Now it´s official: chambered bodies

[alexx]

Originally Posted by LongBeach

Alexx, due to your comments, I completly freaked out and inspected my
07 Standard last night with a fine-tooth-comb. Luckily, it's perfect.
Sounds like you got a lemon, no fun intended, I would be smokin-pissed
myself.

As far as the chambering goes, (IMO) I have a Classic with swiss-cheese holesthat I love. I've noted this before, when played clean (07 chambered),
ya, it is very bright, but I typically play dirty/distorted, and I really dont
hear that great of a difference(IMO). As time goes by, I hear a little & little more difference, but not to any major degree that would make me not like it,
and or be unsatified with it.

But yes, if I had the option of chambered opposed to weight releaved, I would
have picked the weight releaved. But I still really like the axe.

Dude, I almost cried....but the anger was stronger I LOVE THAT GUITAR!
But I´ll sell it, put some more money and buy a older one.The "used-almost brand new" tobacco burst is almost sold out.My second option, a 81 gold top, costs US$ 1460,00 more ( nice gold top, in really good condition, and with tim shawn pickups). My third option is a 81 wine red( with maple neck too and tim shawn).I think these 81 models aren´t even weight relieved( they weight freaking heavy), and a lot of people say they´re good instruments.
look:
http://www.twotone.com.br/adm/gerenc...gens/gt812.jpg 81 gold top-front
http://www.twotone.com.br/adm/gerenc...gens/gt816.jpg 81 gt back
http://www.instrumentosusados.com.br...07731-01_1.JPG 81 wine red front
http://www.instrumentosusados.com.br...07731-01_2.JPG 81 wine red back
http://www.twotone.com.br/adm/gerenc...ens/glpvsf.jpg beautiful 04 tobacco burst( almost sold out, and I really wish the buyer give up, if so, it will me mine)
OPINIONS ARE WELCOME.

[alexx]

DUDES, CONCERNING THE "US$ 1460,00 more " for the 81 gold top, keep in mind that a standard 07 used , here in Brazil , costs US$ 4411,00 , and the gold top 81 : US$ 4994,18
1 REAL(R$ 1,00) = +- US$ 1.70

[Inside Guy]

[QUOTE=alexx;90889]iN THAT "ARTICLE" THEY ADMIT THAT "Les Pauls in the Custom Shop’s VOS range, on the other
hand, are prepared with bodies that are not weight relieved, but which are
generally light and resonant thanks to the rare and expensive wood stocks
acquired for use in these guitars, which is reflected in the increased prices
of these models."
In other words, the cheaper wood goes to USA line.QUOTE]

I'll throw in some info to help clear a few things up.

1) Lighter wood is not more expensive, and Heavier wood is not cheaper. Wood is purchased by the board foot, if it weights 16 pounds a foot, or 6 pounds a foot, it costs the same.

2) Blemish-free wood costs more. Figured wood costs more.

3) It costs us time and money to search through all of our mahogany supply for the lightest boards. Therefore the premium WEIGHT wood goes to the custom shop. Just becuase a board is lighter, does no tmean it's BETTER or it costs more. It's just lighter, and it took time to find it.

4) Chambering was studied with pretty sophisticated software, and the most reliable piece of hardware known for testing tone....human ears.


5) If you still want an old school Standard with the Swiss-cheese holes? You wont have to wait very long.

[alexx]

[QUOTE=Inside Guy;93081]

Originally Posted by alexx

iN THAT "ARTICLE" THEY ADMIT THAT "Les Pauls in the Custom Shop’s VOS range, on the other
hand, are prepared with bodies that are not weight relieved, but which are
generally light and resonant thanks to the rare and expensive wood stocks
acquired for use in these guitars, which is reflected in the increased prices
of these models."
In other words, the cheaper wood goes to USA line.QUOTE]

I'll throw in some info to help clear a few things up.

1) Lighter wood is not more expensive, and Heavier wood is not cheaper. Wood is purchased by the board foot, if it weights 16 pounds a foot, or 6 pounds a foot, it costs the same.

2) Blemish-free wood costs more. Figured wood costs more.

3) It costs us time and money to search through all of our mahogany supply for the lightest boards. Therefore the premium WEIGHT wood goes to the custom shop. Just becuase a board is lighter, does no tmean it's BETTER or it costs more. It's just lighter, and it took time to find it.

4) Chambering was studied with pretty sophisticated software, and the most reliable piece of hardware known for testing tone....human ears.


5) If you still want an old school Standard with the Swiss-cheese holes? You wont have to wait very long.

Dude, do you woRk in Gibson´s factory?
here´s the article:
Chambering the Les Paul: A Marriage of Weight and Tone
Dave Hunter | 10.25.2007

Not many players today like to struggle with the back-breaking weight of an
overly heavy guitar, but relatively fewer realize that relieving the load can
very often also have positive consequences on an instrument’s sound. Gibson
first put unseen routes, or “chambers,” in some Les Paul bodies purely as a
weight-reduction measure at a time when adequately light stocks of mahogany
were difficult to come by. Today, however, the craftsmen at Gibson USA take a
more holistic view of the construction process, with the awareness that every
change to the formula will have repercussions on an instrument’s sound. The
result is a synchronicity of weight and tone that benefits the customer from
whichever angle you approach it.

“Back in the early 1980s, when Gibson started weight relieving the Les Paul
models, there was not a specific rhyme or reason to the weight-relief holes,”
says Frank Johns of Gibson USA. Lately, however, Gibson has refined the
process considerably. “We wanted to focus on a more scientific approach to
weight relieving our guitars, to update the design to give it more of a
purpose with both tone and weight in mind.”

The chambering process applied to many Les Paul models in the Gibson USA range
results in guitars that appear entirely “solid,” yet benefit from this finely
tuned approach to weight reduction. In fact, a guitarist could play one of
these models for years and never realize there was air within that solid
tonewood. To achieve this cutting-edge form of weight relief, Gibson carves
carefully mapped-out chambers in the solid mahogany backs of applicable Les
Pauls using a CNC (Computer Numeric Controlled) Router before the maple top is
glued on. The positioning of these routes has been determined through close
examination of the resonant characteristics of the Les Paul—so as well as
taking the kinks out of your back and shoulder, these lighter Gibsons also
display further nuances of tone that aren’t found in a heavier,
solid-mahogany-backed guitar.

Of course, Johns reminds us, “no two guitars sound or react the same,” even
side-by-side examples of the same model, which is part of the beauty and
appeal of a finely crafted instrument. But taking the chambered Les Pauls as a
whole, Johns says some common threads emerge as a result of the process:
“Acoustically the guitars are louder, and we have also noticed increased
sustain and resonance. Customers are echoing the same conclusions with their
new Les Pauls on various guitar forums, too.”

Check out the success of Gibson USA’s chambering techniques by picking up any
of a number of new Les Pauls, including the LP Studios, Classics, and
Standards. Alongside these, the Les Paul Supreme has its own, entirely
different weight relief system, which has been engineered specifically to
benefit that model. Les Pauls in the Custom Shop’s VOS range, on the other
hand, are prepared with bodies that are not weight relieved, but which are
generally light and resonant thanks to the rare and expensive wood stocks
acquired for use in these guitars, which is reflected in the increased prices
of these models.

This article was prepared with the input of Frank Johns, Keith Medley, and
Kevin Philbin of Gibson USA. "
THE GUY SAYS THAT LIGHTER WOOD IS MORE EXPENSIVE DUE TO IT´S RESONANCE, AND THIS FACT IS REFLECTED IN THE INCEASED PRICES OF THE CUSTOM SHOP VOS RANGE.
THIS WAS A GIBSON´S OFFICIAL STATEMENT ABOUT THE CHAMBERING,NOT MY STATEMENT.
MY STATEMENT IS THAT I´VE BOUGHT A BEAUTIFUL AND GOOD SOUNDING GUITAR WITH SERIOUS BIDING PROBLEM: IT´S CRACKING WITHOUT ANY IMPACT.
AND WHAT ABOUT :"If you still want an old school Standard with the Swiss-cheese holes? You wont have to wait very long"???????.

ANYWAYS, I´VE FOUND VERY EXPLANATORY YOUR POST.THANKS

[hbucker]

Thanks for your post insideguy.

I clearly have no "inside" info. But based on some knowledge that I do have, would it be safe to say that, while wood is purchased by the board foot not by weight, that there is a certain amount of waste that comes from any lot of wood. "Waste" meaning boards that are not fit for production and that are thrown away? The real value to the wood comes into play once you sort it out and decide if it goes to the custom shop, standard line or to the dumpster? Clearly, the more waste any lot of wood has, the more that lot costs Gibson in the long run. No?

With chambering, my guess is that wood that otherwise would be too heavy and discarded can suddenly be used. Thus cutting down on the waste and supporting Gibson's bottom line.

I don't have a problem with this. I just still see it as a way of using "cheaper" (otherwise headed to the dumpster) wood. Gibson gets more production and revenue from each lot of wood.

FYI: the only "inside" info I have is a tour of the Fender Custom Shop where I watched them sort and weigh each body blank. Every single blank that was too heavy, they tossed. Outside by the dumpster was a huge pile of perfectly good ash blanks that were simply too heavy for their specs. They couldn't sort the good from the bad until they bought the whole lot.

[alexx]

"With chambering, my guess is that wood that otherwise would be too heavy and discarded can suddenly be used. Thus cutting down on the waste and supporting Gibson's bottom line.

I don't have a problem with this. I just still see it as a way of using "cheaper" (otherwise headed to the dumpster) wood. Gibson gets more production and revenue from each lot of wood."
I was wondering the same.....

[plecoman]

I played a 08 LP Standard, Have to say I loved the weight... Does it sound the same as a Les Paul. NO, NO , NO. Does it sound good? Thats subjective, but it was too different from the 8 Les Pauls I own for me to like it. If it was only slightly different in tone, but still retained that Les Paul flavour, I would be all for chambering. The fact that it wasn't, or at least the particular one I played wasn't, makes me "against" the idea.

[Tom99SS]

I doubt Gibson would nolonger chamber the Les Paul if they spent the time and money to analyze the sound characteristics like they have stated. Also, if you read the post the inside person at Gibson stated:

5) If you still want an old school Standard with the Swiss-cheese holes? You wont have to wait very long

Remember, the new Gibson USA Slash model is coming out and is not to be chambered but could contain the swiss cheese holes. Gibson USA stated it was not chambered but did not say "not weight relieved". This maybe what he is refering to. We will not know until Gibson starts to sell them.

I am very happy with my Chambered Les Paul. Some people hate change. When the Swiss Cheese holes where created and found out people hated them. Chambering is the next thing and people now want the Swiss Cheese holes.

As others have said, if you like your guitar fine, if you do not like the chambered LP fine, but try them out with an open mind and not "I know it's chambered so I am not going to like it but I will try it out anyway".

Funny how some R8/R9/R0 are chambered but nobody complains about those. Sure they are chambered a little different but not all that much.

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by Tom99SS

I doubt Gibson would no longer chamber the Les Paul if they spent the time and money to analyze the sound characteristics like they have stated.

How much time and money does it take to scoop out wood in the pattern they chose? The body shape of the guitar doesn't allow for much else. If they had put real R&D into it, I don't think they would have settled on this pattern, which is basically the entire body of the guitar.

Gibson also has had design changes and models that were 'turfed' after so much 'R&D'. Some didn't even last a year.

Funny how some R8/R9/R0 are chambered but nobody complains about those. Sure they are chambered a little different but not all that much.

Its because they give you the option. You can buy a specialty chambered *Cloud 9* R9 if you want to.

Also I'm willing to bet, without seeing the numbers that Chambered Historic's make up about 1.5% of total Historic sales. I'm probably being too generous even. Its a specialty item, sort of like a peanut butter and jelly hot dog. Some people love them *me for example* but the rest of the world cringes at the thought.

The guitar buying world has spoken. You can read it on forums. Chambered Les Pauls not so popular. They might hang onto the model for a while as an option, if sales were even that good on it... I dunno.

The same Chambered Standards and Classics are still in my favorite guitar shop. Still... When VOS and Rx's are being sold. Sales have slowed this month now that people are recovering from the holidays, but even over the holidays, and even with a massive sale with 40% everything in the store, and 0% in store financing, the same chambered Standards are there.

I dunno. I think the people who own them want to be happy with them, so of course they'll defend them. Same as us Norlin owners. Some of us own pancakes even, and will defend them for what they are. Nobody wants to feel like their very expensive instrument isn't special.

[Zack-on-crack]

Oh brother...this is turning into another stinking neck tenon debate. God help me.

Chambering is just another freakin myth created by a greed sticken company. What's increasingly distastful is that they're pimping it off as an "well studied scienctific innovation". I'm not saying it's a terrible sounding guitar...but it is shoddy work. No two ways about it...s-h-o-d-d-d-e-y.

Geez man..a two hundred dollar "Hello Kitty " Squire Start can sound acceptable too. Do they shallack the story and say it's "high tech design and construction makes it a top dollar guitar" and sell them for $2300....nooooope. They send them out into the world for $200 and don't make up any "stories". What a bunch of dihks...modern Gibson...more bad jokes than Carrot Top.

Gibson needs to be totally freakin ashamed. They should change the model name and sell it for an acceptable "hollowed out" price. You're not getting a true Les Paul...why should you pay Les Paul prices? If I remember correctly Les Paul himself specifically designed the guitar as a SOLID BODY.

Here are some free suggestions for the hacked out junkers:
1. Less Paul Jack-o-Lantern
2. Less Paul Quiche
3. Less Paul Zepplin
4. Less Paul Corked Bat
5. Less Paul Hollow-piece-of-low-quality-heavey-ass-mahagony

There you have it! Suprised the ever insightful Gibson marketing department didn't suggest those? Might as well just buy a Chinese know-off there days...I can't figure out what the damn difference is anymore!

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by Zack-on-crack

Oh brother...this is turning into another stinking neck tenon debate. God help me.

Chambering is just another freakin myth created by a greed sticken company. What's increasingly distastful is that they're pimping it off as an "well studied scienctific innovation". I'm not saying it's a terrible sounding guitar...but it is shoddy work. No two ways about it...s-h-o-d-d-d-e-y.

Geez man..a two hundred dollar "Hello Kitty " Squire Start can sound acceptable too. Do they shallack the story and say it's "high tech design and construction makes it a top dollar guitar" and sell them for $2300....nooooope. They send them out into the world for $200 and don't make up any "stories". What a bunch of dihks...modern Gibson...more bad jokes than Carrot Top.

Gibson needs to be totally freakin ashamed. They should change the model name and sell it for an acceptable "hollowed out" price. You're not getting a true Les Paul...why should you pay Les Paul prices? If I remember correctly Les Paul himself specifically designed the guitar as a SOLID BODY.

Here are some free suggestions for the hacked out junkers:
1. Less Paul Jack-o-Lantern
2. Less Paul Quiche
3. Less Paul Zepplin
4. Less Paul Corked Bat
5. Less Paul Hollow-piece-of-low-quality-heavey-ass-mahagony

There you have it! Suprised the ever insightful Gibson marketing department didn't suggest those? Might as well just buy a Chinese know-off there days...I can't figure out what the damn difference is anymore!

That is typical corporate marketing for you. Take a good look at the 'Robot Guitar'.

Gibson takes a nifty, gimmicky device that SOMEBODY ELSE INVENTED and then lathers at the mouth about how Gibson has always been about innovation.

Then they give it a corny name and sell it for way too much money.

That is the Gibson I've known, since Oh! Henry Juszkiewicz took over.

In the 50's and 60's Gibson started losing money. Why? Because their electric guitars were hard to play, heavy and not very desirable.

A handful of superstars using them changed peoples opinions on that... Kept them afloat long enough for a larger corporate entity to take over *Norlin* who made changes to the guitar based on feedback of customers. Norlin cut the bottom line and the company started making money again. The guitars weren't made as well, the materials weren't as pricey, but it kept the doors open, until the 80's when people decided once again they hated heavy guitars, and things with neon colors and points were far more interesting.

Again, a handful of superstars playing Gibson Les Pauls saved the day.

Now we're back to the same thing again. People will say they want a lighter guitar, but it has to be exactly the same as the old ones. Sound the same, look the same and feel the same without being heavy. People also want low fat Big Macs and free gasoline.

None of that shit is gonna happen. Plain and simple. Gibson will continually try to make changes to their line up, just to realize that people want what WORKS. Quality solid body instruments. Thats all.

The only thing is, its a double edged sword. If Gibson doesn't try to make anything new, people will get bored with the same old, same old. But if they get rid of the same old same old, God help them.

Same thing with Marshall. Marshall used to be high quality best of the best tube amps.

Now? They haven't put out a good amp since 1990. Its all about the bottom line. Cheaper, faster, higher priced. Cheaper, faster, higher priced. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Marshall makes toys now, not amplifiers. The real high end stuff has all left 'brand names' and brand loyalty won't get you anywhere, except broke.

[Tom99SS]

Loki, I used to own a old Les Paul. '75 Deluxe that had a 3 piece top, pancake body the whole nine yards. Put in full size humbuckers in 1978 (Dimarzio SD and PAF). Ran this through a '76 Marshall 50 watt MV full stack with the Greenbacks. Only pedal was a '78 MXR distortion +. You want to talk about tone there it is.

Now I own a chambered Les Paul.

Are the chambered LPs different, yes. Do they sound good, well like everything else it depends on what you run it through. I like the sound of mine. I little more detailed than my old Les Paul (from the records I have of it) but none the less still has that Les Paul tone, just need to tweek you amp and knobs.

You guys have fun with this debate. I am done.

I had to add this. You 20somethings, wait till your my age (48), then you will appreciate the fact that you have a lighter weight guitar that still sounds very close to the original. I have done my band days and recording sessions, back in the late 70's and early 80's. At times I wish I was still in my 20's because if I knew then what I know now. You know how that saying goes.

[Fuelish]

Originally Posted by LoKi

That is typical corporate marketing for you. Take a good look at the 'Robot Guitar'.

Gibson takes a nifty, gimmicky device that SOMEBODY ELSE INVENTED and then lathers at the mouth about how Gibson has always been about innovation.

Then they give it a corny name and sell it for way too much money.

Ain't that the truth !!! Hey LoKi, I gotta ask ...might you in fact be the same Loki from over at celicatech ???? Just wonderin'

[alexx]

Originally Posted by LoKi

That is typical corporate marketing for you. Take a good look at the 'Robot Guitar'.

Gibson takes a nifty, gimmicky device that SOMEBODY ELSE INVENTED and then lathers at the mouth about how Gibson has always been about innovation.

Then they give it a corny name and sell it for way too much money.

That is the Gibson I've known, since Oh! Henry Juszkiewicz took over.

In the 50's and 60's Gibson started losing money. Why? Because their electric guitars were hard to play, heavy and not very desirable.

A handful of superstars using them changed peoples opinions on that... Kept them afloat long enough for a larger corporate entity to take over *Norlin* who made changes to the guitar based on feedback of customers. Norlin cut the bottom line and the company started making money again. The guitars weren't made as well, the materials weren't as pricey, but it kept the doors open, until the 80's when people decided once again they hated heavy guitars, and things with neon colors and points were far more interesting.

Again, a handful of superstars playing Gibson Les Pauls saved the day.

Now we're back to the same thing again. People will say they want a lighter guitar, but it has to be exactly the same as the old ones. Sound the same, look the same and feel the same without being heavy. People also want low fat Big Macs and free gasoline.

None of that shit is gonna happen. Plain and simple. Gibson will continually try to make changes to their line up, just to realize that people want what WORKS. Quality solid body instruments. Thats all.

The only thing is, its a double edged sword. If Gibson doesn't try to make anything new, people will get bored with the same old, same old. But if they get rid of the same old same old, God help them.

Same thing with Marshall. Marshall used to be high quality best of the best tube amps.

Now? They haven't put out a good amp since 1990. Its all about the bottom line. Cheaper, faster, higher priced. Cheaper, faster, higher priced. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Marshall makes toys now, not amplifiers. The real high end stuff has all left 'brand names' and brand loyalty won't get you anywhere, except broke.

Dude, you were inspired here. excelent post,interesting point of view.

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by Fuelish

Ain't that the truth !!! Hey LoKi, I gotta ask ...might you in fact be the same Loki from over at celicatech ???? Just wonderin'

Haha... yea thats me. Same LoKi - same attitude problem.

I haven't been over at Ctech in a while, my internet at home is full of bugs, and I check in here at the office pretty regularly.

Just setup ubuntu on my laptop, and so far so good. Also planning on buying another Celi this summer... unless I can find a wicked deal on a bike.

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by Tom99SS

Loki, I used to own a old Les Paul. '75 Deluxe that had a 3 piece top, pancake body the whole nine yards. Put in full size humbuckers in 1978 (Dimarzio SD and PAF). Ran this through a '76 Marshall 50 watt MV full stack with the Greenbacks. Only pedal was a '78 MXR distortion +. You want to talk about tone there it is.

Now I own a chambered Les Paul.

Are the chambered LPs different, yes. Do they sound good, well like everything else it depends on what you run it through. I like the sound of mine. I little more detailed than my old Les Paul (from the records I have of it) but none the less still has that Les Paul tone, just need to tweek you amp and knobs.

You guys have fun with this debate. I am done.

I had to add this. You 20somethings, wait till your my age (48), then you will appreciate the fact that you have a lighter weight guitar that still sounds very close to the original. I have done my band days and recording sessions, back in the late 70's and early 80's. At times I wish I was still in my 20's because if I knew then what I know now. You know how that saying goes.

I can agree with this to a point. Your back is like anything else, you gotta take care of it... but guys like Slash have been playing Les Pauls since the 80's all day every day and no serious back issues...

My 79 is almost 13lbs...

I bought a couple of Standards to give my back a bit of a break, but they're still 8-9.5lbs. Different tone, for sure, but still solid in feel and still thick, but defined.

My biggest gripe is Gibson calling this an improvement, when it is in fact a financial decision, and in my opinion a poor one. The took The Guitar that made rock and roll, and made it cheaper to manufacture, but still sell it for the same price *higher in fact, inflation included*.

Its not just the chambering either, its the details. Ask poor Alexx about his binding. 11 cracks in a 1 year old guitar? It wont fall off, because of the glue, but this kind of workmanship is not tolerable for the price of the instrument.

There are plenty of guitar companies out there making great stuff for less money... and as much as I love Les Pauls, there are guys on here who can and do build better Pauls than Gibson... and that is just plain sad.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by LoKi

I can agree with this to a point. Your back is like anything else, you gotta take care of it... but guys like Slash have been playing Les Pauls since the 80's all day every day and no serious back issues...

My 79 is almost 13lbs...

I bought a couple of Standards to give my back a bit of a break, but they're still 8-9.5lbs. Different tone, for sure, but still solid in feel and still thick, but defined.

My biggest gripe is Gibson calling this an improvement, when it is in fact a financial decision, and in my opinion a poor one. The took The Guitar that made rock and roll, and made it cheaper to manufacture, but still sell it for the same price *higher in fact, inflation included*.

Its not just the chambering either, its the details. Ask poor Alexx about his binding. 11 cracks in a 1 year old guitar? It wont fall off, because of the glue, but this kind of workmanship is not tolerable for the price of the instrument.

There are plenty of guitar companies out there making great stuff for less money... and as much as I love Les Pauls, there are guys on here who can and do build better Pauls than Gibson... and that is just plain sad.

Twelve cracks and counting, dude,12. Really , I don´t want to talk about the 2007 anymore, I´m so frustated...
Loki, do you use strap locks on that heavy killer machine?(79)Is a custom, right,from the norlin era?maple neck and neck volute?
That gold top(and 81 wine red )is from the same era? I´m considering a custom , beautiful model,great tones.....

[LoKi]

An 81 Custom will be an extremely heavy guitar, most likely... But heavy guitars just have a certain tone that others don't have.

I use strap locks on everything, Les Pauls, Strats, Ibanez, you name it. Schallers work well for me, no mods to the guitar.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by Tom99SS

Loki, I used to own a old Les Paul. '75 Deluxe that had a 3 piece top, pancake body the whole nine yards. Put in full size humbuckers in 1978 (Dimarzio SD and PAF). Ran this through a '76 Marshall 50 watt MV full stack with the Greenbacks. Only pedal was a '78 MXR distortion +. You want to talk about tone there it is.

Now I own a chambered Les Paul.

Are the chambered LPs different, yes. Do they sound good, well like everything else it depends on what you run it through. I like the sound of mine. I little more detailed than my old Les Paul (from the records I have of it) but none the less still has that Les Paul tone, just need to tweek you amp and knobs.

You guys have fun with this debate. I am done.

I had to add this. You 20somethings, wait till your my age (48), then you will appreciate the fact that you have a lighter weight guitar that still sounds very close to the original. I have done my band days and recording sessions, back in the late 70's and early 80's. At times I wish I was still in my 20's because if I knew then what I know now. You know how that saying goes.

Tom, I love the sound of my 2007. Sounds the same? No. Sounds good? really!(IMHO)And my iced tea is a really beautiful.But the biding issue pissed me of .I´m 32, have some pain in my back and knees(I´m a former powerlifter,abused my lower back from 19 to 28).And I tell you, I LOVE the way a les paul sounds(all of us here, i think), and I want good sound and a well built instrument. If the heavy one is the way to go, so be it.Actually I´m very interested in late 70`early 80`models(very heavy models);if they still around, they´re well built. Period

[Tom99SS]

Alexx, if the binding is the issue take it to get warranty work done, especially if you like the guitar. That is what the warranty is for.

Hell, I remember my old '85 Camaro IROC-Z. Dash started rattledafter about a year. Took it in till they got all the rattles taken care of to my satisfaction.

Push Gibson to get it fixed. It is their issue and problem. They should fix it. It will only cost you time as there should be no out-of-pocket expense to get it fixed.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by Tom99SS

Alexx, if the binding is the issue take it to get warranty work done, especially if you like the guitar. That is what the warranty is for.

Hell, I remember my old '85 Camaro IROC-Z. Dash started rattledafter about a year. Took it in till they got all the rattles taken care of to my satisfaction.

Push Gibson to get it fixed. It is their issue and problem. They should fix it. It will only cost you time as there should be no out-of-pocket expense to get it fixed.

Tom,my lp is used.It was in mint condition, and started to crack, without ANY impact

[Fuelish]

Originally Posted by LoKi

Haha... yea thats me. Same LoKi - same attitude problem.

I haven't been over at Ctech in a while, my internet at home is full of bugs, and I check in here at the office pretty regularly.

Haha ...... thought you might be, as I thought I remembered you posting over there about your band, etc ..... not to mention yer username is not what one might randomly come up with. Very well, then ....... I still hit up ctech fairly regularly, am hoping to make the Dragon run this year (although I can pretty much do it whenever I want, living in Murg's territory, but it would be cool to meet other ctechers ) Carry on - sorry to have derailed the thread

[Tom99SS]

Alexx,

Sorry did not know you bought it used. If you know the original owner see if you can work out a deal to get it fixed under warranty. If not, maybe something happened to it that caused this to start later. I am sorry that the binding starting to crack occurred.

[Naughty Thoughts]

I had my first run in with these chambers recently, I bought a studio and started sculpting, and found these holes between the maple and mahogany ruined my design. I didn't even know till after researching I got a studio "Lite"

[BigC]

Originally Posted by Naughty Thoughts

I had my first run in with these chambers recently, I bought a studio and started sculpting, and found these holes between the maple and mahogany ruined my design. I didn't even know till after researching I got a studio "Lite"

I'm sure it's scant consolation for you now, but those look like the traditional swiss-cheese holes found in most LPs, rather than the new Chambering style.

[juca]

[QUOTE=plecoman;93870]I played a 08 LP Standard, Have to say I loved the weight... Does it sound the same as a Les Paul. NO, NO , NO.

Does it sound the same as a Les Paul? What? It's a Les Paul! And every one sounds different.

If Gibson started a long way back with chamber bodies, and now introduced for the first time the "solid" ones... everyone would be like: "What? a heavier guitar?"

I have one faded chambered les paul 2007, and it's a great guitar! I wish my heavy non relief, non chambered studio, would even come close...

But that's me

[BCRGreg]

Originally Posted by LoKi

I can agree with this to a point. Your back is like anything else, you gotta take care of it... but guys like Slash have been playing Les Pauls since the 80's all day every day and no serious back issues...

My 79 is almost 13lbs...

I bought a couple of Standards to give my back a bit of a break, but they're still 8-9.5lbs. Different tone, for sure, but still solid in feel and still thick, but defined.

My biggest gripe is Gibson calling this an improvement, when it is in fact a financial decision, and in my opinion a poor one. The took The Guitar that made rock and roll, and made it cheaper to manufacture, but still sell it for the same price *higher in fact, inflation included*.

Its not just the chambering either, its the details. Ask poor Alexx about his binding. 11 cracks in a 1 year old guitar? It wont fall off, because of the glue, but this kind of workmanship is not tolerable for the price of the instrument.

There are plenty of guitar companies out there making great stuff for less money... and as much as I love Les Pauls, there are guys on here who can and do build better Pauls than Gibson... and that is just plain sad.

Slash's 85 and his replicas do not weight 13 lbs.

[hbucker]

I think something that doesn't get emphasized enough when talking about the chambering topic is the fact that:

1. If you don't like the brand new LP's, there are many, many, many, many available on the used market ranging from historics & reissues to Norlin & swiss cheese models. Never before has it been so easy to get hooked up with a decent used guitar. Of course some people will only settle for a brand new guitar and that's o.k. Then they'll post a thread on this forum asking how to relic their new guitar so I looks older...

2. There a A LOT of other very good guitars out there. Other companies are making awesome guitars with design innovations that are really innovations based on the knowledge acquired since 1960. Play a quality guitar designed in the past 20 years and you'll notice certain aspects that reveal real refinements in concepts. Not just chambering in a 50+ year old model.

The history of guitars like the LP, Strat & Tele speaks for itself: classic, great designs for sure. But they aren't the only game in town. Factor in used gear and suddenly this chambering thing is virtually irrelevant... unless you own stock in Gibson.

[Robster]

Originally Posted by Naughty Thoughts

I had my first run in with these chambers recently, I bought a studio and started sculpting, and found these holes between the maple and mahogany ruined my design. I didn't even know till after researching I got a studio "Lite"

Oh MAN that would piss me off! I'm sorry you got duped, man. I would be extremely steamed if I found out my LP had those damned holes drilled in it. I would want my money back ASAP or a new, NON weight-relieved LP in replacement. JMHO, YMMV,

Rob

[needlespauls]

Originally Posted by Robster

Oh MAN that would piss me off! I'm sorry you got duped, man. I would be extremely steamed if I found out my LP had those damned holes drilled in it. I would want my money back ASAP or a new, NON weight-relieved LP in replacement. JMHO, YMMV,

Rob

MONEY BAAACK?????????!!!!!!! The F'n guy took a knife to the guitar!!!!! Thats what you get as far as I'm concerned. Just like when you mod a car and it voids the warranty. Now I've heard it all.........