it is functionally the same as the F91W.
Aside from that one specific Casio model, I'm not going to buy another watch for a while because what I intend to get next will not be cheap.
What I want to concentrate on next is an analog that's as close to maintenance-free as possible with ultra-legibility so it can be read at any angle. The easiest (and arguably best) way to get that is with a solar powered quartz dive watch. The solar battery will last for a very long time, and the quartz movement will keep time better than any mechanical movement without the need for it to be serviced.
Seiko rules the roost here, no question about it. But to get something proper, a minimum of about $250 needs to be spent. I've never spent that much on a watch in my life, but I know that a solar power Seiko quartz diver is the best of the lot. Built tough, has some of the best lume in the business, obviously has proper water resistance if it says "DIVER'S 200M" on the dial (certification is required to have that printed on there,) keeps great time... that's pretty much as good as it gets.
Is it as maintenance-free as solar digital? No, because you have to adjust the watch once a month so the date is correct, and once every time daylight savings changes - but that's it as it requires no maintenance otherwise. Wear it, beat it up, use the thing.
With that said, the Casio A700W - if I even bother to buy that - will be the last watch I get for a while. Then it's on to getting a Seiko when the time is right. I've owned a Seiko before but never one of their diver models, so that will be a first if I get one at some point.
AeroBand PocketGuitar review
Better than a travel guitar? Yes.
AeroBand reached out to me and asked if I was willing to try the PocketGuitar product out, so they sent me one for free to review. While they didn't pay me anything, you can consider this a sponsored article.
The video above shows me actually using PocketGuitar for the first time. It did work.
I was happy to see that PocketGuitar did work on the first try. The app worked and did not crash. The response of the sweeping motion of the PocketGuitar to simulate guitar strumming did work, and work fairly well.
PocketGuitar could be used for songwriting because it is very easy to switch back and forth between chords, including many that you have never seen before.
This is better than a travel guitar
I've seen travel guitars for sale in guitar stores for years, but I've never seen the appeal of them. However, I can see getting actual good use out of PocketGuitar when traveling.
My practical side tells me PocketGuitar is the better thing to take on a trip. I could use PocketGuitar on a flight or on a bus easily. And I can keep it 100% silent just by using ear buds or headphones.
Another good practical use of PocketGuitar is for learning new chords - although I wish the app actually showed the guitar tabs for each chord presented. Maybe it will in the future. But even without the tabs, the app is an excellent reference to look up chords very quickly and hear what they sound like.
I think the best selling point of PocketGuitar is for travel, simply because it is the absolute smallest way to get guitar-like play that literally fits in the pocket.
I meant it when I said I would prefer to use PocketGuitar over an actual travel guitar. Smaller, easier, and most importantly, it works.
Do I have any complaints?
Yes, but they are very minor.
The instruction manual needs to have QR codes printed or say "Go to www.aeroband.net/pages/app" to make it easier to find the AeroBand app.
The instruction manual should tell you to charge the PocketGuitar first before using it.
The app itself is very easy to figure out, but it could use a basic quick start guide. For example, in FreePlay mode, there could be a question mark icon (the ? symbol) the user could tap to see quick instructions.
Those are my only real complaints about PocketGuitar. Otherwise, it works exactly as it should, and the app was stable and operated normally.
Again, PocketGuitar did work on the first try as you can see in the video.
Would I recommend getting one of these? Yes. Great for travel and great for learning new chords with.
Cheap computer storage options and realistic expectations
Storage is getting cheap, and changes have been made.
Recently I found out that a 512GB flash drive in USB 3.0 stick form is under $70, and the teeny tiny Ultra Fit form factor with the same capacity in USB 3.1 spec is a hair over $75.
Also, as it stands right now in August 2020, 256GB microSD cards can be had for under 30 bucks. The 512GB size for those is right around $80 at cheapest.
I put a 256 in my phone (which is the maximum capacity it will support) and am glad it's in there, particularly for video recordings. Videos by far make for the biggest files on my phone.
Some words of wisdom from a cheap-ass computer user
I compute cheap and have been for years. My main rig right now is a Dell Latitude E6430 laptop (bought as a refurb) with an Intel Core i7 CPU, 8GB RAM and a 500GB Samsung SSD. The laptop is connected to a dock, and I use a full size regular keyboard and mouse along with a full size monitor over HDMI. I literally use my laptop like a PC.
This year I decided to do a few things, and I recommend you do the same.
I stopped using USB 2.0 connected storage
This is literally 1990s technology. It works, but it's so slow compared to USB 3.0/3.1 or a Class 10 memory card.
I made the mistake of getting a 256GB USB stick that was 2.0 spec. Nice to have the space, but when you have to copy more than 5GB of data, that's when the reality of how slow 2.0 speeds really are.
Don't buy USB 2.0 connected storage. Works, but again, real slow.
I'm getting my last volley of 32GB memory cards soon
In the photo at the top of this article you can see I have a few 32GB cards, and I plan on buying a few more. The reason for this is 32GB is the maximum capacity a FAT32 file system will support. I have a few old pieces of tech (some Garmin GPSes and a digital camera) that use this spec, meaning they will not recognize anything over 32.
Something I learned the hard way is that computer memory standards don't stick around forever. I had this happen a while back when I specifically needed a 2GB memory card for an old Garmin StreetPilot i3. That thing uses the FAT16 file system where 2GB is the max it will recognize. I had to buy two cards because the first one didn't work. The second was a used card and that did work. As for finding a 2GB microSD new, those are pretty much all gone now. You can find new-old-stock, but nobody is manufacturing those new anymore and haven't for years.
If you have anything that is FAT32-limited to 32GB, buy a 5-pack of those cards now while they're still being made new, because they may not be available new next year.
I set a new 64GB limit for archive file sizes
I use WinRAR to archive my stuff. It has a feature (7-Zip also does this too) where you can split large archives into individual smaller files, and you can set the split size to whatever you want. I used to use a 4GB split. Now I use 64GB.
Given that my data backups are bigger these days, it made sense just to make the jump straight to 64 from 4. I chose 64 for two reasons. First, the amount of time it takes to transfer that amount of data over USB 3.0 or to a Class 10 memory card is not that much of a bother. If it were USB 2.0, then oh yes, it definitely would be a bother. But not for 3.0. Second, I'm only going to use my 32GB stuff for older tech hardware I have. Everything else starts at 64, so again, it made sense just to go with that.
If you use Windows and know your way around a command prompt or PowerShell, I strongly suggest using robocopy to copy large amounts of files from drive to drive. Robocopy is built-in to Windows and is far more reliable than copy, xcopy or using the GUI.
You're going to make big files from time to time and need to copy them elsewhere for backup. Use robocopy to copy those files. Believe me, it's worth learning how to use it.
It's still a low-res world on the internet
While I bumped up the data sizes for things I store locally, I'm standing pat with data sizes of stuff I post online.
It's still a 2-megapixel/1080p online world. Not much has changed from 2015 to 2020. The tech is certainly cheaper as there are $30 smartphones now that can take 8MP photos, but the absolute maximum resolution you see on social media is about 4MP. Again, maximum. The average you see more often than not is 2MP, be it photo or video.
Maybe someday the online world will have 12MP-or-greater photos and super-high-res videos everywhere, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.