Which one to buy? Chapman ML-7 S or ML-7 T

[Heelerjo]

Hey guys,
i want to buy my first 7 string guitar, so I already spent quite a lot of time on the internet, searching for a good guitar, that has all the features i really want!
So at some point I stumbled across those Chapman 7s and I think they are really amazing: set-neck, hardtail bridge, coil split, simple natural design, natural finish and all that stuff! And they're not too expensive

Has anyone got one of those 2 guitars?
What are they like?

Now I can't decide whether I should go for the mahogany Strat Shape or the Swamp Ash Tele...

I really dig the esthetics of both guitars, although I prefer the looks of black hardware and dark brown mahagony, but I already own a Strat! So I could go for either one...

Now the wood should make a difference in tone... Most of the time I play Metal (Core, or Melodic) or Progressive ( Prog Metal if you like...) or sometimes Blues, so which wood has got the better features for those genres?

I'd really appreciate all the help I can get

Here the Guitars:
ML-7 S | Chapman Guitars

ML-7 T | Chapman Guitars

 

[thedarknightshreds]

Out of pure preference, I would go with the tele. I would kill for an ER tele. Also I've found ash to be awesome sounding and quite light. I built my 8 string, 30 inch scale explorer out of ash and walnut and with a larger body to make things look in proportion it only weighs around 9lbs.
Also I can't stand the headstock of the strat.

Looking forward to seeing a NGD for which ever one you choose!

 

[stevexc]

Realistically, the difference is aesthetic between the two. The T-style has a very modern cutaway so upper fret access is a non-issue.

Don't worry too much about the wood - there's no genre a type of wood is best suited for as the differences (if any) are much more subtle, and both woods have been used for everything from metal to blues successfully (think Les Pauls and superstrats).

I'd grab the Tele - it's a little different from what you'd normally see. Plus you can always refinish it!

 

[Cold Becoming]

Im feeling the ML-7 T a bit more than the ML-7 S. Kind of always wanted an ER tele, and also not sure how much i like the headstock on the ML-7 S.

 

[Bearitone]

Well Rob Chapman and the Captain did a video awhile ago about difference in tone woods and the sound difference between mahogany and swampash was huge when played in the clean channel butt smaller as the gain was cranked. You should definitely watch it.

With that said I say go for the tele

 

[Heelerjo]

Thanks a lot so far!!
I see, a lot of you would probably go for the tele...
But the chrome hardware and the pale colour, i just dont like that! It makes the guitar look so cheap ... this is so hard!
One of you mentioned refinishing it, how would I do that? Its a set neck construction, so where do stop reworking the finish? or just redo the neck as well? And I'd have to get rid of all that chrome stuff, I can't stand it
And that would cost me a lot of money on top!

Btw, the S has got a bigger fretboard radius...

 

[Bearitone]

They're both great and if you like a flatter fretboard and mahogany then i'd go for the S. A LOT of "metal" guitars are made from mahogany, i'm sure you'll be fine. They both look stunning to me. So simple and clean

 

[pantsaregood]

Well Rob Chapman and the Captain did a video awhile ago about difference in tone woods and the sound difference between mahogany and swampash was huge when played in the clean channel butt smaller as the gain was cranked. You should definitely watch it.

With that said I say go for the tele

That video didn't demonstrate anything other than two different guitars sound different when in the hands of different players.

Take note that without changing EQ or settings on a guitar, you can get a huge variation in tone based on pick attack.

Now add in the fact that the same guitar wasn't even being used: the pickups, setup, and hardware are all different. Two pickups of the same model can vary audibly in output and tolerances in potentiometers can be up to +/-20%.

That video was horribly misleading and unscientific. I could just as easily attribute the tone difference between the two guitars to any one of those factors.

When you hear a guitar, can you definitively identify the wood it is made of?

By what mechanism does wood affect tone? Can't be anything like density because there's a huge amount of overlap between wood species there. Other factors present an issue as well, since woods of a given species can vary greatly in structure.

 

[jonsick]

Well, as it happens, I have an MLS-7 for sale! But not to be a spam response, here is my honest response.

I have the strat shape, my counterpart has the tele. The two guitars are pretty much exactly the same bar shape. It's really the eye of the beholder. I prefer strat shapes, plus the strat shape's wood is darker in colour.

But here's why I'm selling mine. It's a great guitar, but I can't deal with the scale length and it's a bit of a weighty beast. If you're a young strapping young lad you won't have a problem with it, but I do.

The 26.5" scale length - I totally get it. It sounds deeper, tighter, the response is just more than a 25.5" or 24 3/4" tuned to B. And especially if you go lower, it's just a given. But it gives me too much of a hand cramp. If it was a 25.5" I would keep it for damned sure.

That said, and I'm really not trying to break any rules, but if you're interested in an ML7-S as new in the Chapman gig bag (which is actually pretty good) with about two hours use on the clock, throw me a PM. I'm sure we can work something out.

 

[Bearitone]

That video didn't demonstrate anything other than two different guitars sound different when in the hands of different players.

Take note that without changing EQ or settings on a guitar, you can get a huge variation in tone based on pick attack.

Now add in the fact that the same guitar wasn't even being used: the pickups, setup, and hardware are all different. Two pickups of the same model can vary audibly in output and tolerances in potentiometers can be up to +/-20%.

That video was horribly misleading and unscientific. I could just as easily attribute the tone difference between the two guitars to any one of those factors.

When you hear a guitar, can you definitively identify the wood it is made of?

By what mechanism does wood affect tone? Can't be anything like density because there's a huge amount of overlap between wood species there. Other factors present an issue as well, since woods of a given species can vary greatly in structure.

I dont know if we are watching the same video. Heres a link

https://youtu.be/OLxE8iDWD_w

They were two identical guitars with identical setup, and hardware. They are using the same strings, the same pick, the same model pickups, and both strumming in the same place. The ONLY difference is the body wood.

About the "+/-20%" difference in potentiometers, where did you get that number from? That sounds way over the top, I've never heard of anything like that. I googled manufacturing tolerances for potentiometers and I'm not finding anything.

How was this video "horribly misleading and unscientific"? How could you possibly get a more unbiased experiment? If it was 12 mohagany guitars and 12 swampash guitars, all with the same hardware etc... and all the swamp ash sounded brighter and all the mahogany sounded darker would that convince you?

People have been stating for years and years and years that swampash is brighter than mahogany. Now we have an unparalleled video that agrees with that, and NO NO NO its probably the pots and the pickup outputs being WAY off. Come on

 

[stevexc]

I dont know if we are watching the same video. Heres a link

https://youtu.be/OLxE8iDWD_w

They were two identical guitars with identical setup, and hardware. They are using the same strings, the same pick, the same model pickups, and both strumming in the same place. The ONLY difference is the body wood.

About the "+/-20%" difference in potentiometers, where did you get that number from? That sounds way over the top, I've never heard of anything like that. I googled manufacturing tolerances for potentiometers and I'm not finding anything.

How was this video "horribly misleading and unscientific"? How could you possibly get a more unbiased experiment? If it was 12 mohagany guitars and 12 swampash guitars, all with the same hardware etc... and all the swamp ash sounded brighter and all the mahogany sounded darker would that convince you?

People have been stating for years and years and years that swampash is brighter than mahogany. Now we have an unparalleled video that agrees with that, and NO NO NO its probably the pots and the pickup outputs being WAY off. Come on

They're using the same model of strings, picks, hardware, etc. but not THE SAME strings, picks, hardware, etc. These are differences that, while assumedly minor, are still differences.

This video shows ONLY that two different yet similar guitars sound different. If the video had them swap two different bodies but keeping everything else consistent, it would show that those two bodies do sound different. If they compared twelve mahogany bodies and twelve swamp ash bodies, then the rest of the characteristics of those bodies would have to be compared - the density, the weight, the moisture content, so on and so forth. If all else is made completely equal and the mahogany bodies consistently sounded darker, THEN you could argue that given a clean tone a chord played on a mahogany guitar will sound darker than a chord played on an otherwise identical swamp ash guitar.

Of course, none of that really matters once you're actually playing anything as with a little bit of EQ you can make the two guitars sound essentially the same.

 

[pantsaregood]

Go pick up any two guitars of the same model. They're guaranteed to sound audibly different.

The experiment is unscientific because nothing is kept constant. Not the player, not the hardware. If you want to prove wood has any effect on tone, wood must be the ONLY variable.

Furthermore, that video has some horrible confirmation bias going on.

Here's a similarly unscientific attempt to "prove" something:

I assert that yellow cars are faster than black cars. Everyone agrees with me and has agreed for ages. I prove this by showing that my yellow car is faster than a colleague's black car of the same make/model. I drive the yellow car and beat the black car driven by my colleague in a race. Therefore, yellow cars are faster than black cars.

Simply put, this argument completely fails to take into consideration any manufacturing tolerances which are completely expected to occur with mechanical parts - it also fails to take into account different drivers. All you've proven is that two different cars driven by two different people go at different speeds.

 

[Bearitone]

Okay. Both of you keep bringing up hardware not being the same. By hardware you do mean tuners, bridge saddles, nut, knobs, and selector switch right? I REALLY doubt if i swapped in 50 different hipshot bridges, all made of the same material in the same factory and the same model that they would sound any different at all. I would contribute that to tuners and all other metal hardware as well. Would I be wrong in assuming this?

Other than that i guess you guys have me beat. From a scientific standpoint i guess this comparison doesn't say much. I stand corrected as far as that.

I guess its just funny how luthiers and manufacturers like Warmoth tend to agree with these general ideas that mahogany is darker, maple is snappier, alder is balanced etc.

I thought for sure if manufacturers and luthiers (and not JUST warmoth by the way) that know every aspect of building guitars, people that have built hundreds and thousands of guitars, and talked with OTHER luthiers and manufactures that had built hundreds and thousands of guitars would probably know what they were talking about when they say "in general" such and such wood sounds a certain way.

 

[jonsick]

I actually have two ESP SV Standards in my arsenal. Same pickups and tuning, they sound different. One has noticeably more high mids than the other. Both sound great, but there is a different.

Same story with the two Jackson KV2s in my arsenal, though both now have different pickups.

 

[pantsaregood]

Two SV standards? Nice. I like the SV body shape more than the standard Rhoads body.

As for conventional wisdom of luthiers? That is, in itself, not particularly good evidence. Their reasons for believing in tonewood vary from financial interests to confirmation bias caused by "that's how it has always been." Some luthiers have argued that the neck and fingerboard wood are actually what matters - there was a builder on Youtube that actually removed the neck from a guitar (left everything else -including strings - intact) and clearly observed no difference in tone.

Also, don't misconstrue this as implying luthiers are inept individuals in any way. They're fantastic at building instruments that have great structural integrity and play well, but they're not experts when it comes to sound physics. I don't claim to be an expert in sound physics, either. Any physics knowledge I have came from my time studying mathematics in university.