Chambered vs. Non-Chambered

[The_Sentry]

This one got me rolling after visiting a local music store. One of the floor models they had was an SX Les Paul knockoff. Although it was right handed, I was still sort of intrigued by the guitar.

 

Especially after I picked it up. That sucker had to weigh in excess of 11 lbs.

 

But, plugging it in.....wow. Thick, heavy tone. And a lot of it. I hate to say this, but that guitar probably had more of a commonality in terms of sound on the presence and depth on a Gibson vs. my chambered Epis.

 

So...the question rolling back to Epiphone:

 

I know that chambered bodies on Les Pauls were introduced because lugging something like on stage for a few hours would probably tweak your shoulder something awful. But what about the Studio models? Would it be worth it to have a Studio model that was just a solid slab for the sake of tone vs. a chambered model?

[shartom]

I have a fairley new Gibby LP Studio. The weight is just right. Is it sacrificing it's tone having a chambered body, I really don't think so. My Ultra I is also chambered. I find my Sheraton weighs far more than the LP's. When I'm using the Sheraton on a gig, I alternate sets with one of my LP's.

I had a Gibby LP Goldtop with the mini humbuckers back in the early 70's. If I had it now, it would probably be in a glass case. I sold it then because of the weight. I doubt it has lightened up any.

[custer]

The weight was the same reason I sold my Gibson Les Paul. I like the chambered bodies and in fact unplugged they sound better than the non chambered bodies IMHO.

[epilover9568]

I own 2 gibson les pauls: one is a 2007 chambered body with 57 classics, the other is a 1999 custom (not chambered) with 490r/498t. The 1999 custom has by far more tone and a sweeter sound. I have tried changing the strings out and the custom always sounds better.

 

So much for me liking the chambered bodies. I am not sold yet.