inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

[jmh151]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

I agree that Historic Les Pauls don't sound like the real vintage Les Pauls. That's why I haven't bought one, and I've been in contact with luthiers to build me a vintage style Les Paul. Since the price quotes tend to be over $10,000, I stick with my 1986 Les Paul Custom.

Who cares if it's South American or Honduras mahogany? Honduras is what the original Les Pauls were made of.

Again, my problem is PRS is promoting the 245 as being a Vintage Les Paul Tone- so I expet it to have all the ingredients of a vintage les Paul. The 250 is a whole different animal, and my statements don't apply to the 250. I also don't expect to nail a Les Paul tone with a Carvin which is a 25" scale either, in addition to dual action truss rod and graphite rods...

Am I sure I'm getting a solid hondurans mahogany guitar from Carvin? Can't be sure about anything, but that is what they advertise, and I presume they woudn't want to be exposed as misleading customers.

Carvin isn't the huge company that you think. Years ago PRS tried to get a good supply of Ebony and Koa for their guitars, and PRS acknowledged that Carvin had a stockpile built up over the years that PRS couldn't compete with, and did not understand how Carvin could offer it for so cheap.

Again, I'm not saying one guitar sounds better than the other,- that's a subjective decision. I would just rather have a solid body electric- maybe made of Limba, than something that needs weight relief or sound chambers.

 

[ErikH]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

I should clarify: multi piece bodies are fine with me and doesnt necc mean "poor" quality. I just meant that it's a cost saving measure many companies use (i.e. skimping) as compared to a chambering or weight relief.

Very true, very true. It's been done for years too.

Hey wait. If you make a Les Paul body out of one piece of mahogany (which is hardly done except on the high end models) and then slap a maple top on it, that's multi-piece, right?

I'm being a smartass, I know. :lmao:

 

[ibanezrocks]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

No, the body is too thin for that. Besides, they'd have to rename it to "CG" if they did that.

I was mostly just joking about that, but then again, the point Gibson starts chambering SGs is the time I stop buying Gibsons. I see nothing wrong with chambering Les Pauls, as I really doubt the chambering has much, if any, negative impacts on tone and a lot of Les Pauls would turn out too heavy without it. What do I know though, I like light comfortable guitars.

 

[JeffB]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

Again, my problem is PRS is promoting the 245 as being a Vintage Les Paul Tone- so I expet it to have all the ingredients of a vintage les Paul.
.

Here is how they promote it

The new SC 245 is perfect for the more traditional single-cutaway players. The 24.5" scale length and vintage appointments make this instrument instantly comfortable to players who grew up using short scale guitars. The new SC 245 pickups and their placement under the strings give the instrument a voice that is classic, eminently recordable and gig ready

I'd say based on the one I played that is a very accurate statement. The 245 is Paul's take on a Les Paul. Just like Dean has a Soltero, McNaught has his Singlecuts, Hamer has the Monaco Elite, etc etc. None of them sound exactly like or feel like a Vintage Les Paul either, but they are meant to appeal to the players who like that type of sound but don't like or want a Gibson (for whatever reason).

 

[MikeS]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

I have absolutely no problem with guitar companies routing their bodies in an effort to keep weight down. I realize that this alters the guitar's tone as well, and whether that is for better or worse depends upon the tastes of the player. Too often as gear and tone snobs we think in terms of absolute better or worse when we should simply be thinking "different."

The only thing I take issue to is that this will do one of two things: it will either cause people to begin to fault PRS in many of the same ways they fault Gibson, or, certain folks will defend PRS for doing something that these same folks have been blasting Gibson for for years.

To need to chamber an SG would require a very heavy chunk of mahogany. Plus it would require Gibson start laminating the tops on all SGs. I don't see that happening. Like has been mentioned, it costs more to rout the chambers. The only reason that would be a cost savings is if the cost of a light piece of wood exceeded the cost of the heavy piece of wood plus the routing.

 

[JeffB]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

The only thing I take issue to is that this will do one of two things: it will either cause people to begin to fault PRS in many of the same ways they fault Gibson, or, certain folks will defend PRS for doing something that these same folks have been blasting Gibson for for years.

Very true. But what can ya do? Both sets of harcore fans vehemently defend whatever company does, no matter what. Places like the Les Paul Forum are a real turn off despite the wealth of knowledge there: you've got that sect of Gibson guys who hate anything off the standard production line Hate anything made since 1965. Then there are the Heritage guys who hate anything post Kalamazoo. The Hamer guys. The Fender guys who hate anything post CBS. Blah Blah.

I've never understood that..I mean, generally I'm a Gibson guy, and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but theres no doubt they put some wonky stuff out, but at the same time I just don't see the horridness that some claim to see on every guitar. And with PRS, I've always been the first to admit they are fantastic instruments but just don't work for me usually. Hell, I cannot bond with Strats at ALL, but I don't go around saying Fender makes crap. Some of my best built guitars were Fenders!

It's no different in Sports or anything else. Football? Baseball? Soccer? When I was competing in archery, the animosity between some manufacturer's (often fostered by the management!) astounded me. It was the main reason I got out of competing. It was no fun anymore. I just think most people have to re-assure themselves and their choices in life by ridiculing others' choices.

Can you tell I'm slow at work here? :soapbox: :laugh2:

 

[MikeS]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

I'm right there with you, Jeff! What can we do? Nothing, really, though incessantly complaining about it sure makes me feel a little bit better, if only for 30 seconds!

 

[ErikH]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

You two both speak the truth. I'm not a big Gibson fan or a PRS fan, but just because they change something doesn't mean I'm going to bash them for it. Keep letting issues like rough fret ends, crapy inlay work or crooked tuners get out the door and I will say something.

To stay viable in the market you have to change and meet customer demand. If light bodies is one of those demands and chambering is the only way to get there while staying with the same wood, then so be it.

All the snobery makes me nautious sometimes. So what if it doesn't meet the specs from 1959, so what if the radius is flatter, so what if the pickups are exact replications.

Dare to be different, because you'll catch flack for it.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

I like bashing PRS
Has been fun for 20 years...and it makes me feel like a real hater
Lol nah I am just always sarcastic towards anything that is going beyond normal hype!

 

[JeffB]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

I like bashing PRS

And this is why the guys at GP magazine always give your pedals a (undeserved) so-so review. It's Karma

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

Fark karma....and GP are...well maybe not such a good idea to say that loud
We like to be underdogs...and nonhyped...we are way to practical for all that shjit!

 

[theodie]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

Play a chambered guitar, a GOOD one, before passing judgement. You'll be surprised at what you hear. They do sound good.

Yup, there is NOTHING wrong with chambers. Most players probably could not even tell the difference if nobody told them if had chambers. This is the same kind of argument as swimming poll vs. non-swimming poll in a strat.

 

[theodie]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

You two both speak the truth. I'm not a big Gibson fan or a PRS fan, but just because they change something doesn't mean I'm going to bash them for it. Keep letting issues like rough fret ends, crapy inlay work or crooked tuners get out the door and I will say something.

To stay viable in the market you have to change and meet customer demand. If light bodies is one of those demands and chambering is the only way to get there while staying with the same wood, then so be it.

All the snobery makes me nautious sometimes. So what if it doesn't meet the specs from 1959, so what if the radius is flatter, so what if the pickups are exact replications.

Dare to be different, because you'll catch flack for it.

I am with you on this one Erik!

Though, I am not really a fan of Gibson or PRS.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

But I can hear the grass grow when I test stuff in my bedroom:deal:

 

[Wattage]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

The PRS is nice and one of the selling points they used was that it is chambered and its positive effect on both tone and weight.

 

[chuckbat]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

That's pretty cool actually.

Chambered bodies have a very cool resonance to them that pure solidbodies just don't have. That's not saying they are all that way, some are duds just as solidbodies are. But take a good piece of wood and strategically place the chambers in the places where they provide the most benefit and you could end up with a guitar that'll resonate like a tuning fork. Ok, maybe not that much but you get the idea.

These chambers look more like they're meant for weight relief than anything else. Face it, majority of the players out there (yes, there are players beyond us here on the forum...lol) don't want boat anchors for guitars. I know some folks here prefer heavier guitars but they are in the minority. I'm not saying that's bad or anything else. If you like heavy guitars, that's your thing, but to sell to the majority, you need to know what your target market wants, and heavy guitars isn't one of them. Not anymore.

I just got rid of my 06 LTD EC400AT Goldtop. That thing weighed a ton. A great guitar, but I couldn't get comfortable playing it.

 

[JeffB]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

But take a good piece of wood and strategically place the chambers in the places where they provide the most benefit and you could end up with a guitar that'll resonate like a tuning fork. .

Last night I was messing around with the guitar, and realized I had not done a "headstock" test. I strummed a few chords (unamplified) and grabbed the headstock. The dang thing felt like a Jackhammer. I've never had a normal size headstock that resonated like that, the only thing that was remotely close was the big Dean headstock and the Hamer Standard (USA). The neck joint area will rumble your guts if you strap the guitar up pretty high.

Custom 5 and 59n should be here today...Can't wait to get them in (though it will prolly be a week or so) so I can hear what this thing is really capable of. The Stock pups are just too "Metal" (bridge) and boring (neck).

 

[krankguitarist]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

Again, my problem is PRS is promoting the 245 as being a Vintage Les Paul Tone- so I expet it to have all the ingredients of a vintage les Paul.

Now that's just silly. The presence of chambered wood in the guitar is moot next to the fact that it's scale length is a quarter of an inch shorter than a Les Paul.

If ya want a vintage Les Paul, look elsewhere. Cause the sc245 isn't supposed to be one .

You'll find that the carvin version is pretty radically different in construction as well.

 

[ErikH]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

Last night I was messing around with the guitar, and realized I had not done a "headstock" test. I strummed a few chords (unamplified) and grabbed the headstock. The dang thing felt like a Jackhammer. I've never had a normal size headstock that resonated like that, the only thing that was remotely close was the big Dean headstock and the Hamer Standard (USA). The neck joint area will rumble your guts if you strap the guitar up pretty high.

Custom 5 and 59n should be here today...Can't wait to get them in (though it will prolly be a week or so) so I can hear what this thing is really capable of. The Stock pups are just too "Metal" (bridge) and boring (neck).

Sounds like an A+ grade on that test to me.

Ship it all to me, I'll install 'em for ya.

 

[Artie]

Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...

There's two things I find interesting about that pic:

1. That they'ld extend the chambers up under the bridge. I would have thought that you'ld want maximum strength in that area.

2. That the x-ray machine could "see" through the TOM bridge. I didn't think that x-rays could penetrate metal. Interesting.