Ultra modern weight relief x resonance

[cjpivonka]

Current Standards and Classics have weight relief chambers. Traditionals do not have any relief chambers. They are like the old original LP's.

 

[Lester]

An LP that doesn't weigh at least 9 lbs is just wrong.

There, I've said it.

 

[Demon Dave]

2019 Classics have the traditional 9 holes, not chambers, mine is a player

 

[cortland1977]

First thing to make sure you do in GC is find a tuner. I went in a GC yesterday and tried pickup up a guitar to play. it wasn't even remotely in tune at all. I mean a lot of stores tune things down a step to make the guitars on the wall fell soft and loose and easy to play which i think is a mistake and only want to hear something in standard tuning. and it was definitely not just because of humidity changes at this degree. but this was like they just loosened all the strings like your going to ship something and then hung it on the wall. I picked up another and same way. also they both needed a set up badly. The whole store was a mess and ratty looking. I don't know if it is because of the restructuring or if this store just had issues but it was pretty ridiculous. They also had anything made by Gibson locked in the guitar wall hanger so you had to ask to unlock anything and anything that was even reasonably nice was up by the ceiling where i couldn't even read the price with my old eyes much less try to check the thing out at all. Do yourself a favor and go to a shop/chain that cares. Most cities of any size have stores that are more mom and pop and will take better care of the stuff on the wall so you are impressed enough to walk away with something.

 

[Bob Womack]

I've owned and played a '74 Kalamazoo small-script LP Standard for forty-three years and love it. However, at 9.7lbs it seems to have gotten heavier and heavier as we've both, um, matured. In late 2018 I was testing out the Traditionals and happened across one 2018 LP in the middle of the Traditionals that was way up on the wall in GC where every Tom, Dick, and Harry hadn't played it. I asked to test it out. An hour later, after playing and loving it, I woke up and noticed that it was actually a Standard T. The next day it went home with me.

What can I tell you about the difference between it and my '74? Let's include my ES-335 in the comparison as well. This guitar is in the same ball park regarding resonance as either of the other guitars. It has nearly as much sustain as the '74 LP which is known for its compression and sustain but much of the sweetness of the ES-335. At 7.8lbs it also doesn't break my back. The Burstbucker Pro pickups are a little bright and powerful for my tastes but for now I am simply pulling back on the tone and volume to rein it in. The pull switches? I rarely pull 'em. I've tried 'em out and the sounds aren't ones I find useful except the out of phase center position. I've written up a review over HERE, if you are interested.

Bob

 

[Lester]

First thing to make sure you do in GC is find a tuner. I went in a GC yesterday and tried pickup up a guitar to play. it wasn't even remotely in tune at all. I mean a lot of stores tune things down a step to make the guitars on the wall fell soft and loose and easy to play which i think is a mistake and only want to hear something in standard tuning. and it was definitely not just because of humidity changes at this degree. but this was like they just loosened all the strings like your going to ship something and then hung it on the wall. I picked up another and same way. also they both needed a set up badly. The whole store was a mess and ratty looking. I don't know if it is because of the restructuring or if this store just had issues but it was pretty ridiculous. They also had anything made by Gibson locked in the guitar wall hanger so you had to ask to unlock anything and anything that was even reasonably nice was up by the ceiling where i couldn't even read the price with my old eyes much less try to check the thing out at all. Do yourself a favor and go to a shop/chain that cares. Most cities of any size have stores that are more mom and pop and will take better care of the stuff on the wall so you are impressed enough to walk away with something.

Probably belongs in the GC bankruptcy thread more than here. But, I'll go down you diversion path with you a little since it might be on-topic for the OP finding another LP he likes.

Back in the day that stores like GC started to appear but some Mom and Pops were still around, I dropped by GC. I played a Strat that was very nice but clearly needed setup. So I played it a while... then took it back to the guy at the counter. Being a chain store neophyte, and being used to the M&P were every guitar was setup before t was hung on the wall and then checked /adjusted again when you bought it, I asked him "So, you setup all the guitars before they go out?". I figured the only answer was "yes". Instead he said, "if they need it we can have it done". It was right then that I realized I didn't much like shopping at GC.

Interesting about the tuning down. Hadn't heard that before about GC but it makes sense. Anyone tested this out across multiple stores / chains?

 

[dmantsio]

I have made my own little study of Gibson Weight relief. I own an xray machine and I have xrayed many Gibson Les Pauls (if anyone wants to come to Nashville, Ill xray yours). One thing that I have learned is that vastly most of the online experts are simply wrong about the definitions of the different forms of weight relief and the variations of different forms of chambering and weight relief. Especially "Ultra Modern". Below are 2 Guitars with "Ultra Modern" weight relief. One a 2002 Custom Shop Class 5 Standard and the other a 2006 of the same model. See for yourself and try to find one of the keyboard warriors with the correct photos or schematic. I never have seen an online article that is correct. View attachment 504652 View attachment 504654

Hello and happy new year everyone. Sorry for being out of subject, what program do you use for viewing xrays? can you please send me?! Thanks !

 

[Michael Matyas]

I'm not going to quote mudface (post#38), but I'd like to thank him for the pictures. This is a real eye-opener for me. It seems to me that a big part of the problem with Gibson's weight relief is the long, wide diagonal wiring channel between the switch cavity and the control cavity. I would guess that this completely negates the advantages of the set neck and long tenon. Sound travels best along the grain of the wood, and putting a deep wide moat between the neck and the bridge-tailpiece region is probably the reason a lot of these guitars are not pleasing to players.

I have built guitars from unknown, recycled wood, and at times I have been obliged to remove wood because the finished guitar was going to weigh a ton. My method has been to enlarge the control cavity and, if necessary, rout out an equivalent sized tone pocket on the bass side of the body. Once, the wood was so dense that I routed out a half-moon shaped pocket behind the tailpiece of the guitar. But I have never removed more wood than was necessary in the area between the neck joint and the bridge/tailpiece area of the guitar. To my mind, removing excess wood in this area would interfere with the tone transfer between the body and the neck.

I think that in the late 1950s Gibson got it entirely right when they put a maple center block in their ES-335s and other semi-hollows. But in the modern, weight-relieved guitars they have dropped the ball. Removing weight for practical purposes is all well and good, but removing it along the path of the vibrating strings is a tone-killer and the real culprit here.

 

[JMB1984]

Current Standards and Classics have weight relief chambers. Traditionals do not have any relief chambers. They are like the old original LP's.

This is not true for all Traditional‘s. Some were infact Swiss cheesed or chambered depending on the year and run.

 

[JMB1984]

An LP that doesn't weigh at least 9 lbs is just wrong.

There, I've said it.

So most 59 Les Pauls are wrong?

 

[Christosterone]

I have an ultra modern hp....I have to say it’s about the same, just lighter

if u want resonance, go with an es lp...it’s an insanely underrated model

-chris

 

[Lester]

So most 59 Les Pauls are wrong?

Was some part of my statement confusing?

 

[grumphh]

Always good to start out with a home brewed theory (almost as good as having your own meth lab in the woods):

It seems to me that a big part of the problem with Gibson's weight relief is the long, wide diagonal wiring channel between the switch cavity and the control cavity. I would guess that this completely negates the advantages of the set neck and long tenon.

And then a completely made up "explanation" which is somehow supposed to validate the equally made up "theory" is brought forward (Penn and Teller could learn something from this, namely that the anal cavity is a great place to hide hombrewed "explanations" until they are needed):

Sound travels best along the grain of the wood, and putting a deep wide moat between the neck and the bridge-tailpiece region is probably the reason a lot of these guitars are not pleasing to players.

Impressive "explanation"!
Sounds like you really know something about the topic


Just a little problem with it... ermmm... according to your little "theory" the 50's LP's suck (tone) as well, since they too have a big fat rectangular wiring channel in that locaton...

... there goes the value of those '58's... They sucked all along, and we just didn't know it.


And all you guys, just remember, the only LP's that didn't have this tone sucking rout were in fact the mid 70's "norlin" LP's, which had a smaller (round) drilled wiring channel.

From this we can therefore deduce that LP's made between appr. '75 and '81 have far more tone than LP's of any other era.

I like this way of thinking

 

[LPTDMSV]

Wasn't that called the Les Paul Lite?

There was also a Les Paul Less Plus, circa 2015. What I find intersting on the Less Plus is that the spec still says that it's 9-hole weight reduced! I think there have been a few slimline models over the years, possibly including some of the Norlin era "The Paul" models (from vague memory)

 

[LPTDMSV]

This is not true for all Traditional‘s. Some were infact Swiss cheesed or chambered depending on the year and run.

Quite correct. I hope this website stays up - all the information you need on Traditionals is here: Gibson Les Paul Traditional (gibsontraditional.com)

FWIW when I was shopping for an LP none of the chambered guitars I tried sounded any good. Sometimes I didn't realise they were chambered until later. However, the main factor affecting tone is . . trees. They vary. A lot.

 

[JMB1984]

Was some part of my statement confusing?

There are no issues with interpreting your statement. I’m just pointing out that since most original 59s fell under 9 lbs, your statement implies that the most iconic and well regarded LPs are wrong.

 

[moreles]

Too many major variables are present to make generalizations about weight relief legitimate, particularly when you've played and compared one or two. The basic substance used -- mahogany -- has changed in character over the years, and that's at least as important as any weight relief routing pattern. (It's also the main reason why weight relief is even happening.) IMO, the pickups used are way more important, and after that, pot/cap values, and certainly the neck. It is my experience that you can, with relative ease, change the fundamental amplified tone of a LP to something you love with relatively easy component changes -- or, more often, simply dialing in your signal chain (and amp!) to suit.

 

[Michael Matyas]

Always good to start out with a home brewed theory (almost as good as having your own meth lab in the woods):

And then a completely made up "explanation" which is somehow supposed to validate the equally made up "theory" is brought forward (Penn and Teller could learn something from this, namely that the anal cavity is a great place to hide hombrewed "explanations" until they are needed):


Impressive "explanation"!
Sounds like you really know something about the topic


Just a little problem with it... ermmm... according to your little "theory" the 50's LP's suck (tone) as well, since they too have a big fat rectangular wiring channel in that locaton...

... there goes the value of those '58's... They sucked all along, and we just didn't know it.


And all you guys, just remember, the only LP's that didn't have this tone sucking rout were in fact the mid 70's "norlin" LP's, which had a smaller (round) drilled wiring channel.

From this we can therefore deduce that LP's made between appr. '75 and '81 have far more tone than LP's of any other era.

I like this way of thinking

For the record, this is not my own theory. Paul Bigsby, Travis Bean, the people at Alembic and Carvin Guitars, Ted McCarty, LTD Guitars, and an unknown number of other builders have believed that it is important to have as much solid, resonant material as is practical between the nut and the bridge of an electric guitar. And if you don't accept that sound travels best along the grain of wood, why do people go to the trouble of selecting quarter-sawn tonewood for fine guitars. I don't trust that you know what you are talking about when you purport to know how wide and deep the wiring channel is on 1950's Les Pauls. The reason I doubt your knowledge is the fatuous and sarcastic argument you make that, if I am correct Norlin-era LPs sound better than vintage goldtops and bursts. I think you know better than this, what with the sandwich bodies of the Norlin era, and the lightweight Honduran mahogany that was readily available back in the 1950s, and the softer, lighter Eastern red maple that was the primary carved-top material back in the 1950s. If you are not aware of these factors, then I doubt that you know a thing about Gibson's routing back in those days. And suppose you are right about the wiring channel? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You are shockingly uninformed about a lot of other things, and to me you sound like an unhappy, low-esteem person who is trying to make yourself feel better by sharpening his claws on somebody else. I am not your scratching post.

 

[Lester]

There are no issues with interpreting your statement. I’m just pointing out that since most original 59s fell under 9 lbs, your statement implies that the most iconic and well regarded LPs are wrong.

Just having fun with it... as was my original statement. Maybe I need a /s more often.

 

[Lester]

Sound travels best along the grain of the wood, and putting a deep wide moat between the neck and the bridge-tailpiece region is probably the reason a lot of these guitars are not pleasing to players.

And then a completely made up "explanation" which is somehow supposed to validate the equally made up "theory" is brought forward...

Well, since you implied science being a factor, he's actually, generally (factors like the wood type being tested being uniform) correct:

Velocity of Sound in Solids and Metals (m/s):

Air: 343 m/s
Aluminum: 6420
Steel: 5940
Zinc: 4210
Wood (hard): 3960
Wood, longitudinal parallel with grain : 3300 - 5000

Not only is traveling with the grain a significant increase in transmission (witness the upper limit of 5000 vs. 3960) but compare that to air (space) which is 10% of the low side regardless.

The open question is whether this matters to a guitar's sound. I leave that to the subjective argument.

Velocity of Sound in Solids and Metals

Velocity of sound in common solids and metals - aluminum, brass, concrete and ...

www.engineeringtoolbox.com