experiences with Gibson Les Paul Studio/Studio Lite?
David J. MacKenzie
Does anyone out there have opinions about how the Les Paul Studio
compares with the more expensive models? From the info I've seen, the
main difference seems to be that it doesn't have binding and an
exquisite looking top (i.e., all cosmetic). Does it sound and play
the same as, say, the Custom?
How about the Studio Lite? That's the lightweight one. I'd expect it
to sound different. Anyone tried it?
KENNETH HUGGINS
J. MacKenzie) writes:
I just bought a Les Paul studio less than one year ago and love it. I
to was unsure of the quality of the guitar since the price seemed so
resonable (under $700). I spoke with a salesperson at Pianos n Stuff in
Pittsburgh who informed me as well that the only difference is cosmetic.
I even phoned the Gibson factory to find the same results. Pick up the
Gibson promotional pamphlet at your music store to see the difference.
The pickups, wood,machine heads etc. are the same as the higher priced
Les Pauls. The studios are definately a nice guitar, you won't be
dissapointed. Buy it.
Robert Fries
>
>resonable (under $700). I spoke with a salesperson at Pianos n Stuff in
>Pittsburgh who informed me as well that the only difference is cosmetic.
>I even phoned the Gibson factory to find the same results. Pick up the
>Gibson promotional pamphlet at your music store to see the difference.
>The pickups, wood,machine heads etc. are the same as the higher priced
>Les Pauls. The studios are definately a nice guitar, you won't be
>dissapointed. Buy it.
They're nice guitars, but they're not the same as a 'real' Les Paul.
They have maple necks, and (I THINK) don't have the maple top of a
flametop or goldtop. The ones I've played have been nice, but not
the same ...
Robert
KENNETH HUGGINS
writes:
Robert I must correct you on the Les Paul studio. It does have the
maple top over mohagany body just as the $1200 Les Pauls and the neck is
mohagany with rosewood or ebony. I have spoken with the Gibson factory
about the studios (not studio lites) and they did inform me of the wood
types and aside of headstock inlay and the binding on the neck and body
there is NO difference. Go to the music store and talk to your
salesperson or better yet call the factory.
Dragon
>>In <rfriesD1...@netcom.com> rfr...@netcom.com (Robert Fries)
>>writes:
>>They're nice guitars, but they're not the same as a 'real' Les Paul.
>>They have maple necks, and (I THINK) don't have the maple top of a
>>flametop or goldtop. The ones I've played have been nice, but not
>>the same ...
> Robert I must correct you on the Les Paul studio. It does have the
>maple top over mohagany body just as the $1200 Les Pauls and the neck is
>mohagany with rosewood or ebony. I have spoken with the Gibson factory
>about the studios (not studio lites) and they did inform me of the wood
>types and aside of headstock inlay and the binding on the neck and body
>there is NO difference. Go to the music store and talk to your
>salesperson or better yet call the factory.
Another vote for LP Studios. If you want to try something that's not a
"real" Les Paul, try an Epiphone Les Paul. Now, maybe a recent LP Studio
isn't the same as a 1959 Les Paul Standard, but neither is a 1994 Les Paul
Standard. Look at the side of an LP Studio and you will see the same
composite construction (not composite materials!) as the more expensive ones.
The only thing is that the pickups are 3-wire, not 4-wire, but I'm not
sure that even the newer Standards have 4-wire pickups.
The whole idea of the "studio" line was for guitarists that don't have to
impress each other with bindings, inlays, etc. but just what their guitar
sounds like, as in studio musicians.
--
David Fiedler Internet:da...@infopro.com Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:916/677-5873
USMail:InfoPro Systems/Advanced Media Productions, PO Box 220, Rescue, CA 95672
Send mail with "info mixmasters" in the body to list...@infopro.com if you're
interested in improving your home audio recording and mixing skills...
David J. MacKenzie
> They have maple necks, and (I THINK) don't have the maple top of a
> flametop or goldtop. The ones I've played have been nice, but not
> the same ...
I think you're referring to the Les Paul TV or Junior, which are
budget models that I'm not considering...
Edward A. Oates
: > They're nice guitars, but they're not the same as a 'real' Les Paul.
I own a 1987 LP Studio - black with white binding (top only) and gold
hardware. From a cosmetic point of view, the only difference from a
standard is that the LP Studio has dot inlays on the neck instead of
trapazoids, and the overall finish quality is not as high as my 1992 LP
Standard Natural Maple top with gold hardware. My LP Studio pickups
even have the "Patent Applied For" decal on the pickups.
Differences: the LP Studio is not as heavy as the LP Standard, but
construction appears to be the same. Maybe some more routing of the
innards in the studio. Also, the nut is not as well made as the
standard, so some work was required to adjust it to allow for perfect
intonation. The lighter weight does not permit the same sustain from the
studio, and the pickups were not as hot as the standard.
All in all, the studio was a good deal as my first LP, and current models
may be different - even structurally identical to standards. As another
poster suggested, locate a music professional who knows guitars and
discuss a particular instrument with him/her. Remember, there is a used
market, too, so a new guitar is not your only option.
Ed Oates
(my opinions only)
David J. MacKenzie
price as a new Studio, and this Custom sounds much better to me than
the new Studio and Standard I tried, so I got it. It has similar
cosmetics -- black with gold hardware, which is what I wanted. Thanks
to all the people who gave recommendations! I hope others find them
useful. They were good to keep in mind during my shopping trips!
Brian Dupuis
Add yet another vote for the Studio. I got one earlier this
year (umm... 1994 8-]) as a backup guitar. It's grown on me more
and more as the time goes by, and I find that the sound is every bit as
good as a Standard. I didn't need to spend the extra money on binding
and flame; I needed a solid, fixed bridge backup, and I have always loved
Les Pauls. No complaints whatsoever. Would I prefer to have a Standard
or other more premium Les Paul? Yes, but purely for the cosmetics. I
feel that the studio is every bit as fine a playing instrument as the
Standard. And it looks pretty good in white w/ gold hardware, too.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brian J. Dupuis Federal Systems Division |
| Intergraph Corporation Command & Control |
| Phone - (205)730-1548 / Bld. 15 Rm 111C |
| Mailpath - bjdu...@ingr.com / Snail - IW1510 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| For the humor impaired: #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David J. MacKenzie
> instead of a mahogany neck and rosewood fingerboard found on standard LP's.
> Wouldn't this affect the sound?
Yes, but the Custom also has an ebony fingerboard (not sure about the
neck).
KENNETH HUGGINS
MacKenzie) writes:
The Gibson Studio guitars have a MAHOGANY NECK. This has already been
extensively disscussed. Go back and look at the previous headings. This
is getting old.
USENET Special Account <usenet>
>In <DJM.94De...@catapult.va.pubnix.com> d...@va.pubnix.com (David
>>
>>Does anyone out there have opinions about how the Les Paul Studio
>>compares with the more expensive models? From the info I've seen, the
>>main difference seems to be that it doesn't have binding and an
>>exquisite looking top (i.e., all cosmetic).
>
>I even phoned the Gibson factory to find the same results. Pick up the
>Gibson promotional pamphlet at your music store to see the difference.
>The pickups, wood,machine heads etc. are the same as the higher priced
>Les Pauls.
I remember reading that the Studio has a maple neck with ebony fingerboard
instead of a mahogany neck and rosewood fingerboard found on standard LP's.
Wouldn't this affect the sound?
jc