Weight Relief, Chambered?? i just dont know

[Elias]

Guys, just to keep with this topic:

 

 

Yep... Weight relief has been done since 1982 which is why I don't understand why Gibson started chambering. They were successful with the weight relieved guitars all this time with a few complaints here and there about how LPs were to heavy. They should have continued weight relief and released a limited edition chambered Les Paul Standard model to test the waters and see if the chambering was going to be in high enough demand to add it to the normal production line. If they were making both weight relieved and chambered LP's there would be no fuss and everyone would be happy....

 

If you guys take a look into the Gibson website. you`ll see a "a new model" the les Paul Standard Traditional.. and if you read the feautres you`ll see that this new and expensive guitar has the same Weight relief holes that the old Standard (1982-2006 am i right?).

 

So why Gibson made a new chamberd Standard and now ther is a new Line (Traditional) just like the guitar that we know till 2006??..

 

i just dont know

[DuaLeaD]

I like chambering in my Supreme more for the tone and sustain. It seems to give the guitar a smooth, airy quality to the leads. I believe it was RichCI on this forum who compared it to adding a slight streak of semi-hollow body tone to your Les Paul and I would have to agree. I brought it to Guitar Center a few times and it sounded much better than the Les Paul Standards I tried it against (non-chambered). But that could just be a pickup issue or any other factors....

 

Either way, I am glad to see chambering has worked it's way into the Standard line.

 

As far as weight relief. LOTR *Lord Elrond voice*

"The weight of the thy Les Paul is a burden you must bear. Only you can do it. No one can do it for you..."

 

The chambering seems to shave 2 pounds or so off. I notice a more severe difference when I pickup a LP Custom rather than a Standard though (compared to my axe).

 

Honestly, if

a) My back is hurting (which is rare on guitar for some reason...moreso at work)

I want to *David Lee Roth* (acrobatics) it with my guitar on stage...I'll just bust out my Jackson Rhoads V which is a HELL OF A LOT lighter than any Les Paul I've played; probably less than half the weight....

[Les Paul Fanatic]

Not too fond of weight-relieving/ chambering. The heavier the better I say. Then again I have an Ibanez that's pushin' every ounce of ten pounds with the strap on it. (That's cause I have a chain for a strap on it) Tee Hee Hee

[Elias]

a few days ago i had the chance to play both guitars, Mine (weight relieg) ad a les paul of a friend o mine. and actually both sound just like they should sound.

 

So, therefore.. Why Gibson launch a new model and with a few houndreds of dollars expensive with all the features that we know since 1982 till 2006??

[deepblue]

I actually found my non-chambered R9 more to have more acoustic qualities then my chambered Lester.

I can actually hear all 6 strings better with a clearer tone.

 

Its funny that Gibson still refers to new Les Pauls as solid bodies. Theres nothing solid about them.

Perhaps from a legal standpoint they should not be allowed to do so any longer.

[Elias]

I actually found my non-chambered R9 more to have more acoustic qualities then my chambered Lester.

I can actually hear all 6 strings better with a clearer tone.

 

Its funny that Gibson still refers to new Les Pauls as solid bodies. Theres nothing solid about them.

Perhaps from a legal standpoint they should not be allowed to do so any longer.

 

Atcually Gibson refers to the Les Paul Standard traditional.. With the weight relief sistem....it`s in the page

 

www.gibson.com

[Tim Plains]

So why Gibson made a new chamberd Standard and now ther is a new Line (Traditional) just like the guitar that we know till 2006??..

 

i just dont know

I think it's a pretty simple answer. Gibson decided to chamber all of their USA Les Pauls, enough people complained about it; so, they brought weight-relieved LPs back to make everybody happy. They already when forward with chambering the Standard and had to come up with a new name for the "new" weight-relieved Les Paul. Traditional is fitting.

 

As for why Gibson started chambering in the first place. Who knows??

Maybe because a lot of people complained about the weight.

Maybe because they were running out or paying more for lighter wood and had to do something about it.

 

If you ask me...and this is only my opinion...weight-wise, the wood they're using is substandard and rather than throw it away, they're just hollowing it out. But, if you really think about it, according to my logic...even the weight-relieved Les Pauls of the past 20 years are technically made of substandard wood. Otherwise, why do it in the first place? They had the same issue back in the early '80s and decided to weight-relieving was the right thing to do. Before that they were all solid, right...see what I mean?

 

I don't mean substandard in the sense that the guitars are substandard, just that the wood didn't meet weight requirements. Please don't blow this out of proportion.

[Elias]

i see it as a matter of "let`s make more money"... Why??... Gibson Started to create the Chambered guitars in 2007. And thou both guitars, weight relieved and Chambered, sound in the same way. In my personal opinion, for a lot of us, for me, it´s a little hard to accept that our new guitar has air between maple and mahogany...

 

So, Maybe Gibson , thought, mmmmm. If a lot of people dont like our new chambered system, mmmm what do we do???...

and then, Mr Gibson engineer should said something like this: "Let´s recreated the weight relieved hole Guitars and let`s call it Les Paul Traditional and why not, let´s sell it a litle more expensive that the new chambered Standard"..

 

For me it´s just a matter of money

[SRV-Zeppelin]

on the matter of sound quality, I have a friend who has two 70s Les Pauls, a Custom and a Standard. They're both like bricks, no weight relief or chambering. Compared to my 2007 Ebony LP (see avatar) which is chambered, not weight-relieved, the 70s LPs have a denser, fuller sound to them. They're great for playing rhythm, as the chords just sound really full and just... there. My LP on the other hand sounds better on lead as it has an "airier" tone and is acoustically louder. I couldn't say which is better, they're just different.

[rocketman]

on the matter of sound quality' date=' I have a friend who has two 70s Les Pauls, a Custom and a Standard. They're both like bricks, no weight relief or chambering. Compared to my 2007 Ebony LP (see avatar) which is chambered, not weight-relieved, the 70s LPs have a denser, fuller sound to them. They're great for playing rhythm, as the chords just sound really full and just... there. My LP on the other hand sounds better on lead as it has an "airier" tone and is acoustically louder. I couldn't say which is better, they're just different.[/quote']

 

I agree. I have one chambered ('08) and one with weight relief holes ('04). There is a difference between them for sure, especially at low volumes. You can hear the "resonation" in the chambered one by tapping on the top. The '04 does have a slightly fuller sound and the '08 has more of a bite to it. Someday I'll get around to weighing both of them, but the 04' feels heavier than the '08. As you state here, I think both sound great, but different.

 

I did play a Standard Les Paul once that was extremely light. I'm talking 4 to 5 pounds max! It didn't feel real to me but it was a real Les Paul (played it at GC). I never did ask about it though. Does anyone know how they make it that light?

[deepblue]

tcually Gibson refers to the Les Paul Standard traditional.. With the weight relief sistem....it`s in the page

 

This is true, but its still considered a solid body. Youd never see them in the the hollowbody section of their web site.

[RichCI]

As a player who owns a CS Custom that weighs over 10 lbs, I am very open to the idea of chambering.

 

One aspect that I suspect might be overlooked is the potential for a chambered LP to react similarly to a hollowbody at high volume but with a sharper attack. Think of Ted Nugent on Double Live Gonzo.

[1982CARLPEMGS]

No thank you. None for me.

[Murph]

I was totally against chambering when I first heard about it. I was also against weight relief.

 

I have since bought an ES-339 and have changed my mind. Air is your friend, when it comes to tone. Think Chet Atkins. B.B. King.

 

I still like solid guitars, but also like semi hollows. I'm glad they gave us the option.

 

Best of luck.

 

Murph.

[Hall]

What happens to all those chips and dust after weight relief and chambering?

 

I have two Pauls including an R8. But, I've always been able to get more tonal variety out of the 335. Still, freaky as it is, I also have an infamous 79 The Paul, 2 piece cheapo body with absolutely the best playing neck & ebony fretboard of any Gibson I own. The fretwork is beyond compare. Tuners are Grovers. Seems they saved the bucks on the body & finish, but made the, hardware, pups and neck the real thing. Skitzoid guitar! They had to be babied and cared for from the outset to be brought up to standards in appearance, or they just dried out as if bleached. I've seen some that are laughable with neglect. I know mine sounds & plays like a dream. I've oiled and rubbed the non- finish for so many years it is a beautiful natural now. Wonder if walnut has some true worthwhile solid body characteristics worthy of more use in solid body electrics? And, same thought on the non-finish breathing sound. Dunno. Nothing could get me to part with this one though! I guess I just got lucky. It cost $600 bucks new. I quit trying to figure out anything Gibson does on that day!

[Stefptycia]

Unfortunately I only have my trusty LP Deluxe so I can't comment on the different tones as in chambered/weight relieved or not. What I can say is when I bought it (34 years ago) the tone was not what I expected - but it has mellowed over the years (just like a good wine). It now has a wonderfull sound. I've just weight it on my digital bathroom scales at 9lbs and now remember why I have slightly rouded shoulders lol.

 

Regards

 

stef

[porschemunkey]

I've played dozens of '58 and '59 and '60 VOS guitars now, which I feel are typically the closest to THE EPIC LES PAUL SOUND... All were "good", but only the ones with Red Maple tops (two that I found) were "exceptional". The sustain from a long tenon neck joint is significantly better, but the TONE of the instrument seems to propagate through the top into the rest of the body.

 

When I finally FOUND a 2008 Les Paul Standard with a Red Maple flamed top and a Cherry Sunburst, I thought, "Hmmmmm, that looks interesting." I picked it up off the wall and thought, "Hmmmmmm, light weight too." I checked the action and found it acceptable, and the neck to be straight (proper relief should look nearly straight to the eye). Then I adjusted the tuners and gave it a strum and went "WOW!" There's an almost undescribeable richness to the sound which I don't find in 98% of the Les Pauls. And that was before I even plugged it into an amp! I've NEVER liked BurstBucker Pro pickups because I always feel the sound too muddy. In this guitar, they could simply sing! I did change out the bridge pickup to a Seymour Duncan Pearl Gates, which is made with Alnico II magnets and unpotted coils, just like the original over-wound '59 pickups. It's even wound on the same machine that wound the original Gibson humbuckers. The Pearly Gates adds a bit more drive, grit, and clarity to the lead position. With the rich tone emanating from the body and strings, it's my own little slice of heaven.

 

The problem is it's ruined my GAS! I can't play anything at stores now... It's sad...

 

The "Judgement Day" is coming though. I'm supposed to visit a friend's house where he's got an R '59, an 04 Les Paul Standard, and two Heritage "Les Pauls" with Seymour Duncan '59s... They're all going to face-off through his dual VHT setup. Mucho tube goodness. I'm ready... My Les Paul is ready. Modern-engineered chambers versus weight-relief versus 100% solid, long-tenon goodness!

[surfpup]

 

The "Judgement Day" is coming though. I'm supposed to visit a friend's house where he's got an R '59' date=' an 04 Les Paul Standard, and two Heritage "Les Pauls" with Seymour Duncan '59s... They're all going to face-off through his dual VHT setup. Mucho tube goodness. I'm ready... My Les Paul is ready. Modern-engineered chambers versus weight-relief versus 100% solid, long-tenon goodness![/quote']

 

We would all be thrilled if you could record this showdown and post. Just a little clip of each. Would be neat to hear the differences for ourselves.

 

Also would love pics of this red maple you keep talking about. Can you post a good picture of your top so we can see the difference?

[porschemunkey]

Actually, I really do need to do that. I posted a photo a LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG time back when I got the guitar, but since then I've just been playing the darn thing!

 

The only other change I made was to replace the stock saddles with GraphTech saddles. GraphTech said they sound more like the "original steel saddles" that Gibson used (I do not know what material the 2008 saddles are made from) and I like the bright sound of the VOS Les Pauls. There does appear to be a slight difference in sustaing and tone. GraphTech also says their saddles eliminate a wierd mid-frequency spike, and I concur. It's a little easier to get a "scooped" tone with the GraphTech saddles installed. It would be interesting to obtain a VOS bridge and A/B the two on a recording just to see what the difference really is. Maybe it's all in my head...

 

I did take this guitar to a GC over in Phoenix and found that it really screams when compared to a VOS '59. Gives up nothing other than just a teensy bit of sustain, which again I'll say is because of the long-tenon neck joint, and probably the thicker neck (mine's a 60's Neck, and I love that feel!). I give up a little sustain, but can gain it back through a good tube amp using a little bit of feedback. There's just this WAY a non-wax-potted, Alnico II magnet pickup sounds through a high-gain tube amp that I can't get with ceramics, Alnico V, or EMGs.

 

Oh, and my buddy's office is basically a one-room recording studio too! LOL I'll see if we can record some dry, non-effect stuff from his VHT rig. He has a Rat ProCo, in case anyone's curious, and was following the Marshall thread. That guy's got way too much money in gear in there! He claims he needs it when he jams with Eddie Money! Bah! I wish I could claim that too!

[porschemunkey]

BTW-go and search up photos of the original 58 and 59 Les Pauls... ALL of those tops were made from Red Maple from Michigan.

 

Warning: this post gets very boring after this point. Read on ONLY if you're a tone-junkie like me!

 

Here's one example I found online: http://www.hullforest.com/wideplank/products_red_maple_curly.html?cat=red_maple&type=curly

Red Maple has a greater propensity to showing wierd, semi-unsightly "red streaks" in with the grain. This is from mineral deposits. Now, while Red Maple (Acer Rubrum) does grow all the way from Canada to Florida, only the examples from the north seem to show these mineral deposits. Gibson still buys Red Maple in bulk, possibly from tree farms in Canada, but they buy other varieties too, and they just chuck them all into their drying warehouse without paying a lot of attention to where it goes on the other end of the process. Yes, I was told this by someone at Gibson in direct response to my question.

 

Another link here: http://www.collinswood.com/WoodProducts/Resources/RedMaple.pdf

 

Now... not all Red Maple has these mineral streaks in it. The only way I've been able to identify it has been by the streaks in the grain. Since it sometimes has less flame to it, I've seen it on Les Paul Classics and Epiphones (which are made from a different species of Mahogany than Gibsons). This was the ONLY LP Standard I've found where it's clearly visible in the grain on the top. Am I nuts? Possibly. Other maple-topped Les Pauls which do not have these mineral marks do NOT sound as live and vibrant to my ear (even when strings are changed to brand new ones). Red Maples are considered a "soft" hardwood:

 

From here: http://www.gutchess.com/lumber/redmaple.html

Relative Working & Physical Properties †

 

Red Maple, also known as Soft Maple, is, as its name suggests, about 25% less hard than Hard Maple. It has medium bending and crushing strength, and low shock resistance. Red Maple machines well and can be stained and polished to an outstanding finish. It glues, nails and screws satisfactorily. During drying it exhibits little degrade. Red Maple is often used as a substitute for Hard Maple or stained to resemble Cherry.

 

Specific Gravity 0.54

Weight 609 kg / m3

Hardness 950 lbf

Machining 4

Nailing 3

Screwing 3

Gluing 3

Finishing 5

 

Furniture, paneling, cabinets, mouldings, doors and musical instruments.

 

By comparison, here's what that same site says about "White Hard Maple", the most commonly recognized North American Maple:

Relative Working & Physical Properties †

 

Hard Maple is, as its name suggests, hard and heavy with good strength properties. It has high resistance to abrasion and wear, and has good steam bending properties. Hard Maple dries slowly with considerable shrinkage and can be susceptible to movement in performance. Pre-boring is advised when nailing and screwing. Hard Maple machines well, glues satisfactorily and can be stained and polished

to a fantastic finish.

 

Specific Gravity 0.63

Weight 705 kg / m3

Hardness 1450 lbf

Machining 4

Nailing 3

Screwing 3

Gluing 4

Finishing 5

 

Please note the difference in Specific Gravity, weight per Meter cubed, and measurement of hardness. There is no way Red Maple can propagate sound waves the same as the "White Hard Maple", which is better known as "Sugar Maple" (Acer Saccharum). "White Hard Maple" weighs nearly as much as Red Oak, has the same Specific Gravity, AND is HARDER!

 

I'll remind you that Strat necks are made of HARD Maple, and have a distinctive percussive sound and attack. There is NO WAY that a Hard Maple top and a "soft Maple" like Red Maple can possibly sound the same! Not physically possible. If it sounds like "strings on a bowling ball", I'm willing to bet that you've got a Les Paul with a Hard Maple top. Bright and long sustaining overtones lacking in warmth? Hard Maple. Rich singing midrange with softened (not ice pick) highs= Red Maple.

 

Within this range though, there can be softer Hard Maples and harder Red Maples. Supposedly, the story I read was that the "Michigan Maples" which grew in the swampy wet ground around the Great Lakes area were heavily cut in the late 1800s-early 1900s during the expansion into the Midwest. The Red Maple is a very aggressive tree, and it grew back, generating stands of trees available in the 1950's. Red Maples are very susceptible to forest fires, so the benefited from mankind moving into their area and actively working to suppress natural forest fires, as people living around the Michigan area surely did. These trees were cut and floated to sawmills. Ed Roman thinks some of them were locked under the ice during some of the heavy winters that area is known for (lake-effect snowfall anyone?). He believes that microbes "hollowed out" the Maple, producing microscopic air chambers, once the wood was fully dried and cut. I'm not so sure I buy that explanation after finding out just how different these varieties of Maple actually are.

 

Between the time when Les Paul production ceased in 1961, and it resumed in 1968, I'm not sure how much attention Gibson was paying to the Maple supplied, nor when they began to buy Maple from all over the East Coast. There's another Hard Maple from the West Coast known as Western Bigleaf, and if you've got a full quilted-maple top, that's what it likely is. Very tightly-figured "fiddleback" figuring is typically "White Hard Maple" aka Sugar Maple.

 

This is all very subjective... It depends on the listener's ear, and what he or she prefers in sound. Someone playing nightly at extreme volume might not want a highly resonant (feedback) guitar. All I can say is, any Maple which is 25% less dense than another variety of Maple cannot possibly, ever sound the same as a much harder piece. Gibson might tell you that they do, but realistically, they're in it to sell guitars. It's up to you to pick the one YOU like best.

 

I hope this helps!

[porschemunkey]

As I said, my only test is to first look for those short dark mineral stains or lines in the grain... whenever I find them, if the rest of the guitar is well-made too, the sound it produces when strummed is nothing short of amazing. All others.... eh, not so much. You'll FEEL the vibrations through the guitar's back and the various harmonic overtones will simply jump out of chords or single notes. It'll sound like there's a chorus stomp box built in to the guitar's body. All this will be apparent before you ever plug it in... If the intonation is too far off, or the neck relief is too great at the 12th fret though, it'll only sound great out by the nut. The strings will pull sharp when they're fretted beyond the 7th fret or so, so be aware of that. Proper neck relief should be only a couple THOUSANDTHS of an inch, and should be measured with a feeler gauge. ALL guitars change after they've been built, as they're built in one part of the country, and shiped all over the place through and to widely varying atmospheric conditions. If you find one you THINK has a Red Maple top, and you're interested in it, as for a store's guitar tech to do a proper set-up on it. I lucked out and found one straight out of the box with "acceptable" intonation and only a slightly too-high action, which I promptly corrected. It shifted a little when the desert southwest experienced the summer "monsoon" season and the humidity went up, but it's returned back to it's previous low action now (higher humidity= Mahogany "relaxing" and bowing more= higher strings above the fretboard).

 

I'll try to capture the sound at my buddy's little studio on my next trip to LA. I swear, ya'll, I'm not insane!

[porschemunkey]

'59 Les Paul Sunburst, Red "Michigan Maple" top: http://www.lespaulforum.com/registry/photo.php?photo=479&varlist=a%3A12%3A%7Bi%3A0%3Bs%3A1%3A%220%22%3Bi%3A1%3Bs%3A20%3A%22ee_photo.ee_photo_id%22%3Bi%3A2%3Bs%3A3%3A%22ASC%22%3Bi%3A3%3Bs%3A20%3A%22ee_photo.ee_photo_id%22%3Bi%3A4%3Bs%3A0%3A%22%22%3Bi%3A5%3Bs%3A1%3A%221%22%3Bi%3A6%3Bs%3A6%3A%22thumbs%22%3Bi%3A7%3Bs%3A1%3A%220%22%3Bi%3A8%3Bs%3A6%3A%22public%22%3Bi%3A9%3Bs%3A7%3A%22default%22%3Bi%3A10%3Bs%3A1%3A%228%22%3Bi%3A11%3Bs%3A2%3A%2250%22%3B%7D

 

Note the mineral streaks in the grain.

[surfpup]

Thanks, PM. Quite informative. I have some of this "mineral streaking" in the top of my own Faded Standard LP which is why your ideas peaked my curiosity.

[porschemunkey]

I've actually seen quite a few "Fadeds" on eBay with mineral streaks in the tops, which aren't as flamey as some tops. Mine isn't particularly flamey either, under certain lighting, but the mineral streaks are unmistakeable on mine. Mine also isn't a "bookmatched" top, but instead features two slabs of Maple in which the grain bows slightly from left to right and back to the left again. I like it because the "bowed" area matches the swell of the carved top nicely. I love it because of its sound though!

 

I was actually looking to get a used Faded for this very reason! THEN... I stumbled over my Les Paul in LA, and the rest, as they say, is history!

 

In 1958, the best pieces of flamed and quilted Maple were set aside at the Gibson factory for their acoustic guitar backs and mandolins. Today the best pieces are still reserved for those uses, and for the Custom Shop models. I got to do the Gibson Memphis tour a couple years back, and the quality of the flame on the ES-335s they were building there would put my "AA flamed maple top" to shame! Doesn't matter to me... some of the '58s and '59s weren't the flashiest pieces either.

[esch]

 

Love the tone of hollow / semi hollow but they are just too large for me. Very Uncomfortable to play; yeah I know whine whine whine. Poor little baby likes smaller solid body guitars....

 

You would love the ES-339. Similar size as a Les Paul but with the best tonal qualities combining an LP and a 335 which is obviously much bigger physically.