Gibson Les Paul weight debate

[blackba]

This thread might be interesting to read. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37566&hilit=weight

I have had 4 LPs (not many compared to some people on here). I currently have 2. However when I still had the Black LP studio (had a red one with an ebony board too). It was the lightest of the LPs, it had the best neck pickup sound, very warm and buttery, but was the worst on the bridge pickup. I was always swapping bridge pickups (Super Distortion, 498T, Afwayu, BBQ). It sounded thin and too trebley on the Bridge pickup in general, except when I put the 498T before I sold it. Last time I played it, was great. My '73 LP custom is much heavier than my LP studio and is thick and mean sounding. It is my least favorite on the neck pickup (a bit muddy), but most favorite in the bridge, where it is thick and chunky. My '04 LP standard LE is like a compromise between the two, its close to the LP studio on the neck, but is thicker on bridge. It is my favorite of the three and also happens to be the heaviest. I do wish I still had the LP studio, as it was a great stage guitar, being as it was the lightest.

 

[Meathead]

This thread might be interesting to read. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37566&hilit=weight

I have had 4 LPs (not many compared to some people on here). I currently have 2. However when I still had the Black LP studio (had a red one with an ebony board too). It was the lightest of the LPs, it had the best neck pickup sound, very warm and buttery, but was the worst on the bridge pickup. I was always swapping bridge pickups (Super Distortion, 498T, Afwayu, BBQ). It sounded thin and too trebley on the Bridge pickup in general, except when I put the 498T before I sold it. Last time I played it, was great. My '73 LP custom is much heavier than my LP studio and is thick and mean sounding. It is my least favorite on the neck pickup (a bit muddy), but most favorite in the bridge, where it is thick and chunky. My '04 LP standard LE is like a compromise between the two, its close to the LP studio on the neck, but is thicker on bridge. It is my favorite of the three and also happens to be the heaviest. I do wish I still had the LP studio, as it was a great stage guitar, being as it was the lightest.

I have a heavy Les Paul and it has girth...it's not muddy, but it's deep sounding. I also have a double neck guitar that probably weighs over 16 pounds, humongous girth, but it's not muddy sounding either....great recording guitar because it sounds big...not good for gigging, tried it a few times on an Eagles tribute gig...what a pig, geez.

 

[Ventura]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

Definitely a good point. I think it's a tradition thing, personally. Mahogany was what the luthiers used back in the day as a lot of other wood based instruments were made from it. Alder and basswood are more recent iterations in the construction arena of guitars. Suhr swears by the maple/basswood combination. It's hard to say. At the end of the day, albeit I "know" these woods offer different sonic attributes, I still can't quite wrap my head around how it is they "do" have an effect on the sound, when, ultimately, what we have is a conducive wire vibrating over a flux based coil magnet which is producing an electrical charge. How it is that the wood can creep into this equation still sort of baffles me. Sustain and ringing I can comprehend, but actual tone?? In a controlled environment, one should be able to remove the wood from the equation and have the same results so long as there's a string vibrating at 440Hz (in tune for sake of argument), with a metallic constitution, thereby disturbing a flux field and generating electricity.

Always makes me wonder...

V.

 

[Ancient Alien]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

For the exact same reason I said.
The bulk of your string sound comes between the 12th fret and the neck pickup.
If you put a dense piece of wood in that area, it is going to transfer the vibrations quicker into the rest of the body, hence increasing sustain and resonance.
It's just getting the tone from point A to point B quicker.
This is the reason Gibson LP lovers go for guitars with long neck tenons.
You create a very efficient transfer point for the sound to spread through the wood.

 

[Ah Via Musicom]

the chambered les pauls sound great and tend to resonate alot better than the heavy LPs. That said i have a heavy one and it sounds great but it will F up your shoulder after a while.

 

[Badronald]

My Les Paul Custom is HEAVY. It sounds absolutely fantastic. I've played very few LP's over the years than can come close to the in your face bark that that guitar has. Everything about it is perfect.
I played dozens of newer Les Paul's (mine's an '81) and none of them came close to the tone of that guitar with the exception of the heavy VOS or some of the vintage reissue Custom Shop models.
I know aging has a lot to do with it as well. The wood is aged and has settled.

 

[Badronald]

Oh, and if it's too heavy get off you're lazy guitar playin' ass and do some shoulder presses with more than you're wife's 2lb walking weights!

You know the pink one's sitting by the TV next to the unused aerobic DVD's.

 

[blackba]

I have a heavy Les Paul and it has girth...it's not muddy, but it's deep sounding. I also have a double neck guitar that probably weighs over 16 pounds, humongous girth, but it's not muddy sounding either....great recording guitar because it sounds big...not good for gigging, tried it a few times on an Eagles tribute gig...what a pig, geez.

Mine might be a bit muddy in the neck pickup, just due to the guitar. My LP customs is a pancake body norlin era. Its is just a mean sounding guitar, its cool, but requires re EQing my amps. I think the point is that you can't just look at the weight and say a blanket statement.

I think part of the heavier is better with Les Pauls, is that generally that is the case. I found that inexpensive gear (amps, PA speakers, etc) are generally light. More expensive gear is generally heavy. So people quickly get the idea, that weight = quality.

 

[rupe]

I've played dozens upon dozens of Lesters of all weights and the one thing I've learned is that there are no rules...there have been winners and dogs across the entire weight range. My current go-to is a fairly heavy '76 Custom (for classic rock and blues...still haven't found the right bridge pickup for classic metal), which is not a highly regarded year, yet it walks all over most others...in fact I only bought it to flip but it ended up being a keeper.

Conversely, I've found that Strat style guitars typically sound much better with lighter bodies, YMMV.

 

[blackba]

I've played dozens upon dozens of Lesters of all weights and the one thing I've learned is that there are no rules...there have been winners and dogs across the entire weight range. My current go-to is a fairly heavy '76 Custom (for classic rock and blues...still haven't found the right bridge pickup for classic metal), which is not a highly regarded year, yet it walks all over most others...in fact I only bought it to flip but it ended up being a keeper.

Conversely, I've found that Strat style guitars typically sound much better with lighter bodies, YMMV.

In case you missed it, post a picture of that '76 custom guitar in the Gibson Norlin era thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=71132

 

[Flump]

I gotta say 90% of what guitarists think is absurd when you think about it scientifically. Especially when it comes to paints, fretboard wood, changing out brand new pots, etc.

That being said, certainly the wood/weight will affect the acoustic resonance of the guitar. Whether that really shows in what comes out of the amp is a whole different story. Another problem problem with every piece of wood will resonate more/less at different frequencies. You play a G-major on one guitar and it goes nuts. You play an E? Not so much. Now switch guitars and its the opposite. So then who gets to decided which one is more resonant, and for that matter once again does it REALLY affect what comes out of the amp that much.

 

[nevusofota]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

For the exact same reason I said.
The bulk of your string sound comes between the 12th fret and the neck pickup.
If you put a dense piece of wood in that area, it is going to transfer the vibrations quicker into the rest of the body, hence increasing sustain and resonance.
It's just getting the tone from point A to point B quicker.
This is the reason Gibson LP lovers go for guitars with long neck tenons.
You create a very efficient transfer point for the sound to spread through the wood.

I don't believe this is entirely correct. Mahogony blocks are not used to transfer vibrations from the strings to the body, but to help transfer vibrations from the body to the pup. Vibrations from the strings are sent to the bridge/saddle/nut, through the body, then through the block to the pup. Yes the pup "picks up" the majority of the vibrations of the string directly through the air, but the block is used to send body/wood vibrations to the pick up, it has nothing to do with the strings having the bulk of its sound between the neck pup and the 12th fret.

 

[rupe]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

For the exact same reason I said.
The bulk of your string sound comes between the 12th fret and the neck pickup.
If you put a dense piece of wood in that area, it is going to transfer the vibrations quicker into the rest of the body, hence increasing sustain and resonance.
It's just getting the tone from point A to point B quicker.
This is the reason Gibson LP lovers go for guitars with long neck tenons.
You create a very efficient transfer point for the sound to spread through the wood.

I don't believe this is entirely correct. Mahogony blocks are not used to transfer vibrations from the strings to the body, but to help transfer vibrations from the body to the pup. Vibrations from the strings are sent to the bridge/saddle/nut, through the body, then through the block to the pup. Yes the pup "picks up" the majority of the vibrations of the string directly through the air, but the block is used to send body/wood vibrations to the pick up, it has nothing to do with the strings having the bulk of its sound between the neck pup and the 12th fret.

I call bs on that theory after having done extensive testing...there's another thread around here that goes into a bit more detail. In a nutshell, there was no audible difference between a direct mounted pickup and a ring mounted pickup in the tests that we did.

 

[rupe]

I've played dozens upon dozens of Lesters of all weights and the one thing I've learned is that there are no rules...there have been winners and dogs across the entire weight range. My current go-to is a fairly heavy '76 Custom (for classic rock and blues...still haven't found the right bridge pickup for classic metal), which is not a highly regarded year, yet it walks all over most others...in fact I only bought it to flip but it ended up being a keeper.

Conversely, I've found that Strat style guitars typically sound much better with lighter bodies, YMMV.

In case you missed it, post a picture of that '76 custom guitar in the Gibson Norlin era thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=71132

Done!

 

[Ancient Alien]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

For the exact same reason I said.
The bulk of your string sound comes between the 12th fret and the neck pickup.
If you put a dense piece of wood in that area, it is going to transfer the vibrations quicker into the rest of the body, hence increasing sustain and resonance.
It's just getting the tone from point A to point B quicker.
This is the reason Gibson LP lovers go for guitars with long neck tenons.
You create a very efficient transfer point for the sound to spread through the wood.

I don't believe this is entirely correct. Mahogony blocks are not used to transfer vibrations from the strings to the body, but to help transfer vibrations from the body to the pup. Vibrations from the strings are sent to the bridge/saddle/nut, through the body, then through the block to the pup. Yes the pup "picks up" the majority of the vibrations of the string directly through the air, but the block is used to send body/wood vibrations to the pick up, it has nothing to do with the strings having the bulk of its sound between the neck pup and the 12th fret.

The sound happens so fast, it is all one in the same.
The placement of the blocks in guitars like a EBMM JPX and LP Long Tenons is there for just this reason.
If you put it in real time perspective, you agree with this factual theory 100%.
Strings have 3 main points of transfer; Neck, Body, Bridge.
They all interact to get the sound to the pickup and to the amp.
Play a regular JP6 or 7 and then play a JPX6 or 7 not plugged into an amp.
You will easily hear what I am talking about.
The point of these blocks is to transfer your tone to your amp.
So we agree.
Just as quickly as the sound goes through the block, it comes back through to the pickups.
We are talking nano seconds here.

 

[Ancient Alien]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

For the exact same reason I said.
The bulk of your string sound comes between the 12th fret and the neck pickup.
If you put a dense piece of wood in that area, it is going to transfer the vibrations quicker into the rest of the body, hence increasing sustain and resonance.
It's just getting the tone from point A to point B quicker.
This is the reason Gibson LP lovers go for guitars with long neck tenons.
You create a very efficient transfer point for the sound to spread through the wood.

I don't believe this is entirely correct. Mahogony blocks are not used to transfer vibrations from the strings to the body, but to help transfer vibrations from the body to the pup. Vibrations from the strings are sent to the bridge/saddle/nut, through the body, then through the block to the pup. Yes the pup "picks up" the majority of the vibrations of the string directly through the air, but the block is used to send body/wood vibrations to the pick up, it has nothing to do with the strings having the bulk of its sound between the neck pup and the 12th fret.

I call bs on that theory after having done extensive testing...there's another thread around here that goes into a bit more detail. In a nutshell, there was no audible difference between a direct mounted pickup and a ring mounted pickup in the tests that we did.

I've done the same thing with Floyd Roses.
Flat on the body vs. full floating.
Outcome=Not a difference in the world.

 

[Flump]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

For the exact same reason I said.
The bulk of your string sound comes between the 12th fret and the neck pickup.
If you put a dense piece of wood in that area, it is going to transfer the vibrations quicker into the rest of the body, hence increasing sustain and resonance.
It's just getting the tone from point A to point B quicker.
This is the reason Gibson LP lovers go for guitars with long neck tenons.
You create a very efficient transfer point for the sound to spread through the wood.

I don't believe this is entirely correct. Mahogony blocks are not used to transfer vibrations from the strings to the body, but to help transfer vibrations from the body to the pup. Vibrations from the strings are sent to the bridge/saddle/nut, through the body, then through the block to the pup. Yes the pup "picks up" the majority of the vibrations of the string directly through the air, but the block is used to send body/wood vibrations to the pick up, it has nothing to do with the strings having the bulk of its sound between the neck pup and the 12th fret.

I call bs on that theory after having done extensive testing...there's another thread around here that goes into a bit more detail. In a nutshell, there was no audible difference between a direct mounted pickup and a ring mounted pickup in the tests that we did.

Absolutely its BS. You can't "pick up vibrations through the body". Pickups only pickup metal vibrating. Obviously somebody's thinking is that by mounting the pickups directly to the body that the pickup will vibrate more causing the relative vibrations of the strings to the pickup to be larger which might be true, but not in a measurable way. The pickups mounted to the body MIGHT move an extra couple thousanths of an inch which in comparison to the quarter inch amplitude your low E is moving is jack squat.

 

[jabps]

I've played dozens upon dozens of Lesters of all weights and the one thing I've learned is that there are no rules...there have been winners and dogs across the entire weight range. My current go-to is a fairly heavy '76 Custom (for classic rock and blues...still haven't found the right bridge pickup for classic metal), which is not a highly regarded year, yet it walks all over most others...in fact I only bought it to flip but it ended up being a keeper.

Conversely, I've found that Strat style guitars typically sound much better with lighter bodies, YMMV.

I agree with Rupe here...there are no rules. You can get scientific about this all you want...but at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference and there is no right or wrong in that.

I've owned and played many Lesters in my time and I prefer the ones that are a bit heavier...the 2 I own now sound fantastic (to me) and they are not light. Not back breaking but not light for sure.

In fact I prefer heavier guitars in general. My PRS's have some weight, all the ESP's I owned in years past had some weight. Again, that's my personal preference and I've yet to keep a bad sounding guitar.

 

[nevusofota]

I always thought that the more dense the wood the more efficiently it transferred the sound waves. Similar to how sound waves travel in water vs. air. I'm not a physicist but thats how I looked at it.

You are correct in that assessment.
Heavy, dense wood is more efficient, but has the exact opposite effect on tone.
Heavy wood has less open space in the wood cells.
Think of these cells as microscopic rooms.
The more space inside the wood cells gives you a natural resonance or reverberation.
So in a dense wood the sound travels fast through the wood and does not sustain as long as a piece of wood with space to echo inside.
Think of a chambered body verse a solid body and it's acoustic properties.

so then why do luthiers, to increase sustain, use dense mahogony blocks to mount pickups to (as in my EBMM BFR JP6). with your theory wouldnt they use something less dense, like basswood?

For the exact same reason I said.
The bulk of your string sound comes between the 12th fret and the neck pickup.
If you put a dense piece of wood in that area, it is going to transfer the vibrations quicker into the rest of the body, hence increasing sustain and resonance.
It's just getting the tone from point A to point B quicker.
This is the reason Gibson LP lovers go for guitars with long neck tenons.
You create a very efficient transfer point for the sound to spread through the wood.

I don't believe this is entirely correct. Mahogony blocks are not used to transfer vibrations from the strings to the body, but to help transfer vibrations from the body to the pup. Vibrations from the strings are sent to the bridge/saddle/nut, through the body, then through the block to the pup. Yes the pup "picks up" the majority of the vibrations of the string directly through the air, but the block is used to send body/wood vibrations to the pick up, it has nothing to do with the strings having the bulk of its sound between the neck pup and the 12th fret.

I call bs on that theory after having done extensive testing...there's another thread around here that goes into a bit more detail. In a nutshell, there was no audible difference between a direct mounted pickup and a ring mounted pickup in the tests that we did.

Absolutely its BS. You can't "pick up vibrations through the body". Pickups only pickup metal vibrating. Obviously somebody's thinking is that by mounting the pickups directly to the body that the pickup will vibrate more causing the relative vibrations of the strings to the pickup to be larger which might be true, but not in a measurable way. The pickups mounted to the body MIGHT move an extra couple thousanths of an inch which in comparison to the quarter inch amplitude your low E is moving is jack squat.

However, you can hear sound coming through the amp, especially in high gain situations, when VERY lightly touching the pickup. Also, pickups do act as transducers, under the saddle pickups (pizo's) being a very sensitive example. Can't you hear light taps from your finger on the body, especially when the amp is cranked? This is from vibration from the body to the pick up. Therefore, I don't think it's 100% B.S.

 

[Ancient Alien]

Absolutely its BS. You can't "pick up vibrations through the body". Pickups only pickup metal vibrating. Obviously somebody's thinking is that by mounting the pickups directly to the body that the pickup will vibrate more causing the relative vibrations of the strings to the pickup to be larger which might be true, but not in a measurable way. The pickups mounted to the body MIGHT move an extra couple thousanths of an inch which in comparison to the quarter inch amplitude your low E is moving is jack squat.

OK.
So build a guitar with a LP neck, 2 metal or plastic rails to hold the pickups and bridge simply attached with screws.
Use the same pickups and bridge as in a regular les paul.
I bet they sound the same


That is your theory.
Sorry, but you may need to see a doctor to have your head removed from your dark cavity.