UberMetalDood
New member
If that's true then that's a freaking cool story.
Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
- Thread starter UberMetalDood
- Start date
UberMetalDood
New member
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 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?
St_Genesius
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
Your description is exactly what I would *expect* the difference to be, were I performing a thought experiment, but in my real world listening, I've never noticed a 1:1 relationship between the construction method and the adjectives you mentioned.
There have been times I picked up a chambered LP and found it to be resonant and almost twangy and thought "Ah, because of the CHAMBERS...yes." And there have been times when I've picked up (merely) weight-releved model and found it to be dense and focused and though "Yes, yes, because it's so SOLID..." And I felt very wise.
But then I'd pick up two more and find the responses switched. So I've stopped worrying about it.
Your description is exactly what I would *expect* the difference to be, were I performing a thought experiment, but in my real world listening, I've never noticed a 1:1 relationship between the construction method and the adjectives you mentioned.
There have been times I picked up a chambered LP and found it to be resonant and almost twangy and thought "Ah, because of the CHAMBERS...yes." And there have been times when I've picked up (merely) weight-releved model and found it to be dense and focused and though "Yes, yes, because it's so SOLID..." And I felt very wise.
But then I'd pick up two more and find the responses switched. So I've stopped worrying about it.
UberMetalDood
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
I want to see the inside of a Gibson VOS Les Paul just to see what the wood looks like. How does it get that chambered sound? According to Gibson it's because the wood is naturally lighter and airy. I've been obsessing over this since I started getting GAS for a 60's VOS.
I want to see the inside of a Gibson VOS Les Paul just to see what the wood looks like. How does it get that chambered sound? According to Gibson it's because the wood is naturally lighter and airy. I've been obsessing over this since I started getting GAS for a 60's VOS.
FuseG4
Our Neighbor Totoro
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
I went back and forth between 2 non weight relieved epiphones, a weight relieved studio deluxe, and a chambered studio mahogany for a few hours in guitar center last month. I spent the most time on the two gibsons, and it seems like the studio mahogany was just slightly mushier in the bass, owing more probably to the mahogany top than anything else. Indeed the non-chambered specimens felt tighter. I tried to do most of the comparison on the neck pickup, as those were both 490Rs.
I went back and forth between 2 non weight relieved epiphones, a weight relieved studio deluxe, and a chambered studio mahogany for a few hours in guitar center last month. I spent the most time on the two gibsons, and it seems like the studio mahogany was just slightly mushier in the bass, owing more probably to the mahogany top than anything else. Indeed the non-chambered specimens felt tighter. I tried to do most of the comparison on the neck pickup, as those were both 490Rs.
IanBallard
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
A chambered guitar *should be* designed around using the chambers to produce a more resonant body. Such an endeavor *should be* scientifically devised in some way to create a pleasing effect, through experimentation.
A "weight relieved" guitar is done so to save Henry J millions in shipping costs.
A chambered guitar *should be* designed around using the chambers to produce a more resonant body. Such an endeavor *should be* scientifically devised in some way to create a pleasing effect, through experimentation.
A "weight relieved" guitar is done so to save Henry J millions in shipping costs.
drpietrzak
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
I have an 05 Standard (weight relieved) humbucker and a 11 (chambered) p-90. I like them both. I played a number of each at GC at various times. Honestly the thing I notice the weight difference. The tone may differ but it appears more variable across individual guitar within a group than across groups. There may be a more airy voice to the chambered, but I would not count on it.
I have an 05 Standard (weight relieved) humbucker and a 11 (chambered) p-90. I like them both. I played a number of each at GC at various times. Honestly the thing I notice the weight difference. The tone may differ but it appears more variable across individual guitar within a group than across groups. There may be a more airy voice to the chambered, but I would not count on it.
Wattage
High Voltologist
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
Can't tell you in an A/B situation but I have played plenty of LP's and it is all down to the guitar. Some sound great some don't and that is always the case regardless of build.
My LP Faded Standard is weight relieved and I love, it's a kick ass guitar. I sold a non-relieved Standard Plus when I got it and never regretted it for a day.
I prefer light LP's and light guitars in general, they just seem to fit what I expect out of a guitar better.
Can't tell you in an A/B situation but I have played plenty of LP's and it is all down to the guitar. Some sound great some don't and that is always the case regardless of build.
My LP Faded Standard is weight relieved and I love, it's a kick ass guitar. I sold a non-relieved Standard Plus when I got it and never regretted it for a day.
I prefer light LP's and light guitars in general, they just seem to fit what I expect out of a guitar better.
Ayrton
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
My standard is chambered and it was the best sounding out of the 8-9 LPs I tried in the store. I went through everything from a custom shop to relieved standards.
Les Pauls are the one guitar you really have to try before buying. One mans tone is another mans trash.
My standard is chambered and it was the best sounding out of the 8-9 LPs I tried in the store. I went through everything from a custom shop to relieved standards.
Les Pauls are the one guitar you really have to try before buying. One mans tone is another mans trash.
Boogie Bill
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
Okay, I have 10 Les Pauls. I know, I'm really lucky to have so many nice guitars at this point in my life. I play out with all of them. l don't like to characterize one as BETTER or BAD, but they are different.
Chambered:
Root Beer LP Supreme, Seth Lovers, Light Weight Gotoh Tailpiece
HCSB LP Supreme, stock 490/498T, stock zinc TP
Custom Shop Elegant, Classic '57, LW Gotoh TP
two 2007 GOTW Classic Antiques, stock uncovered '57 Classic/Classic Plus, stock TP.
Solid:
2005 '58 Historic Gloss; and
2008 and 2009 Guitar Center 1960 (G0) Tobacco Burst VOS
(All with stock BB 1&2, Gibson LW TP.)
Weight Relieved:
1996 HCSB 1960 Classic Plus, with MF 50th Anniversary A2 Seths, Gotoh LW TP
1997 Honeyburst Classic Plus, Antiquitys, Gotoh LW TP
The Historics are the ultimate LPs to me. They have this awesome resonance--strum a chord and it makes the guitar vibrate like crazy from endpin to the tip of the headstock. All of mine are 9.1--9.3 lbs. Open, airy resonant tone. Suitable for any kind of music...country, jazz, rock, blues. They feel alive. The only LPs I have with the long neck tenon.
The Supremes are chambered, but they do have the solid maple top and BACK, ebony boards. These guitars are just drop-dead gorgeous. The Supremes also have some headstock resonance, but I think it is diminished somewhat with these guitars, as they both have headstock repairs. Not surprising to me, when stock they sound like a LP Custom. Focused, sustaining tone.
The Supremes are kinda unique--the modded one splits the difference between LP and 335 tones; the stock Supreme, though chambered, sounds like a Custom. The Root Beer Supreme with the Seths is just a great all-around guitar; 9.2 lbs. The LW Gotoh TP added quite a bit of air; it made the guitar more "semi-hollow" sounding--less LP Custom, less focused. It's not as warm or as lively as my 335--more "ping" or attack, if that makes sense. I like it better with these mods, and it's a good alternative to the 335--like when the stage might be too small to comfortably wield the bigger guitar. The stock HCSB Supreme is more of a hard rock guitar with the 490r/498T pickups and the stock zinc TP. Weighs in at 8.9 lbs. I don't like the pickups as a combination--they don't work for my style--the plan is to change them out for a set of Pearly Gates, an RS Kit, and a TonePros LW Tailpiece. I want quick connectors on pickups so they can be easily changed--remember, there's no backplate on the Supremes--it's a total PITA to do any wiring work. I think Gibson should fit these with '57 Classics or even potted Burstbucker sets--a 1&2 or 2&3--and it would make these guitars nicer and more suitable for the type of players that are going to buy them.
The Elegant is a beautiful guitar, but sonically this guitar is the same as the 1960 Classic Plus models; and feels the same, except for the compound radius ebony fingerboard. Oh, the Elegant has the Nashville bridge...the Classics have ABR-1s. All of them have a fair amount of resonance and vibration coming through the neck--but not like the Historics. Elegant weighs in at 9.1 lbs, same as the weight-relieved 1960 Classics, which I find strange. Elegant perhaps has a little more of that "ping"--I attribute this to the ebony fingerboard. Gotoh TP made a big difference in airiness, a little less sustain, but again, more open.
Go figure...the only other guitars that have same kind of resonance as the Historics are the GOTW Classic Antiques--chambered! 7.8 and 8.3 lbs.! They have a airy warm tone--very similar to the 335 in some respects--but very lively and resonant. Yet, the tone has some focus too. Don't feel a need to put the LW Gotoh TP on these. At high volume, they feel alive in my hands--while the Supremes and the Elegant feel more like a solid.
I'd say if you want a 1960 Classic, get an early-to-mid 90's model. These Classics have about 90% of the vibe of the Historics, but the newer ones did have the same quality after about 1999. On the 1997 Honeyburst, the LW Gotoh TP made a big difference--not so much on the 1996 HCSB. Strange. Classic Plus or Premium Plus models are spendy, but they have gorgeous tops and can be modded to get closer to the Historic tone and vibe. They don't make the Classic Antiques anymore or the 1960 Classic, but I love both. I like the pickups in the CA more for if I'm doing straight rock--the Seths and the Antiquitys in the 1960 Classics are a little more versatile.
I would say that out of these ten guitars--my hands down favorites are the R8 and the two G0 Historics. The solid bodies. The Historics have a wonderful feel and cachet--they do remind me of the pawnshop Pauls I used to wishfully strum back when I was a teenager. The one G0 has a neck that just feels perfect to me. If you like the feel of the Historics, I would highly recommend them. They are pricey, but in my opinion--WORTH EVERY PENNY--if you can swing the dough. And actually, you can find them often for not that much more than what you would spend on a Standard or vintage 1960 Classic Plus, when you consider what you'll spend modding the Standard.
So chambered, solid or weight-relieved? I think a lot of it depends on you. Back can't handle a 10+ lbs. LP? Avoid the LP Custom. Many of the Norlin-era LPs are also very heavy. But, if you really need that heavy sustain and focused attack, you might want a heavier guitar. If you want an airier and more open tone, consider a lightweight tailpiece on a weight-relieved guitar--or the chambered model.
When it comes right down to it, the best advice I can give is to play a lot of guitars, and buy the one that speaks to you. Every guitar is different. Find the one that puts a smile on your face and makes your heart soar, and the details be damned.
Good luck!
Bill
Okay, I have 10 Les Pauls. I know, I'm really lucky to have so many nice guitars at this point in my life. I play out with all of them. l don't like to characterize one as BETTER or BAD, but they are different.
Chambered:
Root Beer LP Supreme, Seth Lovers, Light Weight Gotoh Tailpiece
HCSB LP Supreme, stock 490/498T, stock zinc TP
Custom Shop Elegant, Classic '57, LW Gotoh TP
two 2007 GOTW Classic Antiques, stock uncovered '57 Classic/Classic Plus, stock TP.
Solid:
2005 '58 Historic Gloss; and
2008 and 2009 Guitar Center 1960 (G0) Tobacco Burst VOS
(All with stock BB 1&2, Gibson LW TP.)
Weight Relieved:
1996 HCSB 1960 Classic Plus, with MF 50th Anniversary A2 Seths, Gotoh LW TP
1997 Honeyburst Classic Plus, Antiquitys, Gotoh LW TP
The Historics are the ultimate LPs to me. They have this awesome resonance--strum a chord and it makes the guitar vibrate like crazy from endpin to the tip of the headstock. All of mine are 9.1--9.3 lbs. Open, airy resonant tone. Suitable for any kind of music...country, jazz, rock, blues. They feel alive. The only LPs I have with the long neck tenon.
The Supremes are chambered, but they do have the solid maple top and BACK, ebony boards. These guitars are just drop-dead gorgeous. The Supremes also have some headstock resonance, but I think it is diminished somewhat with these guitars, as they both have headstock repairs. Not surprising to me, when stock they sound like a LP Custom. Focused, sustaining tone.
The Supremes are kinda unique--the modded one splits the difference between LP and 335 tones; the stock Supreme, though chambered, sounds like a Custom. The Root Beer Supreme with the Seths is just a great all-around guitar; 9.2 lbs. The LW Gotoh TP added quite a bit of air; it made the guitar more "semi-hollow" sounding--less LP Custom, less focused. It's not as warm or as lively as my 335--more "ping" or attack, if that makes sense. I like it better with these mods, and it's a good alternative to the 335--like when the stage might be too small to comfortably wield the bigger guitar. The stock HCSB Supreme is more of a hard rock guitar with the 490r/498T pickups and the stock zinc TP. Weighs in at 8.9 lbs. I don't like the pickups as a combination--they don't work for my style--the plan is to change them out for a set of Pearly Gates, an RS Kit, and a TonePros LW Tailpiece. I want quick connectors on pickups so they can be easily changed--remember, there's no backplate on the Supremes--it's a total PITA to do any wiring work. I think Gibson should fit these with '57 Classics or even potted Burstbucker sets--a 1&2 or 2&3--and it would make these guitars nicer and more suitable for the type of players that are going to buy them.
The Elegant is a beautiful guitar, but sonically this guitar is the same as the 1960 Classic Plus models; and feels the same, except for the compound radius ebony fingerboard. Oh, the Elegant has the Nashville bridge...the Classics have ABR-1s. All of them have a fair amount of resonance and vibration coming through the neck--but not like the Historics. Elegant weighs in at 9.1 lbs, same as the weight-relieved 1960 Classics, which I find strange. Elegant perhaps has a little more of that "ping"--I attribute this to the ebony fingerboard. Gotoh TP made a big difference in airiness, a little less sustain, but again, more open.
Go figure...the only other guitars that have same kind of resonance as the Historics are the GOTW Classic Antiques--chambered! 7.8 and 8.3 lbs.! They have a airy warm tone--very similar to the 335 in some respects--but very lively and resonant. Yet, the tone has some focus too. Don't feel a need to put the LW Gotoh TP on these. At high volume, they feel alive in my hands--while the Supremes and the Elegant feel more like a solid.
I'd say if you want a 1960 Classic, get an early-to-mid 90's model. These Classics have about 90% of the vibe of the Historics, but the newer ones did have the same quality after about 1999. On the 1997 Honeyburst, the LW Gotoh TP made a big difference--not so much on the 1996 HCSB. Strange. Classic Plus or Premium Plus models are spendy, but they have gorgeous tops and can be modded to get closer to the Historic tone and vibe. They don't make the Classic Antiques anymore or the 1960 Classic, but I love both. I like the pickups in the CA more for if I'm doing straight rock--the Seths and the Antiquitys in the 1960 Classics are a little more versatile.
I would say that out of these ten guitars--my hands down favorites are the R8 and the two G0 Historics. The solid bodies. The Historics have a wonderful feel and cachet--they do remind me of the pawnshop Pauls I used to wishfully strum back when I was a teenager. The one G0 has a neck that just feels perfect to me. If you like the feel of the Historics, I would highly recommend them. They are pricey, but in my opinion--WORTH EVERY PENNY--if you can swing the dough. And actually, you can find them often for not that much more than what you would spend on a Standard or vintage 1960 Classic Plus, when you consider what you'll spend modding the Standard.
So chambered, solid or weight-relieved? I think a lot of it depends on you. Back can't handle a 10+ lbs. LP? Avoid the LP Custom. Many of the Norlin-era LPs are also very heavy. But, if you really need that heavy sustain and focused attack, you might want a heavier guitar. If you want an airier and more open tone, consider a lightweight tailpiece on a weight-relieved guitar--or the chambered model.
When it comes right down to it, the best advice I can give is to play a lot of guitars, and buy the one that speaks to you. Every guitar is different. Find the one that puts a smile on your face and makes your heart soar, and the details be damned.
Good luck!
Bill
UberMetalDood
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
Fantastic descriptions BoogieBill. I appreciate it when people take the time to share their knowledge. Those guitars you have are amazing. Post a pic if you have one.
Fantastic descriptions BoogieBill. I appreciate it when people take the time to share their knowledge. Those guitars you have are amazing. Post a pic if you have one.
T
TheProphet
Guest
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
I say saw the back off and fill it with NOS lead from the 50's ... instant tone and sustain.
I say saw the back off and fill it with NOS lead from the 50's ... instant tone and sustain.
UberMetalDood
New member
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.
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.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
At the end of the day, I only care about if it sounds good to me. I don't care if the fill it with Elmer's Wood Glue.
This is a very interesting discussion though. I'd love to hear some science behind how a chamber vs a hole should change the sound. And of course, the real way to do this is to have people rate the key factors after listening to maybe 10 of type.
I will also say that both of my Norlins - I can almost tune them by 'hand.' The vibration and resonance is just so powerful. Might be the maple necks...
At the end of the day, I only care about if it sounds good to me. I don't care if the fill it with Elmer's Wood Glue.
This is a very interesting discussion though. I'd love to hear some science behind how a chamber vs a hole should change the sound. And of course, the real way to do this is to have people rate the key factors after listening to maybe 10 of type.
I will also say that both of my Norlins - I can almost tune them by 'hand.' The vibration and resonance is just so powerful. Might be the maple necks...
UberMetalDood
New member
mwalluk
New member
Re: Chambered vs. Weigh-Relieved
It's a running joke. I don't know if anyone has actually done this or not. Makes me wonder. There are some dumb people out there and some who do not respect their instruments.
It's a running joke. I don't know if anyone has actually done this or not. Makes me wonder. There are some dumb people out there and some who do not respect their instruments.
