#1
Just wondering, how do you guys feel about chambered Les Pauls? Do you think the fact that it isn't completely solid takes away from the tone and makes it lose sustain, is it a good trade off for the lightweightness, does it have it's advantages?

I'm thinking of getting a Gibson Studio or maybe some other copy, but I want to know first how substantial a difference it is to have a chambered body as opposed to a solid body.
#2
i can't stand them for many reasons
1. i like heavy guitars. a light guitar feels flimsy and without substance to me
2. the heavy thick wood is what gives it the notoriously thick, full sound.
3. the heavy thick wood gives it sustain
4. i have never had a problem playing a les paul standing for several hours
5. traditionally, a les paul is fully weighted. they were making it right for 50 years, and then all of a sudden they had to change it? that's not right.

the weight relieving has taken away everything i love about les pauls.
the last good year for les pauls was 2004. full weight ftw.
#4
LPs have been weight relieved since the 70s. Chambering is just a more effective way of doing that. It sounds a little bit different, but it doesn't ruin the tone of a les paul. I'd wager most people wouldn't be able to tell the tone difference tonally for two given instruments.

You can sort of tell if you play a bunch of chambered and non-chambered, since you get a little idea of the tone change, but it's really quite minimal, and not worse, just different.

And yes, it's a well known fact that hollowing out a guitar kills its tone. The ES335 is known far and wide for being a horrible sounding guitar.
#5
I love my chambered Les Paul studio,
to be honest i prefer it to full bodied les pauls.
The sustain is virtually unchanged but there is a noticable difference in tone.

Just go to a guitar shop play both and see what you prefer, i was gonna buy a standard until i tried my studio.
I love white guitars!
#7
Quote by Lt. Shinysides
i can't stand them for many reasons
1. i like heavy guitars. a light guitar feels flimsy and without substance to me
2. the heavy thick wood is what gives it the notoriously thick, full sound.
3. the heavy thick wood gives it sustain
4. i have never had a problem playing a les paul standing for several hours
5. traditionally, a les paul is fully weighted. they were making it right for 50 years, and then all of a sudden they had to change it? that's not right.

the weight relieving has taken away everything i love about les pauls.
the last good year for les pauls was 2004. full weight ftw.


Sustain is more due to the overall construction of the guitar and how well the neck is set in the body (How well it can resonate)

My chambered Les Paul is darker sounding than my solid mahogany maple cap Dean. Older woods used in classic Les Pauls were a lot lighter. Weight relieving is there not to degrade tone but to help your long term back problems because of the many people who think that heavy = darker, fatter tone. It depends more than that.

The last good year for Les Pauls was probably 1997.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#8
yeah i played a chambered lp classic and fell in love with it, i wish i could have taken it home! awesome feeling/sounding instrument for sure.

the fact that it's chambered has absolutely nothing to do with how it plays.......


Now, everybody go play one and stop talkin S**T!
2008 M.I.A. HSS Strat
Marshall JCM 900 50w Dual Reverb
Last edited by LPstudioWRz28 at Dec 1, 2009,
#9
Quote by LPstudioWRz28
Now, everybody go play one and stop talkin S**T!


+1


You're like a prophet or something.


Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#10
Having played many, both chambered and unchambered, I find myself preferring unchambered almost all of the time. My current LP is unchambered, as was what was IMO the best Paul I've ever played - a beat to hell 1988 Standard. Tonally, I find that both mine and my bro's (also unchambered) are a tad sharper and more aggresive than the ones that have been chambered. All three of these particular guitars have been heavy as shit, which I just find more comfortable.

Neither is better, they're just two different possible constructions, resulting in an incredibly minor change in tone.

It's also worth noting that it may not be the chambers that affects my perception of LPs - mine and my bro's happen to be very very awesome, and the '88 was mind-blowing. So I don't really factor it in when looking at them. But from looking in hindsight, I prefer unchambered nine times out of ten - whether this is coincidence or not is up for grabs.
#11
I think that chambering somewhat defeats the original purpose, but anyone who has a problem with that needs to accept that the 1950s are long gone.

incidentally, weight only became an issue when the reissue les pauls came about in the late '60s. Prior to that they were actually made of selectively lightweight cuts of maple and mahogany and i've played a '53 that weighed about the same as my chambered '07..

in the long run, who cares if it's chambered and not a fully solid, "real" les paul? what really matters is whether it sounds good and whether it feels good to play... or am i completely out of my mind?
I like analogue Solid State amps that make no effort to be "tube-like", and I'm proud of it...

...A little too proud, to be honest.
#12
It's important to make sure you know the difference between weight-relieving and actual chambering. If a guitar is weight-relieved, it has strategically placed spaces routed out of the body to reduce the weight of the body while keeping as much of the solidbody tone and resonance as possible. This really isn't a noticable thing, very rarely can you tell any difference between a weight relieved and a fully solid body guitar. The weight loss is usually around 20% and that really isn't enough of a loss of mass to effect the tone much. It's about the same amount as if you routed a space for a third humbucker and widened the control rout to fit a double battery box.

Chambering is much different. This usually involves hollowing out the guitar in either two or three large spaces so it resembles a semi-hollow archtop style guitar, only without f-holes. With a chambered guitar, the only actual solid part of the body will be the centre block that extends from the neck down to the bridge. This does effect the tone very noticably. Higher (treble) frequencies will decay faster while the medium (mid) frequencies will resonante for longer, giving a ''fatter'' tone. Whether this is good or not depends on your personal preferences, playing style and amp.


It's worth considering too, the quality of the body wood. If the body is made of lower quality wood that's not going to be very resonant anyway, weight-relieving should always be done and chambering will most likely only greatly increase sustain with no drawbacks for anyone. If the body wood is very, very high quality, it may still be a good idea to weight-relieve it but chambering will become more of a personal preference. In my view, things like Epiphones should always be chambered, stuff like production Gibsons should always be weight-relieved and guitars from the Gibson Custom Shop should always be solid. Same applies to PRS and other such companies.

Many, many guitars, especially Les Pauls, are weight-relieved. There's no shame in it and there's no reason not to do it these days unless you're talking about really high-end guitars with great body woods.
Yes, I know everything. No, I can't play worth a damn.
A child is trafficked and sold for sex slavery every 30 seconds. Support Love146.