Heavy guitars are terrible
I'm not talking about tone, I'm talking about weight.
Take the Schecter C-1 FR-S. This is a fine guitar...
...but the damned thing weighs over 8 pounds from what I could find out about the instrument. And this is why I would never buy it.
For what it's built for, the C-1 FR-S probably plays and sounds amazing. But I could never be comfortable playing one standing or seated. It's just not happening.
Anyone who says weight = better tone is an idiot
There are some guitarists - mostly Les Paul Players - who say that it is the weight of the guitar which brings the sinfully sweet "sustain for days" notes.
No. Wrong. It doesn't. Not back in the day, not now, not ever.
I use Les Paul guitar fans as the people who use the weight argument the most because it is they by default who own the heaviest guitars. While certainly true that not all Les Pauls are heavy, the poor souls that buy the Traditional model have to deal with a guitar that typically weighs over 9.5 pounds. And the Standard? The 2019 model is "only" about 8 to 8.5lbs.
All I have to say to the Les Paul guys is this: Go play an ES-335. It's typically under 8 pounds. You will love it. Noodle a little bit on one of those and you will never use that stupid heavy-guitar argument ever again. If you're willing to pay over 3 grand for a Les Paul, then you're willing to pay over 3 grand for an ES-335.
Like carpal tunnel? Use thick strings
It's usually also true that those who "prefer" heavy guitars "prefer" thick strings too. That's a one-way ticket to hand damage. As in permanent hand damage. As in damage that the body cannot heal. Ever.
Fender sends most of their electric guitars from the factory with a .009 to .042 string set installed. Gibson sends their electric guitars with .010 to .046 sets. There's a reason for that. It's because those set sizes are appropriate.
The only time I can see heavier strings being appropriate on electrics is in two situations. Either for someone that plays tuned down to D standard or lower, or someone that plays jazz. And the jazz player isn't playing a Strat or a Les Paul, mind you. He's playing a semi-hollow or hollow body, which the Strat and Les Paul aren't.
If it's heavy, it goes back
There have been more than a few times when I've gone to the guitar store, see a guitar I like on the wall, pick it up and then immediately put it right back because it was too heavy. I can tell almost instantly if a guitar is too heavy just from picking it up by its neck before even sitting down with it.
If the guitar fails the weight test, one word enters my mind: NOPE.
On a final note, one of the heaviest electric guitars I've ever picked up is one that will probably surprise you. It was a Squier Classic Vibe '50s Telecaster. As I've come to know, that guitar is typically 9 pounds, which for a Telecaster is nuts. Most Teles are usually a little over 7.5lbs, and that includes both Fender and Squier. But for whatever reason, the pine body used on the CV '50s is Les Paul "boat anchor" heavy. Whatever pine is being used for that specific guitar is some seriously dense stuff. Good guitar? Yes, great guitar, in fact. But it's a boat anchor. If you happen to own one that's not 9 pounds, you're one of the lucky ones that didn't get a back-breaker guitar.
The least expensive workstation synthesizer with pattern sequencer
I now have a pattern sequencer. One I can work with, that is.
New in the barn is a used Casio CTK-7200. It does have a pattern sequencer, and at the time I write this I am learning how to use it. It's very cool that this synth has a pattern sequencer, a song sequencer and an arpeggiator. And it also has a full sound set that includes both modern, classic and vintage sounds.
Learning The Casio Way
No two synth brands do things the same way. There's "The Roland Way", "The Korg Way", "The Yamaha Way", and so on.
For me, I'm learning "The Casio Way".
Getting to know a pattern sequencer doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. There are always tons of menus to go through, tons of things to experiment with, and many hours spent flipping through the manual just to figure out what does what.
Is it worth spending the time to do this? Yes. Once I learn how the Casio does things, backing track and song creation goes forward quickly after that.
Is the Casio CTK-7200 or WK-7600 the cheapest way to get a "true" workstation synth?
To be best of my knowledge it is.
In my research, I found Casio was the only one that offers a true workstation synth with full-size set of keys, full sound set, arpeggiator, pattern sequencer and song sequencer for under $500 at the time I write this. And being I bought mine used, I got it for cheap. And by cheap I mean under $300. That's pretty much as good as it gets.
To put this in perspective, after this specific Casio the price jumps up big time. Arguably, the next step up is the Korg KROSS. After that, you're into big money with the Roland FA-06 and Yamaha MOXF8, which by the way are considered "midgrade". Top end models will cost you over 5 grand. When you see the prices of those workstations, the Casio CTK-7200 and WK-7600 are absolute bargains in comparison.
I mention the WK-7600 because it's functionally identical to the CTK-7200. The difference is that the 7600 has 76 keys and the 7200 has 61 keys.
Oh, and one last thing. The CTK-7200 and WK-7600 do not require a computer whatsoever to use any of its features. Everything can be used standalone, and that is what I wanted. I don't even need to plug in speakers since it already has them. There is no danger of anything becoming suddenly incompatible from software revisions, and that is something I very much appreciate.
Watch perfection for skinny wrists, Casio AQ230
It's hip to be square.
This is not my first time owning a small watch, but is the first time owning one I truly like, the Casio AQ230.
Let's get a few measurements out of the way first.
My wrist at the thickest point is measures about 6.75" around. However, my preference is to wear a watch at my wrist's thinnest point, which measures about 6.5", or 165mm.
The AQ230's measurements are 38.8mm lug-to-lug, 29.8mm case size, 8.1mm thick. Very small...
...but wow, does this thing fit my wrist nicely, and does so without looking like a toy.
How to set the time on the AQ230
Said up front, this watch is not easy to set. There are two buttons on left and one on the right.
The right side button is shrouded on purpose so it does not get pressed accidentally, and its sole purpose is to set the analog clock. It can be used in any mode.
This right button is the only way to set the hands as there is no crown. When pressed momentarily, the minute hand moves 20 seconds clockwise. When the button is held down, the hands advance at a higher speed. However, the annoying part is that if you accidentally go ahead of the time you're trying to set, you have to hold down that button and wait until the hands spin all the way around again. Why? Because the button only moves the hands clockwise and not in the reverse direction.
The way I set the analog part of the watch is like this:
- Set the digital clock first.
- Hold the right side button until it's 1 minute behind the digital clock.
- Wait for the digital clock to reach the next minute.
- Once the :00 arrives, I then have 20 seconds to synchronize the analog part. I match the minute to the digital clock, and the digital and analog clocks are now synchronized.
This sounds complicated, but it's not. Not to me, anyway.
Setting the digital time:
- Press the bottom left until the time is displayed without the "DL" in the lower left corner (which is Dual Time mode and not main timekeeping).
- Press and hold bottom left until the seconds start flashing.
- Press top left to zero the seconds.
- Press bottom left to move to hour.
- Press top left to set the hour.
- Press bottom left to move to minutes.
- Press top left to set minutes.
- Press bottom left to move to 12/24 hour choice.
- Press top left to choose 12 or 24-hour time.
- Press bottom left to exit.
Unique quirks of this AQ230
The AQ230 is the only Casio watch I've ever owned that allows you to have the main timekeeping as 12-hour time and the Dual Time mode as 24-hour or vice versa. It is ordinarily the case where when you choose 12 or 24-hour, that applies to every time display on the watch. Not on the AQ230. You can have both.
Pressing and holding the top left button on any mode tests the alarm tone.
A very old school feature: When setting the alarm and go to set the minutes, it's set by using the first half of the minutes, then the second. This means if you were to set the alarm for 3:27, you set the hour as usual, then set the 2 by choosing 0 through 5, then the 7 by choosing 0 through 9.
The stopwatch does not have a lap time feature, not that I would ever use it.
The stopwatch is also operated entirely using one button. Bottom left button starts or stops the stopwatch. A long press on the bottom left resets it to zero.
Dual Time is labeled as "DL" on the display and not "DT". Why? I have absolutely no idea.
This watch has the ability to show 3 different times. Analog time, main timekeeping digital, and dual time digital. And yes, they can all be separate times from each other.
Display modes
The bottom digital panel can be switched from time to dual time, date, alarm or stopwatch.
Old school styling that is awesome
The AQ230 is very similar to now-vintage Casio models released in the early 1980s, which is part of the reason I wanted it, and it does not disappoint.
Styling of this timepiece totally says "I'm from the late '70s/early '80s", especially when you get one like I did with sticks on the dial and not numbers.
It's really easy to miss that the AQ230 has an octagon shape, even if the corners are very slight.
The lack of a seconds hand actually makes the AQ230 look much more expensive than it is. If you know luxury timepieces at all, many of them don't have a seconds hand at all as part of that "beauty through minimalism" look.
The 12-hour marker is in fact a raised shiny stick that does reflect light.
The octagon corners do shimmer with light when the sun hits them.
The lugs do in fact have drilled holes on the outside that makes it very easy to take off the bracelet. I like the bracelet as-is so I won't be doing that, but it's nice they're there.
I really, really like this watch
A timepiece like this is a godsend for small-wristed folk like myself.
Easy to set? No. But really comfortable, surprisingly easy to read and looks upscale.
I really dig it. Absolutely a keeper.
The drum machine for guitarists that hate drum machines
This is one of the very few drum machines that brings the rock.
Something that frustrates guitar players a lot when it comes to drum machines is finding something that has a decent rock drum sound to it.
With most drum machines you will find everything but genuinely good acoustic rock kits good for accompanying guitar riffs, but one that gets it right is the Alesis SR-18.
What about the SR-16?
The SR-16 is cheaper than the SR-18, but nowhere near as good where a proper rock kit sound is concerned.
This isn't to say the SR-16 is unusable. Some people love that thing because very little changes have been made to it since its introduction in 1990 (yes, the SR-16 has been around almost 30 years). But you can definitely hear a big difference when comparing the 16 to the 18. It's definitely worth the extra cash to get the SR-18 because yes, it does sound better.
Does the SR-18 sound good enough on its own?
I can answer that with a solid yes.
Most drum machines or beat makers have a sound to them where it makes it too obvious the sound is fake. The SR-18 on the other hand does sound fairly close to a live drummer.
What makes the SR-18 sound so realistic? Its built-in acoustic drum samples. They are amazing on their own, and you will not have any need to scour the internet looking for sampled kits.
The test of any good drum machine is whether or not it gets an open hi-hat slosh sound correct. That specific sound is a huge part what a proper rock kit is supposed to have. And you would be amazed at how many drum machines and beat makers get that sound totally wrong. But the SR-18 totally gets it right.
Another gigantic benefit to the SR-18 is that it can be plugged into a mixer totally dry, and the sound that comes out genuinely sounds professional just with flat EQ and nothing else. There is no need to add reverb or filters. It's good enough to record with straight out of the box and into a mixer.
Is the SR-18 easy?
No programmable drum machine is totally easy because they are basically workstation synthesizers without piano keys.
However, even if you never program it and only use the built-in patterns and presets, it is easy enough. With little effort, you could be recording with it the first day you get one.
Most important thing: It does bring the rock legally
The SR-18 can rock, but on a final note, I have to explain the legal thing.
"Free" drum machine apps for the phone use sampled beats, and for many of them, the provided beats are "for personal use only", meaning you can't use them if you decide to release your songs for sale to iTunes. The beats came from somewhere else, you don't own them, so you can't use them professionally (and when you publish songs to iTunes for sale, that counts as professional use).
Anything made with the SR-18 is your own, even if you use the stock drum patterns. You can, without worry, use anything the SR-18 generates as backing music for your guitar riffs 100% legally for pro use.
This is very nice because it's one thing less to worry about. All you're trying to do is generate drum backing tracks, and the last thing you should ever have to worry about is whether your drums are legal for use professionally or not. With the SR-18, you're legal, 100%. And that's good.
All atomic watches are saved... for now
There will come a time when buying a watch with atomic time sync functionality will be completely pointless.
A watch I've had my eye on for some time now is the Casio G-SHOCK GWM5610. My main reason for wanting it is because it synchronizes to the atomic clock once a day. What that does is not only make the watch ridiculously accurate to within a fraction of a second since it updates every night, but it also automatically recognizes DST. Also, once it starts synchronizing, you never have to set it. Every night, both the time and date are set...
...but it almost happened to where every single clock that syncs with the atomic time station in the US went obsolete overnight.
Back in 2018, President Trump proposed some 2019 funding cuts to the NIST which involved shutting down shortwave (a.k.a. HF) radio station WWV in Colorado. That is the station wristwatches with atomic time sync use in the USA mainland.
Miraculously - and don't ask me how because I don't know - the the 2019 fiscal budget for the NIST was somehow worked out in a way that keeps WWV in operation - for now.
I say "for now" because there will come a point when WWV goes off the air. It's not a matter of if it will occur but when.
This being true, I'm going to talk about what will happen when WWV is shut down.
As ancient as tech gets
WWV is old. Really old. It dates back to 1919 but didn't start doing time broadcasts until 1945, which literally means it's been broadcasting time since the end of World War II.
WWV is so friggin' old that it's the world's longest running continuously broadcasting radio station, and will be celebrating its centennial on October 1, 2019. Yes, that means a century in operation. When I said WWV was really old, I wasn't kidding.
Who uses WWV anymore?
Utility companies use it for electric grid sync, meteorologists track weather systems with it, broadcasters use it, and medical institutions use it.
Hobbyists who use WWV are watch nerds with wristwatches that have an atomic sync function, and ham radio guys.
Do smartphones use WWV? Nope. Smartphones sync time using everything but WWV. GPS time sync, internet time server sync (also synchronized via GPS), NITZ (Network Identity and Time Zone), internal software (depending on who made the phone) and probably several other ways I'm not even aware of - but not WWV.
What to do with existing watches that have atomic sync?
Sell them. All of them. I don't own any personally, but if I did, I would sell them off because of the uncertain future of WWV.
Once WWV goes off the air, any watch with atomic time sync is no better than standard quartz, and any value a watch with atomic sync had is gone the day WWV is shut down.
What options are there if there is no WWV?
Option 1: Manual sync with your phone
I use the Android app GPS Test Plus on my phone to get the time and use that to manually sync the time on my quartz watch whenever necessary, which is not often.
The Plus version adds on basic GPS navigation, similar to a handheld trail unit like the Garmin eTrex where you can save waypoints and such.
Option 2: Wristwatch with GPS time sync
One of best survivalist/prepper wristwatches in existence is the G-SHOCK Master of G GPRB1000 Rangeman. This thing has a ridiculous amount of features. GPS reception and navigation, solar, Bluetooth for connecting to a smartphone, activity log tracking, digital compass, barometer, altimeter, thermometer, and of course legendary G-SHOCK toughness.
This is the watch guys take out into snowy mountain terrain, deep woods, jungle, desert or any other extreme environment and must have a watch that handle extreme conditions and always work. This watch can.
It's huge and heavy. But it does everything.
Alternatively, there is the not-as-extreme but still ridiculously tough G-SHOCK GRAVITYMASTER with an analog style face and GPS.
Don't expect any of these to be cheap, because none of them are.
Option 3: Bulova Accutron II
This syncs to nothing - and it doesn't have to. The Accutron tech in this watch is far more accurate than regular quartz. The only time you ever have to adjust this watch is for DST. Otherwise, this thing barely loses time, to the point of being accurate to within a few seconds per year, and that's not a typo.
If you just want to skip the bother of time synchronization altogether and just want something that is ridiculously accurate on its own without the need to sync once set, you want the surprisingly affordable Accutron II.
Oh, and yes, Accutron watches are known for their perfectly smooth second hand sweep. It's mesmerizing when you look at it.
Option 4: Don't sync at all and use a Casio digital quartz watch
I have a Casio W213 that was bought for cheap. It shows time, weekday, month and day on the main screen, has 5 alarms, stopwatch, dual time and countdown timer with auto-repeat. You get a lot of watch for the money with one of these.
Concerning accuracy, this watch will lose half-a-second to one second per day, which translates to being 15 to 30 seconds off per month.
If I did not bother synchronizing this watch manually, I would only be setting the time twice a year for the Daylight Savings Time changes. A DST time change just happened on March 10, 2019. The next one will be on November 3, 2019. That's a total of 238 days.
Were I to not synchronize the watch for 238 days straight, it would be off by between 2 to 4 minutes. Bear in mind 238 days is almost 8 months. For a timepiece that syncs to absolutely nothing, that's pretty darned good timekeeping.
Best practice to stay on time for stuff
With quartz watches, synchronizing once monthly will ensure you're always within 15 to 30 seconds of the actual time.
Or if you're a real stickler about it, synchronizing once weekly will ensure you're always within 3.5 to 7 seconds of the actual time.
If for whatever reason you need better timekeeping, continue to use a watch with atomic sync for as long as it's available, or just get an Accutron II as noted above.