Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved

Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved

I know these threads have been done before but they always seem to go into some other direction and there isn't a lot of relevant discussion about the tonal differences as much as the weight, etc...

In my opinion there is a significant difference. Not a big difference, but significant. Chambered sounds a bit airier, defined, and more transparent. Weight-relieved sounds a little more compressed, nasal, and solid. That's my interpretation of it.

What are your opinions and preferences?

I have a 2004 G0 and a 2009 CR8.

The differences are the neck size, and year. That's it. I did upgrade pots (550K) and caps in the 2004 but Gibson does this now in 2009, so the electronics are close. The BB's in the 2004 are wound a little hotter than the 2009.

I'd say the solid have more chunk and punch, good for palm muting. More "modern" sounding. Good for stuff up to Megadeth.

The chambered is more open and sounds more like a 50's LP, good for AC/DC, Tesla, old Def Leppard, etc.
 
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved

Ok, I've done a few comparisons today. I played 2 Traditionals, 1 Traditional Pro, 3 Standards, and a 50's VOS. First off, the VOS is just amazing. I don't even bother playing any of the more expensive customs, historics, etc... because I won't be buying one any time this year.

The VOS was not any heavier than a Traditional. It had all the great qualities you guys describe in the high-end Les Pauls. Every time I play one I GAS badly.

I went back to the Traditionals and Standards. The amp I used was a Super Sonic 22. Here are a few things I noted about all the chambered Standards:

1. Acoustically ouder than the Traditionals when unplugged
2. Clearer bass response
3. Slightly longer sustain
4. More overall definition
5. Less congestion, less nasal in the mids and low mids

I read some comments previously where people claim that chambered Les Pauls sound thinner. I can see how some people might get that impression because I did at first but realized that they didn't necessarily lose mids. Instead the mids are clearer and less congested so it only seems like it's thinner and brighter at first.

All of the neck pickups sounded a little darker but that could be attributed to the pickups, however, 57' Classics on the Traditionals have A2 magnets and A2 is supposed to be a little darker and warmer than A5 so perhaps the chambered Les Pauls are a little darker in the neck position. I'm not sure and I don't care because they sounded freaking good.

I think this experience has validated my ideas of chambered vs. weight-relieved. I can't understand how someone cannot tell the difference when playing between chambered and non-chambered Les Paul, but I can understand that it would be hard to tell if you were just hearing one.

People who bash chambered Les Pauls seem to do so only for sentimental or nostalgic reasons. I have heard phenomenal sounding tone from chambered Les Paul Standards, Classics and Studios. The ones I played today sounded just beautiful.

In the end I guess it's just like many of you already said. It doesn't matter how it's constructed if the guitar sounds awesome.

cool info!


Boogie Bill,
Great info! thanks for taking the time.
 
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved

I read an interview with Billy Gibbons and he stated that he had some Gibson Historic LPs that he took to luthier John Bolen--to have the tops removed and some of the mahogany taken out. This came out before the chambered R8 and the Cloud Nine series.

Interesting.

Bill
 
Back
Top