#1
I was looking on wikipedia and according to them, the les paul studio features everything that a regular les paul has, soundwise, just not the looks of it. i tried one at GC the other day. i actually thought it played, sounded, and felt very nice. what's so bad about the les paul studio?
#2
to me the pickups look thinner
idk just me
Gear

93 Jackson Dinky Professional Reverse
98 Jackson Kelly KE3

Peavey Bandit 112
Custom 2x10 cab w/Bugeras
#3
Some people bitch about them.

They don't have binding. They have SG pups. They aren't the same quality level as standards. The gold and nickel finish rubs off. But reallly. They can be very good guitars if you find one that isn't a factory defect which many are.
Winner of the 2011 Virginia Guitar Festival

Protools HD
Lynx Aurora 16/HD192
Mojave, Sennheiser, AKG, EV etc mics
Focusrite ISA828 pres
Waves Mercury
Random Rack Gear

65 Deluxe Reverb
PRS CE 22
American Standard Strat
Taylor 712
#4
the pretty much the same as standards
the only thigs is cause there cheaper some of them an crapy. so when you buy one you should play see what is sounds like. other then that there an awsome guitar i'm buying 1.
#5
...who cares if they 'look' thinner. i actually like them more than i like the $3,000 standards.

edit: to shredforbread
Peavey XXX combo *upgraded screen resistors, Tung-Sol's, and 6L6's*
Schecter Syn Std. * modded, scalloped, and worn*
Schecter C-1 Elite *still sexy*
Ibanez AEL 12-string

"He who sticks his dick in peanut butter is fucking nuts"
#6
probably nothing. i too have played the studio at guitar center and thought it wasn't bad, it just doesn't have the same visual appeal that, say, a standard or custom would have. as far as the electronics and all that, they're basically the same as higher end ones, i'm relatively sure.
dst127 wrote:
Soundwash22 wrote:
Fred Durst is the Tom Green of music

No, some people actually like Tom Green.

dancesisidance wrote:
Shiroshu wrote:
I can't see Jimi approving of this.

Me neither, due to him not being alive and all.
#8
its the inconsistency (sp?) of the quality what most people complain... some are really nice... some feel like cheap epiphones...
#9
their the same as standars to me...one that i played at GCs neck was a little sticky and i played a classic and i liked the classic more so..idk
#10
I dont like guitars without a locking trem.

I can't do sqweelz.
Jackson King V KVX10
Line 6 Spider III 75 W.
Peavey 5150/6505 Combo to be owned at the end of 2010.
#11
I have a studio, and i love it.

It has everything a standard does except for the trim and some cosmetic stuff.

I mean, Les Paul STUDIOS were made to sound like Standards, except to be used in the STUDIO -- therefore, no need for the fancy looks, just the playability. And yet, they still look sexy.

Some necks are a little thicker but it doesn't change anything.
#12
I guarantee half the Studio haters on here havent played one, and are just regurgitating what others (who also have not played one) post on here.
#13
Quote by Paul Carbonella
I was looking on wikipedia and according to them, the les paul studio features everything that a regular les paul has, soundwise, just not the looks of it. i tried one at GC the other day. i actually thought it played, sounded, and felt very nice. what's so bad about the les paul studio?


its the same guitar without the flash bang wallop. no binding. no flamed maple cap... its just a workhorse meant to be used in the "studio" instead of on stage where the maple cap looks better (if you like)
Thank you please.
#14
Are we talking Gibson or Epiphone? Gibson isn't bad. Epiphone are made from card board, I think.
"I don't want to be hostile. I don't want to be dismal.
But I don't want to rot in an apathetic existence either.
"
-Maynard

\w/ gear-vault.com \w/