What does a Fender Greasebucket tone circuit actually do?
I received an email asking what this specific circuit does and am answering it with an article on the subject.
The Fender American Special Stratocaster features the Fender Greasebucket tone circuit. This is something Fender introduced back in 2005 and was originally featured in Highway One models along with a few offerings from the custom shop.
A regular tone circuit in a Strat is a 250K potentiometer with .022 orange drop capacitor.
A Greasebucket tone circuit is also a 250K potentiometer with .022 capacitor, but with 4.7K resistor and .1uf capacitor.
With the regular 250K, as the tone is rolled off, there is an increase in bass frequency. And as you roll the tone knob back and forth, a "wow" or "wah" sound is heard.
With the Greasebucket tone circuit, as the tone is rolled off, bass frequency isn't increased. And as you roll the tone knob back and forth, less "wow" or "wah" is heard.
How does Greasebucket benefit the player?
The idea with the Greasebucket tone circuit is keep the bass EQ "flat" so as the tone is rolled off, bass boom isn't added in, thereby making the tone control on the Stratocaster guitar more usable...
...depending on application, which is something a lot of people seem to gloss over.
Typically, where the Greasebucket tone circuit works best is with effects in use such as overdrive, distortion, chorus, delay and so on. If you're the type of player that uses a lot of effects, Greasebucket is your friend. Having a tone circuit that allows you to shape the tone to an almost surgical level is nice to have.
Where Greasebucket does not work well is when going after vintage style Strat tones. An example of this is using the third pickup position (middle pickup) and then rolling the tone down to 5. With regular Strat wiring, more bass frequency will be heard. If that is the kind of Strat sound you're used to, then you will not get along with the Greasebucket circuit because that increased bass will simply not be there.
So in the end, if you're a Stratocaster player that actually uses the tone control and want something more effects-friendly, then yes, Greasebucket works great and that is its best application. But if you never use the tone control and/or prefer a Strat with more traditional wiring, Greasebucket really won't do anything for you.
And yes, there are wiring kits available to mod your own guitar to have the circuit.
Is the neck pickup on a Telecaster worthless?
It's time to talk about the mini single-coil in the Fender Telecaster.
The traditional pickup layout on a Telecaster is an overwound single-coil pickup in the rear and a mini single-coil (often mistakenly identified as a lipstick pickup but it's not) in the front. And more often than not, the rear pickup is trebly and twangy while the front pickup is quieter and has noticeably less treble response compared to the rear.
Whether it's a cheap Squier Affinity Telecaster, a midgrade Fender Standard Telecaster, or the more expensive Fender American Special Telecaster, if the guitar has the the overwound/mini pickup layout, that front mini pickup is usually a bit on the quiet side.
Is this normal? More often than not, yes it is.
If you take a look at replacement front pickups for the Telecaster by Seymour Duncan, you'll notice immediately that nearly all of them are low-output by design with emphasis on the bass frequency. Such examples are the Alnico II Pro Tele and Antiquity Tele.
Seymour Duncan does make a high-output front mini, the appropriately named Hot Tele pickup. And from DiMarzio there is the Twang King DP172...
...but is installing a high-output, high-treble front pickup in a Telecaster a good idea?
I personally wouldn't do it because it ends up being a bit of a clacky mess where tone is concerned.
If I really wanted a high-output front pickup in a Telecaster, I'd go S/H or HH. An example of S/H is Fender Classic Series '72 Telecaster Custom or Squier Vintage Modified Telecaster Custom. An example of HH is Fender Standard Telecaster HH or the Squier Vintage Modified '72 Telecaster Thinline.
Is there an easy and cheap way to get more treble response out of the Telecaster front pickup?
Yes. Use a pick that is thin celluloid, thin nylon or anything that is thin and has some flap to it.
Using a thin pick that flaps will make your strings "ping" more, and yes it really does work to get greater treble response out of the Telecaster front pickup since the guitar already rings and twangs by design.
I would try using a thin pick first before doing anything else. Sometimes a change of pick is all you need to get the sound you want out of your guitar.
So is the front pickup on the Telecaster worthless?
Obviously not...
...but I can understand the argument from those who say the Fender Esquire and Gibson Les Paul Junior, both of which traditionally have just one single-coil rear pickup, is all anyone ever needs out of an electric guitar.
I wouldn't even own a Telecaster if it didn't have a front pickup. While I can see the value of guitar minimalism, I do actually use the front single regularly. Going without it would not make me a happy camper, so I'm glad it's there.
Do I feel the need to have greater output and treble out of the front pickup? No. All I did was adjust a few presets on my RP360, grab a thin pick when I need a little extra treble and that's pretty much it.
I've found that the lower output of the front single is actually better for both chording and soloing. Strings are heard more and pick strike heard less, both of which are very good things.
Take your time with a guitar multi-effects processor
Once you know how to modify settings on one of these things, you can make any guitar sound like any guitar.
There's a video of me playing some dopey metal riffs with my Squier Telecaster. I did it for the reason that a lot of guitarists state that a Telecaster "can't do metal". Yes, it can. All it takes is running the guitar through the correct processing and ta-da, metal sound.
However, this is the exact same guitar I got an amazing surf tone out of.
How did I do it? By sitting down with my DigiTech RP360, spending time with it and going over every single thing it could possibly do.
Multi-effect processors can't be learned in a day
Whether you use the RP360, ZOOM G1Xon, VOX StompLab or whatever you use, there is no multi-effect processor that you can learn lightning fast. It's just not possible. These multi-effect units offer tons of ways to modify guitar tone, and it does take time to learn it all.
Actually, it would be more fair to say you learn some of what a multi-effects processor does, because nobody uses 100% of what it can do. Some sounds will be cool, others will be terrible, and you just pick and choose which you like, save the presets and that's all there is to it.
You probably will only use 3 to 5 presets at most, and they will probably be "scratch made"
The standard advice given with a multi-effects processor when creating your own presets is to "start from zero" or "start blank." You either create a new blank preset, or if the unit doesn't allow that, you modify an existing preset and take every effect out of it so you start from nothing and build from there.
When editing a preset on the RP360, the first and only thing I put there (and only because the RP360 requires at least 1 effect per preset) is the amp-cab simulator to initially shape the tone. Nothing else is present. No EQ, no compressor, no delay, no distortion/overdrive, no reverb, no gate, no modulation, none of that. Everything starts with just the amp-cab modeling to keep it as basic as possible.
Once I've found a good amp-cab combo that I like, then I'll start adding other stuff in.
Is this a time consuming process? Yes, but it's worth it.
I only have about 5 presets that I use regularly even though I have over 10 that I customized myself. Having a lot of presets is cool, but I stick to the ones where I can just plug in my guitar, start playing and not worry about fussing around with effects processor settings.
It really is true you can make any guitar sound like any guitar
Mess around with a multi-effects processor enough and you can get any guitar sound you want because that's what the processor is designed to do.
Buyers of multi-effect processors often say the stock presets are terrible. True? Yes! You're not supposed to simply accept the stock sound the unit gives you. You're to sit down with the unit, learn the thing and custom make your own presets that sound best with your guitar.
This is why I say to take your time with a multi-effects processor. You won't learn it in just one day, you will have to experiment a lot with it, and once you find the sound that works, that's when the magic starts happening.
On a final note, can a multi-effect processor be frustrating to use? Yes, because you have to deal with a bunch of menus among several pages of settings. But in the end, this is normal and part of the learning process. It does get easier the more you use it, so if you get a little frustrated with your effects processor, don't just give up. Sit down and learn the thing, take your time and good tones will eventually happen.
Casio MQ24
Simplistic joy...
...that's what the Casio MQ24 is. Whether it's model 7B or any other number of variants of the same watch (there's something like 10 different designs), it's all good.
The price is usually $9 to $12 for one of these, but I scored one for $7 with shipping included, so yeah I couldn't pass that up.
Size: 35mm with crown.
Tick: Almost silent. You can only hear ticking when holding it almost against the ear.
Legibility: Matte black hands against stark white dial = superior legibility. This thing can be read even in a barely-lit room.
Weight: 19 grams, which is next to nothing.
Small but good
I can get away with wearing this watch because I have a 6.75" wrist. And while true the band could fit up to a 7.5" wrist, bigger-wristed folk would be much better off with the MW240, which is basically the exact same watch as the MQ24 except with a bigger 43mm case.
The only "happy medium" 38mm size watch Casio makes that's cheap and shows all the hour numbers on the dial with no date complication is the V001 model. Nice enough watch, but not as readable as the MQ24. The indices are a proper size but the silver hands are too reflective. If the hands were a dark color, that would increase the readability of the watch by 3x if not more.
For what the MQ24 is, it totally gets the job done. The thing cost me 7 bucks so I really can't complain. It fits my wrist, runs very quietly, keeps accurate time and it's easy to read. Can't really ask any more out of it than that.
Casio W213
This may not the watch for everybody, but it is the right watch for me.
My Casio W213 arrived in the mail and I've been wearing it for a few days. Do I like it? Yes. Will this be my new daily wearer? Also a yes.
Rather than get into the features of the watch and whatnot, instead I'll just concentrate on this stupid little hobby I have of collecting cheap Casio timepieces over the years and why the W213 might be the end of The Search.
Way back in 2011 (6 years ago at the time I write this,) I bought two Casio watches, the F-28W which is no longer made and the W59 which I later returned just because I didn't like it all that much. I bought them for the reason they were retro styled and reminded me of my childhood. I still have that F-28W.
In 2013 I bought an AE1200WHB-1BV. I realized that I actually liked digital watches but needed more functionality, so I sought out that very specific model because I thought it would do everything I wanted. It did. Sort of.
Since that time I've acquired a bunch of cheap Casio watches in the hunt for a digital timepiece that would do everything I wanted. What I came to realize is that I wanted a very specific set of features. I wanted something cheap with time/weekday/month/day on the face, multiple alarms, stopwatch and countdown timer with auto-repeat. Those specific features cover everything I want out of a digital watch.
Three watches fit these requirements. Timex Ironman 30, Casio F201WA, and Casio W213. I went with the Casio W213.
Side note: I did in fact own the F201WA at one point but returned it. The display was great but the case a bit too small, even for me.
It is nice to have one watch that does it all
I used to have to swap watches just to get the things done I wanted to do on any given day. Now I don't have to. The little W213 has all the stuff I've been wanting in a single watch.
The watch measures 45.5mm long by 40mm wide by 11.7mm thick. On my 6.75" wrist it looks fine, but for larger-wristed folk the Ironman would be the better option, especially considering Timex offers an oversize version.
Why is the W213 not for everybody?
Certain Casio watch models are just "kinda there," and the W213 is one of those kind. It's a model originally released in 2009, so it's not old enough to be retro or classic, and it's not the most stylish thing in the world.
Most people would go for the Ironman over the W213, and that's fine. For me, the Casio is the better choice.