inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
- Thread starter XSSIVE
- Start date
JeffB
Let it B
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
Cool. I was wondering what the chambers actually looked like!
I wanna know what the big deal is though lately with everyone chambering their guitars? I'm starting to think most of the good lightweight mahogany is gone..or being saved for the REALLY high end guitars.
My SC 250 is no featherweight even with chambers. It's prolly 9 pounds.
Cool. I was wondering what the chambers actually looked like!
I wanna know what the big deal is though lately with everyone chambering their guitars? I'm starting to think most of the good lightweight mahogany is gone..or being saved for the REALLY high end guitars.
My SC 250 is no featherweight even with chambers. It's prolly 9 pounds.
ErikH
Well-known member
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.
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.
T
TheArchitect
Guest
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
So you're gonna write them off because of the chambers? Have you even bothered to play any of them? How many? How long? Your statement sounds very unreasonable to me. If it sounds good, who the hell cares if there's chambers or not. I thought tone was more important than that.
So you're gonna write them off because of the chambers? Have you even bothered to play any of them? How many? How long? Your statement sounds very unreasonable to me. If it sounds good, who the hell cares if there's chambers or not. I thought tone was more important than that.
Vasshu the humanoid typhoon
Unseen
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
There is nothing unreasonable in writing off both Gibson and PMS..erm PRS
There is nothing unreasonable in writing off both Gibson and PMS..erm PRS
jmh151
Active member
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
Well I thought PRS was supposed to be a higher quality guitar than Gibson... and yet they use the same chambering we all complain about Gibson using....I'm not saying they don't sound great, but if you want a vintage Les Paul tone, it would make more sense to me to go with a solid mahogany body, just like Gibson originally had, rather than a chambered guitar.
I knew Gibson used weight relief and chambering, I'm disappointed that PRS is doing it on their guitars... then again, these days the market likes lighter guitars.
I'm sure the PRS's may sound nice with the chambering, I just don't want to spend that kind of money on a guitar that has as much mass as a hallowed out Warmoth.
The Carvin's looking nicer because:
1) They're a smaller company and have consistently hand picked the better woods for their guitars than a larger Gibson or PRS would have on their production guitars
2) Carvin's using Honduras mahogany. My bet is this is probably the same quality as Gibson and PRS's custom shop guitars
3) You get a solid honduras mahogany body from Carvin.
Well I thought PRS was supposed to be a higher quality guitar than Gibson... and yet they use the same chambering we all complain about Gibson using....I'm not saying they don't sound great, but if you want a vintage Les Paul tone, it would make more sense to me to go with a solid mahogany body, just like Gibson originally had, rather than a chambered guitar.
I knew Gibson used weight relief and chambering, I'm disappointed that PRS is doing it on their guitars... then again, these days the market likes lighter guitars.
I'm sure the PRS's may sound nice with the chambering, I just don't want to spend that kind of money on a guitar that has as much mass as a hallowed out Warmoth.
The Carvin's looking nicer because:
1) They're a smaller company and have consistently hand picked the better woods for their guitars than a larger Gibson or PRS would have on their production guitars
2) Carvin's using Honduras mahogany. My bet is this is probably the same quality as Gibson and PRS's custom shop guitars
3) You get a solid honduras mahogany body from Carvin.
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
Again, without direct experience with them, your statement is unreasonable and unjustified. Just because it's chambered doesn't mean it sounds bad. Since when does PRS go for the vintage crowd anyway? I see more modern players with them than anybody.
If you want vintage Les Paul tone, go for a Historic, not a PRS or a chambered Standard.
Play a chambered guitar, a GOOD one, before passing judgement. You'll be surprised at what you hear. They do sound good.
Again, without direct experience with them, your statement is unreasonable and unjustified. Just because it's chambered doesn't mean it sounds bad. Since when does PRS go for the vintage crowd anyway? I see more modern players with them than anybody.
If you want vintage Les Paul tone, go for a Historic, not a PRS or a chambered Standard.
Play a chambered guitar, a GOOD one, before passing judgement. You'll be surprised at what you hear. They do sound good.
jmh151
Active member
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
I'm not saying it sounds bad at all. Sound is all subjective- some may like a Les Paul tone, some may hate it and prefer a strat instead.
What I am saying is for a little cheaper, I can get a solid mahogany body from Carvin.
Since when does PRS go for the vintage crowd? Did you read the interview PRS did regarding the SC245? That guitar is supposed to give a vintage Les Paul tone, whereas the 250 is geared towards higher gain, heavier strings, downtuning, etc...
I would go for a Gibson Historic if they offered a Goldtop with a rounded '59 neck- not the neck profiles found on the '57,'58,'59 or '60. Besides that, they are now made of South American mahogany.
I'm not saying it sounds bad at all. Sound is all subjective- some may like a Les Paul tone, some may hate it and prefer a strat instead.
What I am saying is for a little cheaper, I can get a solid mahogany body from Carvin.
Since when does PRS go for the vintage crowd? Did you read the interview PRS did regarding the SC245? That guitar is supposed to give a vintage Les Paul tone, whereas the 250 is geared towards higher gain, heavier strings, downtuning, etc...
I would go for a Gibson Historic if they offered a Goldtop with a rounded '59 neck- not the neck profiles found on the '57,'58,'59 or '60. Besides that, they are now made of South American mahogany.
T
TheArchitect
Guest
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
Well I thought PRS was supposed to be a higher quality guitar than Gibson... and yet they use the same chambering we all complain about Gibson using....I'm not saying they don't sound great, but if you want a vintage Les Paul tone, it would make more sense to me to go with a solid mahogany body, just like Gibson originally had, rather than a chambered guitar.
PRS IS a higher quality guitar than Gibson. Where did this ridiculous notion that chambering =lesser quality come from anyway? If you want a vintage LP tone, you need to buy a vintage LP. Even new Historics don't sound like vintage LP's
I knew Gibson used weight relief and chambering, I'm disappointed that PRS is doing it on their guitars... then again, these days the market likes lighter guitars.
Again what difference does it make?
I'm sure the PRS's may sound nice with the chambering, I just don't want to spend that kind of money on a guitar that has as much mass as a hallowed out Warmoth.
Exactly when did how the guitar was built become more important than how it sounds?
The Carvin's looking nicer because:
1) They're a smaller company and have consistently hand picked the better woods for their guitars than a larger Gibson or PRS would have on their production guitars
Your kidding right? Carvin is a huge company.
2) Carvin's using Honduras mahogany. My bet is this is probably the same quality as Gibson and PRS's custom shop guitars.
Perhaps, so its a wash at best
3) You get a solid honduras mahogany body from Carvin.
Are you sure about that?
Well I thought PRS was supposed to be a higher quality guitar than Gibson... and yet they use the same chambering we all complain about Gibson using....I'm not saying they don't sound great, but if you want a vintage Les Paul tone, it would make more sense to me to go with a solid mahogany body, just like Gibson originally had, rather than a chambered guitar.
PRS IS a higher quality guitar than Gibson. Where did this ridiculous notion that chambering =lesser quality come from anyway? If you want a vintage LP tone, you need to buy a vintage LP. Even new Historics don't sound like vintage LP's
I knew Gibson used weight relief and chambering, I'm disappointed that PRS is doing it on their guitars... then again, these days the market likes lighter guitars.
Again what difference does it make?
I'm sure the PRS's may sound nice with the chambering, I just don't want to spend that kind of money on a guitar that has as much mass as a hallowed out Warmoth.
Exactly when did how the guitar was built become more important than how it sounds?
The Carvin's looking nicer because:
1) They're a smaller company and have consistently hand picked the better woods for their guitars than a larger Gibson or PRS would have on their production guitars
Your kidding right? Carvin is a huge company.
2) Carvin's using Honduras mahogany. My bet is this is probably the same quality as Gibson and PRS's custom shop guitars.
Perhaps, so its a wash at best
3) You get a solid honduras mahogany body from Carvin.
Are you sure about that?
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
Nothing wrong with wanting a solid body. The way you worded your statements about the PRS chambers makes it sound like they are inferior because of the chambers and not high quality anymore. That was my initial thought reading that. We both know that is not true. I'm not a PRS fan by any means, I just don't get along with them, but they are built incredibly well.
Who cares if it's South American or Honduran Mahogany? LOL Hey wait, that could mean Brazillian Mahogany. Honduras isn't far away either being in Central America. All the same flavor in my book.
The first time I saw a PRS was when Carlos Santana started using them and then Nugent. At the time, hardly either had a vintage tone going on. Then in the 90's they exploded with the detuning crowd and Creed and Navarro and all that. That's why I don't associate them with the vintage crowd nor see that as a target market for them.
Nothing wrong with wanting a solid body. The way you worded your statements about the PRS chambers makes it sound like they are inferior because of the chambers and not high quality anymore. That was my initial thought reading that. We both know that is not true. I'm not a PRS fan by any means, I just don't get along with them, but they are built incredibly well.
Who cares if it's South American or Honduran Mahogany? LOL Hey wait, that could mean Brazillian Mahogany. Honduras isn't far away either being in Central America.
All the same flavor in my book.The first time I saw a PRS was when Carlos Santana started using them and then Nugent. At the time, hardly either had a vintage tone going on. Then in the 90's they exploded with the detuning crowd and Creed and Navarro and all that. That's why I don't associate them with the vintage crowd nor see that as a target market for them.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
Going back to the original pic.
Any idea why they went with that "stripe" or "channel" routing? Why not just carve out a huge area like on the Gibson BFG?
Going back to the original pic.
Any idea why they went with that "stripe" or "channel" routing? Why not just carve out a huge area like on the Gibson BFG?
ibanezrocks
HardtailPisser
ErikH
Well-known member
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 wonder if my SG is chambered...nder:
No, the body is too thin for that. Besides, they'd have to rename it to "CG" if they did that.
JeffB
Let it B
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
DISCLAIMER: I'm biased cos I just bought a 250. :firedevil
whats the diff between tone chambers on a PRS and a significantly thinner bodied carvin with no tone chambers? From an amount of wood= "skimping" standpoint anyways? Carvin may be skimping there...saves them alot of money making a body roughly half the depth, no??
Chambered or not, the quality of PRS' Mahogany is there. I cannot say for sure if it's Honduran or Guatemalan or Mexico Cityan or grown in Paul's backyard flower garden, cos I didn't pick it or cut it. But it's the same species Gibbo is using on Historics and the same same as Hamer USA uses. I find the grain and wood quality exceptional.
:shrug:
DISCLAIMER: I'm biased cos I just bought a 250. :firedevil
whats the diff between tone chambers on a PRS and a significantly thinner bodied carvin with no tone chambers? From an amount of wood= "skimping" standpoint anyways? Carvin may be skimping there...saves them alot of money making a body roughly half the depth, no??
Chambered or not, the quality of PRS' Mahogany is there. I cannot say for sure if it's Honduran or Guatemalan or Mexico Cityan or grown in Paul's backyard flower garden, cos I didn't pick it or cut it. But it's the same species Gibbo is using on Historics and the same same as Hamer USA uses. I find the grain and wood quality exceptional.
:shrug:
JeffB
Let it B
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
Here's some food for thought:
I'd like to ask how does chambering provide a cost benefit? How does it make for less quality or "skimping"? It actually takes MORE time to make a guitar this way. Extra time on a CNC=increased cost. It's still the same depth. They are not gluing two halves together or using a multipiece body (at least in PRS' case), and it's not like a semi or full hollow body construction. Warmoth even charges extra for that right? And the scraps they would get from chambering are not exactly useable for anything else, certainly not for building a guitar anyways. Sides of a headstock maybe. BTW, those fuggly BFG knobs? Guess what?...yup...they were mahogany!
IDK what Gibson's chambers look like, but weight relief on the older Les Pauls is the same thing. It's to keep guitars lighter in a day and age when most of the good wood is increasingly hard to find, unharvestable, or gone. Whether it provides a sonic benefit or disadvantage is all personal opinion.
I don't wanna come off sounding defensive, cos I really could care less what others think of my guitars (I mean ..c'mon.. I had a MAGENTABURST Dean ML, if thats not a guitar most people cringe at IDK what is! :lmao
, It just seems weird to me people would find chambering =skimping or lack of quality. I think things like lack of proper fret and nut work, multi piece bodies, cheap quality fretwire, pot metal bridges, crappy electronics, super thick finishes and whatnot speak more of "poor" quality than weight relief or chambering do. Those are the things that turn me off from a guitar instantly (fretwire, pot metal, and thick finishes prolly being the worst offenders for me personally)
Here's some food for thought:
I'd like to ask how does chambering provide a cost benefit? How does it make for less quality or "skimping"? It actually takes MORE time to make a guitar this way. Extra time on a CNC=increased cost. It's still the same depth. They are not gluing two halves together or using a multipiece body (at least in PRS' case), and it's not like a semi or full hollow body construction. Warmoth even charges extra for that right? And the scraps they would get from chambering are not exactly useable for anything else, certainly not for building a guitar anyways. Sides of a headstock maybe. BTW, those fuggly BFG knobs? Guess what?...yup...they were mahogany!
IDK what Gibson's chambers look like, but weight relief on the older Les Pauls is the same thing. It's to keep guitars lighter in a day and age when most of the good wood is increasingly hard to find, unharvestable, or gone. Whether it provides a sonic benefit or disadvantage is all personal opinion.
I don't wanna come off sounding defensive, cos I really could care less what others think of my guitars (I mean ..c'mon.. I had a MAGENTABURST Dean ML, if thats not a guitar most people cringe at IDK what is! :lmao
, It just seems weird to me people would find chambering =skimping or lack of quality. I think things like lack of proper fret and nut work, multi piece bodies, cheap quality fretwire, pot metal bridges, crappy electronics, super thick finishes and whatnot speak more of "poor" quality than weight relief or chambering do. Those are the things that turn me off from a guitar instantly (fretwire, pot metal, and thick finishes prolly being the worst offenders for me personally)
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: inside the PRS SC245 and SC250...
I agree 100%, Jeff. As for Warmoth, they do in fact charge more for chambered bodies. I was looking at a Thinline Tele body and it costs more for it than a Standard Tele body that is solid.
In that last paragraph, second to last line, I agree with most everything aside from multi-piece bodies. There's nothing wrong with them. Once the pieces are glued and clamped together *tightly*, they become one piece of wood. It's the quality of those pieces that'll make a diff. Now, 5-6 piece bodies, yeah, that's a sign of not caring much but 2 or 3 pieces, nah, no problem at all there. Still good stuff. Franky's body is 3 pieces.
I agree 100%, Jeff. As for Warmoth, they do in fact charge more for chambered bodies. I was looking at a Thinline Tele body and it costs more for it than a Standard Tele body that is solid.
In that last paragraph, second to last line, I agree with most everything aside from multi-piece bodies. There's nothing wrong with them. Once the pieces are glued and clamped together *tightly*, they become one piece of wood. It's the quality of those pieces that'll make a diff. Now, 5-6 piece bodies, yeah, that's a sign of not caring much but 2 or 3 pieces, nah, no problem at all there. Still good stuff. Franky's body is 3 pieces.
JeffB
Let it B
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.
I agree 100%, Jeff. As for Warmoth, they do in fact charge more for chambered bodies. I was looking at a Thinline Tele body and it costs more for it than a Standard Tele body that is solid.
In that last paragraph, second to last line, I agree with most everything aside from multi-piece bodies. There's nothing wrong with them. Once the pieces are glued and clamped together *tightly*, they become one piece of wood. It's the quality of those pieces that'll make a diff. Now, 5-6 piece bodies, yeah, that's a sign of not caring much but 2 or 3 pieces, nah, no problem at all there. Still good stuff. Franky's body is 3 pieces.
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.
