reiko5150 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Hi guys. This is my first post in this forum. I'm thinking of buying a (second hand) les paul classic. I already own a vos 57 and two standards. My first standard is a 1992 model and the other one is a 2002. I'd like to know if the 2008 classics have chambered bodies. Furthermore, do all classics have chambered bodies? I mean what about previous year models(fe 2005, 2006 etc)? Compared to a 1992 standard (which i think is not chambered nor weight relieved) is there a big difference regarding it's weight? Thanks in advance for your answers Gregg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 best thing is to email gibson with the serial no and let them narrow it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I hate chambered bodies. That's why I switched to the 339. Just sayin'.... Murph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I hate chambered bodies. That's why I switched to the 339. Just sayin'.... Murph. LMFAO! Welcome back Murph... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 Hi guys.This is my first post in this forum. I'm thinking of buying a (second hand) les paul classic. I already own a vos 57 and two standards. My first standard is a 1992 model and the other one is a 2002. I'd like to know if the 2008 classics have chambered bodies. Furthermore' date=' do all classics have chambered bodies? I mean what about previous year models(fe 2005, 2006 etc)? Compered to a 1992 standard (which i think is not chambered nor weight relieved) is there a big difference regarding it's weight? Thanks in advance for your answers Gregg[/quote'] As of late 06 through the last production of the Classics in 08 all the bodies were chambered, I personally (like Murph) despise the chambered body. They feel 'boxy" and fragile. I just sold my 06 chambered Classic, and bought the Traditional Pro. Get An older Classic from 05 or earlier. There's plenty of them still on Ebay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiko5150 Posted May 24, 2009 Author Share Posted May 24, 2009 Thanks for the replies guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 bubba_leon, Murph was only joking. The guy has a chambered LP. I personally think weight-relieved Les Pauls are the worst of the bunch. The wood used on your Traditional Pro is substandard and didn't meet Gibson's weight requirements. That's why they had to drill nine holes out of the body. Otherwise, your guitar would have been firewood. At least the chambered Standards have long neck tenon, which your guitar does not have. Looks like you got the worst of both worlds with your Traditional Pro... reiko, here's an email I got from Gibson. It'll give you an idea about the weight difference. You should also notice that your '92 and '02 Les Pauls are weight-relieved. "Thanks for the email. We began weight relieving the Les Paul models in 1982, but the chambering began on Gibson USA Les Paul models in late 2006. Regarding the weight relief used on Gibson USA carved top Les Pauls, we received the information below from the factory; The weight relief pattern was changed in late 2006. We have modified the original "Swiss cheese" hole pattern to something that has a purpose other than to lighten up the guitar. Originally, the holes were cut in a pattern that maximized the available space and did not take into consideration tone, balance, and sustain. So, we felt that a scientific approach was best if we were to change the pattern. We knew that we could now measure frequency output of the guitar and also determine positive or negative effects of any changes to the internal routing. So, we initially approached the project from the perspective of just improving the placement of the original holes. As we began testing, we noticed that when we moved the holes closer together, sound and sustain improved. We then decided to try moving the holes so close together that they actually created one big hole instead of several small ones. The area volume was the same but the improvement of sustain and output was greater. This drove us to start playing with the actual shape and size of a single large chamber and then to multiple chambers, strategically placed inside the guitar. We couldn't do much with the control pockets and pickup pockets so we decided to focus on all of the mass and area around those routings. After several months of testing, the current sonic tuning pattern emerged. This pattern works in all Les Pauls and gives us a much better sounding instrument, sustain is improved, and as an added benefit, weight has been reduced by 20%-30%. Sustain can be improved two ways; by creating rigidity and by sound reverberation. While reducing weight further wasn't our goal, it definitely should be received as a positive side affect to our real goal; giving reason to our original weight relief pattern." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 bubba_leon' date=' Murph was only joking. The guy has a chambered LP. I personally think weight-relieved Les Pauls are the worst of the bunch. The wood used on your Traditional Pro is substandard and didn't meet Gibson's weight requirements. That's why they had to drill nine holes out of the body. Otherwise, your guitar would have been firewood. At least the chambered Standards have long neck tenon, which your guitar does not have. Looks like you got the worst of both worlds with your Traditional Pro... reiko, here's an email I got from Gibson. It'll give you an idea about the weight difference. You should also notice that your '92 and '02 Les Pauls are weight-relieved. "Thanks for the email. We began weight relieving the Les Paul models in 1982, but the chambering began on Gibson USA Les Paul models in late 2006. Regarding the weight relief used on Gibson USA carved top Les Pauls, we received the information below from the factory; The weight relief pattern was changed in late 2006. We have modified the original "Swiss cheese" hole pattern to something that has a purpose other than to lighten up the guitar. Originally, the holes were cut in a pattern that maximized the available space and did not take into consideration tone, balance, and sustain. So, we felt that a scientific approach was best if we were to change the pattern. We knew that we could now measure frequency output of the guitar and also determine positive or negative effects of any changes to the internal routing. So, we initially approached the project from the perspective of just improving the placement of the original holes. As we began testing, we noticed that when we moved the holes closer together, sound and sustain improved. We then decided to try moving the holes so close together that they actually created one big hole instead of several small ones. The area volume was the same but the improvement of sustain and output was greater. This drove us to start playing with the actual shape and size of a single large chamber and then to multiple chambers, strategically placed inside the guitar. We couldn't do much with the control pockets and pickup pockets so we decided to focus on all of the mass and area around those routings. After several months of testing, the current sonic tuning pattern emerged. This pattern works in all Les Pauls and gives us a much better sounding instrument, sustain is improved, and as an added benefit, weight has been reduced by 20%-30%. Sustain can be improved two ways; by creating rigidity and by sound reverberation. While reducing weight further wasn't our goal, it definitely should be received as a positive side affect to our real goal; giving reason to our original weight relief pattern."[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 bubba_leon' date=' Murph was only joking. The guy has a chambered LP. I personally think weight-relieved Les Pauls are the worst of the bunch. The wood used on your Traditional Pro is substandard and didn't meet Gibson's weight requirements. That's why they had to drill nine holes out of the body. Otherwise, your guitar would have been firewood. At least the chambered Standards have long neck tenon, which your guitar does not have. Looks like you got the worst of both worlds with your Traditional Pro... reiko, here's an email I got from Gibson. It'll give you an idea about the weight difference. You should also notice that your '92 and '02 Les Pauls are weight-relieved. "Thanks for the email. We began weight relieving the Les Paul models in 1982, but the chambering began on Gibson USA Les Paul models in late 2006. Regarding the weight relief used on Gibson USA carved top Les Pauls, we received the information below from the factory; I received that same email from Gibson back in 07 when I inquired about my then new LP. It didnt change the fact I was completely dis pleased with the instrument. I've owned six LP's so far first one being a 76 custom. The chambered one didn't even come close to sounding like any of them. My main guitar is a 05 Goltop Classic, one piece body and weight relieved. Wouldn't trade for a chambered. I simply stated an opinion not baiting for insults. Have you even played a Traditional Pro yet?The weight relief pattern was changed in late 2006. We have modified the original "Swiss cheese" hole pattern to something that has a purpose other than to lighten up the guitar. Originally, the holes were cut in a pattern that maximized the available space and did not take into consideration tone, balance, and sustain. So, we felt that a scientific approach was best if we were to change the pattern. We knew that we could now measure frequency output of the guitar and also determine positive or negative effects of any changes to the internal routing. So, we initially approached the project from the perspective of just improving the placement of the original holes. As we began testing, we noticed that when we moved the holes closer together, sound and sustain improved. We then decided to try moving the holes so close together that they actually created one big hole instead of several small ones. The area volume was the same but the improvement of sustain and output was greater. This drove us to start playing with the actual shape and size of a single large chamber and then to multiple chambers, strategically placed inside the guitar. We couldn't do much with the control pockets and pickup pockets so we decided to focus on all of the mass and area around those routings. After several months of testing, the current sonic tuning pattern emerged. This pattern works in all Les Pauls and gives us a much better sounding instrument, sustain is improved, and as an added benefit, weight has been reduced by 20%-30%. Sustain can be improved two ways; by creating rigidity and by sound reverberation. While reducing weight further wasn't our goal, it definitely should be received as a positive side affect to our real goal; giving reason to our original weight relief pattern."[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 Are Nine I received that same email from Gibson back in 07 when I inquired about my then new LP. It didnt change the fact I was completely dis pleased with the instrument. I've owned six LP's so far, first one being a 76 custom. The chambered one didn't even come close to sounding like any of them. My main guitar is a 05 Goltop Classic, one piece body and weight relieved. Wouldn't trade for a chambered. I simply stated an opinion, not a baiting for insults. Have you even played a Traditional Pro yet? And considering that, Swietenia macrophylla is now considered an endangered species I would hardly imagine it being used for firewood. Furniture maybe definitely not firewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiko5150 Posted May 24, 2009 Author Share Posted May 24, 2009 Are nine, thanks for the usefull info man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rax Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 My Gibson is weight relieved but I used to have a 70s Les Paul which was not. The 70's sounded better and the weight relief is not much anyhow. My new Les Paul still gives me an aching back after more than a couple of hours. Thereby weight relief sucks. Chambering probably gives you feedback problems and is even worse that weight relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiko5150 Posted May 25, 2009 Author Share Posted May 25, 2009 @Mad Rax Can you elaborate a little bit on the feedback problems? I've never heard of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossroadsnyc Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Tim, w/in the last 6 months you had the complete opposite opinion ... I clearly remember you saying that your opinion was that chambered bodies were the worst of the bunch (I recall you sold your chambered Standard because, as you put it, it felt like a toy in comparison), and that the weight relieved LP's were the closest to a legitimate LP you can find, short of purchasing something through the Custom Shop. Is your new opinion based on having purchased a new chambered "historic" R8? Would you be saying the opposite of what you are saying now, had the new "historic" been weight relieved rather than chambered? (I'm putting historic in quotes since we all know that's as bogus marketing sham as there were no chambered LP's back in the day). Isn't your argument really that as long as it says "Custom Shop" that it's superior in some way? Also, to take your argument a step further, you are telling these guys that weight relieved guitars have the lowest quality wood due to having to drill holes ... now, doesn't it stand to reason that a guitar than needs an entire chambering process, rather than just a few holes, is actually far inferior from a quality standpoint? I mean, I know you're happy with your chambered "historic", but if it needs to be completely carved out and chambered, how good can the quality of wood really be? Certainly not up to the standards of one that needs only a couple holes drilled out, no? Anyway, I couldn't disagree more that the new Traditional line is inferior to that of a Standard ... if anything, the Traditional is more in line w/a true Standard than any of the chambered body LP's (USA or Custom Shop). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 crossroadsnyc, ever notice that when I say something against chambering there's a happy face or a laughing smiley next to it? That means it's a joke. I said the Traditional has the worst of both worlds. A non-solid body AND short neck tenon. At least the new Standard has long neck tenon. Has nothing to do with me buying a CR8. I also had a BFG (oh look, another chambered Les Paul) for a while, in case you didn't know. By the way, I had a 2006 Standard. It was weight-relieved, not chambered...and yes, it felt and sounded like a piece of sh*t after playing a Custom Shop guitar. Care to start your little rant over again now? Max, I've read that chambered guitars are more prone to feedback but my chambered Les Paul does not. Neither did my BFG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Why don’t we start the thread all over, and talk about what Reiko is asking about in the first place. A chambered Les Paul Classic. Not a Standard, R8, R9, or Traditional. From personal experience did not like the sound and the feel of this guitar. For some it may be a great semi hollow or even hollow body guitar with sealed air holes. But, the Classic has the 500t and the 496r pickups, which feels like putting a V8 engine in a Honda Civic. To me it sounded too bright, not like a Les Paul. Reiko you may very well love this combo, but try one out and play it as loud as you can. Then decide for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmeds Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 +1 I'm with BL on this one. Getting back to to the crux of the matter, They are what they are, be it Trad, historic, chambered... When I set out to get a new LP, I tried all of them and was convinced that the R8 was only one for me. One hour later and 50 miles down the road I saw this HB Trad hiding in the corner obscured by other LP's. It seem to call me; begged to be played. This was the one! At the time, it was to my ears the best I've heard with the tone I've been searching for. It did not end there, as 2 weeks later an R8 joined the family stable. My wife then asked me if the my latest "child" was now the "tone I was searching for". I said, "yes & no", it's just different with it's own character and personality. I played both for her. She said she could appreciate and hear the differences although subtle. It ended with her comment: "what have you gotten yourself into, you realize that this could go on forever?" :) :- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossroadsnyc Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 crossroadsnyc' date=' ever notice that when I say something against chambering there's a happy face or a laughing smiley next to it? That means it's a joke. I said the Traditional has the worst of both worlds. A non-solid body AND short neck tenon. At least the new Standard has long neck tenon. Has nothing to do with me buying a CR8. I also had a BFG (oh look, another chambered Les Paul) for a while, in case you didn't know. By the way, I had a 2006 Standard. It was weight-relieved, not chambered...and yes, it felt and sounded like a piece of sh*t after playing a Custom Shop guitar. Care to start your little rant over again now? Max, I've read that chambered guitars are more prone to feedback but my chambered Les Paul does not. Neither did my BFG. Not so much a rant, as it is pointing out that you, at times, tend to come across as somewhat of an elitist toward those who have an interest in anything other than what you are currently purchasing / photographing. Telling someone they purchased the "worst of both worlds" is just a rude and unnecessary comment to make. Your plethora of guitar history books don't hold all of the keys as to what does and does not make a nice guitar for someone. That's all ... "rant" finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom99SS Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Well I have sat back and read this topic and it has gotten off topic. 1) Well I have a '07 Les Paul Standard and it is chambered. And I can say I do not have any feedback issues unless I stand directly in front of my half stack. But then again what guitar would not feedback when you are directly in front of a Marshall with its volume on 7. I can obtain controlled feeedback when I want. 2) Everybody claims that the chambered guitars are bright. Well I put in 500K CTS pots. You all would think that my guitar would cause ears to bleed after going with the 500k pots . Well guess what it does not. Unplugged it sounded great. Better to me than the non-chambered Les Pauls I played which sounded to dull. Plugged in proved the point as well as the weight relieved ones just sounded less alive to me. All have BB Pro pickups. And yes you can tell by the serial number if it was weight relieved or chambered. One thing I hated about all the guitars was the muffled sound due to the modern wiring and crappy pots. This is why I went with CTS 500K pots and Luxe Repro Bees along with 50's wiring (thanks Billy at RS GuitarWorks). I did this mod over a year ago and just love the tone now (also tweeked the pickup heights and polepiece heights). Earlier this year I found this post which really shed some light on the issue RS Kits See post #7 I have a nice midrange honk with the guitar (which I think is easier to get with the chambered guitars) and love the tone. Again this is just my opinion and my quest for my tone. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 OK, back off topic... Not so much a rant' date=' as it is pointing out that you, at times, tend to come across as somewhat of an elitist toward those who have an interest in anything other than what you are currently purchasing / photographing. Telling someone they purchased the "worst of both worlds" is just a rude and unnecessary comment to make. Your plethora of guitar history books don't hold all of the keys as to what does and does not make a nice guitar for someone. That's all ... "rant" finished. [/quote']An elitist? Not even close. Sorry, but I'm not the type that drives a hybrid and smells my own farts. Maybe you haven't noticed but I have an interest in Gibson Les Pauls, in general. Not just my most recent purchase. When a newbie posts the typical "which Les Paul should I buy?" thread, my answer doesn't change. It's always an R8. Have I once said "buy a CR8" just because I bought one myself? I also use to post WAY more pictures when I first joined than I do now...ask anybody that's been a member here as long as I have. A picture of my Custom was practically in every thread. Also, please read the fukcing thread history before you call me out again. When somebody posts something like "I despise the chambered body", as above, in a serious demeanor then I'm going to say something back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 OK' date=' back off topic... An elitist? Not even close. Sorry, but I'm not the type that drives a hybrid and smells my own farts. Maybe you haven't noticed but I have an interest in Gibson Les Pauls, in general. Not just my most recent purchase. When a newbie posts the typical "which Les Paul should I buy?" thread, my answer doesn't change. It's always an R8. Have I once said "buy a CR8" just because I bought one myself? I also use to post WAY more pictures when I first joined than I do now...ask anybody that's been a member here as long as I have. A picture of my Custom was practically in every thread. Also, please read the fukcing thread history before you call me out again. When somebody posts something like "I despise the chambered body", as above, in a serious demeanor then I'm going to say something back.[/quote'] Me despising the chambered body was not an attack on any of your guitars. Unlike your comment that directly attacked mine. Despite your attempt to school me with your correspondences between you and Gibson, which is the same mass email that they have sent many customers, I still still dis like the chambered body. It’s my opinion and isn’t that what a forum is for, to express opinions and experiences? Maybe we should all just shut the fu*k up and play our Les Pauls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Maybe! I emailed Gibson this week asking for clarification on if the early '90s Les Pauls had swiss cheese holes because I've read that they did and they didn't. Specifically, the Classics. That's the response I got. They didn't write me back and say "yes, they were" or "no, they weren't." They sent me that email. Well, that's all fine and dandy Gibson CS but I wasn't asking about 2006 chambered Les Pauls. I was asking about the early '90s. It just so happened that that email was fitting to answer the OP here in this thread. Not trying to school anybody. I wrote them back again to which they replied and said that yes indeed, the early '90s Classics had swiss cheese. All of them did, Classics, Standards, Customs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I hate this topic. It's ALL in your head, gang.... I swear to God. I don't even own a Les Paul, except for my daughters '08 Studio, Fireburst WHICH IS CHAMBERED.......... and I've gigged it, and it's a fine guitar...... My '72 "Recording Les Paul" couldn't touch my "SEMI HOLLOW ES-339" for tone...... JUST SAYIN'......... This topic is gonna make me puke..... AGAIN..... If it sounds good, it's good...... Thanks, Tim. Murph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reiko5150 Posted May 25, 2009 Author Share Posted May 25, 2009 Thanks to everybody for their replies. It's seems that this is a sensitive topic judging from the reactions triggered. I got a lot of very important info from all of your answers. My intention is to gather some info on a guitar i am willing to buy, knowing at the same time, that playing it and hearing it is the most important thing, in order to decide whether to invest in it or not. I should also add, that in order to gain personal experience from the guitar , i have to make an 8 hours long trip, so i wanted to sort out a few things first in my mind and your answers really helped. Thanks again, Kind regards, Gregg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rax Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 @Mad Rax Can you elaborate a little bit on the feedback problems? I've never heard of it A guy was selling me a chambered LP and had lent it to me so I could check her out. She sounded nice in my home but when I went to rehearse and really had to use high volume (to compete with drums' date= 400 watt bass player and another guitarist) the LP gave me a real hard time with feedback which is why I didn't buy her. Ofcourse that we were playing metal which needed a lot of distortion, there wouldn't be a problem with a blues outfit. I can't say that all chambered LPs sound like that, maybe it was the pickups. I'm not saying that they sound bad, I'm just saying that they sound different. And god I miss my 70s Les Paul. I would change my custom LP, BC Riches, amps, car, FX, and even my goddamn home (if my wife lets me) for that guitar if I ever find the guy who stole it. Or kill him. Whoa! This topic has really gone big! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.