Difference in sound between a Matt finish and a gloss finish?

powerbob247

New member
Would like to know the difference between a matt finished Yamaha acoustic and a gloss finish as this appears to be the only difference between the FG700MS and the FG720S models im thinking of buying. The guitars are identical as far as i no apart from that difference and the difference in price is £80, so far ive heard the difference in sound is minimal but the difference in age -ing and sustain is better for a gloss finish, adds better protection.

Many thanks
 
I wouldn't worry about the finish and the effect it has on tone. There are too many other variables to consider only the finish.

Take yourself off to a store where you can compare them side by side and judge for yourself whether the extra 80 quid is worth it. As you say there is practically no difference other than the finish. Same timbers same size etc.. Also if you can take some one with you who can play them so you can hear them out front. You'll possibly find quite a difference in playability and sound at that end of the market so take your time. Enjoy..
 
I'm gonna have to go a different way than Mutt did, on this one- yeah, yeah, I know, I know, he's the resident expert on all things guitar building, but he missed the boat on this one. He didn't say the difference was inconsequential, but he didn't directly address the question, either. And know, I am not shooting from the hip on this- I do know a thing or two about both refinishing and guitars.

Here's the thing- in order to get a high-gloss finish, one needs to put on more material. Try it yourself- get ANY rattle-can of a gloss finish- gloss black enamel will work well- and lay down a very light coat, then let it dry. If you really put it on light (a "dusting" coat illustrates the point best,) no matter how "high gloss" the material is, it will be matt finish, at best. The more material on a guitar's top, the less that top will resonate. All else held constant, a matt-finish top will be more resonant. Sure, there are exceptions- some cheap guitar makers will no doubt try to capitalize on this by laying down a thick, resonance-deadening coat of polyurethane, but a responsible maker will not resort to such tricks.

In the real world, NOTHING is ever held constant- the closest Yamaha (or anybody else) could come would be to, as tops are pulled off a particular piece of wood, make one gloss finish, the next matt, of the same model, and ship these two guitars to the same retailer, said retailer making sure any prospective buyer plays first one, then the other. What a headache! And, what would happen when one of those two guitars gets sold? How would the comparo continue? Of course, it wouldn't, unless Yammie started the whole thing over again- and what would become of the now-orphaned guitar- would the retailer sell it at a heavy discount? I don't Think a maker would maintain much of a dealer network, forcing them to take a beating on half of the guitars the dealer took on... Perhaps that is what Mutt is alluding to, and he does make a valid point- listen with your ears, not your eyes, and not your wallet if you can afford to.
 
stevieb, I really don't know where to start on this one? You make quite a few assumptions and a few incorrect assertions. If I may...

First on the point of what I said. There are too many variables to make a conclusive decision on whether a matt finish or gloss finish is better. To make that statement you would have to define what "better" actually is.

Second the point about loading up more finish for gloss as apposed to matt. That is not always the case. I don't use rattle cans and neither do Yamaha. I use a spray booth load up what ever is needed to achieve the desired finish. Hell I can get a high gloss finish with four or five coats of hand rubbed tru oil.

Yamaha use a curtain loaded auto line for their finishing on most guitars. The amount of lacquer used is pre determined and they nearly always load up more than is required on a higher end guitar. They used to load up with the same lacquer for both with a higher dulling solid content for matt finishes. The extra cost is in buff out time. Both are flatted. At least that is the way they have always done it in the past. If they have changed anything more than their promotional blurb I would be surprised.

I'm going to pick a few of your statements now and debunk them. Please don't take this the wrong........

The more material on a guitar's top, the less that top will resonate. All else held constant, a matt-finish top will be more resonant.

This simply is not true. Firstly resonance is not a measure of excellence or quality. Neither is it a general measurement of amplitude or attack and delay, it is purely a description of the ability for any system or body to oscillate at a specific frequency. There is no way to correlate a soundboards resonance at all frequencies with a specific measure of it's resonance.

Added to that it is entirely possible and does happen that the act of laying up more lacquer can increase the resonance of the guitar at some frequencies. The ability of a top to vibrate or oscillate is a product of it's mass and stiffness. If by adding more lacquer you increase the stiffness of the timber in some places by a greater amount than you increase the mass per unit volume, which you can do, you will increase the resonance of that part of the soundboard but only at certain frequencies. It will also have the opposite effect on other parts of the soundboard and at other frequencies.. These changes are totally unpredictable and the changes effect every frequency differently. Sure there is a limit at which you can over do the amount of lacquer and at that point the mass and stiffness of the lacquer itself tend to take over. We are no where near those limits here.

The method of tinkering with the mass/stiffness ratio is primarily what guitar builders do when they thickness a top and trim the braces. A good luthier will "tune" the top that way and keep the lacquer applied to a minimum to avoid changing it too much on the finished guitar. The type of finish is largely irrelevant. You just don't want to change to much of the work you have already done. It is still a crap shoot though.

Yamaha do not do this. Consequently there is no way that you can make a statement that a Yamaha acoustic finished in matt will be "better" or more "resonant" than the same or similar guitar finished in gloss. It is what it is.

You also need to factor in that the sound of a guitar is the sum of all the parts and not just the top. True the top is the overriding factor in a guitars "timbre" but on low end entry level guitars there is no attempt made to maximise the final tone. Rather they try and ensure a generic tone. That is the point I was making. It is entirely possible that a gloss finished guitar may have a more pleasing tone than a matt finished guitar. The application of the finish and the methods used to construct the guitars we are talking about here do not allow for the finish to detract from or improve the tone of end product.

Also side by side comparisons of timber pulled from the same stock do not work. Timber is entirely anisotropic in nature and those two pieces of timber from next to each other in the billet will have much that is not the same about them both in terms of physical and acoustic qualities. The scenario you describe has been tried by many and the results are never consistent.

I stand by the advice I gave. Go try em out. That is the only way to control the tone of the guitar you are about to buy. Do not fixate on one specific feature that may have some supposed detrimental effect on the finished product. Sadly this stuff aint that simple. If it was I would be a millionaire.;)
 
don't they simply take a gloss finish and buff it to a matte finish sometimes?

Some times but that is not the best way to do it. Ultimately wear and playing will buff out the matt finish and you end up with bright spots. The common way to do it is to use a lacquer that contains very fine particles that reflect a certain amount of light thus giving a permanent look that will last. The reflective index and amount of solid particles dictate the degree of "matt" or "semi matt"..
 
Mutt, of course you may, and I am not taking offense. This discussion is a bit like the four blind men who, upon coming upon only the trunk, tail, leg and side of an elephant said that an elephant was like, in order, a fire hose, a rope, a wall, and a tree. You and I are viewing the question from a different perspective- you are saying, in effect, don't get hung up on the type of finish on the top of a guitar- there are so many other variables, so that one variable is impossible to quantify," and I am saying "True, true- but IF one could hold those other variables constant, the sound or tone of the guitar would change if the top had either a matt or a gloss finish, because a gloss finish requires more material to be glossy." Please note, too, that the OP asked about the differences in sound, and mentioned relative quality almost in passing. But, please notice that I agreed with your point that the top finish is not the primary thing to care about, that "the sound of a guitar is the sum of all the parts and not just the top."

Of course, Yamaha does not use rattle cans to "paint" guitars. From a standpoint of final finish quality, there is nothing wrong with rattle cans- I have seen some damned impressive work done with just rattle cans, and a guitar is small enough of an object that one can achieve excellent results with cans. Yamaha simply goes with the production method because it is more economical than cans (obviously.) Of course not everyone uses the same method to finish anything, but the demonstration is still valid- I suggested rattle can enamel because more folks are likely to have a can of that stuff around than any other finish material/application method. Any high-build finish material (which includes enamels, lacquers, polys, but excludes pure oils) will require more material be applied if one desires a higher gloss. Whether one will achieve the high gloss with a material that "settles" to a high gloss, or by buffing, or both, more material is required. "High build" refers to the relative amount of material that is or can be applied in each coat, by the way.

(As an aside but related point, "buffing" is usually NOT simply abrasively removing material to have a consistent, smooth "top" of the finish- it is done by using heat to partially melt the finish so it flows into that smooth top- and this is done with almost all finish materials- lacquer, enamel, polys, even "danish oil," which includes a hefty amount of varnish in it. Even hand-buffing an oil-finish uses heat the same basic way, the main difference being oils don't solidify as hard as high-build finishes.)

NOTE: In keeping with my pledge that I speak from personal experience, I have removed finishes using scrapers, steel wool, caustic strippers, heat guns, wire brushes, sand paper, blasters, lacquer thinner, razor blades, fingernails, and stern looks, applied synthetic enamel, acrylic enamel, acrylic lacquer, nitrocellulose lacquer, polyurethane, boiled linseed oil, raw linseed oil, tung oil, danish oil, and finished (or, in most cases, re-finished) cars, motorcycles, bicycles, oak table tops, Hammond Organs, lawn mowers, hubcaps and wheels, solid-body electric guitars, hollow-body electric guitars, and even acoustic guitar tops!

I knew a guy- he played mandolin in my now-defunct and un-lamented bluegrass band- who built mandolins. His instruments, when complete, were wonderful-sounding, indeed. The "trick" he used was he wound not finish the top until after he had played the instrument, usually for months- he would continue to tune the top by sanding it down here and there until it sounded it's (presumably) best. Only then would he put a NCL finish- usually glossy- on the top. Basically, he was taking this whole "tune the top wood AND finish" to it's logical extreme. They sold for, literally, thousands of dollars, but I think he may have built a grand total of about ten instruments before the reverse economy of scale finally caught up to him, and he realized he would starve to death if that would continue to be his main source of income.
 
This is dumb, y'all are arguing about chinese built Yamahas, the quality is gonna vary so much from guitar to guitar it makes discussion on finish pointless. :)
 
This is dumb, y'all are arguing about chinese built Yamahas, the quality is gonna vary so much from guitar to guitar it makes discussion on finish pointless. :)

Thats pretty much my point yes. stevieb pointed out that I didn't elaborate on why so I did. Much of what he then says in his reply is flawed or just plain wrong. I don't have the energy to put it right though. I guess the recent goings on have dampened my enthusiasm to be a popous know it all douchebag. I really don't have will or patience right now..:o Plus I don't want to annoy stevieb, his intentions are good.
 
Thats pretty much my point yes. stevieb pointed out that I didn't elaborate on why so I did. Much of what he then says in his reply is flawed or just plain wrong. I don't have the energy to put it right though. I guess the recent goings on have dampened my enthusiasm to be a popous know it all douchebag. I really don't have will or patience right now..:o Plus I don't want to annoy stevieb, his intentions are good.

Pinch of salt, then a shot of tequila, works fer me multi. :)
 
Pinch of salt, then a shot of tequila, works fer me multi. :)

Yeh, I know munchdude but I haven't been able to have a good drink for a few weeks cos of the meds I'm on for the knee. That might change later though. Still a bit early for me. I'm an English drunk not a Scots one.;)
 
Yeh, I know munchdude but I haven't been able to have a good drink for a few weeks cos of the meds I'm on for the knee. That might change later though. Still a bit early for me. I'm an English drunk not a Scots one.;)

When I'm drunk I'm British, just in case I do anything stupid. :)
 
Back
Top