Gibson Ultra Modern Weight Relief

Lerxst

Lerxst

spaghetti and blankets
I was checking out the 2017 line up of LPs and noticed they are selling three different body options; no weight relief, 9 hole weight relief and ultra modern weight relief.

ultra modern:
2017-weight-relief.jpg

http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Gibson-2017-New-Model-Preview.aspx

When do you cross the line from weight relief into chambered body?
 
I know this technique is something they've been doing for several years.
Here's the 9 hole to the left of the ultra modern for comparison:
ris._9_0.jpg


I guess the thing I don't get is that Gibson consistently maintains that there's no real tone difference between the non-weight relieved and the 9 hole or ultra modern, just how much the guitar weighs. Which of course runs contrary to the weight=mojo argument that most old timer LP guys make.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Been that way since 2008. The luddites rebelled though, and that's why there's a "traditional" line.
Click to expand...
I don't mind the weight relieving as long as it doesn't adversely affect tone. If I wanted a thinline I'd get a Tele. What bothers me is how much slop they allow for in the neck joint these days.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Been that way since 2008. The luddites rebelled though, and that's why there's a "traditional" line.
Click to expand...
So that's the difference with the new Traditional line...no weight relief?
Mine is a 2012 Standard so I'd assume it has the relief as shown in the Standard pic above, but I'm not 100% sure. I do know that my 2008(?) Studio weighs considerably more than my Standard.
 
If weight makes a difference in the mojo, then 335's are the most non-mojo guitars out there. And we all know that isn't true :embarrassed:
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Been that way since 2008. The luddites rebelled though, and that's why there's a "traditional" line.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting thing; looking at guitars on sweetwater where they list the weight of each guitar in the showcase, the classic 9-holes range from 9lbs - 10lbs, the traditionals w/ no weight relief also run 9-10lbs & the standards w/ the ultra modern are running low 8s to 9lbs. The classics and trads are running the same weight on average.
 
gtrjunior said:
So that's the difference with the new Traditional line...no weight relief?
Mine is a 2012 Standard so I'd assume it has the relief as shown in the Standard pic above, but I'm not 100% sure. I do know that my 2008(?) Studio weighs considerably more than my Standard.
Click to expand...

Your 08 Studio has the Swiss cheese. Your Standard has the modern. Though, if it's a standard traditional, it has the cheese.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Been that way since 2008. The luddites rebelled though, and that's why there's a "traditional" line.
Click to expand...

The traditional is also less expensive. Partly because the finish isn’t as nice, but you’re also not paying for the hours of CNC time it takes to carve those chambers.
 
So what I wonder is if you've played some of all these examples, are there sonic differences between the unrelieved and weight relieved guitars outside of the usual varriance between guitars. I suppose if the trads & classics hit the same weight that would imply either the 9 holes don't do much of anything or they are sorting body blanks by weight for the trads.
 
jp_nyc said:
The traditional is also less expensive. Partly because the finish isn’t as nice, but you’re also not paying for the hours of CNC time it takes to carve those chambers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was wondering just why they were less expensive...
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Your 08 Studio has the Swiss cheese. Your Standard has the modern. Though, if it's a standard traditional, it has the cheese.
Click to expand...
My Standard is the Premium Plus model....not sure if that's traditional or if the traditional you're refering to is the current newer models they are calling traditional....
 
I have a 2008 LP that is chambered even more than the 9 hole model. It also has a set neck with a crazy top loaded neck tenon. It sounds and plays great. It doesn't sound significantly different than my old 80's LP with a non-weight relieved body. When I was shopping for this guitar I played a ton of traditional hole weight relived guitars and some solid guitars and the shoulder weight feel was more of an issue than the sound. They all sounded like a Les Paul. I guess this stuff matters to some people, but I am not one of them. My LP has been played by a lot of people, and most have commented it is a great sounding LP. No one ever commented that it was chambered.
Chambered-Weight-Relief-LP.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
So what I wonder is if you've played some of all these examples, are there sonic differences between the unrelieved and weight relieved guitars outside of the usual varriance between guitars.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But I doubt anyone but Gibson has ever had the motivation and resources to test this, and Gibson doesn’t publish their research.
 
Tiltsta said:
I have a 2008 LP that is chambered even more than the 9 hole model. It also has a set neck with a crazy top loaded neck tenon. It sounds and plays great. It doesn't sound significantly different than my old 80's LP with a non-weight relieved body. When I was shopping for this guitar I played a ton of traditional hole weight relived guitars and some solid guitars and the shoulder weight feel was more of an issue than the sound. They all sounded like a Les Paul. I guess this stuff matters to some people, but I am not one of them. My LP has been played by a lot of people, and most have commented it is a great sounding LP. No one ever commented that it was chambered.
Chambered-Weight-Relief-LP.jpg
Click to expand...
A buddy of mine has a fully chambered Les Paul too. And it sounds killer. I had no idea it was chambered until I picked it up one day.
 
Dexter Inferno said:
That neck joint/pocket. :messedup:
Click to expand...

On my picture? It is a weird shaped pocket that locks the neck into the body. Here is a pic of the body with a top on it and the neck that fits in the hole. I think it is easy to see how this is different than the rocker joint ultra short tenon used on a lot of gibsons. I have no idea why they didn't keep this tenon design, as it seems to solve a number of problems of some of their other designs (neck angle, lack of contact surface and energy transfer, reproducibility from guitar to guitar) with some good CNC machining. As far as I know they discontinued this design in 2009 and went back to the long tenon. I guess the guitar forum purists liked the old system better because LES PAUL. In the first pic in this thread it looks like they are doing something in between the long neck tenon and the weird shaped tenon, but less complex than the 2008.5 version.

trad_tenon.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tiltsta said:
On my picture? It is a weird shaped pocket that locks the neck into the body. Here is a pic of the body with a top on it and the neck that fits in the hole. I think it is easy to see how this is different than the rocker joint ultra short tenon used on a lot of gibsons. I have no idea why they didn't keep this tenon design, as it seems to solve a number of problems of some of their other designs (neck angle, lack of contact surface and energy transfer, reproducibility from guitar to guitar) with some good CNC machining. As far as I know they discontinued this design in 2009 and went back to the long tenon. I guess the guitar forum purists liked the old system better because LES PAUL. In the first pic in this thread it looks like they are doing something in between the long neck tenon and the weird shaped tenon, but less complex than the 2008.5 version.

trad_tenon.jpg
Click to expand...


I was referring to the ultra short rocker joint, which I really don't like the idea of.
Then again, it is Gibson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top