Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Gibson Les Paul Chambering - To be or not to be?










Chambered Les Paul’s suck man, un-chambered is the best. It’s not problematical to determine ones intellectual capabilities based on their opinion. First of all, all the Les Paul’s are chambered. The dissimilarity is that now we have a little more wood removed and the amount of wood is based on some actual data rather than some subjective guess. Are very heavy Les Paul’s better than light Les Paul’s? Does lighter guitar mean that it is less dense or that they is less trapped moisture? Is a heavier Gibson Les have greater density and also have more trapped moisture? Does my guitar suck whilst yours rules – man? Well, I suggest we cut them up and find out. No not really but in reality determining the formative hidden Mojo behind a guitar could quite possible be solved through testing. Let’s say you take the perfect Gibson Les Paul and study it thoroughly, reproducing that exact guitar would difficult because of the temperament of wood. The problem is that the material is subject to the environment in which it was grown, manufactured, shipped, stored, and then tested. These variables make arguing about whether chambering sucks or doesn’t silly.

For me, it’s more about the amplifier or I’d say at least 65.4895439873% of the tone is amplifier driven. Then we can argue about the variable within that element. I think it would be safe to say that if you have a weak back and love a Les Paul then the latest version of chambered guitar is for you. If you have a strong back and recently competed in the Tough man contest then by all means, get the old Swiss cheese chambered guitar. Just don’t start ranting about chambering being bad because they all have it to a greater or lesser extent. Besides, arguing about what sucks is great if you are under 18 and have nothing better to do. If you have a hypothesis and can support it with data – Let’s see the data and read your report. Otherwise, beat it - !

See pictures and make a determination for yourself. Rant you later!

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're a close minded butt-head. Different strokes for different folks! How you touch the guitar has more to do with tone than your amp. Your amp is third behind you & your guitar. No one's guitar sucks while others rule. If Jimmy Page had played a Tele throughout his Zep carrer ... everyone would have been Tele crazy.

Anonymous said...

Tis' true. Tone chambered Les Pauls suck big bulbous purple gorilla cocks. I have yet to find one that even comes close to the sustain and tone of my beat up old 93' Studio. There's nothing closed minded about having an opinion. Calling someone a butt heat because you disagree with them? Definitely closed minded. 36 years of playing these things has taught me one thing. Don't mess with what already works.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget, individual guitars of the same make can have different levels of sustain/quality of tone. One chambered guitar vs. one non-chambered guitar isn't representative of all chambered vs. all non-chambered guitars.

Scott said...

Indeed, the chambering is subjective to many variables. I've worked on identical Les Paul models yet had trouble setting them up exactly the same and yielding the exact results. I repaired two PRS Carlos Santana models that had 10 years between manufacturing date yet they sounded and played completely different. Explaining the difference to a customer can be tricky. The same guitar made from the same tree can sound different. This is can be magical or maddening. Also, heavy doesn't equal great sustain! I believe rigidity between the two nodes (nut & Bridge) is paramount.

Post a Comment