Author Topic: LP Studio vs Standard (Read 3306 times)

MrBump · « **on:** February 27, 2008, 09:43:22 PM »

Potentially dumb question here...

What are the main differences between the LP Standard and the Studio? Is it just aesthetics, is the Standard heavier, better quality parts?

Do they sound very different?

PS - this is the main reason for me asking... http://www.coda-music.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=3097&oscsid=82c2da239c0bf10341ec6be13ef90f40

ilÿti · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2008, 09:53:40 PM »

The studio has the fat 50s neck profile, which puts some people off. The pickups are the 498T/490R set, the standard has burstbuckers. Also, I've heard that the body is slightly smaller on a studio but it's not something I'd notice unless I had both guitars by me at the same time. And with Gibson, it's very difficult to find a good one of each model for comparing.

The one in the link is a "faded" model of the studio. I've seen it in stores, but oddly not on the Gibson website.

blue · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2008, 10:02:30 PM »

that studio looks gorgeous, and that's a rather attractive price! dangerously close to Epiphone price range.

MrBump · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2008, 10:06:55 PM »

Quote from: blue

...and that's a rather attractive price! dangerously close to Epiphone price range.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It DOES look good... my mate has a cherry one and it sounds great.

Really tempted by the price...

I'm looking at the Studio, and the PRS SEs on that site too, and thinking that they probably sound pretty good.

mikeluke · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2008, 10:22:57 PM »

I've had one of those Studios and what I would say is that there is a lot of variation in terms of the quality control.... It took me 3 goes to find a guitar and case that were in acceptable condition. Also the fingerboards were quite roughly finished. You might find that it would need a fret dress and good set up to get it sorted!

gwEm · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2008, 11:10:49 PM »

apparantly studios had the same body thickness until some point in the 90s when they became thinner. and obviously binding etc etc.

LazyNinja · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2008, 11:28:28 PM »

Quote from: ilyti

The studio has the fat 50s neck profile, which puts some people off.

Nah not all of them mine has a medium D neck. Very comfortable not too big not too small. Compared to my mate's Tokai it's tiny.

Scotty477 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2008, 01:00:43 AM »

As far as overall tone is concerned there wont be that much difference between a studio and a Standard.

At that price it looks to be a really attractive offer.

Mr Ed · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2008, 01:45:05 PM »

I've played a couple of LP Studios, they are not nice guitars. They feel cheaper, not like a real LP.

For the same money you can get a much higher quality guitar, better build quality, better components and you won't end up paying just for the writing on the headstock.

Fernandes Monterey/Ravelle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gibson Les Paul Studio

ilÿti · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2008, 02:20:58 PM »

Quote from: Mr Ed

I've played a couple of LP Studios, they are not nice guitars. They feel cheaper, not like a real LP.

For the same money you can get a much higher quality guitar, better build quality, better components and you won't end up paying just for the writing on the headstock.

Fernandes Monterey/Ravelle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gibson Les Paul Studio

You really can never know with Gibson. You can play ten that are inferior to most Epiphone, then find one that plays better than a PRS (IMO). I have an LP Studio and it's my favourite guitar. Never played one that felt better.

Jonny · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2008, 04:07:44 PM »

I picked up (sadly that doesn't mean purchased) a Les Paul Studio, Worn Cherry today and it was amaaaaazing. Better than the Standard that I tried too.

The Custom at the top rack was beautiful. But I couldn't get it down and I had to go.

But yes, for me it would be a Les Paul Studio. And I think they only differ with looks, i.e. binding, etc.

Will · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2008, 04:33:27 PM »

Quote from: MrBump

I'm looking at the Studio, and the PRS SEs on that site too, and thinking that they probably sound pretty good.

Tried an SE the other week, honestly could not understand what all the fuss was about, didn't have the right vibe for me atleast.
I would prefer my XR 1 (1981-83 predecessor to the studio) any day

QS-Nalle · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2008, 06:04:41 PM »

Not really answering your question, but if you're after Les Paul tone but you want a cheaper guitar that is WAY better made check out the SG models by Yamaha, Fantastic build quality and prices start at about Gibbo studio prices...
And the gibbo doesn't stand a chance when it comes to build quality. Just my 2 cents........ obviously you would have to put BKP's in either one ;)

MrBump · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:41:19 PM »

Quote from: QS-Nalle

Not really answering your question, but if you're after Les Paul tone but you want a cheaper guitar that is WAY better made check out the SG models by Yamaha, Fantastic build quality and prices start at about Gibbo studio prices...
And the gibbo doesn't stand a chance when it comes to build quality. Just my 2 cents........ obviously you would have to put BKP's in either one ;)

Yeah, I LOVE those, but they're still quite expensive, I think (over a grand anyway).

QS-Nalle · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:50:33 PM »

I think Santana should have stuck with Yamaha and not switch to stupidly overpriced PRS, better guitar too in my opinion.