New 2015 Model Year Gibsons In The Flesh.. big changes.. price increases..
- Thread starter shoom
- Start date
XploZiveToyz
All American Un-American
I can't remember, but I think the LPC is one of the few they don't slice up or drill holes in. I think I'm right, but don't hold me to that. But that just proves the point I'm trying to make: Why should someone have to spend the cash that a LPC cost just to get a truly solid-body guitar? That's crazy! LOL!
My LP Traditional is 11 pounds on the nose. I talked to a Gibson builder at an expo and he says they used 7 swiss cheese holes on my yr/model, but it's also right on the cusp of when they started leaving them totally solid, so I don't know. I just know it's 11 pounds and sounds awesome to me. It's weight has never bothered me. Your Custom most likely has swiss cheese weight relief. That's the good kind. Just weigh it and see. If it's less than say 12 pounds it's probably got some relieving.
From Gibson.com....
"Today’s Les Paul Custom is based on the model from the mid-1950s, but with several modern appointments. The body is crafted with a hand-carved maple top, which is fitted to a body made from a solid piece of mahogany with strategically routed holes to lessen the weight of the guitar, "
That sounds like "modern weight relief" to me.
"Today’s Les Paul Custom is based on the model from the mid-1950s, but with several modern appointments. The body is crafted with a hand-carved maple top, which is fitted to a body made from a solid piece of mahogany with strategically routed holes to lessen the weight of the guitar, "
That sounds like "modern weight relief" to me.
XploZiveToyz
All American Un-American
I just bought a Traditional two weeks ago because I knew about the price increases and the tuner thing. Wish that they'd had them in goldtop, but they didn't, so I went with the heritage cherry sunburst. I also put a plain truss-rod cover on it.
XploZiveToyz
All American Un-American
Looks as if I was wrong! LOL! I don't care what Gibson says, I think they do that because it allows them to get away with using inferior woods. I don't remember anyone clamoring for lighter LPs! They did it because it allows them to build guitars at cheaper prices. I've seen some of their adds that basically say that to get the real LP sustain and tone you have to go with the Traditional. Think I've bought the last Gibsons I'm going to buy in this lifetime.From Gibson.com....
"Today’s Les Paul Custom is based on the model from the mid-1950s, but with several modern appointments. The body is crafted with a hand-carved maple top, which is fitted to a body made from a solid piece of mahogany with strategically routed holes to lessen the weight of the guitar, "
That sounds like "modern weight relief" to me.
My Trad is a Gold top! It's awesome!
I've always been a cherry burst fan too.
I don't know about all that. Lots of people have complained for a long time about the heavy weight of LPs. Those people most certainly were clamoring for lighter LPs.
And I hate to break this to you, but the relieved LPs can sustain MORE because they're more resonant. A heavy solid chunk of heavy solid wood can theoretically sustain less than a chambered guitar.
XploZiveToyz
All American Un-American
This will probably lead to an endless debate, but the following is from Sweetwater's ad for the 2014 LP Traditional: "The satisfying sustain of solid mahogany topped with premium maple. No weight relief chambering here - this Les Paul Traditional is solid wood, through and through. Of the hundreds of Les Pauls that come through Sweetwater on a regular basis, only a handful feature unchambered bodies. But to serious technical players such as Joe Bonamassa, chambered or weight-relieved Les Pauls just don't cut it. There's a certain kind of fullness and a distinct degree of sustain you give up when you lose that wood. From the first time you plug in your Les Paul Traditional, you'll hear and feel the difference this important detail makes."My Trad is a Gold top! It's awesome!
I've always been a cherry burst fan too.
I don't know about all that. Lots of people have complained for a long time about the heavy weight of LPs. Those people most certainly were clamoring for lighter LPs.
And I hate to break this to you, but the relieved LPs can sustain MORE because they're more resonant. A heavy solid chunk of heavy solid wood can theoretically sustain less than a chambered guitar.
Maybe it's all in my head, but I swear I can tell the difference in the sustain.
Schwarzenyaeger
Formerly "Dog-In-Door"
I have back and shoulder problems. I sold my SG and don't use my maple strat anymore because they grind my joints too much. I'm happy for every pound a guitar can drop.
Sky Blue Lou
Well-known member
I always played Lesters on stage. I gigged with a '73ish and an '81. At the end of the night my back hurt.
This will probably lead to an endless debate, but the following is from Sweetwater's ad for the 2014 LP Traditional: "The satisfying sustain of solid mahogany topped with premium maple. No weight relief chambering here - this Les Paul Traditional is solid wood, through and through. Of the hundreds of Les Pauls that come through Sweetwater on a regular basis, only a handful feature unchambered bodies. But to serious technical players such as Joe Bonamassa, chambered or weight-relieved Les Pauls just don't cut it. There's a certain kind of fullness and a distinct degree of sustain you give up when you lose that wood. From the first time you plug in your Les Paul Traditional, you'll hear and feel the difference this important detail makes."
Maybe it's all in my head, but I swear I can tell the difference in the sustain.
That's a nice sales pitch, but it's not entirely true at all. It's just a sales pitch aimed at gullible snobs that care about stuff like that. Sustain has more to do with other things. All that mass and wood actually resists vibration and sustain. It takes a lot more energy to get all that wood shaking and grooving. Think of a harmonic balancer on a car engine. It's a big heavy hunk of metal on the end of a crankshaft to absorb and kill vibration. On the other hand, all that mass can potentially keep the energy in the string, so it's six one way, half a dozen the other. This is what I've been told by luthier people. Maybe muttley can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong which is entirely possible. I think it's really just all in your head because you want it to be.
I do agree that fullness is lost with chambering. The modern chambered Standards and Studios are bright as fuck. Searingly bright. They still sustain pretty much all the same though.
muttley600
Banned
No. They didn't do it to reduce costs. The costs of selecting and grading timber for chambered and non chambered is the same. The extra operation of adding chambres would if anything increase the cost.
It was done in part to respond to calls for less mass and part snake oil on tone and resonance.
muttley600
Banned
Not entirely correct. Sustain is a product of energy lost and how quickly it is lost. To keep a string moving you would need to reflect the energy back down the string and not loose too much to the body and air. There is a finite amount of energy in the vibrating string and the rate at which it is lost dictates the amplitude of the vibration and the decay which are what equates to sustain. In theory a denser mass of wood would reflect more energy. On an acoustic instrument it's slightly different because the string has to move a lot of air and it does it by passing string energy to the soundboard and air enclosure.
In practice the bottom line is that it is near impossible to predict the outcome. That LP I built last year has more sustain than many modern LP models I have seen. My view on it is that it is largely down to the stiffness and mass of the timber than the chambres and their placement. Some pieces of wood just want to vibrate and transmit sound waves more than others. Even two bits from the same billet. It's pretty much unpredictable. By reducing the overall mass of the timber you counter intuitively reduce the difference between two pieces of wood.
The bottom line is to play a few until you find the one that has the type of sound and response you like. They are all pretty similar and all slightly different. But thats what you do already cos you are smart and don't buy into the hype..
Yeah that's kind of what I was getting it. Keep the energy in the string. The chambering can make up for that by being more resonant. You can clearly hear the resonance in modern chambered Gibsons. The heavier bodies keep it in the string. It ends up being mostly the same either way when you're plugged into an amp. So it's like, fuck it. Who the fuck plays a Les Paul unplugged all the time?
muttley600
Banned
The thing about that is that since the air in the chambre has no where to go it just becomes a fairly dead spot. Having less overall mass will homogenize two pieces of wood though. At the end of the day it's a pretty moot point when you stand it up against all the other stuff thats going on. That LP I did came out at a touch under 9lb without chambreing so go figure..
Like you though once I have found the basic characteristics of a solid body guitar and its timber I'd more inclined to look to pickups and amp to get the final sound I'm after. Way easier and more predictable than hunting through hundreds of instruments made of similar stuff...
Yeah I'd totally rather focus on pickups and amp. Honestly I've always been amazed at how much people worry about trivial things like weight relieving.
So how bout this....My Hallmark 60 Custom Mosrite Ventures clone is physically larger than a Les Paul. It's roughly the same thickness. It's roughly the same weight and non-chambered besides the pickup and tone control cavities. It has a set neck like a Les Paul and the same scale length. Alder body, maple neck, rosewood fingerboard. The bridge is like a Tune-O-Matic with roller saddles. The tailpiece is a floating trem bolted to the body. True zero-fret with string guide. It's a big heavy beautiful guitar.
But....it doesn't sustain for shit. It's not made for sustain. Those old Mosrites are made for plonky punchy surf tones. Singing sustaining leads are not their calling card. This Hallmark 60 Custom Mosrite clone is the spitting image of that. But it's big, solid, heavy, and has many of the same design features that a Les Paul has...except for the wood, and it doesn't sustain very well. So what gives?
Sky Blue Lou
Well-known member
I'm guessing the wood type and grain.
It could be. It certainly doesn't bother me. I didn't get that guitar to play Pink Floyd leads or anything like that. I love it just the way it is. I'm just curious why a bigger, as heavy a guitar as a Les Paul with much of the same construction design would sustain so much less.
But like anything else, it will sustain all day long with the amp's gain and volume cranked up.
muttley600
Banned
For sustain on an electric you always have to look at where the energy from the string is being dissipated. In the case of your alder body I would put a lot of it down to that. Typically alder is not as "stiff" (elastic) as a mahogany body with a maple cap for the same mass. Maple is fantastically stiff acoustically speaking and "bright" mahogany is dense and stiff compared to alder. Sound waves travel differently in all materials and differently in all woods. Thats why a softwood like spruce is used for acoustic tops. It has a great mass to stiffness ration and sound waves travel through it well. It's all good and none of this is better or worse it's just the way it is. Each timber has a different character.. Wood makes a difference but the biggest tone factor on an electric is the pickups. Wood is next then fittings..
Sky Blue Lou
Well-known member
I assume that was the theory in play with the design of the Yamaha SG2000. They have a big brass plate under the bridge to (I guess?) transfer energy into the body better. Mine will sustain for days. Santana made his trademark endless held notes with that guitar although of course his electronic bits were tuned for it.