Eracer_Team Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 You know I've never read a thread about the two (chambered' date=' weight relieved etc) so I really had no idea that this is a "sore" subject for some people Again, I've never followed the debates about non-weight relieved, weight relieved, and chambered LP. [/quote'] I think its more than just this.. on Are Nine's second post he tries (on page1) to point out that weight-relieved Les Paul’s started in the early 80’s; but by that time you had stopped listening. So what most of us consider a ‘solid body’ guitar is in fact not in the first place (regardless of what Guitar Center puts in their ad’s) It’s only the chambering that started late 2006 and officially in 2007 on most LP’s that seems to get some people’s shorts in a knot. I don’t post much here because the group can be pretty rough but in turn they are very knowledgeable in Les Paul’s if you stop and read the posts. I’ve listened to all 3 and I like the sound of all 3 (although I don’t own all three types, but there are many here that do) each of them have their own voice. That’s why I posted R9’s post in My-Les-Paul forum so you could read up on each type. Here it is again… (I’ve learnt a lot from it) R9's Solid/Weight-relieved/Chambered artical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I don’t post much here because the group can be pretty rough "Rough"? They're a bunch of wankers........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdown Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 "Rough"? They're a bunch of wankers........ That's the spirit. Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillybilly Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 "Rough"? They're a bunch of wankers........ Thank you for this useful post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadCase Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 So, here's a question... When did it become "common knowledge" that LPs were weight relieved? Long after they'd been doing it, right? (just wondering all of a sudden...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 So' date=' here's a question... When did it become "common knowledge" that LPs were weight relieved? Long after they'd been doing it, right? (just wondering all of a sudden...)[/quote'] I read somewhere that after sawdust and wood stuff began rattling in the body like a latin percussion instrument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xinnix Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 This thread is just funny. Seems that when changes are made to a time honored design like the Gibson LP Guitar, people will stand on either the Old way side of the fence, or the New way side? I guess I understand both sides since I have a weight relieved LP. Not Solid and not Chambered. Wow, I really feel like a middle child! All I can say is that Les Paul's original design was a 4x4 log with a Gibson Neck. He only added the rest of the body for looks so it would actually resemble a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 This thread is just funny. I have to agree. It's like someone saying "Orange is a better colour than purple" and throwing the toys out the pram when others disagree. Assuming my 1991 L-P Classic was made by Gibson USA and not that era's version of the 'Custom Shop' (some' date=' possibly the oldest, were CS-built, I believe) then I have both a weight-relieved and a solid. They weigh within one ounce of each other and both sound wonderful. Slightly [i']different[/i] to each other, but wonderful nontheless. All I can say is that Les Paul's original design was a 4x4 log with a Gibson Neck. He only added the rest of the body for looks so it would actually resemble a guitar. True' date=' Xinnix. Why don't we start a "Les's [u']original[/u] Log had better tone than his Log Mk III." thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eracer_Team Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I wish I could be weight-relieved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnastynebr Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I have to agree. It's like someone saying "Orange is a better colour than purple" and throwing the toys out the pram when others disagree. Why don't we start a "Les's original Log had better tone than his Log Mk III." thread? Pram........what a great word. I love the British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdown Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I wish I could be weight-relieved So relieve me! Ha ha hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 So' date=' here's a question... When did it become "common knowledge" that LPs were weight relieved? Long after they'd been doing it, right? (just wondering all of a sudden...)[/quote'] I may be wrong but, Gibson was outted, by what what I believe was a photo of an airport xray. It started floating around forums around 5-7 years ago. The funny thing is that after the fact, all these over night audio-acoustic engineers came out of the woodwork stating that they can hear a difference. Hence the birth of the ever controversial weight relief vs. solid vs. chambering debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I may be wrong but' date=' Gibson was outted, by what what I believe was a photo of an airport xray. It started floating around forums around 5-7 years ago. The funny thing is that after the fact, all these over night audio-acoustic engineers came out of the woodwork stating that they can hear a difference. Hence the birth of the ever controversial weight relief vs. solid vs. chambering debate. [/quote'] +1 I agree with everything you say. Yes; even including the chambered bit. I'm definitely not saying there's no difference in sound. All Les Pauls have an individual, personal 'voice'. But who, honestly, can listen to a recording of a Les Paul and be able to say, without fear of contradiction, "Yes; that example's a weight-relieved one. Uh-huh; that one is a chambered model. Now; here we have a solid-bodied L-P..."... etc...etc... Like most folk here I chose my instruments on how good they sounded to my ears and felt to my hands. The only reason I ruled out a chambered model was that their body/neck balance was wrong for me. I couldn't give a stuff if my 1991 '1960 Classic' is a Custom-Shop 'solid' or USA 'weight-relieved' built instrument. Why should I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 +1 I agree with everything you say. Yes; even including the chambered bit. I'm definitely not saying there's no difference in sound. All Les Pauls have an individual' date=' personal 'voice'. But who, honestly, can listen to a [u']recording[/u] of a Les Paul and be able to say, without fear of contradiction, "Yes; that example's a weight-relieved one. Uh-huh; that one is a chambered model. Now; here we have a solid-bodied L-P..."... etc...etc... Like most folk here I chose my instruments on how good they sounded to my ears and felt to my hands. The only reason I ruled out a chambered model was that their body/neck balance was wrong for me. I couldn't give a stuff if my 1991 '1960 Classic' is a Custom-Shop 'solid' or USA 'weight-relieved' built instrument. Why should I? Right on. The difference mainly I speak of is between the weight relief and solid bodies. My first LP was a Norlin era beast of a Les Paul Custom. I then got a Goldtop Classic, followed by a chambered Honeyburst Classic. I found little distinction in the tone between the Goldtop and Custom I had a lot of issues with Classic. The ceramic pickups are not suited for a chambered instrument in my opinion. I have played a CR8 and a chambered Standard "Blonde Beauty" and they were both amazing. I like them all, and one day I'll own at least one of each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadCase Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I may be wrong but' date=' Gibson was outted, by what what I believe was a photo of an airport xray. It started floating around forums around 5-7 years ago. The funny thing is that after the fact, all these over night audio-acoustic engineers came out of the woodwork stating that they can hear a difference. Hence the birth of the ever controversial weight relief vs. solid vs. chambering debate. [/quote'] Thanks bubba_leon, that's what I was thinking about, the airport x-ray stuff, which I was guessing only happened about 4 - 5 years ago... IDK. Funny how no one knew that their "solid-body" was full of holes for so long, or that Gibson kept it a secret for so long. "Outted", that's a good word for it. As for the "maraca effect" (gibsonlespaul1319), I think that became an issue w/ the Supreme LP and or the BFG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loco Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I read somewhere that after sawdust and wood stuff began rattling in the body like a latin percussion instrument. Yep - that's how I found out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greeny_lp85 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 But as I said previously' date='I absolutely love the sounds I get out of mine. Like the old saying goes - if it sounds good acoustically,you're on a winner.[/quote'] Very true. The acoustic response the LP (whether it's chambered, weight relieved or solid) has a great influence on the amplified tone. The acoustic tone tells a lot about how the guitar is supposed to sound amplified (which means you need a little help from different pickups in some cases). I know many people change their stock pots and caps as well, but seriously; don't touch it if it ain't broken. I've messed with this a lot myself and in many cases I wished I wouldn't have changed those electronics in the end. Why would you mess with it if the tone is just already there? Why did you buy the guitar in the first place? Because it was an already good guitar that deserved better? Or because it was a great guitar that made you fall in love from the first moment you plugged her in? Really, these Les Pauls excist if you use your ears, your heart and your hands. Think about that before you're going nuts with all the hype and lots of bs these days. Just find that great piece of wood and play it, love it and enjoy it. Learn about her great things and accept her less great things; no guitar is perfect, even not the original PG '59 LP. It may have sounded fantastic, but the players are the ones that are responsible for the magic, not the guitar by itself (no matter how good it was/is). Peace, 'Greeny' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 the players are the ones that are responsible for the magic' date=' not the guitar by itself (no matter how good it was/is).[/quote'] How true. I remember there was disbelief in some circles when Peter Green related how he used a brand new Strat on Albatross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I just wanted to post again in this thread. You may proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 It was slowing down and required a little extra inertia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrosurfer1959 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Ssome of these old posts never die. Even the ones that should! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 If I had left post #8 in tact it would have gone two pages. Tops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greeny_lp85 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Ssome of these old posts never die. Even the ones that should! I agree to some degree, but those older topics are immortal as long as people want to share their own opinions + experiences AND as long as there are newbies that always seem to ask the same questions regarding chambered, weight relieved and solid Gibsons. Maybe a general topic about this subject (Sticky) would be the perfect solution; it would help against having the same discussions over and over again. Peace, 'Greeny' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I think the truth is everyone loves the ol' solid vs. weight relieved vs. chambered debate. It keeps showing up in one way or the other. And it flares everyone up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.