#1
A lot of people use gibson les pauls, and I know it makes it better for sustain, but everyone says the guitar is too HEAVY. I agree with that, so i'm asking if anyone can answer this question:

Is there any way to make a les paul lighter?
#2
My friend has a Gibson THE paul, it is lighter, because the body is thinner. You could do that, just sand the back of the body down a lot, or use a planer or something.
One more reason for the weight is because it's usually built of mahogny, wich is a heavy wood. If lighter wood is used, guess the results. =)
I have no idea what I'm talking about. Don't belive me.
#3
That would take away from the les paul. It would sound like dirt. I bought an epiphone les paul ultra which is chambered and has an arm rest type thing cut into the back, you could do that.
Quote by ottoavist

i suppose there's a chance
i'm just a litte too shallow to consider
that maybe i've been a little more eager
each day to wake up and take a shower
brush my teeth and smile for the mirror
#5
^Chambering? Yes, that would make it lighter.
I have no idea what I'm talking about. Don't belive me.
#6
Quote by freshtunes
That would take away from the les paul. It would sound like dirt. I bought an epiphone les paul ultra which is chambered and has an arm rest type thing cut into the back, you could do that.


How would I do this to a gibson les paul studio or standard, withought destroying theyr sound?

#7
using a wider, padded strap can work wonders. try it out. also, dont use a cheap nylon strap, cos they tend to dig into your shoulder quite a bit.
Quote by Dave_Mc
how do those marshall handles compare tonewise to, say, mesa handles?

Owns a Blackheart Little Giant...
#8
You can't really. That kind of chambering which the Ultra has, effects the sound quite drastically. you need to bear in mind, when you do that sort of thing, you're basically making it a semi-hollowbody guitar just without the traditional f-hole.

Gibson (and Epiphone) do make a few bodies which are 'weight relieved', which is where they've had some very glith chambering done in a very specific way so that it barely effects the tone at all, actually adds to the sustain (bizarrely; don't ask me how this works, it just does seem to), and makes the body a couple of lbs lighter. I have no idea how you would go about doing his to an existing LP though.
#9
I saw hollowbody strats a while back, where the inside was all routed.

I'm pretty sure you can get them for les pauls now. It'd be a bolt on neck though, if you the kind of person who cares about that stuff.
#10
You do know that almost all new gibsons and epis are drastically chambered right
#11
Quote by Nick_
You do know that almost all new gibsons and epis are drastically chambered right


Yup...well, just about every Les Paul since '86 had holes drilled into it to relieve the weight. In the last couple of years, Gibson started routing out the body, leaving something along the lines of a semi-semi hollow guitar.

Old relief pattern


New relief pattern
#12
Theres no point in using expensive quality mahogany if you just cut giant holes out of the thing... might as well pick up some cheaper wood if your going to cut all the guts out.
Is it wrong to be strong.... You decide.
#13
Quote by Ponchibego
Theres no point in using expensive quality mahogany if you just cut giant holes out of the thing... might as well pick up some cheaper wood if your going to cut all the guts out.

The wood makes the most dfference at contact points such as where the neck meets the body, where the bridge is and to a point, wehre the pickups are.
I've developed a complex where everytime I hear a Lamb of God song, I burst out laughing

My 7 String V build
My Main Guitars:
Kramer Striker FR-2027SM 7 String
BC Rich Afterburner Warlock
Washburn Xb100 Bass
My Effect(s)/Misc:
Digitech RP350
#15
Quote by Ponchibego
Theres no point in using expensive quality mahogany if you just cut giant holes out of the thing... might as well pick up some cheaper wood if your going to cut all the guts out.


Know why they do it? They aren't using high grade mahogany, they are using cheaper mahogany, hence it being heavier and requiring the weight relief. And yeah, that X ray shot looks like a BFG to me, I think they sitll stick to the swiss cheese pattern on a lot of them.
#16
Quote by CJRocker
Know why they do it? They aren't using high grade mahogany, they are using cheaper mahogany, hence it being heavier and requiring the weight relief. And yeah, that X ray shot looks like a BFG to me, I think they sitll stick to the swiss cheese pattern on a lot of them.

..Gibson is using cheaper mahogany?
I'd like to see your sources, please...


And you can't do weight relief to an EXISTING, already built guitar. Not easily, anyway. I think that's something everyone has forgotten to tell the threadstarter.
#17
^True. Unless you feel like having it re-topped. (Ed Roman seems to think this is a necessity to make Gibsons tolerable, the dolt)
#19
I read somewhere that the weight of the Les Paul's mahogony body doesn't add to the sustain of it, and that the best, lifelong treasured les pauls tend to be the lightest ones, as they still produce that LP sound due to the mass of the wood
#21
heres an idea that might require some work
1)If you can get the top of the les paul of, you can use a router to take out the wood underneath and just reatach the top.

2)What would be easier though is to cut down the back to a thinner shape that can still hole everything necessary and then while your at it, route out some empty space from the bottom ten get some wood, cut it into shape and use it as a cap on the back. Then you'll just have to refinish your body and thats about it.
I've developed a complex where everytime I hear a Lamb of God song, I burst out laughing

My 7 String V build
My Main Guitars:
Kramer Striker FR-2027SM 7 String
BC Rich Afterburner Warlock
Washburn Xb100 Bass
My Effect(s)/Misc:
Digitech RP350
#22
Quote by forsaknazrael
..Gibson is using cheaper mahogany?
I'd like to see your sources, please...


And you can't do weight relief to an EXISTING, already built guitar. Not easily, anyway. I think that's something everyone has forgotten to tell the threadstarter.


I can honestly say I don't have a source, but its from what I've heard from several people who know there guitars and/or are dealers. Obviously, Gibson is not gonna say they're using cheaper mahogany, but logic suggests otherwise. Heres why I can believe:

Gibson, like every other company, is run by bean counters. If they use lower grade mahogany, which is cheaper, then can make more one each unit sold. Next, if you're using good mahogany, it shouldn't be that bad. A Les Paul should not be a back killer like a Dean ML or BC Rich Warlock. IF Gibson feels its that big of an issue, why are they cutting holes in it, which leads to my next part; this deal with them "chambering" there guitars was rather under the radar for awhile, and even then is not a hugely advertised fact on most models that still have it. why? Because you're going to assume they're doing it as they're using cheaper, heavier mahogany, and that would hurt their reputation. Thats how look at it.
#23
It's not worth it... play it enough and you'll get used to it. If it's really that big of a deal, do some weight training.
Les Paul Black Beauty Custom 3 Pickup
Bigsby B7g vibrato
3 EMG's 85/81/85

Martin D-28
#24
Quote by CJRocker
I can honestly say I don't have a source, but its from what I've heard from several people who know there guitars and/or are dealers. Obviously, Gibson is not gonna say they're using cheaper mahogany, but logic suggests otherwise. Heres why I can believe:

Gibson, like every other company, is run by bean counters. If they use lower grade mahogany, which is cheaper, then can make more one each unit sold. Next, if you're using good mahogany, it shouldn't be that bad. A Les Paul should not be a back killer like a Dean ML or BC Rich Warlock. IF Gibson feels its that big of an issue, why are they cutting holes in it, which leads to my next part; this deal with them "chambering" there guitars was rather under the radar for awhile, and even then is not a hugely advertised fact on most models that still have it. why? Because you're going to assume they're doing it as they're using cheaper, heavier mahogany, and that would hurt their reputation. Thats how look at it.

Not to defend gibson cus I think they do overprice a tad, but noone can acertain the quality of wood being used. Unless its a custom shop where they would check the wood first, the qualityof wood can vary greatly especially in the more mass produced guitars.

Secondly, the MLs etc, even though they are made from the same wood(some of them atleast), have better weight distribution. IMO, the les paul has the worst weight distribution ever. Its all practically in one spot. Its a very badly weighted guitar.

Gibson knowing this and knowing that it might hurt their sales has done the logical thing, take wood out in places where it will make the guitar feel lighter. Thus the les paul will weigh less and they can get more sales since fewer people will be turned off by the weight and because the top is on, noone really will look down on it for being hollow because they really can't tell. Totally legal and benefits them in terms of sales not actual cost. It would actually cost more per guitar to chamber them but more sales means whatever profit is multiplied.

I don't see how chambering equates to lower quality wood though? I don't see any relation on that point.
I've developed a complex where everytime I hear a Lamb of God song, I burst out laughing

My 7 String V build
My Main Guitars:
Kramer Striker FR-2027SM 7 String
BC Rich Afterburner Warlock
Washburn Xb100 Bass
My Effect(s)/Misc:
Digitech RP350
#25
Quote by DagMX
Not to defend gibson cus I think they do overprice a tad, but noone can acertain the quality of wood being used. Unless its a custom shop where they would check the wood first, the qualityof wood can vary greatly especially in the more mass produced guitars.

Secondly, the MLs etc, even though they are made from the same wood(some of them atleast), have better weight distribution. IMO, the les paul has the worst weight distribution ever. Its all practically in one spot. Its a very badly weighted guitar.

Gibson knowing this and knowing that it might hurt their sales has done the logical thing, take wood out in places where it will make the guitar feel lighter. Thus the les paul will weigh less and they can get more sales since fewer people will be turned off by the weight and because the top is on, noone really will look down on it for being hollow because they really can't tell. Totally legal and benefits them in terms of sales not actual cost. It would actually cost more per guitar to chamber them but more sales means whatever profit is multiplied.

I don't see how chambering equates to lower quality wood though? I don't see any relation on that point.


Im getting at it being chambered because the wood is lower grade. Lower grade mahogany is heavier then higher grade mahogany. Thus to avoid making it TOO heavy, they've chambered it, and not widely advised it . And I'm aware that it is legal (the specs Subject to change thing proves this), I'm just saying it wouldn't look good as I would logically assume they're now doing it as they are using cheaper, heavier wood.
#26
Quote by CJRocker
Im getting at it being chambered because the wood is lower grade. Lower grade mahogany is heavier then higher grade mahogany. Thus to avoid making it TOO heavy, they've chambered it, and not widely advised it . And I'm aware that it is legal (the specs Subject to change thing proves this), I'm just saying it wouldn't look good as I would logically assume they're now doing it as they are using cheaper, heavier wood.

Ah that way. I dont think its because of the lower grade mahogany, though the only way to really find out is to get someone with a recent custom shop too xray their les paul and find out.

I think the chambering was more of a marketting move to lower perceivable weight(maybe a decision to also compund the lower grade mahogany, but not sure proof at all)
I've developed a complex where everytime I hear a Lamb of God song, I burst out laughing

My 7 String V build
My Main Guitars:
Kramer Striker FR-2027SM 7 String
BC Rich Afterburner Warlock
Washburn Xb100 Bass
My Effect(s)/Misc:
Digitech RP350
#27
Gibson use plantation Mahogany (same Switenia species as Honduran/Brazilian) which goes by the name of Fijian Mahogany.

You still have the exact same species as the original mahogany used, though people say it's got a different sound and all that crap.


Anyway, Gibson probably use African Mahogany as well, to keep costs down.
Current Gear
Ibanez RG1570 - Going bye bye
Jackson DK2 - Eventually will be replaced with Maton Mastersound
Peavey valveking 212
Various EHX and Boss effects
#28
Quote by CJRocker
I can honestly say I don't have a source, but its from what I've heard from several people who know there guitars and/or are dealers. Obviously, Gibson is not gonna say they're using cheaper mahogany, but logic suggests otherwise. Heres why I can believe:

Gibson, like every other company, is run by bean counters. If they use lower grade mahogany, which is cheaper, then can make more one each unit sold. Next, if you're using good mahogany, it shouldn't be that bad. A Les Paul should not be a back killer like a Dean ML or BC Rich Warlock. IF Gibson feels its that big of an issue, why are they cutting holes in it, which leads to my next part; this deal with them "chambering" there guitars was rather under the radar for awhile, and even then is not a hugely advertised fact on most models that still have it. why? Because you're going to assume they're doing it as they're using cheaper, heavier mahogany, and that would hurt their reputation. Thats how look at it.

I don't know. All your theories are all speculation, which to be honest, makes it worth nothing.

I personally don't think Gibbys are of good value right now, just because their playability on many of the new ones I've played has been sub-par...But still, I don't think they're using low grade mahogany.
#29
Quote by forsaknazrael

I personally don't think Gibbys are of good value right now, just because their playability on many of the new ones I've played has been sub-par...But still, I don't think they're using low grade mahogany.



Agreed, at the moment i would rather play an epiphone, they look about the same build quality.
Current Gear
Ibanez RG1570 - Going bye bye
Jackson DK2 - Eventually will be replaced with Maton Mastersound
Peavey valveking 212
Various EHX and Boss effects
#31
Get a Levy's strap, they work so nicely, you can barely feel the weight from the instrument
#32
Well with woods, they can ascertain what grade a wood is and so use the higher, rarer grades on their more expensive instruments (eg the AAAA flamed maple or w/e) but i severly doubt that in the majority of cases they're using low quality wood, even if you do get the odd horror story of them having holes drilled in them to lower the weight due to poorer wood being SUPER heavy

But i think it's just something you're going to have to grin and bear, or get a really wide leather strap to take the weight, or if you buy a new LP search around as many as you can in order to get the most playable and best sounding one, it's quite depressing that guitars of the same model arent all the same =[