Now it´s official: chambered bodies

[alexx]

Check it out, dudes. Finally they´re telling us that the les pauls are chambered
GIBSON USA - Les Paul Standard

[loaded six string]

yeah, gibson is pretty proud of this "new and improved" les paul, all for the sake of less weight. I wonder what Les Paul's opinion is on this issue ?

[ArchEtech]

I don't know. He'd probably want to play one regardless.

[LongBeach]

I think it is what it is.
I have 2 chambered and like them both alot.
But I have 1 Classic that isnt and I really like the weight.
Granted I dont gig, so, if I did, I might have to change my tune.
I think this might be interesting in the long run, see what the pro's
have to say about it in a year or so, Gibson might have to go back to
weight releif if they get enough complaints.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by loaded six string

yeah, gibson is pretty proud of this "new and improved" les paul, all for the sake of less weight. I wonder what Les Paul's opinion is on this issue ?

Actually Les Paul´s Les paul is totally different of you think.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by ArchEtech

I don't know. He'd probably want to play one regardless.

I agree

[alexx]

I have a chambered 2007 and LOVE IT. I´ve tested several other non-chambered Les Pauls(standards and classics), and the chambered one was my choice. I know what is like to play for almost two hours,(and what it does to my back and shoulders). But I think tone have IMPROVED( to my ears, as a semi-pro musician and a lifetime player - I´m 31 years old).

[SmokestackElRopo]

For me,not having a past history with the old original les pauls, I wouldn't know the difference. All 3 of my LPs are chambered and I LIKE it. Maybe I just got lucky or I don't have enuff experience.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by SmokestackElRopo

For me,not having a past history with the old original les pauls, I wouldn't know the difference. All 3 of my LPs are chambered and I LIKE it. Maybe I just got lucky or I don't have enuff experience.

Dude, I DO HAVE experience , had another Les some years ago, and I like my chambered very much. Of course, you have to try many guitars as possible to pic the best to YOUR ears.

[Mikeeeeh]

I guess tone is subjective... I've both chambered and non chambered and I prefer the non-chambered tone (agains thats just my opinion ). The chambered tone is great but I reckon it lacks some of the depth in tone I expect from wielding a Les Paul... I find it a little too bright... nudging into semi hollowbody country... but again thats just my opinion

What I don't agree with is not giving the customer the choice of either... I likes choice me

Then again its hardly the end of the world!

[155]

lets face it if you own chambered youll love it if you own solid youll love it, its all good as long as its an lp

[GLP4me]

Originally Posted by 155

lets face it if you own chambered youll love it if you own solid youll love it, its all good as long as its an lp

HERE! HERE!

[Roman Rist]

Originally Posted by alexx

Check it out, dudes. Finally they´re telling us that the les pauls are chambered
GIBSON USA - Les Paul Standard

In that link, I see nowhere that Gibson is stating they are all chambered.

I know they do chamber them, but I see nothing stated as such.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by Mikeeeeh

I guess tone is subjective... I've both chambered and non chambered and I prefer the non-chambered tone (agains thats just my opinion ). The non chambered tone is great but I reckon it lacks some of the depth in tone I expect from wielding a Les Paul... I find it a little too bright... nudging into semi hollowbody country... but again thats just my opinion

What I don't agree with is not giving the customer the choice of either... I likes choice me

Then again its hardly the end of the world!

I think the middle position with both pickups on sounds like a tele, but individually it´s 100% Les Paul ( IMHO). But ii really sounds and feels good to me( the most important think).
But a good question is why not to have both chambered and non chambered guitars , as 50´s and 60´s neck?

[Mikeeeeh]

Originally Posted by alexx

But a good question is why not to have both chambered and non chambered guitars , as 50´s and 60´s neck?

Absolutely man... the more LPs the better!

[alexx]

Originally Posted by RFR

In that link, I see nowhere that Gibson is stating they are all chambered.

I know they do chamber them, but I see nothing stated as such.

SEE "FEATURES",THEN CLICK OVER THE BODY OF THE GUITAR PICTURED( IT SAYS :"CHAMBERED BODY-CLICK FOR MORE INFO)

[alexx]

Originally Posted by Mikeeeeh

Absolutely man... the more LPs the better!

[ArchEtech]

Exactly....

I like having both. I set up my chambered with Alumitone single coils and can get a great STV strat sound, as well as other unique tones. My custom is darker, and bigger, and much different but also because of the pickups.

[mrkenny]

<-------CR '54. No complaints, 7.25lbs

[steven21042]

Geeze, all this time I thought it was " WEIGHT RELIEVED"..

[Zack-on-crack]

I don't know but I've been playing guitars for 23 years and Les Pauls for 20 years. What-ever Gibson did they did to save money. What-ever Gibson markets to you is more hype, spin and symantical jibberish than science or engineering.

When they decided to chamber the Standard, they made that decision for ONE reason and it wasn't superior sound quality. It was to help them chamber more money out of your wallet and spend less of their own cash on high quality wood.

To those who say they love it...I say "whaaaah?". Everybody's going to get all freakin worked-up, but I think you're on more drugs than Hendrix was. Sometimes I think you could screw a pickup to a hockey stick, call it a Les Paul and people would drewl all over it.

Cheap, low quality mahagony is heavy....real heavy. There's only one way to lighten it up. Do the math. Tell me how much tonal technology went into that CNC mapping program? People need to wake up and smell the saw dust. That or play a few guitars from the vintage shop downtown. Maybe a kick in the crotch from reality would change some opinions.

In the end it's all an equation. This for that. I won't say a "chambered" LP is total crap. My opinion, along with wood, they should "chamber" out some of the price. Knock it down to $1500 for $2300. It would still sound harsh, trebly and impercise, but at least you would LOOK like Slash.

[coldsteal2]

They sound great, my 2007 sounds as good as my 71 custom
so who carres

[drewbertca]

I love my chambered BFG.....it has an awesome tone....and sometimes it feels like a broken cell phone stuck on vibrate or a "personal massager" against my leg...I guess you could say it's quite satisfying to play.....I love it's tone........now get your minds out of the gutter...that is all

[les strat]

I have played many of the new chambered ones, and although they do sound good, they do sound different to me.... a tad spongier than the more focused sound of a solid body or even the 9 holers ("swiss cheese"). They are routed out at least 80% with not even a center block for sustain like the Cloud 9's had.

If it was all about "advancing", why did they hide fact this until guitarists folks started x-raying them and asking questions?

I just wish you had an option between the solid body and chambered in the USA Standard line, especially since it is the iconic "solid body" guitar.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by Zack-on-crack

I don't know but I've been playing guitars for 23 years and Les Pauls for 20 years. What-ever Gibson did they did to save money. What-ever Gibson markets to you is more hype, spin and symantical jibberish than science or engineering.

When they decided to chamber the Standard, they made that decision for ONE reason and it wasn't superior sound quality. It was to help them chamber more money out of your wallet and spend less of their own cash on high quality wood.

To those who say they love it...I say "whaaaah?". Everybody's going to get all freakin worked-up, but I think you're on more drugs than Hendrix was. Sometimes I think you could screw a pickup to a hockey stick, call it a Les Paul and people would drewl all over it.

Cheap, low quality mahagony is heavy....real heavy. There's only one way to lighten it up. Do the math. Tell me how much tonal technology went into that CNC mapping program? People need to wake up and smell the saw dust. That or play a few guitars from the vintage shop downtown. Maybe a kick in the crotch from reality would change some opinions.

In the end it's all an equation. This for that. I won't say a "chambered" LP is total crap. My opinion, along with wood, they should "chamber" out some of the price. Knock it down to $1500 for $2300. It would still sound harsh, trebly and impercise, but at least you would LOOK like Slash.

DUDE, I DO LOVE MY LES PAUL. AND YES, ALTHOUGH A BIT DIFFERENT, IS STILL "100% SOUNDING LES PAUL"
NOTE : NOT TWO GUITARS OF SAME YEAR, SAME MODEL, SOUND THE SAME.
AND ONCE YOU PLAY LES PAULS FOR 20 YEARS, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT.
GIBSON MAKES GUITARS FOR THE MONEY, NOT FOR LOVE.ALWAYS.
WHAT ABOUT THE "PANKAKE BODIES SHITY YEARS"? THESE GUITARS SOUND GREAT! THE BODY CONSTRUCTION? WELL, 3 PIECES OF WOOD INSTEAD OF ONE TO INCREASE GIBSON´S PROFITS!-ooooohhhhh.......
AND IF GIBSON STARTED TO USE POOR QUALITY SUPER HEAVY MAHOGANY? THE NEW MODELS WOULD BE HEAVY AS HELL, AND PEOPLE WOULD SAY: "oh my,my, that´s heavy! that´s a lot of wood in my gorgeous guitar, great sound, .....blah,blah.how could you know that the mahogany used is cheap? By it´s weight?No way, dude. Some folks love the heavy ones...
Have you ever really played a chambered les paul? I don´t think so.
BUt that´s only my opinion.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by les strat

I have played many of the new chambered ones, and 9although they do sound good, they do sound different to me.... a tad spongier than the more focused sound of a solid body or even the 9 holers ("swiss cheese"). They are routed out at least 80% with not even a center block for sustain like the Cloud 9's had.

If it was all about "advancing", why did they hide fact this until guitarists folks started x-raying them and asking questions?

I just wish you had an option between the solid body and chambered in the USA Standard line, especially since it is the iconic "solid body" guitar.

Dude, actually the body blank of the standards has more wood than the cloud 9.
Some discussion about the chambering and pictures of the chambering pattern:Gibson Forums

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by les strat

I have played many of the new chambered ones, and although they do sound good, they do sound different to me.... a tad spongier than the more focused sound of a solid body or even the 9 holers ("swiss cheese"). They are routed out at least 80% with not even a center block for sustain like the Cloud 9's had.

If it was all about "advancing", why did they hide fact this until guitarists folks started x-raying them and asking questions?

I just wish you had an option between the solid body and chambered in the USA Standard line, especially since it is the iconic "solid body" guitar.

Its interesting eh? Not mention it at all until people started saying 'why is this Les Paul so light, and why does it not sound like any other Les Paul?'.

Not very many people have access to xray technology, they probably figured nobody would notice for a while, and they could play it off as an improvement.

For over 50 years, Gibson has been making Les Pauls roughly the same way... even when pancaked, they were still solid wood. The pancake was another business decision, not quality. Sure it made the body stronger, but holy hell... How strong does the body need to be? It was just a way to get rid of pieces of wood that weren't cut properly, minimizing waste and maximizing profit.

So after all these years, with a formula that people love and admire... Why did they change it? Lets get serious... First look at the chambering pattern... Lots of 'R&D' went into that...

They just scooped out wood in the only places you can scoop out wood. There is no rhyme or reason to it. If it were as planned and as expensive as Gibson claims, EACH guitar would have different chambering to match the density and tonal aspects of the individual wood blank, not a generic mapped out pattern. Wood is all different. No two pieces are the same... It would take slightly more time to hook up the body blank to an oscilloscope, and tap the wood to find the 'dead spots' and scoop them out, fill em with Balsa to keep the guitar 'solid', or leave it chambered if thats your thing.

I'm done talking about the chambering issue. Some like it, others hate it. Whatever.

I've owned over 15 Les Pauls that have all been individual. None of them sounded like the chambered Les Paul line. Is this a bad thing? Maybe not. Are they still Les Pauls, even though they don't feel, or sound the same? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't care anymore.

Anyone who thinks they sound the same should probably turn off some pedals and start training their ears. They are 2 completely different guitars. Neither is better or worse, since it's all buyer preference, but don't claim they sound the same. There are 50 years worth of Les Pauls to compare them to, if you don't believe me.

To use a previous Corvette analogy... If they put 4 doors, and a roof rack on a Corvette, would it still be a Corvette?

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, but if it smells God AWFUL, can you still call a rose a rose if they only things they share are appearances?

[Mikeeeeh]

In my honest opinion one would have to be tone deaf not to clearly identify a chambered from a solid body from cranking them through a tube amp irregardless of amounts of gain etc... the first time I cranked my chambered through my regular rig settings I was like.... ugh thats not right... seriously had to do some eq tweeking on the amp to compensate...

I have both types and the difference is clear as day... its all in the bottom end tonal characteristics of the guitar... I personally love the "natural" big ass fat bottomed sound you could only ever get from a cranked tube amp and Gibson Les Paul... to me that's what personify's the Gibson Les Paul (until now)... The chambered just doesn't give the same wallop... its a different animal...

For cleaner crisper tones, the chambered LP does indeed surpass its solid counterpart (if I want crisper, cleaner tones I'd use a tele or a strat) but for the most part I like my sound rough, raw and big... and so I got to lean towards the solid body as my preference...

I have my chambered LP, its an RG, its different, I really do like it and its a keeper...

Would I buy another chambered LP...? time will tell...
Would I buy another solid body LP...? in a heartbeat...

[dcmey]

I did hear a theory on this from a friend, in Honduras where they get the Mahogany it used to be all the trees were down by the water, now the trees are away from the water. The theory is that the trees by the water sound goes through them better than the ones away from the water. Gibson would be compensating for that by chambering, plus it lowers the weight of the guitar which was an issue for people that didn't by them.

[les strat]

Originally Posted by alexx

Dude, actually the body blank of the standards has more wood than the cloud 9.
Some discussion about the chambering and pictures of the chambering pattern:Gibson Forums

Dude, I wouldn't say that. At least there is more of a solid center block in the Cloud 9's and it is an option - not manditory.

Cloud 9 (left) vs. USA routing.


Knowledge:
Anatomy of a Cloud 9 - Les Paul Forum

I really don't care.... I personally choose to buy lighter solid mahogany bodied LP's. But to say they sound the same is wishful thinking.