Page 1 of 2
#3
Well if you want to take hours that could have been munites with Tune O Matic for setting up your guitar... Go for it !

I met a guitarist with one like that, from the Gibson Custom shop, he was very happy with it.
Last edited by flaphead325 at May 5, 2012,
#4
Quote by saint_berzerker
It just seems wrong....like putting a d*ck on a chick.


Well go and tell Rush and Alex Lifeson that...

I'm not a fan of LP's at all but it hardly seems like such a bad Idea, LP tone with rock solid tuning and the ability to do some whammy tricks, If you love it, go for it.
Quote by Horsedick.MPEG
How do you prepare tea?

Quote by theogonia777
thrown into the boston harbor

Quote by Crofty89
Only if you boil the ocean first



JUST BOUGHT SIKTH DEATH OF A DEAD DAY ALBUM FROM THE US AND IT CAME WITH THE 6 YEAR OLD SIGNED POSTER (30/4/12) WIN
#6
If your LP doesn't have solid tuning without a FR, something's wrong anyway. Nobody should ever have to deal with a locking trem for the sake of staying in tune.

Do it if you want. It'll still sound like a Les Paul.
#7
So they put a Floyd on and then gave it the big, chunky 50s profile neck?

#9
Quote by Roc8995
So they put a Floyd on and then gave it the big, chunky 50s profile neck?



Everyone knows the '50s profile neck is the ultimate shred neck!

...in all seriousness, '50s profile LPs and 335/Dots are just about the only guitars I find have overly thick necks. D: If it had a '60s profile neck and came in lefty I'd be all over it, but...'50s neck...no thank you. xD
Quote by SlayingDragons
Nah, I prefer to tune lower. My tunings usually go into weird Hebrew symbols.
#11
Quote by RiseTheFallen
That floyd isnt even made in Germany, its made in Korea.

So? I have a Korean Floyd in my Charvel and no tuning (or other) problems.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#12
Quote by flaphead325
Well if you want to take hours that could have been munites with Tune O Matic for setting up your guitar... Go for it !

I met a guitarist with one like that, from the Gibson Custom shop, he was very happy with it.

If it takes you hours to set up a floyd then you are ****ing retarded.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Your post was the only bright spot in this disgusting piece of thread.

Quote by lexanirider78
You have balls. I like balls....(awkward silence)

Quote by SeveralSpecies
I waited for the rape.

...


...but the rape never came
#13
Quote by MaggaraMarine
So? I have a Korean Floyd in my Charvel and no tuning (or other) problems.


Not saying its bad at all, but for a custom shop Gibson you would expect top-notch hardware.
#16
So just putting a floating bridge on a guitar will automatically make it a shred guitar? I though it would be more about the neck profile and pickup choice.
G͔͓̅e͎͉̟̽ͬ͐̎̃͐ͨͅå͈͖͕̹̤̟̐̏͋ͅr̩͕̫̰̗s̹̳̼ͥ̒̍̄̅ͥ̚:


ESP Standard Eclipse I CTM VW
ESP LTD Deluxe H-1001
ESP LTD Deluxe Viper-1000 STBC
ESP Edwards E-EX-100STD
Warmoth Paulcaster "Tiger"
Tanglewood TW170 AS
Vox Tonelab ST
Blackstar HT-1R


#17
It is about time Gibson put out an affordable Floyd equipped LP. I love floating bridges on Les Pauls. I wanted a Les Paul with a Floyd for 25+ years. Last year I got the Epiphone Plus Top Pro/FX and it is a great guitar.It sounds like a Les Paul.Plays like a Les Paul plus I can dive bomb, shimmy,shake,warbble,yank and crank notes and chords all I want and the guitar stays in tune.
Good one Gibson for putting this guitar out and just when I thought it was over and giving me massive case of GAS!!!!!!

Rock Hard Ride Free!!
Bhaok

The following statement is true. The proceeding statement is false.
#18
I dunno, slim necks make my hand all crampy, which is why I play an R8.

You don't need a toothpick neck for shred.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#20
If you want a les paul with vibrato, Les Paul Access is your bet. If you want a LP style shred guitar, ESP Eclipse-II FR is a better choice with EMG's, original FR, and slimmer neck profilet , or Jeff Hanneman EC is another LP style shred guitar, but it is alder body and maple neck trough. But that studio is just shit.
Last edited by cemges at May 6, 2012,
#21
Seems like the obvious choice would have been the 60 neck profile for this model. Then again I think the obvious would have been not been modifying a studio in such a way that detracts from it's main selling points.
SMILE!
#22
Thanks a lot for all answers.
Just wondering, is this really a limited time guitar, cos it says so on musician's friend but nothing is mentioned on the gibson site.
all answers appreciated
(also, what do you use to clean the richlite fingerboard? I heard somewhere you could use luthier's choice cleaners, so could i get the triple pack and use it the guitar?)
Last edited by randomguy2000 at May 6, 2012,
#25
>richlite fretboard

...which is basically like putting a particle blocker on your fretboard. you will choke your tone.
in short, no.
Quote by punk_rules_1997

Hi, I am looking for an amp setting close to the sound of bands like Black Veil Brides.


Quote by Eppicurt

Set everything to 12 o'clock.

Go from there.

lol

Jackson WRMG
Peavey Valveking 112
Pod HD300

Will buy guitars & guitar parts
PM me for info
#26
Lots of misinformation on this thread. Richlite is by no means a bad material. Neither are 50's necks.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#27
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Lots of misinformation on this thread. Richlite is by no means a bad material. Neither are 50's necks.

Nobody ever said 50's necks were bad material. You just don't put them in a 'shred' guitar.
#28
Quote by OVER9000VIDEOS
Nobody ever said 50's necks were bad material. You just don't put them in a 'shred' guitar.

Why?

My hands cramp horribly if I play anything smaller.


Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
What if one has large hands like myself?

And this.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
Last edited by bubb_tubbs at May 6, 2012,
#29
Quote by OVER9000VIDEOS
Nobody ever said 50's necks were bad material. You just don't put them in a 'shred' guitar.

What if one has large hands like myself?
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#30
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
What if one has large hands like myself?


I doubt you have bigger hands than Paul Gilbert.

Also, bubb_tubbs, are you doing anything that's technically unsound? Hands cramping on anything smaller than a '50s neck suggests your playing with a lot of tension or horrible posture.
My name is Tom, feel free to use it.
#31
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
What if one has large hands like myself?

Just because your hands are big doesn't mean 50's necks are shred necks.

Let's say a condom company releases a new line of really big, loose condoms. And calls them 'tight fit' condoms. But they are not tight fit condoms, because they don't fit tight on the average person's wang. Sure, they might be tight on me, cause my wang is huge, but does that make them tight fit condoms? No.
#32
Quote by Prophet of Page
I doubt you have bigger hands than Paul Gilbert.

Also, bubb_tubbs, are you doing anything that's technically unsound? Hands cramping on anything smaller than a '50s neck suggests your playing with a lot of tension or horrible posture.

50s and bigger necks happen to have a radius that perfectly compliments the hand position I got used to with 16 years of violin.

It's comfortable, it works and I've never seen any reason to change it.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#33
Quote by Prophet of Page
I doubt you have bigger hands than Paul Gilbert.



I couldn't get my other hand to fully fit in the shot.
Quote by OVER9000VIDEOS
Just because your hands are big doesn't mean 50's necks are shred necks.

Let's say a condom company releases a new line of really big, loose condoms. And calls them 'tight fit' condoms. But they are not tight fit condoms, because they don't fit tight on the average person's wang. Sure, they might be tight on me, cause my wang is huge, but does that make them tight fit condoms? No.


What qualifies as a 'shred' neck? Its totally subjective in the same way that the judgement of your own penis is.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at May 6, 2012,
#34
Quote by bubb_tubbs
50s and bigger necks happen to have a radius that perfectly compliments the hand position I got used to with 16 years of violin.

It's comfortable, it works and I've never seen any reason to change it.


Sure, I can understand you find the '50s neck more comfortable, that's perfectly understandable, we all have preferences. It's the issue of your hands cramping up if you were to play an average Strat that's bothering me.

Also, T00DEEPBLUE, you certainly have sizeable hands, but having met Gilbert (and Vai, for that matter), I don't think you have bigger hands than him (or Vai, for that matter).

Again, you're absolutely entitled to your preferences for bigger necks, but I don't think the reasoning that somebody big hands can't find a slim neck comfortable is wrong.
My name is Tom, feel free to use it.
#35
A shred neck isn't totally subjective, though. What you like doesn't really matter. You can shred on anything, but I think we all have a basic understanding of what a typical shred guitar is - humbucker in the bridge, floyd trem, and a skinny neck. The usual Charvel/Jackson/Ibanez sort of thing.

Yes, all of these definitions aren't set in stone, but a 50s neck is clearly out of place on a shred guitar. We've all gone over the "you can shred on anything" business, and it's true, but if you put a 12-string Rickenbacker next to a Charvel, we'd all know which was the shredder.

Personal preference is great, but this is like saying "I prefer playing metal on a Twin Reverb, therefore it's just as much of a metal amp as a Dual Rectifier." It's true for you, but the general definition doesn't hinge on the preferences of a few UGers.
#36
^

Well a LP Studio was never intended to be a shred guitar anyway so...

And besides, i like the idea of having the 50's neck on there. There are too many guitars out there that are shred guitars but have necks that are too thin for me to find comfortable.

And besides, what does it matter that a guitar is labelled a 'shred' guitar? I just want a guitar i like, i don't care what its called.
Quote by Prophet of Page
Sure, I can understand you find the '50s neck more comfortable, that's perfectly understandable, we all have preferences. It's the issue of your hands cramping up if you were to play an average Strat that's bothering me.

Also, T00DEEPBLUE, you certainly have sizeable hands, but having met Gilbert (and Vai, for that matter), I don't think you have bigger hands than him (or Vai, for that matter).

Again, you're absolutely entitled to your preferences for bigger necks, but I don't think the reasoning that somebody big hands can't find a slim neck comfortable is wrong.

I'm not saying its impossible, i just don't find wizard necks to be ideal.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at May 6, 2012,
#37
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
I'm not saying its impossible, i just don't find wizard necks to be ideal.


Ah, ok. Not quite what I'd have inferred from your first post about having large hands, but I won't argue further.
My name is Tom, feel free to use it.
#38
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
^

Well a LP Studio was never intended to be a shred guitar anyway so...

And besides, i like the idea of having the 50's neck on there. There are too many guitars out there that are shred guitars but have necks that are too thin for me to find comfortable.

And besides, what does it matter that a guitar is labelled a 'shred' guitar? I just want a guitar i like, i don't care what its called.

You're missing the point.
The studio was never originally intended to be a shred guitar, but this one is called the Studio Shred. Clearly there are some expectations here.

All I'm saying is that if you made a chainsaw and called it a "bread slicer," you could be technically correct, but that doesn't mean it's really what you're calling it. You can use it as a bread slicer, but the name is a bit misguided. All guitars are acoustic guitars, but if I tried to sell a Strat as an acoustic guitar, you'd be right to say that it wasn't really the correct thing to call it.

It would make a lot more sense to call this a Studio Floyd or something.
#39
Quote by Roc8995
So they put a Floyd on and then gave it the big, chunky 50s profile neck?



My exact thoughts when I read the specs.


Quote by kandex
>richlite fretboard

...which is basically like putting a particle blocker on your fretboard. you will choke your tone.
in short, no.


So some research, homie. You're misinformed.


Also, as usual, I completely agree with Colin in this thread.
Last edited by JustRooster at May 6, 2012,
#40
Quote by Roc8995
The studio was never originally intended to be a shred guitar, but this one is called the Studio Shred. Clearly there are some expectations there.


I agree with this, certainly I would have expected a '60s neck profile, but I think there's something fundementally wrong about the idea of a Les Paul "Shred." I mean, the Les Paul is pretty much the antithesis of everything your typical "shred" guitar is, I'm not sure it's the right platform to build a "shred" guitar from.

Les Pauls are on the heavier end of the guitar spectrum, most "shred" guitars are lightweight. Les Pauls are singlecut with an obtrusive heel and a shallow cutaway, most "shred" guitars are doublecut, with slim or rounded heels and deep cutaways. Les Pauls are normally fixed bridge, most "shred" guitars have floating double-locking tremolos. Les Pauls are 24.75" scale, most "shred" guitars are 25.5".

Then there are the other differences. Set neck vs bolt-on construction, squarer body design vs a highly contoured design, etc. Really the only things that is typically "shred" about the Les Paul is the pickup configuration.
My name is Tom, feel free to use it.
Page 1 of 2