What’s The Deal With Tone Chambers?

In recent years the topic of tone chambers has been a highly debated one. Some feel that a guitar with tone chambers is ‘less’ than having no tone chambers. Fortunately there is a lot of information on why there are tone chambers in the first place, and equally important, what those chambers look like. Tone chambers will be reviewed from two points of view in this blog. Firstly, the history of tone woods will be explored where the conclusion will be the reason to why tone chambers are necessary.
In order to understand tone chambers we must ask ourselves: what are guitars made of? The answer might seem logical and very straightforward, but appearances may be deceiving. Of course the answer is wood. But why? Why didn’t any manufacturer set out to create an instrument with metal as its main component, or perhaps carbon fiber or any other kind of exotic non-organic substance (or organic for that matters, like ivory or bone)? Because most materials we use nowadays weren’t available before the 1930s and because wood was abundantly available for millennia. Metal was available but before there were modern mining and metal crafting techniques, metal was just too expensive to be used for something ‘trivial’ as a musical instrument. Metal was preferably used for weaponry. You can chop down a tree with a metal blade but not with an axe of wood. So when the great pioneers of electric guitars were tinkering on guitars in the 1940s and 1950s, they used wood as their main material and that hasn’t changed until this day. The woods they were able to get ranged from very lightweight, air-dried swamp ash, alder and mahogany to heavier woods like walnut and maple. Differentiation of heavy pieces and lighter pieces was of course present but lighter billets were still abundantly available, so there was no need to pick heavy pieces.
As the years passed by the population grew and the consumption of electric guitars took flight with the advent of rock ‘n roll, rock and later on hard rock and metal. The guitar became the instrument of choice for suburban ‘kid on the block’ as it were, and the demand for guitars grew, and the demand for guitars hasn’t stopped growing to this day.
Unfortunately nature couldn’t keep up with the light woods. Soon the light billets were being used for the more expensive and exclusive guitars and the heavier billets were slated to be used in the cheaper guitars. This was a trend that was set in motion 40 years ago and continues to this day. Soon after the introduction of the heavier woods the demand for lighter guitars became prominent. To combat these complaints some manufacturers re-introduced across their entire lineup the lighter versions of the woods they used to use. Maybe not grown in the USA, but still, the heavy ‘chopping boards of years gone by’ were practically banished.
Another way to deal with heavy wood was to simply hollow it out. What first started as just some holes drilled at random somewhere away from the bridge and pickups evolved in 25 years to complex cavities in the wood, covered up with the classical topping for mahogany, a carved maple cap.
In short, tone chambers are essentially techniques to lower the overall weight of a guitar that’s made with heavy wood. Therein lies the caveat: critical guitar players generally want lightweight guitars and they want their guitars to be solid too because ‘that is how it was done in the golden days’. Human beings are nostalgic by nature. According to the historian John Tosh, nostalgia is one of the most common ways to view the past among the general populace. For the general populace it’s also the most logical way but unfortunately also the worst because nostalgia is by definition a rosy look of the past with no room for a critical view of the past itself. In the context of tone chambers that means: tone chambers are new compared to what was used and hence has to be bad, because if it were any good, it would have been used in those days.
There is something to be said for that argument, of course, but with that mind set a guitar that maybe sounds, plays and looks wonderfully is being dismissed pure on bare specs alone. The other reason that’s been given for tone chambers to be bad is that the wood is so heavy, it has to be bad and that tone chambers are there to ‘liven’ up the guitar (less weight means more vibrations, or so they claim) as a way to mask the bad resonating properties of the wood. This argument can be very strong, under the assumption that every guitar that’s light weight sounds great. Unfortunately low weight is no identifying specification: i.e.: not every lightweight guitar is spectacular. Under that axiom the argument can be symmetrically made that therefore not every heavyweight guitar sounds terrible. Fortunately there are plenty of examples for both cases.

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. I wanted to read and understand this article, but it’s so poory written that I can’t even follow it.

  2. This goes to show that just because an article is 5000 words doesn’t mean anything is actually said.  Can I have my five minutes back or is there going to be a second part to follow with actual substance?

  3. There is a second part, with a tonal review. The structure is chronological, and review simply the reason foe chambering. In the second part I dive deeper into the tonal change. I will fine tune the second part to incorporate your critiques

  4. The weight-savings benefit of tone chambers are obvious. However, numerous claims are made about the effect of tone chambers on tone and dynamics. This is easily quantified experimentally. Take two bodes that are identical, other than one having tone chambers and the other not. Using modern structural dynamics testing procedures, the vibrational characteristics of each body can be measured accurately. These characteristics include the resonant frequencies of the body, the amount of damping associated with each resonant frequency, and the “shape” the body takes when vibrating purely at each one of these resonant frequencies. These “mode shapes” can then be animated on the computer. By comparing these three sets of measured parameters, (1) resonant frequencies (2) damping ratios, and (3) mode shapes, actual dynamic differences between the bodies can be assessed. This testing can be performed over the entire frequency range of the guitar (i.e. lowest to highest notes).
    Furthermore, this process can lead to identifying optimal chambering strategies (assuming the initial testing reveals a difference between the bodies other than simply the weight).

  5. Well that was embarrassingly poorly written. Didn’t really say anything at all, even when it was vaguely comprehensible, which for the most part, it was’t. 

  6. My 2 cents: I’ve mostly played Les Pauls in my life time and the only single one I have owned and found I had to get rid of because it just didn’t feel right was a Classic that had chambers.
    On low volume and low gain it worked fine, the weight distribution was good and it being a tad lighter than other LPs was definitely nice.
    The trouble for me kicked in when volume and gain went up, the guitar seemed to lose tone and the classic kick you get from LPs when you really start to let it rip and a strange sensation that some of the sound was actually leaking from the guitar.
    I have tried some of the heavier and newer LPs with chambers and couldn’t seem to shake the feeling that there was something missing. This is a feeling I havn’t had with studios or even juniors or melody makers.
    Cheers all.

  7. The writer made an excellent point about the circular logic that is often used to condemn chambered guitars. Also, it didn’t seem overly difficult to understand to me. I appreciate the fact that he tried to de-mystify a topic which is often evaluated solely on the basis of prejudice. Most of us will play better music on a good-sounding chambered guitar that is light enough to allow us to play it for hours than we will on a great-sounding unchambered guitar that is so heavy we can only play it for a little while.

  8. I own a ’95 Les Paul Studio and it’s quite heavy (around 5kg, sorry I don’t know the saxon measure system) I don’t think it’s chambered or weight relieved, but not sure…I recently read that Gibson has been chambering or relieving since early ’90s. It definitely sounds thick, heavy, creamy and loud…a few days ago I had the chance to try a ’07 studio and…since the very first moment I hung the guitar on my shoulder I noticed that there was something that just didn’t feel right…it was a lot lighter and that’s something I didn’t like at all…but it felt lighter in a bad way, it seemed a cheap guitar…needless to say that it sounded and played right as it felt…very disappointing. I’m not interested in buying new guitars, I only look for ’80s or ’90s second-hand les pauls, which are quite easy to find and a lot better than the new ones…that’s just my humble opinion.

Leave a comment

Archives

Your Cart