Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
- Thread starter LtKojak
- Start date
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
Uhh...it is called weight relief. You know, removing that heavy stuff...wood.
Uhh...it is called weight relief. You know, removing that heavy stuff...wood.
Nacho8807
New member
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
I think that's for the ground wire.
I think that's for the ground wire.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
These chambered guitars are still usually 8+ lbs, even with all that wood missing. They must be using some real non-choice lumber these days to have to hog them out to that extreme just to get a guitar that's still somewhat heavy. They would likely be 10+ lb. guitars without the chambering. My '83 Custom, which may or may not be Swiss-cheeze-holed, weighed 12+, and it was made when Gibson was at the very bottom of their game. It appears that in a lot of ways the company has moved back in that direction. It of course varies piece to piece, but traditionally good sounding, high quality, properly aged mahogany is usually not that heavy. I have two Honduran mahogany solid Tele bodies (a guitar body with at least equal, if not greater, mass than a Les Paul). They were made for me by a friend who worked in the Fender Custom Shop, and who now works for G&L. I had him use old one-piece Honduran mahogany blanks that I had been saving for over a decade. The bare bodies weigh just over 3 lb. each, which is less than your typical alder or ash body! I've played '50's Les Pauls, and even late-'60's ones, and they never struck me as particularly heavy guitars. This idea that Les Pauls must be like a bag of bricks in order to sound proper is very misplaced IME. I, for one, am glad for the chambering. It probably makes that crappy-ass, heavy-ass wood sound much better, in general, and it certainly makes the guitars feel a whole lot better.
These chambered guitars are still usually 8+ lbs, even with all that wood missing. They must be using some real non-choice lumber these days to have to hog them out to that extreme just to get a guitar that's still somewhat heavy. They would likely be 10+ lb. guitars without the chambering. My '83 Custom, which may or may not be Swiss-cheeze-holed, weighed 12+, and it was made when Gibson was at the very bottom of their game. It appears that in a lot of ways the company has moved back in that direction. It of course varies piece to piece, but traditionally good sounding, high quality, properly aged mahogany is usually not that heavy. I have two Honduran mahogany solid Tele bodies (a guitar body with at least equal, if not greater, mass than a Les Paul). They were made for me by a friend who worked in the Fender Custom Shop, and who now works for G&L. I had him use old one-piece Honduran mahogany blanks that I had been saving for over a decade. The bare bodies weigh just over 3 lb. each, which is less than your typical alder or ash body! I've played '50's Les Pauls, and even late-'60's ones, and they never struck me as particularly heavy guitars. This idea that Les Pauls must be like a bag of bricks in order to sound proper is very misplaced IME. I, for one, am glad for the chambering. It probably makes that crappy-ass, heavy-ass wood sound much better, in general, and it certainly makes the guitars feel a whole lot better.
Last edited:
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
Yeah I know but are they using wire intended for nuclear power plants now?
In WW1 that would have counted as perfectly fine trench warfare.
Yeah I know but are they using wire intended for nuclear power plants now?
In WW1 that would have counted as perfectly fine trench warfare.
Vettasmith
New member
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
Hi I have a 2012 les paul standard and is weighs 10 lbs and weight relived it sounds awesome ,I pick my guitars by the way they sound unplugged ,if they don't sound good unplugged there is not a lot you can do to make it sound better,remember a pickup is a mic,I have a sg 61 reissue that is light an still has a killer sound,I will agree that a les paul in General has its own sound,I have owned some with the same shape but they just did not have the balls of a les paul.
Hi I have a 2012 les paul standard and is weighs 10 lbs and weight relived it sounds awesome ,I pick my guitars by the way they sound unplugged ,if they don't sound good unplugged there is not a lot you can do to make it sound better,remember a pickup is a mic,I have a sg 61 reissue that is light an still has a killer sound,I will agree that a les paul in General has its own sound,I have owned some with the same shape but they just did not have the balls of a les paul.
garryspicer
New member
Dahla
New member
DreX
New member
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
I'm not sure I like the removal of more wood in the neck slot. Of all the places to potentially interfere the transference of energy along the length of the body, anywhere between where the strings attach seems like the last place you'd want to compromise.
I'm not sure I like the removal of more wood in the neck slot. Of all the places to potentially interfere the transference of energy along the length of the body, anywhere between where the strings attach seems like the last place you'd want to compromise.
Edgecrusher
New member
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
Ummm thats a long tenon vs short tenon, it has nothing to do with weight relief. The reality is that the shorter tenon is the compromise its done to make manufacturing easier. The debate over its effect on tone is hotly debated and i wont go into it but long story short, old les pauls and historics have long tenons and more consistent neck angles newer les pauls have shorter tenons and less consistent neck angles.
Ummm thats a long tenon vs short tenon, it has nothing to do with weight relief. The reality is that the shorter tenon is the compromise its done to make manufacturing easier. The debate over its effect on tone is hotly debated and i wont go into it but long story short, old les pauls and historics have long tenons and more consistent neck angles newer les pauls have shorter tenons and less consistent neck angles.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
It could allow a piezo system for simulated acoustic tones.
It could allow a piezo system for simulated acoustic tones.
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
Especially if the things has been turn *into* an acoustic.
Especially if the things has been turn *into* an acoustic.
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
Possibly from here: http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Lighten-Your-Les-Paul-Load.aspx . But then again, here it is presented as no more than an assertion some people make, albeit one that IS taken seriously.Oh, really? :scratchch
Where exactly did you get this bit of info? By an authoritative and verifiable source, of course, isn't it?
I can't wait to see the link...
LtKojak
New member
Re: Gibson's meaning of "weight relief" and "chambering"
Thank you for the link. Another article written by a hired temp that never even been with a LP in the same room. **Sigh**
That's just more internet hearsay. Just as I thought.
Thank you for the link. Another article written by a hired temp that never even been with a LP in the same room. **Sigh**