VBB Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Like others have said, chambering would cost more money. First the research and engineering and next the labor or machine and time costs. Lets look at why they would do it? Less cost to ship from factories to retailers. Help increase sales to those that complained about the weight of the LOG I don't know if sales offset the additional costs, but I know companies do what is more porfitable, but they wouldn't compromise quality too much because the long term sales would crap out and mean a loss of money that way too. Personally, I think the chambered ones will sound even sweeter when they age than the solids. My 61 Martin sounds AMAZING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokeydusky Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Lets look at why they would do it? Less cost to ship from factories to retailers. Help increase sales to those that complained about the weight of the LOG Presumably this also allows the use of heavier wood, which may be cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VBB Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Presumably this also allows the use of heavier wood' date=' which may be cheaper. [/quote'] Aren't they all Mahogany and a Maple top, or is Mahogany from different parts of the world more or less dense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockstar232007 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Aren't they all Mahogany and a Maple top' date=' or is Mahogany from different parts of the world more or less dense?[/quote']Some mahogany used for LPs today (Philippine) is more dense, due it's high mineral content, but Honduras mahogany (which, since the 1970's, is illigal to use) is really light, and makes some older LPs, as light as some Strats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VBB Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Cool. That makes alot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacks Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I thought my Les Paul was a bit heavy so I cut it in half to see why. LOL:-s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitar_randy Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Hey ,thats a well made post.Very good info in there. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitar_randy Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 I thought my Les Paul was a bit heavy so I cut it in half to see why. LOL:-s Awsome photos.Its cool to see it that way,truss rod,different layers of wood,etc.very cool.What a thick ,beefy chunck of wood a lp is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour18 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Where does the Les Paul Supreme fit in all of this conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max2343 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Good Question. I'd like to Know too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted May 23, 2009 Author Share Posted May 23, 2009 Where does the Les Paul Supreme fit in all of this conversation? Chambered. The chambering is a little different than the photo I posted but nonetheless, it's chambered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulsaslim Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 But I wanted black pickups and nickel hardware... guess I'll have to buy from that chinese web' date=' seller said he could get me a real gibson with case and nickel hardware, all 3 pickups black and flame neck inlay :D[/quote'] Yeah, there's some guy selling them for $200 right now. And the picture he's got up there looks just like a real one! Do you think that's what we'll get for $200? I'm sure nobody in China would lie to an American, would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffbeck Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I'd like to know why they're still classified and listed as "solid body" electric guitars when that's obviously not the case anymore. It's a bit misleading I'd say. -Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max2343 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Shhh. It's to throw off those ****-Heads in China, Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffbeck Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Shhh. It's to throw off those ****-Heads in China' date=' Man.[/quote']Sorry Bro, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Hey MAX love your avatiar . i used to have a 1970 'cuda. loved that car. wish i kept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiamondJig Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Now I know why my LP weights less the my SG. What can I fill in my hollow body LP studio with to make it a solid body ? Figure I can drill 2 holes in the back pump in the bottom hole and let the air escape out the top hole till the filling comes out then cap them. Is there anything like liquid wood or maybe cut some F holes and turn her into a semi hollow body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 ^ GOOD GOD!! Please tell me you're joking?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oringo Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Hold on there....has anyone established that chambers are really a bad thing? There have always been chambered LP type guitars, like the classic Gretsch Jets since the 50's or the very, very expensive and sought after Jacobacci Texas model also since the 50's. These days a lot of top players are using chambered "Strats" and "Teles" like Tom Andersons. Before you start pumping plastic wood into your Paul, you'd better figure out whether a) you've got a problem with the chambered body and :- whether a solid body is the answer, in which case sell your chambered Paul and go and get one with a solid body (and get the number of a good chiropracter while you're at it). Has anyone out there actually compared a half dozen of each, side by side, with the same pickups through the same amp in the same room? I'd bet if you did, you'd probably find as much variation among the solids alone and the chambered ones alone as you'd find between the two groups. Guitars is made a' WOOD, and no two pieces, even adjacent splits from the same log come out sounding the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobv Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 The horse is long since dead and, by now, unrecognizeable. But I have two comments that haven't been mentioned in this thread yet. First, I don't agree that chambering is necessarily more expensive, and it's a little short sighted to say they're doing it for cost cutting (that sounds like Gibson bashing and we do love these guys after all). It's a matter of being nearly impossible to get a supply of enough of the lighter woods in the thickness and quantity they need. To do that you'd have to cull through tons of wood and you'd have to rely on different sources. I can pick through a few pallets of wood at my hardwood supplier, if I'm lucky, and come home with a few chosen planks on the roof of the family pod. Some days I'd say that 1 in 20 rough-sawn boards meet my needs, and I'm usually looking at 4/4 boards for furniture projects. Getting thicker stock that you'd need for a guitar is even harder. Gibson doesn't have that luxury since they turn out such a high production. If you were to consider that the Custom Shop is using different sources of wood, and even then they're still selecting the clearest, lightest boards, it's necessarily going to be operating on a completely different cost scale and has to be more expensive. Having said that, it does seem as though they find enough highly figured maple to make some spectacular flame-tops on the GibsonUSA's (hopefully the world still has a good supply of maple as opposed to mahogany). Second, it would be interesting if the CNC machines would take into account the weight of the blank for the back, and the weight of the particular top that's going to go on there, then adjust how much wood is hogged out so they all come out the same weight. Ironically enough, the way they do them now I'd bet there's so little wood left that they all come out the same weight anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_one_more Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I was not really cool with the idea of chambering. It just seemed wrong to me, but wanted to go and check it out for myself. This all changed when I actually spent the time play them and compare them to the the solid LPs I have owned and the Historics that were there to compare to. I spent about 3 hours in a room with about a dozen LP (TRad, Historics, and Stds). I had no intention of buying a guitar that day, but ended up leaving with a 2008 Std Plus. I can't say what mine would sound like unchambered, but I can say that it is a complete tone monster. It is nothing like a my 335 or my duojet which really sound and feel like a hollowbody. My 2008 std is just a really great Les Paul. It just feels really alive, just like the historics do. If people have tried the chambered LP and done really A/B listening and you don't like it, then so be it. But if you are saying it completely sucks etc. but have never actually listened to or played and compared them, then what are you really doing? Kind of like those product reviews written by people after playing an amp or guitar in GC for 2 minutes. Worthless. This is not aimed at anybody here, just a general observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bram Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I was not really cool with the idea of chambering. It just seemed wrong to me' date=' but wanted to go and check it out for myself. This all changed when I actually spent the time play them and compare them to the the solid LPs I have owned and the Historics that were there to compare to. I spent about 3 hours in a room with about a dozen LP (TRad, Historics, and Stds). I had no intention of buying a guitar that day, but ended up leaving with a 2008 Std Plus.I can't say what mine would sound like unchambered, but I can say that it is a complete tone monster. It just feels really alive, just like the historics do. If people have tried the chambered LP and done really A/B listening and you don't like it, then so be it. But if you are saying it completely sucks etc. but have never actually listened to or played and compared them, then what are you really doing? Kind of like those product reviews written by people after playing an amp or guitar in GC for 2 minutes. Worthless. This is not aimed at anybody here, just a general observation. [/quote'] First of all: nobody says bad things about chambered Les Pauls if they haven't played them first...otherwise it would be completely worthless indeed. I've played and fully tested solid Les Pauls, weight relieved Les Pauls (hardly any tone difference with the solid ones) and at last MANY chambered Les Pauls (BFG's, Standard Fadeds, LP *Faded* Studio's, 08 Standards etc.). I own a chambered LP myself. I found out that the chambered Les Pauls always seem to be more alive, resonant and louder unplugged. Everytime I play a chambered Les Paul the highs seem to 'sing' with sort of a naturel reverb effect that definately comes from the chambers. Loud unplugged tones. Most of the time they're quite 'bluesy' and 'woody' plugged-in, still with that acoustic character going on...this is where a chambered Les Paul really differs from a typically heavy solid or weight relieved Les Paul. You may like that acoustic character OR NOT. Solid/Weight relieved Les Pauls just have more thickness, lower mids and compression to them (with less 'room'/'air' between the notes), which make them (to my opinion) much better for jazz and other smooth, fluid tones. They sound big in a different way than chambered Les Pauls. As long as you know what you really prefer there's no problem, but don't buy a chambered Les Paul because you haven't got the money for a Custom Shop Historic (Custom or Standard). Everybody needs to be happy with their Les Paul in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I will LMFAO at you guys when Gibson comes out and tells us all those pics of guitars cut in half showing chambers are of a couple original 59s with badly damaged necks they had around :- Of course it's a joke, but wouldn't it be funny? I mean, really, really funny? Not pointing any fingers in here but some people really think only their guitar is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share Posted June 10, 2009 There's nothing wrong with chambering. The problem is changing the Les Paul formula. That's why so many people don't like chambered LPs. Any change that Gibson makes, that does not make the guitar more like a '59 Les Paul, is the wrong move. I've played and fully tested solid Les Pauls' date=' weight relieved Les Pauls (hardly any tone difference with the solid ones) and at last MANY chambered Les Pauls (BFG's, Standard Fadeds, LP *Faded* Studio's, 08 Standards etc.). [/quote']Solid, weight-relief & chambering aside, the pickups alone in each guitar do not sound alike. Then you have different electronics in each that also affect tone and you're telling me they all sound the same? So, you're saying a LP Custom sounds the same as reissue? A historic reissue sounds nothing like a Gibson USA LP. Not saying one is better than the other but the difference in tone is night and day. How much of that can be attributed the the different electronics and not the construction is anybody's guess. If you can't hear the difference between guitars, why not just stick with Epiphone and save yourself a bunch of money (not meant in a bad way)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bram Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Well, every LP sounds unique (even if they all share the same pickups/electronics). What I tried to explain is that solid Les Pauls and weight relieved Les Pauls all share that typically 'warm' old school Les Paul tone (thick). It doesn't need to be completely solid for that. 9 little holes in the body don't destroy anything of that warm LP tone. Chambered Les Pauls all share that typically bluesy, airy, woody tone. They'll all sound a bit different mutual, but you get the point. Chambered Les Pauls are nothing like a weight relieved or solid LP -> fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.