ctguy1955 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 http://s968.photobucket.com/albums/ae168/CTguy1955/2pdsdifferent.jpg Can someone please tell me if the guitar that is two pounds heavier would have different tone and amount of sustain, as they are both kiln dried and it cant be moisture content, so it has to be density of the wood. Does it make much difference ? Which one would YOU buy ??? Thanks for the help on this, I have to make some choices soon. I wanted to buy a Standard, but they upped the price to 2999 and now I cant quite touch it. The 1699 for these guitars is within my budget, and I like all of the features except the zebra pups. light or heavy? I only sit when I play, and my Studio is 9.2 pounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongoscot Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I cant give any scientific reasoning to my answer but all other things the same I gravitate towards the heavier Les Paul.I know that answer is totally worthless but Ill put it out there anyway B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Moore Tribute Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Gibson Dry their woods before manufacture so its not likely to be the moisture that makes it heavier. But here's the thing, a heavier guitar may be more dense but it doesn't guarantee extra sustain After all the 1959's weight as little as 7lbs and they can sound & sustain for hours! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Hello! The extra weight doesn't guarantees better sustain or tone. My chambered Studio is acoustically louder than the weight-relieved Classic Custom. Sustain-wise I don't hear any significant difference. It takes the coincidence of more factors than weight itself: proper setup (fretwork, neck-relief), human factor (touch, fingering technic), and of course amp and it's settings. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I agree with the 'weight does not equate sustain' camp. If it were ME I'd go for the 8lb 4oz one. No question. FWIW, the average for the '58-'60 'bursts was around 8lb 12oz and, in a test of half-a-dozen originals, ToneQuestReport found the lighter examples to be more 'lively'. 8lb 4oz would seem to be a good weight. I'm sure you know already but p-up covers are widely available if your preference is for a more 'classic' look. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Here's the thing about mahogany. In general, the larger the diameter of the tree is, the less dense the wood is. Back in the day, they used the biggest trees, because they were less dense than the small ones and considered the best wood. Today, there are less good trees left and the mahogany comes from smaller tees. That's not good. The more desirable mahogany is always less dense. It is more resonant. Lighter guitars have better wood. But most people think that heavier LP's have the better wood. Depends what you consider "better". Heavier or more resonant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I don't have any kind of scientific proof either. But, I am firmly of the belief that weight does effect the overall tone and character of an instrument. I would say, that a "swiss chesse" guitar that targets a lighter wieght would sound more similar to a guitar with less dense wood than 2 solids of different weights. That is, if a guitar starts off as 9 lbs, and you compare it to a 8 1/2 lbs guitar, it will get closer in character if you take 1/2 pound away rather than leave it as 9 lbs. Scientifically, EVERYTHING has a 'resonent frequency'. Wieght is ONE of the things that effects what that is. I don't know for sure this is a factor with a guitar, but I believe it is. But it's still only part of it, parts of different materiels and coupling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctguy1955 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Well, I sure have a wealth of opinions, and I can read one and feel one way, and then read another and feel a different way. Its one thing to have a bunch of the same guitars in a store and try em all out and see which one sounds and feels the best to you, but I would be ordering this from another store, have it shipped to MY Guitar Center and have them do a setup on it and I would have to pay for it first. I have 30 days to bring it back, but that is not my intention, Ive gone through a lot of heartache with a 2012 Studio that has been back to Nashville twice now, and the neck is not in good shape, so I want to get a USA Gibson Les Paul that is going to cost more, but have the binding on the body and neck, and hopefully the care put into making it will be better then the last USA Studio I bought that was out of my possession for 5 months total with the Authorized Luther messing it up twice and denting it. The neck is as straight as can be, and the truss rod nut is loose and I changed the 10's to 12's and went from 430 pitch to 450 in hopes that it would put some relief in the neck to get rid of the fret buzz, but its been weeks and its just not going to cut it anymore. Time to get rid of it and upgrade to something that is good right from the factory and while at GC, the Luther there and go over it and if its not almost perfect, they they can send it back and get me another right away, no more shipping to my home. Well I thank all of you for your help, the journey to finding a good guitar is an exciting adventure !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyMoon Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 One of them comes with some "stuff" wrapped in tinfoil that you're to deliver to an undisclosed phone booth and await a phone call for further instructions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Very interesting topic. I have been contemplating this for years and this is what I have come up with: I had compared my SG61, LP Standard, and 335. SG61 Thin and light equals a louder acoustic volume, less sustain acoustically because the louder a guitar is acoustically the less sustain there is because energy is taken away from the string and turned into sound wave energy. However, because it lets sound out easily and can also let sound in easilly, volume induces sustain and feedback. So this guitar gets more sustain from more volume from an amp. LP Standard Thick and heavy means a quiet acoustic volume, more sustain acoustically because the strings energy is retained more by not transmitting sound waves out of the body. So this guitar maintains its sustain throughout changing volumes from the amp. 335 Very loud acoustically with decaying sustain unless you are plugged in loud, then it has the most sustain of all of them. A perfect example of all this is a steel guitar, very quiet acoustically but massive sustain.I have a steel guitar on my wishlist and will be interested to hear one cranked through my Marshalls. VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Gibson Dry their woods before manufacture so its not likely to be the moisture that makes it heavier. But here's the thing, a heavier guitar may be more dense but it doesn't guarantee extra sustain After all the 1959's weight as little as 7lbs and they can sound & sustain for hours! Are you saying there is a genuine '59 LP that weighs 7 lbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmm555 Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I own two chambered Les Pauls: Gary Moore BFG - Light weight 60’s Tribute - Heavy weight The 60’s Tribute seems to have more mids, maybe sharper highs, a harder sound. The GM BFG seems more scooped tone, less mids, maybe more mellow. I can hear it strummed, open-stringed acoustically, side by side. Amplified, that can add all types of more tones. Both seem to sustain well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Moore Tribute Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Are you saying there is a genuine '59 LP that weighs 7 lbs? Yep none other than Jimmy Page's #1 http://www.led-zeppelin.org/joomla/studio-and-live-gear/228 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Yep none other than Jimmy Page's #1 http://www.led-zeppe...d-live-gear/228 I thought that sounded far too light for a '59 and did a search... The weight in your link is almost certainly a misprint. According to the other sites I found the consensus of opinion suggests the JP #1 weighs a rather more believable 8lb 6oz. (give or take an ounce). This also seems to be what Gibson weighed it in at when they were studying the original guitar for the subsequent re-issue. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 And even with a 'misprint', there is a big difference between 7 and 7 1/2 lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Moore Tribute Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Well their you go. Not all information on Led Zeppelin pages are correct, remember that kids... (PS I'm not continuing this discussion, no one needs an ego boost here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 After all the 1959's weight as little as 7lbs and they can sound & sustain for hours! Or simply a matter of pure misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Well their you go. Not all information on Led Zeppelin pages are correct, remember that kids... (PS I'm not continuing this discussion, no one needs an ego boost here) Considering the subject matter of this thread is wholly about weight of LPs I think the OP deserves accurate replies in this regard. Is that so ridiculous? Ego-boost? Here??? P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Moore Tribute Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Its not complicated I tried to help out, google'd the weight of the original 1959 models and that information came up in the search. My link The information was wrong despite being the top link, their, as for generalising it to 7lbs I did say "as little as" not an exact weight, the main reason I said that was assuming the "Page" upgrades added weight it could be assumed that a non modified Les Paul could weighless... Their is method to my statement, like you say no one wants wrong info, just in this cause the top link was wrong to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I completely agree with your post and fully appreciate your intention to be as helpful as possible. The mistake over the weight was not your mistake. The mistake had been made by whoever posted the info on the page in your link. No 'blame' was aimed at yourself at all. I apologise if that didn't come across clearly enough in my posts. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Its not complicated I tried to help out, google'd the weight of the original 1959 models and that information came up in the search. My link The information was wrong despite being the top link, their, as for generalising it to 7lbs I did say "as little as" not an exact weight, the main reason I said that was assuming the "Page" upgrades added weight it could be assumed that a non modified Les Paul could weighless... Their is method to my statement, like you say no one wants wrong info, just in this cause the top link was wrong to begin with. Here again, it's understandable that a mis-print might be repeated, but the mis-print of 7 1/2 pounds is not the only thing here. You took it and "invented" an origonal '59 that weighs "as little as 7 lbs and sustains forever". That's a lot of assumptions to come up with that. What you state really is so far from true that it should not seem odd or "an ego boost" to be corrected or asked by such an incredible statement. The debate, the "lore" of LP's, weight, and sustain has been talked about and experienced for years. As well as the "tone" as it relates to wieght, and even the swiss-cheese and chambering. It's fair and justified to have opinions. And, it's certainly a good question to ask about, and get opinions on. But a 7 lb "solid" LP is so far out of reality that it really does equate to wrong info. You can't really have opinions or a discussions based on that, let alone make a guess and have one arrive and be what you thought it would if you are trying to get answers on what it might sound or play like. How would you feel if you thought you were getting something only to find out it was not the real deal? It's not an "ego" thing or beating up on anyone, it's just about correcting wrong info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctguy1955 Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 Here's the thing about mahogany. In general, the larger the diameter of the tree is, the less dense the wood is. Back in the day, they used the biggest trees, because they were less dense than the small ones and considered the best wood. Today, there are less good trees left and the mahogany comes from smaller tees. That's not good. The more desirable mahogany is always less dense. It is more resonant. Lighter guitars have better wood. But most people think that heavier LP's have the better wood. Depends what you consider "better". Heavier or more resonant. I had no idea that lighter wood would have more "Sustain" ability then more heavy wood. Thank you for clearing this up as I would have picked a more heavy guitar of the same type as they are varied by two pds or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I had no idea that lighter wood would have more "Sustain" ability then more heavy wood. Thank you for clearing this up as I would have picked a more heavy guitar of the same type as they are varied by two pds or more. The only way a lighter guitar (all else being equal)would have more sustain is if it was volume induced sustain like with an SG or 335. The lighter wood guitar would also be louder acoustically therefore allowing the sound waves from a loud amp to "resonate" the guitar producing sustain. The term resonance (sympathetic vibration) is often used incorrectly when refering to guitars. Feedback is an example of resonance, the frequency coming out of the amp is exactly the same as the guitar string frequency, therefore they resonate. Forced vibration is what happens with guitars. An acoustic is forced to vibrate at the frequency of the strings. VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.