Schatten HFN Bandwagon?

[pmarino]

Played a short set at a charity event last night, first time with the Schatten HFN Passive. Chain was HFN, tuner, Session DI, board. Many compliments on the tone and I was very pleased. More shows coming in the next month, but so far, so good...

[Daniel Grenier]

Originally Posted by GuitarLuva

You should use the putty. I posted in several different threads now about tape vs putty installs that I've done and while I never really had a major issue with the tape install, it did lack some bass. Using the putty made it sound more true to the guitar, at least for me, with all the bass there.

Really? Sounds like the exact opposite of what Schatten suggests: "The putty will transmit a little more of the highs and may be used if the instrument is dark or primarily bassy".

I am after the reverse. Less of the highs and more of the bass. Anyway, I will try to move the HFN over to the bass side a bit more and I'll fiddle with EQ and see if I can get that "dark and bassy" sound out of my 000.

It's all good fun in the end. Cheers!

[Monsum]

Originally Posted by pmarino

Played a short set at a charity event last night, first time with the Schatten HFN Passive. Chain was HFN, tuner, Session DI, board. Many compliments on the tone and I was very pleased. More shows coming in the next month, but so far, so good...

It might be probably too early for you to say but do you like it more than the Matrix Blend pickup? Any feedback issues?
When you have a chance, it would great to see your live performance video with the Schatten.

[pmarino]

Originally Posted by Monsum

It might be probably too early for you to say but do you like it more than the Matrix Blend pickup? Any feedback issues?
When you have a chance, it would great to see your live performance video with the Schatten.

As you say, it's early... It was just a 4 song set on a bill of about 12 local acts to raise money for charity, so there wasn't a great deal of time to get things sorted. What I can say is that there was zero feedback and the guitar sounded full and balanced. Playing in my flat this morning through my Fishman Mini (and adding the Venue DI to the chain after the Session) sounded so good that I ordered another HFN for my D-18. Once I get my hands on video of a live show, I will most definitely post it, although I don't know when that will be.

[Monsum]

Originally Posted by pmarino

As you say, it's early... It was just a 4 song set on a bill of about 12 local acts to raise money for charity, so there wasn't a great deal of time to get things sorted. What I can say is that there was zero feedback and the guitar sounded full and balanced. Playing in my flat this morning through my Fishman Mini (and adding the Venue DI to the chain after the Session) sounded so good that I ordered another HFN for my D-18. Once I get my hands on video of a live show, I will most definitely post it, although I don't know when that will be.

Thanks Philip, just the fact the you're getting another HFN speaks for itself.

[Daniel Grenier]

All right, all right. I take everything that may have sounded negative back!

Looks like I may have had some issue with my original install. I re-seated the HFN and noticed a small piece of wooden "shrapnel" on the bass side tape. I was sure I had the guitar properly cleaned out after drilling the endpin hole but apparently not? I am not sure if that was the issue but I have installed a new piece of tape and re-mounted the pick up (very slightly off to the bass side), did a bit of EQ-ing and my 000 sounds awesome now.

It's going into two QSC CP8s which I really cranked. No feedback, good balance, not that bassy but bassy enough. I am VERY impressed!

[jdag]

Originally Posted by hotroad

Just installed the HFN passive on my new Martin 000-17sm today. I have it plugged into my Fishman Loudbox Mini and out into my Bose S1 from there. The combo of those two amps makes the pickup sound amazing. The Fishman by itself lacks something and the S1 does not have the power for the HFN passive. The Fishman does have the power for the HFN but not good enough lows.
The install was easy but the tape is not quite as sticky as I had hoped. The tone across all string is balanced and there is no dominant tone from the highs, mids or lows. Great little pickup so far.

I am close to joining the HFN bandwagon, and also have a Fishman Loudbox, plus a Yamaha THR10. I know I can go right from the passive HFN into the Loudbox with no preamp in between.

But would you know about doing so into the THR10 as well? I assume that would work fine.

And, what about if I used a looper pedal such as the Ditto X2 in between the guitar and amp?

Thanks!

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Daniel Grenier

Hey. I'll try that.. I just was not aware of either so if you can point to yours or Les' procedure, I got my files and sandpaper at the ready. Thanks.

Daniel, you could try the following when installing your HFN, The first A part is somewhat more involved than the second B part, but the B part may prove very effective at holding all three feet of your HFN against the bridge plate:

A) There's a chance that the center foot of the three HFN feet isn't making good contact with the bridge plate. This is because under string tension the bridge plate likely arches a bit, and likely in a convex dome-like shape, when viewed from outside the guitar. The solution would be to remove some material off the bottom of the two outer feet by sanding off a certain amount, say .002" to .005", but leave the center one alone. This would be a touchy-feely process to determine just how much to sand off the feet. Some guitars require not sanding off any material. How could you know if the HFN doesn't sit with all three feet flat on the bridge plate? With the strings removed, you could apply #2 pencil lead to the bottom of the three HFN feet and reach in and press the HFN lightly and evenly to the bridge plate. A small LED light and mirror inside the guitar would assist guiding the HFN to its target location while looking inside the guitar through the bridge pin holes. Ideally, DyKem Layout Dye would work better than pencil lead but could be messy and would leave a residue on the bridge plate but so would the pencil lead, and, of course, cleaning the bridge plate with alcohol before permanently attaching the HFN would be necessary in every installation scenario regardless of whether any layout substance is used or not. Likely, however, the bridge plate will arch a bit more when string pressure is once again applied to the guitar so it could be a bit of a try again process to finally get the right amplified tone but even removing a few thousanths of an inch off each outer leg will be sufficient for a one-time application of the above process.

But Wait! Since the new ABS-base HFN is supposedly more flexible than the older rosewood-base model, there's an easier way that may prove just as good at maximizing the HFN's bridge plate contact:

B) Another process that can be applied whether or not you sand the feet would be to apply a lightweight C-Clamp to the rail of the HFN at its center or two lightweight C-clamps slightly offset from the center and turn the screws on the clamps(s) just enough to press and hold the HFN to the bridge plate but with not enough pressure to cause damage to anything. Keep the clamps in place for maybe an hour or so to ensure that the tape is compressed and will hopefully hold all three feet to the bridge plate. I'm skeptical about using the supplied foam VHT 3M tape as the foam adhesive can pull apart after awhile. The "permanent" tape that Trance Audio supplies with their pickup systems would likely be a much better choice for longterm adhesive holding power.

Trance Amulet Installation Using Stewart-MacDonald Lightweight Soundhole C-Clamp(s) That Could Be Applied To Schatten HFN. Note the LED lights and mirror to facilitate visibility during installation as you peer in through the bridge pin holes to locate the pickup:

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

I'm thinking about hopping on the HFN bandwagon again. I used their active pickup a few years ago and moved onto passive K&K systems.

Hi md

If your K&K are proving to be sub-par, and you are exploring an improvement, then perhaps a switch is in order.

I switched to K&K from Baggs dual source rigs 14 years back, and installed the same K&K pickup/mic combo in all my guitars. All my preamps (which are all outboard) are applicable to any of my instruments.

My previous dual source rig was 11 years old, so switching companies with all my guitars was a major switch for me. Keeping all of the rigs the same has permitted me to quickly switch guitars in/out of different situations.

I have resisted the temptation to switch companies since because I already get superior sound (natural sounding) and easy setup from my existing rigs. They are straightforward to quickly setup and adjust for myself and sound-techs across various venues.

It's not that there have not been new systems available, or popularized over the years, all claiming to be more natural than all others. But my ears and experience tell me that my K&K rigs are a decent and very easy to adapt to about any situation.

Pickups come and go as people decide to chase the illusion that there is a perfect system out there. I'll just keep focusing on making better music…

[Daniel Grenier]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

Daniel, you could try the following when installing your HFN....

Ken, this is valuable and very useful information indeed. THANK YOU! I have copied it to my "guitar tech" file for future reference. I have all the tools needed to do this, if need be. However, and just an fyi, I have corrected my issues (permanently??) as stated just before you posted your detailed procedure. I am "good to go" right now but may have to refer back to this in future, who knows. Meanwhile, thank you very much again for this. Cheers !

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Daniel Grenier

Ken, this is valuable and very useful information indeed. THANK YOU! I have copied it to my "guitar tech" file for future reference. I have all the tools needed to do this, if need be. However, and just an fyi, I have corrected my issues (permanently??) as stated just before you posted your detailed procedure. I am "good to go" right now but may have to refer back to this in future, who knows. Meanwhile, thank you very much again for this. Cheers !

You're Welcome!

By the way, in the early 1960s, when I was a kid in Ottawa, my Dad and I would go hunting over to Calabogie Lake and Aylen Lake. Beautiful country around your White Lake and the whole region!

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi md

If your K&K are proving to be sub-par, and you are exploring an improvement, then perhaps a switch is in order.

I switched to K&K from Baggs dual source rigs 14 years back, and installed the same K&K pickup/mic combo in all my guitars. All my preamps (which are all outboard) are applicable to any of my instruments.

My previous dual source rig was 11 years old, so switching companies with all my guitars was a major switch for me. Keeping all of the rigs the same has permitted me to quickly switch guitars in/out of different situations.

I have resisted the temptation to switch companies since because I already get superior sound (natural sounding) and easy setup from my existing rigs. They are straightforward to quickly setup and adjust for myself and sound-techs across various venues.

It's not that there have not been new systems available, or popularized over the years, all claiming to be more natural than all others. But my ears and experience tell me that my K&K rigs are a decent and very easy to adapt to about any situation.

Pickups come and go as people decide to chase the illusion that there is a perfect system out there. I'll just keep focusing on making better music…

Larry, you make a valid point. In fact, prior to reading your post, I decided not to install the HFN. I have K&K passives in all my guitars and ukulele. I was considering removing one of the K&Ks to try the HFN. Then, a friend of mine posted about a phase-y sounding issue with his new HFN install. All of the sudden, I remembered why I removed it!

Instead of wasting a few hours with pickup installs and string changes, with rather predictable results, I spent an hour training some new wavemaps for my Tonedexter and playing with the EQ controls on my PA. I'm already getting good natural sounds, and I know the K&K is permantently attached and won't sound different as the guitar settles with the weather, or come loose.

While I really like the convenience of active pickups, I have developed a preference for having less stuff inside the guitar. They sound much better that way.

The only factory system that I still admire (envy) is the Taylor ES2. It's light and out of the way and sounds good. Unfortunately, I am not presently playing Taylor guitars.

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

Larry, you make a valid point. In fact, prior to reading your post, I decided not to install the HFN. I have K&K passives in all my guitars and ukulele. I was considering removing one of the K&Ks to try the HFN. Then, a friend of mine posted about a phase-y sounding issue with his new HFN install. All of the sudden, I remembered why I removed it!

Instead of wasting a few hours with pickup installs and string changes, with rather predictable results, I spent an hour training some new wavemaps for my Tonedexter and playing with the EQ controls on my PA. I'm already getting good natural sounds, and I know the K&K is permantently attached and won't sound different as the guitar settles with the weather, or come loose.

While I really like the convenience of active pickups, I have developed a preference for having less stuff inside the guitar. They sound much better that way.

The only factory system that I still admire (envy) is the Taylor ES2. It's light and out of the way and sounds good. Unfortunately, I am not presently playing Taylor guitars.

+1 Taylor ES2!

[jonfields45]

I am doing a tape install of an HFN in my RainSong Concert Parlor right now. I just put the pickup on a straight edge, and at least for this (ABS) sample, the center foot is slightly longer than the outer ones and I can rock the pick up a little. It might be a few mils longer.

Right now I'm off to run an errand and will get back to the install in a few hours.

For those of you who did your own install, did you trim the excess tape from between the feet?

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

I am doing a tape install of an HFN in my RainSong Concert Parlor right now. I just put the pickup on a straight edge, and at least for this (ABS) sample, the center foot is slightly longer than the outer ones and I can rock the pick up a little. It might be a few mils longer.

Right now I'm off to run an errand and will get back to the install in a few hours.

For those of you who did your own install, did you trim the excess tape from between the feet?

You may be okay as is if the middle foot is slightly longer than the end ones. Then again, you're installing it in a RainSong, so only you can determine the best installation with regard to the relative length of the HFN's feet.

When I installed my HFN, I didn't trim off the excess tape between the feet although if I had attained satisfactory results, I would have remounted it with the excess trimmed away. I vote to trim the excess away.

As an aside: Deering Banjos makes what is called a "Smile Bridge" for their banjos which takes into account the fact that banjo heads dish slightly at the bridge when under string pressure. The three feet of the banjo bridge are radiused to compensate for banjo-head dishing at the bridge. A RainSong guitar may need radiusing of the HFN, or at least longer foot length on the outer two feet than on the center foot, kind of in a reverse of what the Smile Banjo bridge has as the HFN is mounted inside. Then again, if the adhesive is strong enough, you may get satisfactory results by mounting your HFN as it is currently made.