guitar prices are weird right now
There's a specific price range for electric guitars right now that's just weird.
What makes the price range weird is that some guitars within it outclass guitars above them, even within the same brand.
I'm trying to make sense of this.
For that Squier Affinity Telecaster I just bought, I've given it a closer look. The neck is tightly fit into the pocket as it should be with no huge gaps. Frets were installed very well. Selector switch is solid and tight. Nut is cut correctly, doesn't stick out from either side of the neck and doesn't have sharp edges either. Whoever is doing quality control at the China factory that made it is doing an excellent job.
Yes, I said China and not Indonesia. A factory change has happened, and it's a recent thing for the Affinity Telecaster. The bump up in build quality is noticeable in a good way.
It's weird that the guitar is as good as it is, given its price point. But I think I've at least partially figured out why, and will explain that in a moment.
That Affinity is the first Squier I've ever bought that outclasses a Classic Vibe. In appearance? No. In functionality.
Technically, yes, the Affinity is a "lesser" guitar because it has ceramic magnet pickups and not alnico. The CV also looks better because of the pine body (which absolutely takes to butterscotch blonde better) and tinted neck.
However, Affinity is the better player's guitar. The satin urethane neck finish feels better, the belly cut in rear of the body is more comfortable, and six-saddle setup is obviously better than the barrel style the CV uses.
And then there's the price. With Classic Vibe, there's a sting with buying that. With the Affinity, not-so much.
Affinity falls between $250-$350; this is the weird price range I'm talking about.
I thought it was just a Squier thing with Affinity falling within this oddball price range. No. As it turns out, other brands are doing the same thing Squier is. See Ibanez AZES31, Jackson Dinky JS20 DKQ, and Epiphone SG Tribute Plus. Just like Squier, they are all punching well above their price tags considering what you get. Also just like Squier, those guitars are the better players compared to models just above them within the same brand.
My guess as to why this is happening is that it's an answer to low-ball priced guitars on Amazon such as Grote, Firefly and Leo Jaymz. Those guitars are better than Squier Sonic series, but not better than Affinity, at least for the Telecaster.
I'm also guessing the reason $250-$350 guitars are such awesome player instruments is because they have to be. They have to outclass the "Amazon guitars".
Do they? Yes.
Again, it's a weird price range for guitars, but I'm glad it's there.
i bought a squier affinity telecaster
I thought I was done with Squier, and even implied as much. I also thought I was all-in with Yamaha.
Well, that went all out the window. Both my Yamaha Pacifica PAC112VM and TRBX174EW bass are out, and a new Squier Affinity Telecaster is in.
The one I bought has your standard Telecaster look. Butterscotch blonde with black pick guard. I made a video when I first got it. Since that time, I've taken off the stickers and changed the strings to my preferred set.
I wasn't going to buy the Affinity and had my eye on a Squier Sonic Telecaster, but when I got to the guitar store, I couldn't find it anywhere even though the web site said it was in stock. This most likely meant it was there, but hadn't been unpacked yet and put out on the floor. Since the Affinity was already there and about the same price as the Sonic as it was on clearance, I played that, and it was definitely good enough, so that's what I went with.
What convinced me to get the Tele was my second vintage '89 Squier II Stratocaster. The first is my very first electric guitar that I still own, so I don't play that one too much. I break out the second '89 after not having used it in a while, start playing, and damn, it sounds good. Really good.
Then I go to play the Pacifica again, and... it's just not the same. Even though the PAC112VM is truly a good guitar, I realized something. I'm trying to make this thing sound like a Fender, and that's never going to happen, so it's gotta go.
I also watched a few past videos of mine where I was playing a Squier Telecaster or other guitar brands in Tele shapes, and thought yeah, that's a sound I want back again. Two sounds, specifically. The overwound bridge-only and the bridge+neck tones.
There is a way to get all the Strat and Tele tones out of one guitar, and that's the Squier Paranormal Custom Nashville Stratocaster. It has the Tele pickup set, a middle pickup, and a push-pull to get the bridge+neck traditional Tele middle sound. Fender also has one with the Fender Player Plus Nashville Telecaster, and yes, the push-pull is there. And if you're wondering why the Squier is called a Strat and the Fender is called a Tele, it's because the Squier has a double-cutaway body and a Strat headstock, and the Fender has a single cutaway with the Tele headstock. There are also other differences, but once you see the body and headstock shapes are different, then it makes sense why those two guitars have different model names.
I didn't need a Nashville since I already have a Strat I like, so a separate Telecaster works for me. I'm not opposed to getting a Nashville style Squier or Fender in the future, but just not now.
Two things I've learned
First, I gotta stop buying basses.
I go through this cycle every few years that really needs to stop. I think yeah, I need a bass, so I buy one. At first, I love it. Thumb some basslines here, pick a little there, cool. This lasts for a few weeks to a month, then the bass gets put on a stand, stays there, collects dust and doesn't get played for months.
At some point I pick it up again, dust it off, play it again, and I hate it. But I don't part with the bass just yet, figuring I'll give it another chance. That lasts for a week, then back on the stand it goes.
A few more months pass, I pick the bass up again, and I'm still hating it. I ask myself why I even own the thing, and can't come up with a good answer. That's when I get rid of it.
Add to this that I've never owned a bass with a body shape I truly liked. I've tried the P shape, J shape, Jaguar shape, and other shapes. None have ever been truly comfortable.
And there's another thing to add into the mix. If the bass isn't 34" standard scale, I don't want it. I tried the short scale thing before. Didn't like it. In bass world, 34" is the only thing I like.
Maybe in the future I'll give a go with a Stingray shape, as that's one of the few shapes I've not tried. I've also never experimented with the giant humbucker with the huge pole pieces with one of those either. Even so, I'm not going to actively seek out a bass any time soon.
Second, I gotta stop trying to fool myself into thinking I'll like anything other than Fender tones.
At this point in my guitar playing life, I've tried every popular pickup configuration there is. SS (Telecaster, Jazzmaster, Jaguar), SSS (Stratocaster), S/H (Telecaster Custom single-coil + humbucker), HH (Les Paul, Thinline Telecaster, and others), HSS.
The few pickup configurations I've not tried aren't ones I'm interested in, such as a one-pickup configuration like the Esquire and HHH like a "Black Beauty" Les Paul Custom, be it by Gibson or Epiphone.
And I suppose you could also throw in a few outliers, such as mini humbuckers like what the Epiphone Firebird has. That is obviously HH, but the pickups sound different compared to standard size humbuckers. Not better nor worse, just different. Then there's gold foil pickups. Just from the demos I've heard, I'm fairly certain I'd never get along with those. The foil absolutely isn't just for show, as it does have a very distinct tonal character, but not a character I like.
Fender tone is what I like, which to me is a single-coil equipped solid-body Strat, Tele, Jazz or Jag.
Every time I stray away from Fender tone, it doesn't last. I always go back to the single-coil solid-body Fender sound.
It's fair to say I really did give other pickup layouts and other guitar brands a genuinely good try. I tried Schecter, Yamaha, Ibanez, Epiphone and a few other brands. But then I pick up a Strat or Tele, plug in, play and say yep, that's the sound I want, and I get it from Squier.
Even though I'm very settled in to what guitar tone I know I like, I will keep my mind open. For now, I'm a Telecaster owner once again.
i stopped using traffic reporting
Fewer than two weeks ago, I bought a Garmin Drive 53, and purposely got the EX model that does not have traffic reporting.
Over the weekend is when I really put the 53 to the test, and drove somewhere I wasn't familiar with that I knew typically had heavy traffic to see how I'd feel about navigation without the traffic reporting feature.
I was slightly nervous before going on that trip. The thought of driving without traffic reporting felt weird since I'd been using it for so long. But then I thought okay, I bought this thing, let's do this. If I encounter traffic, I'll just deal with it, and off I went.
Nothing bad happened other than a few traffic slowdowns in places where I expected them to be.
I thought having no traffic reporting was going to be a point of stress, but it ended up being a relief.
Since the 53EX doesn't have traffic reporting, it was one less thing to worry about. I knew there wasn't going to be any rerouting unless I missed a turn (which actually did happen, but I got back on track without a problem). I also knew there wouldn't be traffic warning sound alerts either, so I wasn't listening for any.
What I came to realize is traffic reporting adds complication to a drive rather than makes it easier. Even on drives where I'd encounter no traffic, the thought was still in my mind while driving that if the screen alerts me of some traffic event, give it attention. Was that a stress point? Yes. Maybe not a big one, but still, stress is stress.
Another complication is that while traffic reporting is integrated with navigation, it operates separately. Now I have to worry about two things working instead of just one, and that's annoying.
On the rare occasion GPS has an off day, no troubleshooting is really required. If it doesn't work, it just doesn't work. All you can really do there is turn the screen off, wait a few minutes, turn back on, reacquire GPS signal, and that's pretty much it. As cliche as this sounds, turning if off and then back on actually does work the vast majority of the time.
If traffic reporting starts glitching up however, troubleshooting that isn't as simple. Glitchy traffic reporting can and does mess up routing, regardless of whether a Garmin or phone app is used. But at least on the Garmin you can easily turn traffic reporting 100% off via Settings > Traffic while still keeping navigation running. And that's the only real troubleshooting you can do. I can't even really call that troubleshooting, because while it sounds the same as fixing a GPS signal issue, it's not because turning traffic off didn't really fix the glitch.
Yes, this does mean that on the Garmin DriveSmart 66, 76, or 86, it is easy to turn off all the traffic reporting, should it act up.
The 53EX is just a navigator, and since it doesn't have traffic reporting, there isn't any enable/disable option for it. This is good, because it eliminated any temptation to turn traffic reporting on. Were I using my DS76, the temptation would have been there. With the option to enable reporting not there, there's no temptation, and another stress point was eliminated.
Part of my reason for getting the 53 was to see if I could get along with no-traffic navigation or not.
From the drive I did over the weekend, I found out that yes, I can.
A lesson I learned is that when you bring tech into a car, don't add in any unnecessary complications.
instant messenger nerds are a funny lot
I just talked about modern social media security stupidity, and had the thought to check what's going on with the ancient instant messenger stuff.
How ancient am I talking about? Late '90s. There are instant messenger nerds out there who are bound and determined to recreate that Windows 95 instant messaging experience. As in using Windows 95 with specific software, such as ICQ, AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo Instant Messenger, MSN Messenger, whatever, take your pick.
Why would anybody even bother trying to make all that ancient crap work again? You can probably guess the answer.
It's nostalgia, 100%. Nostalgia is the thing that drives people to buy things like a Pet Rock, board games (which I admit are still cool and always will be), old style electronic handheld game, and so on. It's also the thing that drives the desire to use old crusty messaging software on old crusty operating systems.
What the nerds are chasing after can be broken into three parts. The first two I've already mentioned, that being the old OS and old messaging software. The third part is act of chatting with other people using a PC.
Instant messaging is not something you do on a phone. If you want to chat on a phone, that's as easy as sending a text message and Bob's your uncle. Or, if you want a "chat room" on phone, that is what group messaging is for.
A true old style late '90s instant messaging experience is not a mobile thing. Rather, it's about using very specific software using specific hardware in an environment where you are committing to the act, so to speak.
There have been and still are a few independent projects going in an effort to recreate the old ICQ/AIM/YIM/MSN experience. For example, some people put up servers running the OSCAR protocol for AOL Instant Messenger use. Servers like this stick around for a while, but then eventually shut down.
The shutdown reason is more or less always the same. Cost. The server starts free at first, costs add up, server operator asks for money from its users to keep it going, nobody pays, server shuts down.
IRC has always been the better option. If you're into old style internet ways of chat, internet relay chat is the only thing worth using because it's text-based. If you can get that crusty old PC connected to the internet, you most likely can get IRC working.
Even a DEC VT220 from the 1980s can do IRC. It just needs to connect to a Linux box. Use a USB-to-serial adapter and a null modem cable, configure the terminal for 9600 or 19200 baud, run a getty service on the Linux box for managing terminal connections, connect, use a terminal based IRC client like irssi and ta-da, chat. It's completely GUI-less, but it works.
Also, when popular YouTube tech nerds want to do a nerdy retro chat thing, IRC is what they use. None of them say "add me to your AIM buddy list", but instead point to a IRC server and instruct to join their IRC channel instead.
The look, sounds and feel of those old IM clients is strong for some. Seeing that old AOL Running Man icon or the Yahoo emoticons (which I admit were some of the best ever made) brings back nice memories of a simpler, kinder internet.
But at the same time, those same old IM clients were designed to use proprietary protocols and centralized servers. Better to just let that all go and use IRC instead, if for no other reason that it works on more computers.
With IRC, somebody using Windows 11 can chat with somebody else using an Amiga. Or OS/2 Warp. Or Mac OS 8. Or MS-DOS. Or whatever. You can't do that with old instant messaging because it's too proprietary. But you can with IRC.
modern social media security is hilarious
I've been on the internet a long time, so of course I have social media accounts. Do I use them? No. Very briefly, I recently tried using one again, and that went over like a lead balloon, so I just shelved it. More on that in a minute.
Originally, social media was used solely in the web browser, but that's not how they're intended to be used anymore. Every social media platform absolutely wants you to use their app on a phone. Were it up to the social media companies, they wouldn't even offer a way to use their systems with a regular web browser. So why haven't they dropped browser logins? I'll answer that later.
I'm going to talk about two social media platforms. The names of the platforms won't even be said because that doesn't matter, although I'm sure with barely any guessing you'll know what they are.
Platform A sends me emails (yes, plural) several times a week with the subject line:
12345678 is your password reset code
The reset code is obviously different each time.
Did I request a password reset? No.
And before you even think you know what caused this, no, you don't.
I do the dance of logging in and putting in my TOTP, go to the account settings to examine recent email communications, and there are two sections. Security emails and "Other".
These password reset emails are always under "Other" and never security, which means the email was never a security thing in the first place. It's something else.
I have been up and down and around this entire account several times, and it is not connected nor authenticated to anything anywhere else.
Have I changed the password before? Yes. Have I changed the email address to login with before? Yes.
Did that make any difference? No. These emails just keep coming. I have never figured out why this stupid platform keeps sending password reset emails over and over.
Even though the account has never been compromised, this has been going on for YEARS. Sometimes these password reset emails arrive every day, sometimes it's like it is now where it happens a few times a week, sometimes it's once every few months.
But make no mistake, they don't stop. Not for the long term, anyway. It's to the point where I have an email filter set up to put them elsewhere so I can examine them later instead of seeing them in my inbox all the time.
And no, there's no happy ending here. That's the best I can do to deal with this crap.
With Platform B, it's a different sort of hilarity.
I am shadowbanned on B. Did I do something bad to deserve that? No. Did I violate terms of service? No. Did I post anything I shouldn't have? No.
The reason I am shadowbanned on B is literally from doing absolutely nothing.
No, really, I'm not kidding.
I'll explain.
I signed up for this B account back in the late '00s, so oh yeah, it's old. I messed around with it for a time, but after some years said eh, I'll just set-private the account and maybe come back to it later.
Years pass without a single thing being posted to the account.
After a while, I login to the account. And because I wanted to be "SECURE", I thought okay, I'll set up TOTP because that's what you're supposed to do.
Platform B spits a notice at me stating if you want to enable that, cough up some money.
Um, no. Not happening. I logged out and let it collect dust again.
Another year or two passes until a month or so ago where I thought hey, I should try that platform B again since I still have the account.
I login, and whoa, NOW they graciously allow setup of TOTP for free like they should have in the first place. I set that up, and yep, working. Good.
After that, I make a few public posts, and none of them appear publicly at all. That's the shadowban part. My account is live, in good standing, has no terms of service violations, but nothing I post appears publicly. I can post, but anything I put there is only seen by an audience of one. Me. And bear in mind this is just family-friendly text posts with no links.
After some digging around, some others said yeah, a shadowban can happen when you "reactivate" a dormant account. Just post a few things for a week, and the shadowban should be lifted.
So I did that.
Nope. Still shadowbanned after a week.
Logged out. Screw that place.
On both platforms A and B, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to fix this crap.
On A, my tin foil hat senses are going off and I'm thinking the system purposely sends reset emails just to get me to login. And yes, this does make me wonder if anything truly bad would happen if I ignored those emails and just logged in once a week.
On B, I just gave up since there is no documentation anywhere on how to fix a shadowban there. Nobody knows, AI doesn't know either, so screw it.
There are two things I'm reminded of from these experiences.
First is my car navigation. Anyone who reads my stuff here knows I use a Garmin DriveSmart. The only time that thing ever connects to the internet is for system or map updates and that's it. And I know that is the reason it works as it should. Saved locations never vanish for no reason. I never have to login to the stupid thing. I just turn it on and go. No "required" internet connectivity = it just works.
Second is my email, which is the hosted type. Oddly enough, and hilariously enough, that really does seem to be the best way to use email. If my email was some "free" web-based email thing, that could and most likely would have glitchy problems similar to social media platforms.
This is my theory of why the social media platforms I use have glitches and/or shadowban crap going on:
It's because I don't use the apps social media companies want their entire user base to use. I use a browser.
Do social media companies purposely make it more difficult to use their platforms using a browser? I believe the answer is yes. With the "official" app, you have to deal with ads and all sorts of juicy personal info is sent over every time the app is used. With a browser, you can put on the brakes. Ads can be blocked, cookies can be deleted, and so on.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if all the security/shadowban crap I deal with magically fixed itself were I using the "official" apps for those A and B social media platforms.
But again, this is just a theory.
And why do social media platforms still support web browsers at all? I honestly don't know, especially considering it's obvious they hate them. My guess is that there still must be enough market share of web browser users to keep that support going?
In the end, for that A platform, I'll just keep filtering the emails. Whatever.
And for that B platform, it can go pound sand. Whatever.