Chambered Les Paul

[strat-o-steve]

I own both chambered and weight relieved Les Pauls. They both are great! It's just one is lighter, and quite a bit lighter. You are not getting "short changed" by any means. If you don't want a chambered Standard....then buy a Standard Traditional ;) There is nothing wrong with either design.

[cjmwrx]

Hi folks, I have a problem with these new Chambered Gibson Les Paul's and I'm gonna have my say.

Does anybody else think we're getting short changed? Fair enough, they're weight relieved, but routed out to the point of almost being a semi-hollow, COME ON!!

 

That is where you should've stopped your rant. But, I digress, and you went further. I will just offer this point, and leave the rest to your imagination.

 

1. The ALL start as a solid slab of mahogany before shaping and routing.

 

2. The non-weight relieved traditional spends the least amount of time on the mill. = less worker time and less tool wear + plus higher output due to less time spend on mill.

 

3. The weight relieved traditional spends however long it takes to drill 9 holes of the SAME size (likely no tool changes). A little more time on the mill, but still nothing.

 

4. Chambered Les Pauls spend A LOT more time on the mill. The tool size for the weight relief holes is not the same diameter as the dimensions in the chamber so that means the tool has to be changed. All of this means = more time on the Mill, More tool wear, and more worker time monitoring and running the mill.

 

ALL of the above equals higher cost and more worker time for the Chambered Les Paul's. If anything, you are getting more for your money with a chambered Les Paul as opposed to any other format. Just based on manufacturing time alone.

 

If you ever spent time to see that Epiphones are most of the time made form 3-5 different pieces of wood. Most I have seen is 2 in a Gibson LP. And if they ever have more, the are advertised that way, and book matched.

 

 

LOVE the Bentonite mod. That is just great! I used acrylic and lead shot in a JA-90 Telecaster through the F-hole to make it body heavy once. I have heard other things done to ES's that I would rather not speak about. Worked great, and no extra expansion on the wood. Achieved the desired result of not having to hold the neck up when playing. Not enough to do anything about the Semi-hollow feedback on it.

[marvar]

Hi folks, I have a problem with these new Chambered Gibson Les Paul's and I'm gonna have my say.

Does anybody else think we're getting short changed? Fair enough, they're weight relieved, but routed out to the point of almost being a semi-hollow, COME ON!!

 

Gibson guitars are specially built using traditional methods, machinery, laquer and so forth, with expensive, top grade mahogany, maple , ebony, rosewood, etc...and ask mega $$$$$$$ for it.

 

Now, I don't mind paying out my hard earned money on something of high quality, such as these high grade woods. But to then be told that all that beautiful timber has been routed away to nothing is ludicrous!

What the hell am I paying all that money for? Why use such high grade wood and then whittle it away to nothing, and then charge a fortune for it? Use cheaper wood and re-adjust your price accordingly.

If I wanted a lighter guitar I would get an SG or ES 339 instead. They're beautiful instruments.

 

It's becoming increasingly obvious that if you want a solid Les Paul without all that routing(chambering), you're better off getting an Epiphone version. At least then you get exactly what you've payed for and it's still technically made by Gibson. Your only other, more expensive option, is a Gibson LP Traditional. (What a Lp standard used to be).

 

I hope I'm not the only bloke who feels this way but, if you want a lighter guitar and find that LP's are too bloody heavy for you, get something else dammit!

Les Paul guitars are Built Heavy and Sound Heavy. That's how they are and should be left, not routed to bloody death!

 

I don't know where Gibson are headed with all this crap however, I'm soooo.. pleased that Epiphone aren't screwin' around with a wonderful design that works. I love and have always loved the Gibson Les Paul guitar but, unless Gibson get their act together I will stick with the Epiphone version instead.

 

There now, I've said my piece. ( probably too much)

 

(I hate having to rave and rant on 'bout it, especially on a Sunday morning, but I'm very passionate about my favourate things, like this particular guitar).

 

Epiphones Rock!!!

 

Cheers

Paul

Um, no one said you HAD to buy a chambered LP-

[nikininja]

Epiphone are weight relieved/chambered.

 

You can tell it's an Epiphone, the neck joint is solid.

[pippy]

Epiphone are weight relieved/chambered.

 

You can tell it's an Epiphone, the neck joint is solid.

Interesting picture, nikininja.

 

I hadn't heard that Epi were starting to chamber their LPs. but I'm never on the Epi site to find these things out!

 

Anyone here with a (recent?) Epi LP who can remove the neck-pup and have a peek inside?

 

Cheers!

 

EDIT : I've just looked at all the carved-top single cuts on the Epi site and out of 22 variants(!) the only models which mentions chambering are the Ultra and Ultra II. In fact all those other models which have detailed spec-sheets stress solid - non-chambered - construction.

 

Anyone any more info?

 

P.

[Kolera]

I know nothing about Epi's. But I do know there's nothing wrong with a good chambered Les Paul. I have both chambered and weight relieved GLP's and they're all good.

 

 

[pippy]

I know nothing about Epi's. But I do know there's nothing wrong with a good chambered Les Paul. I have both chambered and weight relieved GLP's and they're all good.

 

I have no problems with the concept of a Les Paul being chambered either. I've played a forum member's chambered LP and it was a very fine playng and sounding instrument.

 

The snap nikininja posted is interesting because there is no 'reinforcement' - i.e. thicker wood - for the rear end-screw which is always found on chambered Gibsons. It could be that Epi doesn't feel it necessary. The routing path is also very different from that used by Gibson but again, perhaps Epi prefer a different shape.

 

Finally; and in the interests of clarification (mainly, of course, to help the OP) I'll post this quote from the Epiphone products website regarding the LPs I mentioned in my preceding post :

It's becoming increasingly obvious that if you want a solid Les Paul without all that routing(chambering), you're better off getting an Epiphone version.

 

I don't know where Gibson are headed with all this crap however, I'm soooo.. pleased that Epiphone aren't screwin' around with a wonderful design that works. I love and have always loved the Gibson Les Paul guitar but, unless Gibson get their act together I will stick with the Epiphone version instead.

"Now, Epiphone brings a new twist to this rock guitar legend and icon with the new LP ULTRA. While maintaining the key elements and integrity of a Les Paul, the ULTRA features a unique Mahogany body with strategically placed hollow cavities, providing not only a lighter weight (5.5 - 7.0 lbs) but also a more resonant sound."

 

 

P.

[surfpup]

I own both chambered and weight relieved Les Pauls. They both are great!

 

Ditto! 8 and 10 lbs respectively. Love the sound of both. But as the buyer, you hold the ultimate recourse... if you don't like, don't buy.

[PiscesRocker]

I like solid and heavy but not what I have in mind. The chick in the above pic has enough bulk for 3 or 4, kind of like my 80's LP Custom Shop at nearly 12 lbs

[JM2112]

I see nothing wrong at all with Gibson making solid, chambered, and weight relieved LP's. Everyone has different ideas of what they want and like. So what's wrong with making different versions/varieties of the LP as long as each model is properly labeled so the buy knows what he/she is getting? The LP is a famous and popular model, so why not make it different ways to appeal to as many people as possible? Sounds like good business sense to me.

 

I'm not worried about whether my LP is solid, chambered, or weight relieved. I'm more concerned about which one sounds best to my ears.

[rocketman]

I'm not sure what the big deal here. Want a solid Les Paul? Get a 1958 Les Paul Reissue VOS 58 R8. Here's one on ebay for $2,700.

[Yaff]

I know nothing about Epi's. But I do know there's nothing wrong with a good chambered Les Paul. I have both chambered and weight relieved GLP's and they're all good.

 

 

 

Although when I see images of the chambered body, it looks wrong (too much wood cut out), the tone is fantastic, which is what the Les Paul is all about.

 

It also surprises me how heavy some of the Chambered Les Paul`s are, when you consider how much wood they cut out. For example, my solid body weights 8.12LB and my 08 Standard comes in at 9LB. Based on the picture, it looks like there is only half the wood, so how light is the wood used in the VOS range.

 

Anyway, as the important bit is the tone and feel, not an issue. All is good, all is well

[BillyGibson]

Pick guard on or pick guard off?

 

Oh wait, wrong thread. Sorry.

[aksak]

Although when I see images of the chambered body, it looks wrong (too much wood cut out), the tone is fantastic, which is what the Les Paul is all about.

 

It also surprises me how heavy some of the Chambered Les Paul`s are, when you consider how much wood they cut out. For example, my solid body weights 8.12LB and my 08 Standard comes in at 9LB. Based on the picture, it looks like there is only half the wood, so how light is the wood used in the VOS range.

Anyway, as the important bit is the tone and feel, not an issue. All is good, all is well

 

Would that mean they use a) very dry woods? b)different woods quality (even if these woods belong to the same species, i.e. mahogany and maple)?

on VOS compared to the other models.

[drew365]

Would that mean they use a) very dry woods? b)different woods quality (even if these woods belong to the same species, i.e. mahogany and maple)?

on VOS compared to the other models.

Yes, Gibson selects the lightest bodies for use on the historics. But, a 9# chambered sounds like an anomoly. My chambered '07 Standard weighs 7# 2oz. Here's a photo I lifted from another thread of a sign on the wall of the custom shop for separating the bodies by weight:

[BigKahune]

.

 

It's deja vu all over again. . :-'

 

 

.

[Macmutt]

Hey Man

 

I was upset too, when i first heard about the chambering and weight relieved Les Paul's, but to be honest the weight relieved model's are a lot closer to the original models that you can get.

 

Chambered as you said have these big routed chambers in the mahogany part of the guitar, but the weight relieved models just have a group of holes drilled out of the mahogany part of the body, so it's quite a bit heavier.

 

I was finally in the market for a Gibson Les Paul, after getting the money together, i discovered this weight relieving and chambering stuff, so at first i was so put off, i was just going to get an SG, Unfortunately my brother has a gorgeous black SG standard with a slim 60's neck and jack on the side, small style pickguard, and with 498 and 500-T PAF pickups, it's a gorgeous guitar and i have compared all other SG's to this one and tried to find something similar.

 

I could never find a new black SG with slim taper neck, let alone a jack on the side and small pickguard combo, so i was about to settle for a 61 SG reissue, it has a 60's slim taper neck, small pickguard and classic 57 pickups, but the jack was on the face of the guitar and the color was heritage cherry, which is basically a faded red, and i hate red guitars, i've always preferred a black, deep blue or tobacco sunburst.

 

The point is i was gearing up to buy my dream guitar, and i felt like i was settling with this 61 reissue SG, even more so than the weight relieved Les Pauls, so i picked the lesser of two evils and went with a weight relieved Les Paul, especially since i read that Gibson has been doing the weight relieved models since 1982, so that means that most music that i've heard over the years on Les Pauls were played on weight relieved models, and the music i love from the 60's and 70's was on original Les Paul models, and guess what, i couldn't hear a difference between any of them.

 

So i know i'll be happy with my choice, which by the way is literally being shipped to me as we speak.....and i can't wait.

 

Give these models a chance man, you might like them.

[GibSinCity]

I own both chambered and weight relieved Les Pauls. They both are great! It's just one is lighter, and quite a bit lighter. You are not getting "short changed" by any means. If you don't want a chambered Standard....then buy a Standard Traditional ;) There is nothing wrong with either design.

 

Ditto! 8 and 10 lbs respectively. Love the sound of both. But as the buyer, you hold the ultimate recourse... if you don't like, don't buy.

 

The botom line is, YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

Buy the one you like.

Complaining that the model you like isn't the ONLY model offered is just stupid.

[rs-guitar]

I am cracking up here!! This is, by far, the most entertaining post that I have seen on any of these guitar forums. Got to have a sense of humor..A+++ "A cheerful heart is good medicine..." Proverbs 17:22

 

Thanks!!

 

THE "BENTONITE MOD"

 

Required materials:

 

1. Cheap mixing bowl from Dollarama

2. Cheap turkey baster (Mom's?)

3. 12" length of surgical rubber tubing ( Gramp's oxygen harness?)

4. 2 lbs FRESH clumping Kitty Litter

 

Instructions:

 

Mix kitty litter with water and stir constantly until mixture has the consistency of a smooth paste

 

Spoon the mixture into the baster.

 

Insert the surgical tubing into the wiring channel located in the bridge pickup cavity.

 

Attach surgical tubing to end of baster and squeeze firms and steadily, avoiding air pockets and bubbles. Repeat as required until the cavity can hold no more.

 

Wipe off excess filling mixture with a soft, damp rag.

 

Store guitar on a horizontal surface away from cats for 1 week, or until filling compound sets up rock hard

 

Restring, tune up, strap on your back brace, and ENJOY YOUR BENTONITE-MODDED LP STUDIO!

 

 

(don't mention it!)

J/W

[OldBlue&Blondie]

I know everyone is waiting, nay pining, for my 2 cents so here goes: I'm fine with whatever Gibson wants to spit out. If it is quality, then fine by me. Robot? Bring it on (if I could afford the one at Wildwood now, I'd give it a whirl). LP made out of lucite? Sure. Obeche? Well... OK, I ain't getting it, but OK. Baked maple? Why not. I'm an ebony guy, but still like my rosewood fingerboard LP. Chambered? Surem 356 has f-holes and sounds great. Weight relieved? Sure. Got one. Hunk o' wood from Noah's Ark that weighs a gazillion pounds? Got that in my Strat. Bottom line, is that a guitar is an individual thing. What I like in sound and feel is most likely different from you. Heck, some days I can't figure out which of my guitars I like best. I like having the wide range of options to find what I like best. This ain't Russia. And I'm old enough to not give a rat's a$$ about what other's think of my choices (or even my guitar playing - it has, uh, room for improvement, so what). I got out of high school a looooong time ago and matured enough to stop worrying about pleasing everyone. And their were some true dogs built in '58 (I'm assuming here, never played a '58 - I'd like to but.. well you get my point). And some of the innovations that have come after are pretty darn good.

[Septic]

The real problem is: Solid and chambered les Pauls do the same thing... Just slightly differently.

 

I'm all for tradition and have had three different solid Lps All of which have been exceptionally nice to play and produced the classic tonal shape that you'd expect from a Gibson LP.... I also have a 2007 "Chambered" model which sounds every bit as good as the others did at 5 years old with the added bonus that it needs less amplification to produce that full, rich harmonic depth you'd expect from a top quality instrument.

 

Many, many people with solid bodied LPs aren't actually willing to accept the fact that "chambering" is a good thing, because they feel that accepting this FACT will in some way devalue, or deminish the quality of their own guitar.... It won't.... So I wish the hoards of people who seem to take immense pride in slagging-off chambered models everytime they get the chance would stop doing it... It won't make their guitar worth more..... It won't make them look like a "superior" musician.... and it'll just continue to annoy those of us who are tired of hearing people put off buying a new one because they've been told they're not a patch on the old ones....

 

There are people who have NEVER even held a proper Les paul in their lives, who are convinced that chambered ones are bad because people advertising solids for sale invariably put "not one of the silly chambered models" or something equally self serving and pathetic in their ad, just to "Big-up" their own guitar.

 

I'm not suggesting that chambered ones they're better than solids, but they are certainly not inferior in any way, shape, or form.

[DuaLeaD]

word. all you lemmings with 335s are wasting your money, my Les Paul Studio is the exact same thing for like 2 grand cheaper

 

I don't mind this statement...It's only when people start saying that Epiphones are just as good as an LP Standard or higher.... :)

[abracadaben]

The real problem is: Solid and chambered les Pauls do the same thing... Just slightly differently.

 

I'm all for tradition and have had three different solid Lps All of which have been exceptionally nice to play and produced the classic tonal shape that you'd expect from a Gibson LP.... I also have a 2007 "Chambered" model which sounds every bit as good as the others did at 5 years old with the added bonus that it needs less amplification to produce that full, rich harmonic depth you'd expect from a top quality instrument.

 

Many, many people with solid bodied LPs aren't actually willing to accept the fact that "chambering" is a good thing, because they feel that accepting this FACT will in some way devalue, or deminish the quality of their own guitar.... It won't.... So I wish the hoards of people who seem to take immense pride in slagging-off chambered models everytime they get the chance would stop doing it... It won't make their guitar worth more..... It won't make them look like a "superior" musician.... and it'll just continue to annoy those of us who are tired of hearing people put off buying a new one because they've been told they're not a patch on the old ones....

 

There are people who have NEVER even held a proper Les paul in their lives, who are convinced that chambered ones are bad because people advertising solids for sale invariably put "not one of the silly chambered models" or something equally self serving and pathetic in their ad, just to "Big-up" their own guitar.

 

I'm not suggesting that chambered ones they're better than solids, but they are certainly not inferior in any way, shape, or form.

 

you guys beating the dead horse? this thread was months old... lol

[Markini]

Interesting picture, nikininja.

 

EDIT : I've just looked at all the carved-top single cuts on the Epi site and out of 22 variants(!) the only models which mentions chambering are the Ultra and Ultra II. In fact all those other models which have detailed spec-sheets stress solid - non-chambered - construction.

 

That's why my Epi Ultra plays and sounds so good. It is the only Epi LP I have ever bonded with (also one of the most expensive). Aside: workmanship just outstanding, not quite up to my Classic Custom or 60s tribute, but very very close.

[pippy]

...That's why my Epi Ultra plays and sounds so good. It is the only Epi LP I have ever bonded with (also one of the most expensive). Aside: workmanship just outstanding, not quite up to my Classic Custom or 60s tribute, but very very close.

I think the conclusion is that any LP, whether Chambered, Weight-Relieved or Solid, can be just as fantastic in terms of sound, playability and craftsmanship as any other example.

 

Certainly no sane person would argue against this viewpoint.....

 

 

P.