Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Chambered Les Paul models


Recommended Posts

pippy; I didn't realize any present day models were chambered. I thought all new models were either modern weight relieved or solid. What models still use chambering? Thanks.

Hello Pippy!

 

The spoked ("modern weight-relief") design has replaced the "chambering", not the swiss-cheese method ("traditional weight-relief"). So there are no "chambered" ones anymore. (See Studio and Standard specs.).

 

Cheers... Bence

Hi there Drew and Bence.

 

It's been a while since I checked out many versions so I don't know very much about the 2013 range...

 

Are you quite sure there are no longer any chambered models being made, Bence?

 

:-k

 

I'm on holiday with the family so don't have much time to check but from a quick glimpse a minute ago the new Standard is listed as having the "new pattern weight relief" whereas the Supreme is still being described as "chambered".

 

I'll try to check things out when I get back next week.

 

It may be that the Supreme is now the only chambered LP. Certainly there are mentions of both styles of weight relief being used on various models.

 

Cheers!

 

P.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here is a snap showing the three types of lightening used by Gibson in the last 30 years.     Far left is 'Chambered'. Introduced to some models such as the Standard in 2006. Centre is the first

Hello again Mike.   Yes, your pair will have the 'nine-holes' style pictured in the centre. This approach was introduced in 1982. At first there was no absolute fixed pattern but over time Gibson se

Solid, Chambered, Relieved, 2013 Relieved...   At 4:25 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbU1R4KDymw&feature=player_detailpage

Hello Pippy!

 

You're right! I wasn't accurate enough. Not only the Supreme, but the Les Paul Studio Satin is chambered too!

 

My assumption was based on the fact that those models which were most commonly associated with chambering (the Studio and Standard) got the modern weight-relief now.

 

Cheers... Bence

 

P.S.: I just checked the specs of the Standard on the Gibson's site and it says "solid"... interesting, isn't it? Enjoy Your holidays!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme is somewhat different animal - almost a hollowbody :)

It has a maple top and bottom.

Chamber_Supreme.jpg

 

For the record, chambering on LPs started in October 2006, so with guitar from the first half of the year one can be sure to have a non-chambered LP (if he cant tell from the weight or by looking in control cavity)..

 

Chambered LPs seem to be brighter - because they lack lower mids/lows, so the higher frequencies stand out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme is somewhat different animal - almost a hollowbody :)

It has a maple top and bottom.

And from what I remember, as there are no control covers at the rear, the electronics are fitted in a manner most cunning...

 

[smile]

 

P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kinda funny- the first "chambered" models were highly regarded, and only used on the high-end ones. I mean, the few models that had them were desireable BECAUSE of the chambering. It was seen as a GOOD trick.

 

I remember when I bought mine in 2007, I freaked. When I picked it up for the first time, I definitely noticed. I was like, "A 7 lb LP? Heck yea I'll do that!" (I even had the guy wiegh it...sure enough, it was 7 1/4 lbs). I thought it was something special.

 

Fast forward a few years, about 2009 or 2010, when I was needing to sell things, and come to find out that it's SOLID that poeple want, and chambered have less value. And they are pretty much everywhere.

 

Go figure.

 

Personally, I get it, that a chambered LP isn't really the SAME LP. I mean, a REAL LP is solid. And they DO sound different, that's for sure. But for me, I would have a hard time choosing one over the other. Having an LP that is exactly the same shape, feel and quality, but being super-light is to me a neat trick. Still freaks me out. How can one resist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still none the wiser which years to avoid so I don't get a chambered model, I like 'em heavy, my pro delux is the heaviest guitar I've ever played (except a axl plexi strat I had until a year ago) and I love it!

 

please help!

Well im sure its been mentioned.. being chambered has nothing to do with the weight...

 

The only way is to go and try them.. if you like the weight. it doesnt matter how the inside is made?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And from what I remember, as there are no control covers at the rear, the electronics are fitted in a manner most cunning...

 

[smile]

 

P.

 

 

You´re absolutely right - I´d hate to even think about changing them :P

 

I'm still none the wiser which years to avoid so I don't get a chambered model

 

according to what could be gathered - before Oct 2006, although there may not be a strict day to day change, both might have been produced together before non-chambered were phased out,

so to be on the safe side, the Serial No.should be less than say

 

"22406xxx" - 240th day being (give or take) the end of August ..

 

Of course, if you can look inside the control cavity (or get a pic of it) you´d be able to tell with certainty as the chamber communicates with it - I believe it always does..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still none the wiser which years to avoid so I don't get a chambered model, I like 'em heavy, my pro delux is the heaviest guitar I've ever played (except a axl plexi strat I had until a year ago) and I love it!

 

please help!

Standards were chambered from 2006 to 2012.

 

The weight-relieved tend to be heavier than the solid-bodied for the reasons mentioned in various posts.

 

If you like them heavy then go for a late '70s Custom. They could weigh up to 15 lbs..

 

P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well im sure its been mentioned.. being chambered has nothing to do with the weight...

 

The only way is to go and try them.. if you like the weight. it doesnt matter how the inside is made?

I'm pretty sure there is quite a difference between the 'chambered' and 'wieght relieved' in terms of general wieght. I think a chambered that's as heavy as a solid or wieght relieved one might be possible, but rare.

 

I know on my chambered, when I rap the knuckles on it, there is a hollow yet solid "thunk" that's definitely a different tone than knocking on a solid. But I seriously doubt you could find the swiss cheese that would make that sound. I can't tell them at all from a solid.

 

I mean, I agree that if it sounds a certain way, what's inside doesn't matter. Just not sure it's actually possible for even a heavier chambered to mimic the sound of a solid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there is quite a difference between the 'chambered' and 'wieght relieved' in terms of general wieght. I think a chambered that's as heavy as a solid or wieght relieved one might be possible, but rare.

 

I know on my chambered, when I rap the knuckles on it, there is a hollow yet solid "thunk" that's definitely a different tone than knocking on a solid. But I seriously doubt you could find the swiss cheese that would make that sound. I can't tell them at all from a solid.

 

I mean, I agree that if it sounds a certain way, what's inside doesn't matter. Just not sure it's actually possible for even a heavier chambered to mimic the sound of a solid.

Yeah.. in sound and tone there are differences for sure..

 

But hes talking purely about the weight of a guitar.. So I was just saying that just cos a body is solid.. wont necessarily make it heavier.. The weight comes down to wood density which is different for every piece of wood....

 

So you cant really judge weight by the model type..

 

Plus if you want a proper solid body you gotta go for a Trad 2013 or a Historic re-issue.. or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standards were chambered from 2006 to 2012.

 

The weight-relieved tend to be heavier than the solid-bodied for the reasons mentioned in various posts.

 

If you like them heavy then go for a late '70s Custom. They could weigh up to 15 lbs..

 

P.

 

Yeah, I love 70's Les Pauls but at the moment my only bargaining chip is the Dan Smith Strat I'm trying to sell/swap and I don't think I'll get one from that time period for it or with the money I'll raise from the sale.

It's on ebay, Gumtree and Sound on Sound and I haven't had a single offer yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was just saying that just cos a body is solid.. wont necessarily make it heavier.. The weight comes down to wood density which is different for every piece of wood....

 

So you cant really judge weight by the model type..

 

 

The wood density is actually pretty consistent within the model "families".

 

The lightest goes to Custom Shop, and there it is like this:

 

GibsonLPWeights-1.jpg

 

 

The heavy mahogany (too heavy for CS) is left for Gibson USA, and chambering was introduced just to make the weight of LPs tolerable - so that even this heavy mahogany could be used... when weight relieving wasn´t enough - to stop people complaining about broken backbones :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Now that I own a chambered, a traditional weight-relieved, and a one-piece solid-bodied Les Paul, - in the consciousness of my criminal responsibility I declare: this debate is overrated.

 

Chambering is tone-safe! Doesn't harms sustain, or the genuine Les Paul tone in any way. It's the orthopedists conspiracy to revile the chambered guitars, because they are afraid to lose patients.

 

Chambered ones are bit brighter and louder acoustically - that's all. I've compared all three: nothing wrong with the chambered ones, they are not missing anything important.

 

Cheers... Bence [wink]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Now that I own a chambered, a traditional weight-relieved, and a one-piece solid-bodied Les Paul, - in the consciousness of my criminal responsibility I declare: this debate is overrated.

 

Chambering is tone-safe! Doesn't harms sustain, or the genuine Les Paul tone in any way. It's the orthopedists conspiracy to revile the chambered guitars, because they are afraid to lose patients.

 

Chambered ones are bit brighter and louder acoustically - that's all. I've compared all three: nothing wrong with the chambered ones, they are not missing anything important.

 

Cheers... Bence [wink]

 

Thanks Bence, that's good to hear, I will take this on board if I ever get to swap the Dan Smith Strat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chambered ones are bit brighter and louder acoustically - that's all. I've compared all three: nothing wrong with the chambered ones, they are not missing anything important.

 

My only complaint with my chambered Les Paul Double Cut is that it neck dives something aweful. Sonically, it sings with a brighter tone than my swiss cheese Les Paul. Not better or worse, it is just different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My only complaint with my chambered Les Paul Double Cut is that it neck dives something aweful. Sonically, it sings with a brighter tone than my swiss cheese Les Paul. Not better or worse, it is just different.

 

Hello Greg!

 

Well, that's actually the only reason I prefer the heavier ones. But it's really not a big issue. Not a thing that a good strap would not solve. I didn't mention this thing, because most of the time I play seated, so it's not a problem for me at all. But, You're right! That's something was needed to be told, for the sake of accuracy of information. [thumbup]

 

Cheers... Bence

Link to post
Share on other sites

... I've compared all three: nothing wrong with the chambered ones, they are not missing anything important.

 

Cheers... Bence [wink]

 

Well they aren´t - other than lacking in the balls dept. [wink]

 

No matter what I tried (setup, different string gauges,etc..) the lower strings always sounded anemic to me.

But with increasing gain this is less of a problem.

 

The debate could go on and on with no clear result.. some don´t feel the difference, some do.

I have yet to play a chambered Reissue (BTW what a misnomer!) - most guys swear by them..

 

But to Mike - I seriously doubt you could get any better sounding current production Les Paul than your 1990 Custom [thumbup] - i´d bet it is a terrific guitar !!

I have yet to hear ONE early 90s Les Paul which I wouldnt like to make mine [lol]

Link to post
Share on other sites

...it must be solid or just traditional relief.

 

Hello Mike!

 

Most likely it's traditionally relieved. It all started back in 1982. Completely solid ones are the Historics. 10.5 is a pretty heavy one - but as Others said, "weight-relieving" isn't necessarily weight-relieving. [biggrin]

 

It's definitely not chambered - if that's the fact what is really important for You.

 

Cheers... Bence

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been offered a 2002 standard in ebony, so I'm told it weighs in at 10.5 lbs so it must be solid or just traditional relief.

As Bence says, it will be weight-relieved (in the 'Swiss-Cheese' pattern).

 

Just as well, too. Could you imagine how heavy it would be if it was solid!.............[scared]

 

P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...