Connic01 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I recently purchased a Les Paul Studio in alpine white with gold hardware. When reading the specs I found that the body on the Studio is chambered. Anyway, I found that I wasn't crazy about the guitar so I returned it and did a deal on a Traditional + in heritage cherry burst. When the deal was being done I demo'd a Traditional in the store and LOVED IT. The Traditional and Studio were night and day, IMHO, but that is a subject for another thread. The Traditional, being weight reduced, was obviously beefier than the Studio, but not so heavy that it felt like a millstone around my neck. After researching a number of the LPs I noticed that many of the higher end guitars are chambered like the Studio. I wanted to get some of your opinions/thoughts on chambered bodies versus weight reduced, in the areas of tonality, playability, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud N Proud Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I personally like both, but prefer the weight reduced because I like the weight of the guitar. Acoustically the chambered seems to have better resonance so I play that when sitting in my room and I do not want to bother anyone. It also seems to have a slight bit more sustain then the weight reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 What about solid...did you forget about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud N Proud Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Solid is the way to go. I love picking up some of my older solids and love just holding them because the weight feels so good. No doubt that they are the creme de la creme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connic01 Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 Honestly, I didn't see any solidbody LPs indicated on the Gibson site. Are there any LPs still being made as a solidbody? I have to imagine that they would weigh quite a bit, and be more expensive since you are getting more quality wood. But, that is just a guess on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud N Proud Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 That is a good question. I do not think they do. Maybe the custom shops guitars still have it, but i am not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connic01 Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 The Custom Shop guitars are definitely works of art, but I would have to sell a kidney at this point to afford one. Hopefully, as I advance in my guitar playing (I recently converted to the LP from a Fender American Standard Strat HSS) I will gain enough knowledge to find a nice, used solidbody LP that was babied as much as I expect to baby my new traditional! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Unless the serial number begins with CR, every historic reissue is solid. 1956 (R6), 1958 (R8), etc. ...and no, they do not weight a ton. Usually around the same weight as a weight-relieved Les Paul, sometimes more, sometimes less. Reissues get the lightest wood Gibson has. Both of my R9s are under 8.5 lbs. As far as price goes, you can find a used R7 or R8 for under $2,000 US if you're patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chongo Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I prefer the millstone solid bodies. Gibson doesn't seem to differentiate between "quality" wood and whatever its "ordinary" wood might be for bodies; I've seen good stuff and crap used in both high end and lower end LPs. I don't think they differentiate when it comes to chambered or weight-relieved, either. I think there's a difference in tone between solid body guitars and the chambered, but if you're playing music with a lot of gain you're unlikely to notice. At that point it's all amp, pickups and effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I read that Gibson didnt start using the proper Mahogany for the R series guitars untill 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bram Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 There aren't any noticable tone differences between a solid body or swiss cheese/weight relieved body. It would be very hard to find a chambered Les Paul Standard (or Custom) that weighs about 11 lbs. Chambered Les Pauls are often much lighter in weight; that's why Gibson introduced the chambering process for Les Pauls...to reduce the weight of the guitar while still keeping the 'Les Paul' tone. Nice idea, especially for all the poor people that couldn't handle the weight anymore. Sad, real sad. Now we've got chambered Les Pauls; a cross between a Tele and Les Paul. Chambered Les Pauls are really different in tone compared to a solid body or swiss cheese body. Very simple to hear. Chambered Les Pauls are brighter and thinner, solid bodied or swiss cheese Les Pauls are warmer and smoother + the louder they get, the bigger and better the tone becomes. Sustain, roar and singing quality from the heavy, massive Les Paul body. Thick tone. I don't get this feeling/vibe from chambered Les Pauls. It's like they can't handle as much gain as a solid body/swiss cheese body; at least not in a proper way. Their naturally thin and hollow tone (from the chambered body) gets in the way for classic hardrock or metal. I find chambered Les Pauls great for clear blues/rock tones (more woody and airy). I think there's a difference in tone between solid body guitars and the chambered' date=' but if you're playing music with a lot of gain you're unlikely to notice. At that point it's all amp, pickups and effects. [/quote'] I don't agree with this. When the tone differences are noticable on the clean channel, then they're also noticable when you're playing with gain. Unless you're using a real sick amount of gain (which will suck tone anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 my comparison of a weight relieved versus a chambered. The first one in each riff is the weight relieved one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossroadsnyc Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Solid Body = Les Paul Swiss Cheese/Chambered = Less Paul Solid Body > Swiss Cheese > Chambered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Now we've got chambered Les Pauls; a cross between a Tele and Les Paul. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.