DavesNotHere Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 1988 H-162 7.0 lbs ( Poodle is around 50 lbs) 1986 Stat 8.8 lbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 one reason Heritage 150 guitars may be slightly heavy is the way they route ( or actually don't route ) for the internal wiring if you look at a Gibson Les Paul, they route the mahagony before the maple cap is added: there is a substantial amount of wood they remove, if you look at it. almost a 2" square channel across the body Heritage uses a long drill bit to drill thru the body instead, from the control cavity.....similar to how they did Les Paul Customs in the '50's I believe...the hole is much smaller & doesn't remove nearly as much wood '50's LPC's didn't have a cap, they were solid mahagony I prefer the Heritage method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wesmo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 one reason Heritage 150 guitars may be slightly heavy is the way they route ( or actually don't route ) for the internal wiring I prefer the Heritage method Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 well, when I buy a solid body guitar, I expect it to be a solid piece of wood, as much as possible.... gouging a massive trench through the body to simply facilitate the wiring is a waste of wood IMO, and reeks of generic assembly line production vs artisan whether it affects the sound is kind of moot, I don't know if anyone could tell the difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitfiddler Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 well, when I buy a solid body guitar, I expect it to be a solid piece of wood, as much as possible.... gouging a massive trench through the body to simply facilitate the wiring is a waste of wood IMO, and reeks of generic assembly line production vs artisan whether it affects the sound is kind of moot, I don't know if anyone could tell the difference All of these wood carving variances between manufacturers seem to put a whole new wrinkle in the guitar weight issue, especially for cork-sniffing guitar collector types. And since Heritage carves out less wood from there 150/157 vs LP's, could that be an important element in how sweet Heritage tones are? Nothing against Gibby, but it just one more thing that Ren and the boys at Parsons Street put some thought to. And don't get me started on the chambering, tonally carved, etc. discussion. Oye Vay! Just play the darned gitfiddle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jayce Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 weight has no bearing on the how good a guitar sounds. It takes the average guitarist about 20 years to accept this for some reason. This topic is like politics. it's always going to be around with out any agreement. ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 weight has no bearing on the how good a guitar sounds. It takes the average guitarist about 20 years to accept this for some reason. This topic is like politics. it's always going to be around with out any agreement. ever! probably not, Im not going to argue the point. Its just that I continually pick heavier guitars of any model as guitars for myself. It sucks. Right now Im enjoying playing a light weight Epi WildKat. Its lighter than my other guitars but I dont know if its light for an Epi WildKat. But its a light guitar compared to my others and it sounds great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wesmo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There will always be the need for *some* routing in solid body guitars, unless we want to see the electric components mounted on the outside of the slab of solid wood. Wouldn't that be pretty? While I do agree with Bolero that there is probably no human on the plant that could detect a tonal difference between similar guitars with one being routed for a wiring path and the other being drilled out, I find his depiction of "gouging a massive trench through the body" to be a bit over the top. The jayce claims that "weight has no bearing on how good a guitar sounds". I too believe this to be a true generalization, except when individualized. There will most certainly be a difference in sound/tone from one Lester or H150 to another with a 1.5 to 2 lb weight differential due to the mahog. However, different does not necessarily mean better. The exception is, to an individual who prefers the tone from the heavier guitar over the lighter guitar, to that individual, heavier guitars sound "better" to his personal taste. At least in that particular case. On a stage, through a cranked Twin or Marshall, NO ONE will be able to accurately identify which H150 or Lester was routed for a wiring path and which was drilled, or which guitar is chambered and which is not. I personally assess each guitar purely on its own merits and by its own set of attributes. The weight is only one of a bazillion factors contributing to the overall tone/sound of a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 guilty, I exaggerated....truthfully, you could not fit a platoon of WW1 soldiers in there!! ...maybe a rat though ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredZepp Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 weight has no bearing on the how good a guitar sounds. It takes the average guitarist about 20 years to accept this for some reason. This topic is like politics. it's always going to be around with out any agreement. ever! If the idea is that the density of the wood plays a zero factor in the resonance/transfer of sound frequencies , I can't agree with that... and I've been playing for double the 20 years. That would suggest that the type of wood doesn't make any difference at all in how the guitar sounds. But it doesn't say that one is better or worse... but different to some degree, yes. Comfort of playing the guitar is a factor where weight is often considered also, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 weight has no bearing on the how good a guitar sounds. It takes the average guitarist about 20 years to accept this for some reason. This topic is like politics. it's always going to be around with out any agreement. ever! Yep, and I will have to say that I disagree with you. If you play a 6lb Tele and a 10lb Tele their will be generalizations that usually hold true. When I ordered my Heritages from the factory and spoke with Ren about weight & weight limits, he spoke about the guitar's weight and it's likely tone response. Alex Skolnick wants everyone of his personal 150s to be over 10lbs.... for his personal tone differences. If weight has no bearing on tone, why does a semi-hollow, weight-relieved, and chambered guitar all sound different?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jayce Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 probably not, Im not going to argue the point. Its just that I continually pick heavier guitars of any model as guitars for myself. It sucks. Right now Im enjoying playing a light weight Epi WildKat. Its lighter than my other guitars but I dont know if its light for an Epi WildKat. But its a light guitar compared to my others and it sounds great. yeah, i played a chambered les paul awhile back and it sounded awsome and didnt break my shoulder after 5 minutes. I too have some heavy beasts of guitars and i find myself dreading to strap em on, but i sure love playing them. But as far as sound goes a chambered feather weight les paul sounds as good as it's solid 11 pound custom counter part. I hope folks dont really making a buying decision based on this type of myth, because thier missing out if they do. The weight myth should be filed in right there with the tooth fairy and santa clause. It's just rediculous and a farce........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitfiddler Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Topics such as this go on forever. And where is the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to push one point of view over the other?? If anyone knows of a scientific study, please chime in. Otherwise we just continue to toss out our personal views. I for one would like to know the answer to the weight=tone question. Anyone? Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HRB853370 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Yep, and I will have to say that I disagree with you. If you play a 6lb Tele and a 10lb Tele their will be generalizations that usually hold true. When I ordered my Heritages from the factory and spoke with Ren about weight & weight limits, he spoke about the guitar's weight and it's likely tone response. Alex Skolnick wants everyone of his personal 150s to be over 10lbs.... for his personal tone differences. If weight has no bearing on tone, why does a semi-hollow, weight-relieved, and chambered guitar all sound different?? It may be or not be the weight that is causing the differences. The 58-60 Les Pauls were generally not the heaviest Les Pauls. Yet, people swear they sound better than anything ever made, before and after those years. I really believe when it comes to this weight=tone discussion, perception is reality. If you think your 8 lb Heritage sounds as good or better than your 12 lb Heritage (or Gibson LP, whatever), than thats good for you! I have an 11.6 lb 150 and I also have a lightweight 150. Both have incredibly good sustain and tone. The major differences between the two is that they each have different pups. Why get hung up on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxdx99 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Topics such as this go on forever. And where is the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to push one point of view over the other?? If anyone knows of a scientific study, please chime in. Otherwise we just continue to toss out our personal views. I for one would like to know the answer to the weight=tone question. Anyone? Bueller? Just completed an experiment, with calibrated control groups, and the results are beyond reproach: Findings: heavier guitars weigh more than lighter ones. Can take that to the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Just completed an experiment, with calibrated control groups, and the results are beyond reproach: Findings: heavier guitars weigh more than lighter ones. Can take that to the bank. heh funny: I remember a time when everybody ONLY wanted heavy guitars....and were also putting brass hardware anyplace they could think. even burying plates in the wood!! convention lately has been chasing the mythical '59 les paul specs though ...as much as I like vintage Gibson's, I would put any of my Heritages up against a real '59 Les Paul anyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gitfiddler Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Just completed an experiment, with calibrated control groups, and the results are beyond reproach: Findings: heavier guitars weigh more than lighter ones. Can take that to the bank. Ha-ha-ha! Good one, FX! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wesmo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Just completed an experiment, with calibrated control groups, and the results are beyond reproach: Findings: heavier guitars weigh more than lighter ones. Can take that to the bank. Yeah, well, maybe yes and maybe no. Are you refering to heavy guitars as in the late '60s vernacular, "oh wow man, that a really heavy guitar . . .. heaveeeeee". Or are you refering to heavy as in "holy shit man, my shoulder is killing me from carrying this monster all night". And for the light guitar, are you refering to light as in, light green, light red, light yellow, light pink. Or are you refering to light as in, "now, this is why I play an SG". (You'll have to excuse me, just wanted to keep the nonesense going.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 ...light pink. I think you mean salmon, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wesmo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I think you mean salmon, don't you? You're merciless! It's a good thing some people with pink guitar have thick skin. But, to your point, it is salmon . . . . albeit on the pinkish side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 You're merciless! It's a good thing some people with pink guitar have thick skin. But, to your point, it is salmon . . . . albeit on the pinkish side Nope, much to my dismay the "salmon" has fade to "creamsicle"! Trust me, the Kirn is no longer pink or salmon..... But still bada$$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 ...as much as I like vintage Gibson's, I would put any of my Heritages up against a real '59 Les Paul anyday +1 Amen Brother!!! These people swearing that every vintage axe ( or even most vintage guitars) are superior to today's Heritages.... Well, this is where guys are snorting the pixie dust. I have owned my share of vintage guitars, and most are nothing special to today's fine crafted guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 yeah, i played a chambered les paul awhile back and it sounded awsome and didnt break my shoulder after 5 minutes. I too have some heavy beasts of guitars and i find myself dreading to strap em on, but i sure love playing them. But as far as sound goes a chambered feather weight les paul sounds as good as it's solid 11 pound custom counter part. I hope folks dont really making a buying decision based on this type of myth, because thier missing out if they do. The weight myth should be filed in right there with the tooth fairy and santa clause. It's just rediculous and a farce........ To MY ears, there's a big difference in tone between chambered and solid guitars. Some claim there is no difference between pickups, I would direct them to the thread I started in the amp section with sound clips. If people can't hear a difference........ http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/topic/16038-tweed-deluxe-150-shoot-out/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 yeah, i played a chambered les paul awhile back and it sounded awsome and didnt break my shoulder after 5 minutes. I too have some heavy beasts of guitars and i find myself dreading to strap em on, but i sure love playing them. But as far as sound goes a chambered feather weight les paul sounds as good as it's solid 11 pound custom counter part. I hope folks dont really making a buying decision based on this type of myth, because thier missing out if they do. The weight myth should be filed in right there with the tooth fairy and santa clause. It's just rediculous and a farce........ Jayce, I value YOUR opinion, but it is very much in the minority. In addition to the boys at Heritage, Ludlow Guitars offered this quote from their web site.... "Eliminating the quality issues, which reputable makers have done in recent years, there do tend to be some consistent sonic characteristics of lighter and heavier guitars. With all else being equal (and we know that this is never the case) lighter guitars will tend to sound more open, percussive, and somewhat scooped in the midrange, with more bell-like highs. Heavier guitars will tend to have a thicker midrange, chunkier lows, and the high end seems to peak at somewhat lower frequencies. We have seen it written, by people who should know better, that a lighter body absorbs more string vibration and this translates into resonance within the wood itself, while a heavier guitar body doesn’t get moving as much from the energy coming from the strings, so the strings themselves retain more of the motion. Mostly this is nonsense, and any decent physicist will be able to explain it to you (unfortunately we did not have one on hand when this was being written). But it really doesn’t matter what the underlying cause of the differences are, they do exist. (N.B. if you are interested in the sustain of an instrument then strum it acoustically and feel the vibrations in the body die away by grasping the edge of guitar body in one hand. You can do this at various points around the guitar. Then strum the guitar and hold it against your ear, waiting for the sound to die away completely. If you are a real geek you can get your stop watch out. Then do the same test with another guitar. You will get a real sense of how the different instruments hang on to their sound in different ways.)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wesmo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Kuz, you can forget your friends at Ludlow Guitars and "the boys" at Heritage and this guy at Kirn and all the physicists and virtually every one else other than your own ear. When it come to wood, there are no certaintes. There are still, as of yet, undefinable differences. Anyone who tells you otherwise is merely speaking in generalities. As I've said before, the ones who truly had it figured out are no longer with us. All the rest are just guessing and opining. Trust only your own discerning ear. Doubt everything else that you hear and read. Creamsicle huh??? OK. I'll go along with that, only because you're a friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.