Chambered or not chambered ...

hotpickups

that is the question

Apart from the obvious weight difference are there any other benefits from chambered guitars ?

Elwood

Some people say that it improves resonance:

Jack_

Telling everyone you have a heavy Les Paul that's not chambered, makes you look hard.

Like, I wouldn't wanna bump into that guy down a dark alley, he gigs an unchambered Les Paul every night.

guitars4you

question can be phrased in 2 ways 

Chambered when comparing say a solid LP v a chambered LP - what has historically been a sold bodied model, but now many examples exist of a chambered format for whatever reason - many will side on the choice of solid

Or are we talking about a guitar that is designed to be chambered - many examples - not least by  a selection of today's boutique builders - Models like the original Fender Flame/Esprit, as used by Robben Ford in the 80's are meant to be chambered - As such if the guitar is designed from day one to be chambered, then can you compare the 2 formats  ? -  Yes they are different but not necessarily better

Chambered guitar will be lighter - or should be - and generally less fat mids - more open/airy and more transparent 

mbe

guitars4you 

Chambered guitar will be lighter - or should be - and generally less fat mids - more open/airy and more transparent 

So body wood affects tone..(runs for cover)

p90fool

mbe said:

guitars4you 

Chambered guitar will be lighter - or should be - and generally less fat mids - more open/airy and more transparent 

So body wood affects tone..(runs for cover)

Lack of body wood undeniably affects tone, whatever the species. 

mbe

p90fool said:

mbe said:

guitars4you 

Chambered guitar will be lighter - or should be - and generally less fat mids - more open/airy and more transparent 

So body wood affects tone..(runs for cover)

Lack of body wood undeniably affects time, whatever the species. 

Ah yes, the space/time continuum in the void chambers. I see what you did there.

p90fool

I like some chambered guitars, the old Guild Bluesbirds in particular, but I prefer solid Les Pauls, because that's what makes them respond the way they do. 

If I wanted the attack and note drop-off of a chambered guitar I'd buy something a bit more ergonomic than a Les Paul.

Gibson Midtowns are fantastic, easier to play and half the price.

guitars4you

Thought about this again - no real clear cut answer as to which is best

I played a 70's LP Custom yesterday that is solid but will never be a good guitar - it could be made better with a good refret, pick-ups and loom - but it is not  good guitar - Yet I also played a chambered R58 replica which IMO walks all over the 70's LP Custom - However many will say they prefer the tone of a solid R8 v a chambered R8 - so are we comparing apples to apples, same type of apple at that, or apples to pears

However to be fair the question at the start of the OP is are there any benefits in chambered - apart from weight - the only real other difference apart from weight will be regarding the voice - But that is a matter of taste - Anderson, amongst others do many chambered 'Strat/Tele' flavoured models utilising alder, ash and even mahogany - some with a maple cap as well - so all will have a slightly different tonal character - Some will favour one over the other but all do sell

Better builders on FB than me - but I believe how it is chambered, or where it is chambered, will also have an impact on the voice - Chambered wings but solid centre core, or chambered within the centre core, or chambered below the tailpiece, hence the foot of the guitar - I believe Collings amongst others have offered 'chambered' holes within the centre core on certain models for a while - Not for weight but for a voice

Like many aspect of the guitar - each part/ingredient has an impact on the finer nuances of the guitars voice

WezV

guitars4you said:

Better builders on FB than me - but I believe how it is chambered, or where it is chambered, will also have an impact on the voice - Chambered wings but solid centre core, or chambered within the centre core, or chambered below the tailpiece, hence the foot of the guitar - I believe Collings amongst others have offered 'chambered' holes within the centre core on certain models for a while - Not for weight but for a voice

it comes down to the body structure.  compare the gibson styles



Chambering like the first one changes the body structure in a dramatic way.  it will loose stiffness and resonate in a very different way to a solid body

The traditional weight relief keeps most of the stiffness intact, so its impact on resonance is minimal.  It will still sound quite  direct when compared with an equivalent chambered guitar. ... but as far as weight relief goes, it doesn't do enough.  it won't make a heavy guitar light

The modern weight relief is the happy medium between the two..  Its a more efficient version of weight relief and still sounds mostly like a solid body, but it won't be as direct as the solid body or 9-hole version.   Its close to what many other companies call chambered

mark123

solid all the way 
gibson lie about chambered being the same for sustain
people will say 50s les pauls were still light but guess what ?they were solid body light weight not chambered light weight
BIG difference
....puts tin hat on......

octatonic

mbe said:

guitars4you 

Chambered guitar will be lighter - or should be - and generally less fat mids - more open/airy and more transparent 

So body wood affects tone..(runs for cover)

Body mass affects tone, certainly.
Whether all examples of a particular wood species has a repeatable effect on tone is rather debatable (as has been played out in many threads over the years).

HAL9000

hotpickups said:

that is the question

...benefits from chambered guitars ?

Hang a Les Paul around your neck for a couple of hours - I’m sure you’re think of something.

octatonic

Personally I like light Strats and heavy Les Pauls.
That I gig mostly with Strat type guitars and record with Les Paul type guitars does play into that somewhat.

hotpickups

HAL9000 said:

hotpickups said:

that is the question

...benefits from chambered guitars ?

Hang a Les Paul around your neck for a couple of hours - I’m sure you’re think of something.

I do have a les Paul and yes I do realise the weight which is why I asked the question but I was wondering if they're are any other benefits with chambered other than weight relief. More resonant has been mentioned

HAL9000

hotpickups said:

HAL9000 said:

hotpickups said:

that is the question

...benefits from chambered guitars ?

Hang a Les Paul around your neck for a couple of hours - I’m sure you’re think of something.

I do have a les Paul and yes I do realise the weight which is why I asked the question but I was wondering if they're are any other benefits with chambered other than weight relief. More resonant has been mentioned

Sorry. Cheap joke on my part. However, I’d agree with the resonance thing. I don’t own a Les Paul. However, my thinline Tele is a definitely very different in tone to my solid-body Tele. More nasal, more mellow, and  less highs. Can be a bit prone to feedback though.

Rocker

It is not only Gibson Les Pauls that are chambered. My Anderson drop top is chambered - it feels more alive (resonant?) than any other guitar on my rack.

octatonic

Rocker said:

It is not only Gibson Les Pauls that are chambered. My Anderson drop top is chambered - it feels more alive (resonant?) than any other guitar on my rack.

I've had several hollow drop tops and now have a couple of Anderson solids (actually classics)- I much prefer the solids.
Vive la difference.

hotpickups

Well I'll let you know where I'm at. I have commissioned a guitar build this weekend. My choice was for it to be chambered rather than solid due to weight and I ain't getting any younger etc. My fear I am thinking am I forsaking something by going this route purely for weight issues. Or maybe I'm gaining something better with chambering? I'm at a stage that I can choose either route at the moment. Once the cutting and routing has begun though I am committed to it so feeling a little nervous

By the way I'm not a high gain player or anything – Old school rock/blues at the very most  

Jock68

Most guitarists cannot tell the difference, they think they can but there are to many variables to define what our ears hear.  I have two Japanese Les Paul's and they weigh just over one pound difference in weight and they sound different and both have weight relief, not the Gibson type.   You give a guitarist a well made LP that weighs just over 8 lbs and they will not know if it is weight relieved or not.  A blindfold test would prove this out.

octatonic

hotpickups said:

Well I'll let you know where I'm at. I have commissioned a guitar build this weekend. My choice was for it to be chambered rather than solid due to weight and I ain't getting any younger etc. My fear is I am thinking I am forsaking something by going this route purely for weight issues. Or maybe I'm gaining something better with chambering? I'm at a stage that I can choose either route at the moment. Once the cutting and routing has begun though I am committed to it so feeling a little nervous

By the way I'm not a high gain player or anything – Old school rock/blues at the very most  

Unfortunately it isn't so simple.

You cannot say whether a chambering a particular guitar will be better or worse unless you do it and compare to the unchambered version, which is of course impossible because you cannot build a guitar twice.

Have you considered making it semi-hollow, rather than chambered?
My personal opinion is semi-hollow trumps chambered in most circumstances.
YMMV.