PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on gibson weight relief and chambering the LPs



Duff
December 3rd, 2009, 10:16 PM
Maybe this has been covered but it is of some concern to me.

Evidently gibson was routing nine round holes in the bodies of the LPs since the eighties, as told to me by the customer service guy at gibson on Friday, and recently the chambering.

The gibson customer service dude said that they did not publicize the weight relief routing of the nine holes and it was not revealed by the company until some dudes x-rayed their LP bodies and the holes and chambering were revealed. The company is now open about it and only the custom shop guitars have solid bodies, possibly with an exception.

This may have been a proprietory trade secret in order to keep the weight down while the Chinesse and other competitors were making heavier LP copies due to the absence of purchaseable light mahogany varieties.

I must say I really like my HEAVY Xavier solid body xv500 that I paid 208 for and it is an awesome guitar all the way around.

I have been considering a gibson LP studio and weighing my options against other guitars in this price range and comparing the LP studio to the Fender American Deluxe Strat, the Musicman Sillouette HSH, and even an Agile with a maple cap.

I'm sure a lot of you guys have the weight relieved or chambered LPs of recent vintage and I'm wondering what you think about them and if you think they are as good as the old style solid body versions. Subjectivity aside, generally speaking, that is; what do you think about the weight relief and chambering techniques and the overall quality effect that it has on the LP?

Viewpoints are definately appreciated from anyone with an idea on this subject.

Evidently the silverburst LP studio is a MF exclusive and is weight relieved while the gibson USA LP studio in the regular colors is chambered.

If you haven't seen the x-rays, you might find them interesting possibly shocking or maybe even like the idea, especially gigging muscians.

Plank_Spanker
December 5th, 2009, 03:59 PM
Both of my Studios are weight relived............................commonly known as "swiss cheese".......................the nine holes. They're both pretty chunky guitars, but not oppressively heavy. My Standard is chambered and is light @ 8.2 pounds.

Just my take on the debate:

For years the complaints grew about Les Pauls being too heavy, and most of this noise was from players who didn't play / never intended to play Les Pauls. Gibson listened and started the chambering in the fall of '06. The problem and reason Gibson is taking heat is that they didn't announce or acknowledge the chambering until quite a while after the fact. It came across as deceptive and turned lots of guys off.

Do the chambered guitars sound different than the swiss cheesed guitars? Yes they do but...........................every guitar sounds different, even exact like models. My Standard has a more open and airy sound than my Studios, but it still has just as much punch and sustain as any other Les Paul I've ever played, and I'm very happy with it.

Most of the loud complaints come from the Gibson purists / elitists, and the wannabes parroting internet noise. You will do yourself a disservice if you summarily discount every chambered Les Paul as inferior or assume that every non chambered Les Paul is automatically superior.

Les Pauls are certainly a guitar that needs to be judged personally on a guitar by guitar basis. Play a bunch of them and choose the Les Paul that speaks to you, chambered or not. Choose wisely and you'll never look back.

ZMAN
December 5th, 2009, 04:50 PM
I have three Gibson LPs and I have had a 1989 Studio on loan for a couple of years. I have one 1996 LP Standard that would probably come under the weight relieved category, as well as the 1989 Studio. I also have a 2008 Studio that is chambered and a 2006 Classic Gold top that is also Chambered.
The Standard is probably the heaviest at about 9.5 lbs, and then the 1989 Studio at around 9, then to the 2008 Studio at around 8.5 and finally the GT Classic around 8.
As far as pickups go the Standards have 490/498 as does both Studios, but the Classic has the Ceramic magnet 496/500Ts.
Tone wise I find that the 1989 Studio is probably the best sounding LP I have ever heard. It just has all the attributes of classic LP tone.
The Standard is a very close second with a sweet mellow tone on the neck and lots of punch and bite on the bridge.
The 08 Studio is very bright and responsive on the bridge and not as mellow on the neck as the Standard but also a tone monster.
The classic is a high gain dream. Snappy in the bridge and the lightest of all of them to sling. The neck pickup is probably as nice as the bridge pickups on the other three, and the bridge is just out there , but in a good way.
Now as far as the weight goes. There are certain considerations.
I do not gig, or play in a band. I only play at home and I have really only been playing standing up for the past 1.5 years. The rest of the time I was seated. I do find a difference when playing the heavier LPs. The chambered bodies feel much lighter and I would bet there would be a lot less strain on the shoulder and back with them at a long gig. But I really don't notice it until I put it down and grab one of the chambered LPs.
All in all I think that Gibson is doing the right thing by weight relief and chambering, but I would really like to take another look at these guitars in 10 or 15 years to see how they have aged.
I also own an Elitist LP Custom that is non weight relieved and made in Japan. It is about 8.5lbs, and also has a fairly bright tone due to the wood and all the binding etc.
I really do love all of my Les Pauls and I find I am not playing my Strats at all now.