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.
The reason for the skunk stripe on Fender necks with rosewood boards
In a video I made about a Squier Telecaster some months back, I said that an oddity about the guitar is that even though it has a separate piece of wood for the fingerboard, there is still what's known as a "skunk stripe" on the back of the neck.
For those of you not aware of how necks are constructed for Stratocaster, Telecaster and other Fender electric guitar models, here's a quick rundown:
A single piece maple neck requires the truss rod to be installed from the back of the neck. A channel is routed out, the rod is installed, then the channel is traditionally filled with walnut. Since the walnut has a much darker look compared to the maple, this results in a very pronounced stripe on the back of the neck and is commonly nicknamed a skunk stripe.
A two-piece maple neck however is a different story. Instead of the truss rod being installed from the back, it's installed from the front. A channel is routed out, the rod is installed, then the fingerboard (made of rosewood or pau ferro or other wood) is installed on top of it. No skunk stripe should ever appear on the back of the neck since there was never a channel routed through the back for it...
...but yet this stripe still happens on some modern Fender electrics.
Example #1: Fender American Original '60s Stratocaster
Strats labeled as '60s models have two-piece necks because that is how Fender was building them then. No skunk stripe exists for this two-piece neck, which is how it's supposed to be.
Example #2: Fender Classic Player '60s Stratocaster
While being a Fender Mexico build, once again this is how the back of a two-piece Fender neck is supposed to look.
Example #3: Fender Made in Japan Traditional 60s Stratocaster Midnight
This Fender Japan build also has the correct neck construction for a two-piece build. No stripe, just like it should be.
Example #4: Fender American Professional Stratocaster (with rosewood fingerboard)
Now we see a skunk stripe on a Fender guitar neck where there should be none.
All Fender American Professional Stratocaster guitars have this stripe as do the American Performer and Mexico made Deluxe models. It doesn't matter whether the neck is one-piece or two-piece with rosewood, ebony or pau ferro. That stripe will be there.
Does the skunk stripe existing on two-piece necks cheapen the guitar?
No. Fender has been making necks on the majority of their electric guitars this way since 1972.
So if you think to yourself, "I'm not buying a Fender that had cost cutting on the neck done to it!", consider the fact Fender has been doing that for almost half a century.
However, if you're a stickler for such things and really, really want the traditional construction for the two-piece neck that doesn't have the stripe, purposely seek out a "60s" model.
Alternatively, just look for Fender guitar models that have Original, Classic or Traditional somewhere in the name, and the back of the neck should be stripe-free.
Only one type of watch is the best daily wearer
This is the latest concerning my wristwatch journey.
I have a recently acquired Casio W96H, and an Orient Tristar model FAB00009B. The Orient was a watch gifted to me that I've had for some time now. Still works great, no issues. I should note that the Tristar has a bunch of different colors available, and that includes gold models.
At one point I did briefly own a Seiko SNK803 (also available in several different colors), which is very similar both in size and price to the Orient, but returned it because the dial was just too busy for me.
Every now and then I put on the Tristar because it looks cool and I dig the fact it's 100% mechanical. Typical to traditional automatics, it loses between 15 to 30 seconds a day, so it will never be as accurate as a quartz digital. But I still dig it just the same...
...however I've never been able to use it as my daily wearer.
This doesn't mean I don't like the Tristar because I absolutely do, but every time I put on an analog timepiece, I miss the functions I get with the digital. No alarm, no stopwatch, no hourly chime, no display of the month.
The do-it-all watch that gives you analog with all the features of digital is of course the ana-digi. I own one, the Casio AW80V-5BV. But I don't wear it that often for the same reason I got rid of the Seiko SNK. The dial is too busy for my liking. Great watch, but again, busy dial.
There are mostly (no alarm) do-it-all watches that are 100% mechanical. These are automatic day date chronograph timepieces. None of them are cheap. An example of this is the Junghans Chronoscope. Quartz versions can be had for under $400, but for mechanical it shoots right up to well over $1,000. And I'm not about to spend that kind of cash when I get the same functionality plus more out of a $20 Casio.
I always go back to a Casio
The Casio quartz digital is still the best thing going; it is the best daily wearer.
I own a bunch of a watches, but no matter what I will always end back up with a Casio digital on my wrist because it does the job so damned well.
However, there are a few things I've learned concerning other timepieces.
I can't get along with ana-digi... but there is one I might like
My favorite ana-digi is the Casio G-SHOCK Gulfmaster. While I really dig the look of it, I've never owned one nor even handled one, and won't because the dial is ridiculously busy.
Busy dials are present on almost every ana-digi made. One of the very few that isn't is the Casio AQ230. On that model, the digital part is only a small horizontal bar at the bottom of the dial, and the hands on top never cross the digital area. This is, without question, the cleanest, simplest ana-digi sold right now. And I might get one at some point.
The best analogs are just the clock and only the clock
I'm currently on the hunt for a cheap, quiet analog timepiece that is clock-only that fits my wrist and has a nice look to it.
Technically, I already have it. A Timex Weekender 38mm. But it has a loud tick and I can't stand that, so I don't wear it.
I may pick up a Casio MTP-V001. This is a watch I owned before, but not in steel bracelet version.
Whatever I decide to get next, I will be picky about it because I already own too many watches as it is.
I'm glad the hobby is cheap!