Gibson LP Standard Qs
- Thread starter BrokenWingz
- Start date
BrokenWingz
New member
DjThugs said:
haha! no offence bro! i was tinking of getting a copy too as well, tot o abt an Edwards or an Epi LP, but then i was tinking, why not juz save up to get an original one ... u knw!
Everdying
New member
resurrecting thread, cos theres been a official reply from gibson now on the chambered bodies 
The weight relief pattern has changed for 2007. We have modified the original Swiss cheese hole pattern to something that has a purpose other than to lighten up the guitar. Originally, the holes were cut in a pattern that maximized the available space and did not take into consideration tone, balance, and sustain. So, we felt that a scientific approach was best if we were to change the pattern. We knew that we could now measure frequency output of the guitar and also determine positive or negative effects of any changes to the internal routing. So, we initially approached the project from the perspective of just improving the placement of the original holes. As we began testing, we noticed that when we moved the holes closer together, sound and sustain improved. We then decided to try moving the holes so close together that they actually created one big hole instead of several small ones. The area volume was the same but the improvement of sustain and output was greater. This drove us to start playing with the actual shape and size of a single large chamber and then to multiple chambers, strategically placed inside the guitar. We couldn’t do much with the control pockets and pickup pockets so we decided to focus on all of the mass and area around those routings. After several months of testing, the current sonic tuning pattern emerged. This pattern works in all Les Pauls and gives us a much better sounding instrument, sustain is improved, and as an added benefit, weight has been reduced by 20%-30%. Sustain can be improved two ways; by creating rigidity and by sound reverberation. While reducing weight further wasn’t our goal, it definitely should be received as a positive side affect to our real goal; giving reason to our original weight relief pattern of holes.
Regards,
Roger Ball
Gibson Customer Service
service@gibson.com
[/b]
The weight relief pattern has changed for 2007. We have modified the original Swiss cheese hole pattern to something that has a purpose other than to lighten up the guitar. Originally, the holes were cut in a pattern that maximized the available space and did not take into consideration tone, balance, and sustain. So, we felt that a scientific approach was best if we were to change the pattern. We knew that we could now measure frequency output of the guitar and also determine positive or negative effects of any changes to the internal routing. So, we initially approached the project from the perspective of just improving the placement of the original holes. As we began testing, we noticed that when we moved the holes closer together, sound and sustain improved. We then decided to try moving the holes so close together that they actually created one big hole instead of several small ones. The area volume was the same but the improvement of sustain and output was greater. This drove us to start playing with the actual shape and size of a single large chamber and then to multiple chambers, strategically placed inside the guitar. We couldn’t do much with the control pockets and pickup pockets so we decided to focus on all of the mass and area around those routings. After several months of testing, the current sonic tuning pattern emerged. This pattern works in all Les Pauls and gives us a much better sounding instrument, sustain is improved, and as an added benefit, weight has been reduced by 20%-30%. Sustain can be improved two ways; by creating rigidity and by sound reverberation. While reducing weight further wasn’t our goal, it definitely should be received as a positive side affect to our real goal; giving reason to our original weight relief pattern of holes.
Regards,
Roger Ball
Gibson Customer Service
service@gibson.com
[/b]
If that is true, then it's a shame because one of the key attribute of a Les Paul is about good sustain.
OK, this is just a guess. Gibson's statement about the extra sustain and better sounding by chambering the Les Pauls, IMO, is bullsh*t. I think the REAL REASON why Gibson want to "hole" or "chamber" (as in current models) their regular Les Pauls is because the woods they are using are TOO HEAVY. The mahoganies (and maples) are probably not dried to a moisture content low enough, hence the extra weight. Factors such as saving cost and optimising production could be the main reasons why the woods are not or insufficiently dried.
Think about this. Isn't it funny the much more expensive Custom Shop models are NOT holed or chambered? If chambering supposedly improve the sound and sustain, shouldn't Custom Shop models incorporate it as well? That is because the people in Custom Shop select woods that are not only better but more importantly - air dried to certain moisture level, for desired resonance and weight. Now you know why Custom Shops guitars cost you 3-4 times more!
Also, if you compare the current Les Pauls to that of say 15-20 years ago, you can hardly feel the weight difference at all. And Gibsons in those earlier days are not holed or chambered. So this can only conclude.....well, you get the picture?
ps. I own a Gibson too. This is not Gibson bashing, but an observation about things that don't seem quite to click. :wink:
gargamelesp
New member
i believe you are probably right. its becoming increasingly more difficult to find light mahogany, and those pieces which are found go mainly to the custom shop models -- and they make us pay for it
however, im not sure why gibson has to chamber the "lower end" LPs. unless people complain that it is way too heavy, perhaps it would make more sense to just retain the old swiss cheese method and let the guitar weigh maybe an extra 1-2 pounds more?
ive a custom shop model myself, and i must say it is definitely much heavier than the current production standards and supremes which i tried
however, im not sure why gibson has to chamber the "lower end" LPs. unless people complain that it is way too heavy, perhaps it would make more sense to just retain the old swiss cheese method and let the guitar weigh maybe an extra 1-2 pounds more?
ive a custom shop model myself, and i must say it is definitely much heavier than the current production standards and supremes which i tried
Everdying
New member
heres my take.
the woods are real heavy, as gibson has now reached the bottom of the trees.
thats where its heaviest due to gravity and of cos the tree itself compressing the wood.
in a few yrs gibson is gonna either run out of wood, or they're gonna start charging a hell lot more for a gibson.
also as everyone knows, LPs are now appearing with 2-piece bodies due to the lack of wood.
whos knows, there might be a 5-piece LP soon
the woods are real heavy, as gibson has now reached the bottom of the trees.
thats where its heaviest due to gravity and of cos the tree itself compressing the wood.
in a few yrs gibson is gonna either run out of wood, or they're gonna start charging a hell lot more for a gibson.
also as everyone knows, LPs are now appearing with 2-piece bodies due to the lack of wood.
whos knows, there might be a 5-piece LP soon
Hahah you guys got it right. That's exactly what the peeps at thelespaulforum.com are saying.
The average weight of the real '59 deal is around 9 pounds. The real vintage honduran mahogany has actually long been gone except for privately stocked stash such as those of a Gustavsson.
The average weight of the real '59 deal is around 9 pounds. The real vintage honduran mahogany has actually long been gone except for privately stocked stash such as those of a Gustavsson.
As good mahogany is becoming rare and expensive now, more and more manufacturers are using a sub-species called NATO. Nato, also known as poor man's mahogany, is abundant, cheaper and has more or less the same properties as its cousin. And these manufacturers will claim their nato guitars are made from mahogany. But technically they are correct too, as nato is also called "Eastern Mahogany"!
So maybe.....your standard Gibson, Edwards, Ibanez, Cort, and other low to mid range guitars.....could jolly well made from NATO. :lol:
So maybe.....your standard Gibson, Edwards, Ibanez, Cort, and other low to mid range guitars.....could jolly well made from NATO. :lol:
On the chambering issue, I got a reply from Gibson that say that they've started chambering on all mass-produced (or non-CS/VOS whichever way you wanna cut it) LPs from Nov 06. Before that, LPs come with the weight-relief holes. Just run a serial number check to determine when the guitar is made. Another way to check for a chambered one is to weigh it. A swiss-cheese will weigh 9-10 pounds, 2-3 pounds less for the chambered.
suckasucks
New member
gibson is actually using nato on their guitars? thats really cheap of them.
gargamelesp
New member
he said "maybe" .. please do not be so quick to jump to conclusions