Schatten HFN - Are You Kidding Me!!!???

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by stevecuss

We've had it cranked and cutting through the mix nicely at 90 - 96db. Context always helps:



OM sized guitar

Avalon U5 pre/DI

Electric guitar, bass, shielded acoustic drums.

Multiple vocalists.

In ear monitors, so low stage volume.



I'm pretty blown away at how well it cuts through a rock band, but we're still not pushing huge dbs.

That’s outstanding.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Villamarzia

I had K&K, JJB, Element, HFN, Schertler Dyn-G and many others combined with internal mic such as DPA, went thru IR, great preamp etc. Then, I installed a Barbera Soloist. I will not buy any other pickup, it’s so good. Not only it sounds really natural but it is also the least feedback prone one.

I really want to try the Soloist but it's definitely expensive. I would probably be looking at close to $550.00, if not more. The pickup is $300 US and then $45 US for shipping so in Canadian funds it gets up there. It's also a bit scary to order one in terms of getting the height correct. It does sound like a UST so hard to justify but I do want to try it.

On a side note, I am considering a HFN/UST system. Just a way to get some bass back into the signal. I believe Schatten even have a dual source preamp that allows for blending but with a mono signal, which is nice as I could still bring in some tonedexter.

[Mbroady]

As mentioned in another thread, A few months ago I replaced a K&K mini, that was part of a dual source MiC and mini combo, with the HFN. I did boost the low end on the on K&K preamp. Once I found the right amount of low end boost it became a set it and forget plug and play. It sounds fat with an amazing dynamic range. I add the mic as needed, but a little goes a long way. It’s the perfect set up for solo and low to medium volume gigs.

Originally Posted by Petty1818

The K&K pure mini is quite nice for a nice fat sound. To be honest though, most UST's produce more bass than the HFN (in my experience). I do want to try the Barbera Soloist and Lr Baggs LB6 though. Both seem to have a really big sound.

I look forward to hearing you reviews. Doug Young’s samples he made of the Soloist in a rainsong (dual source) sounded fantastic.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by stevecuss

We've had it cranked and cutting through the mix nicely at 90 - 96db. Context always helps:

OM sized guitar
Avalon U5 pre/DI
Electric guitar, bass, shielded acoustic drums.
Multiple vocalists.
In ear monitors, so low stage volume.

I'm pretty blown away at how well it cuts through a rock band, but we're still not pushing huge dbs.

I too had mine in a rock band and actually had the monitors pretty hot. I had zero feedback. The downside is that I found it hard to get the HFN to cut through. It always seemed to be a bit buried in the mix.

[martingitdave]

It occurred to me tonight that my problems with Schatten at higher volumes may have been a phase issue.

[tadol]

I was wondering if the Schatten / Tonedexter combo may be a phase problem in the training, but we’ll have to see if James May chimes in here -

I have to say, I have a Barbera soloist, and its a great pickup, but the UltraTonic that James makes is outstanding too, and has equally good feedback resistance, is easier to install, has a volume control, and cheaper, so I’d recommend considering it as well -

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by tadol

I was wondering if the Schatten / Tonedexter combo may be a phase problem in the training, but we’ll have to see if James May chimes in here -



I have to say, I have a Barbera soloist, and its a great pickup, but the UltraTonic that James makes is outstanding too, and has equally good feedback resistance, is easier to install, has a volume control, and cheaper, so I’d recommend considering it as well -

Yes I agree, there is some benefit to keeping the transducers away from the saddle. And his passive feedback reduction circuit is really clever. I’ve never used a barbera so I have no experience to draw from. I have used the UT but sold the guitar it was in.

[jonfields45]

Originally Posted by tadol

I was wondering if the Schatten / Tonedexter combo may be a phase problem in the training

There is no training issue with an HFN as it is a single element with a single phase. Some ceramic crystal USTs have intentional phase (polarity) reversal between some of the strings which can be a problem. But people do use those USTs with a single phase second source such as a microphone...

BTW, I think an IR would fix any lack of HFN bass response as reported by some.

I am not absolutely sure, but I thought the Barbera has adjacent strings phase reversed which in-theory might be a training problem. At least for my IR I generated it on a sample of Doug's playing a fingerstyle tune with some strumming with no effort to isolate only strings of the same phase to be played at the same time.

For live performance, we are familiar with signal addition and phase being one of the things we can manipulate to control feedback. For IR generation we are using division to compare the pickup and mic in the frequency domain where we have retained magnitude and phase information. Phase reversal for some strings will certainly impact the phase response of the IR, but the magnitude response should (could?) be OK. There are plenty of studies that show we are relatively insensitive to phase (I assume not including location finding).

Here is a Doug Young demo of a Barbera Soloist with various IRs (including mine):

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...3&postcount=12

[PANDAPANDELO]

My experience with HFN is not that good. First, with the tape install, I had problem with the sound. It was TOO thin... and then I installed it with the Putty. It got better, but not AWESOME as you guys are saying.

The IRs I was using when I was with my HX Stomp (it's being repaired at Line 6) used to let the sound WAY more mic-like than the Schatten by itself. It was night and day!

Maybe I had bad luck...

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

BTW, I think an IR would fix any lack of HFN bass response as reported by some.


https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...3&postcount=12

That hasn’t been my experience really. I find that wavemaps on the Tonedexter or even the Aura spectrum, tend to cut a bit of low end. Since the HFN already lacks a bit, it’s not really an improvement with an IR. That’s why I tend to like a bit more of a big sounding pickup to start with.

To add to that, I was thinking it over and since a lot of people are using IR’s of some sort right now to improve pickup tones, the Soloist for example seems less appealing. I feel as though an LB6 would make more sense. Similar pros to the Soloist but hundreds less.

[jonfields45]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

That hasn’t been my experience really. I find that wavemaps on the Tonedexter or even the Aura spectrum, tend to cut a bit of low end. Since the HFN already lacks a bit, it’s not really an improvement with an IR. That’s why I tend to like a bit more of a big sounding pickup to start with.

To add to that, I was thinking it over and since a lot of people are using IR’s of some sort right now to improve pickup tones, the Soloist for example seems less appealing. I feel as though an LB6 would make more sense. Similar pros to the Soloist but hundreds less.

Maybe you should try my IR. I think most commercial products have to do more than just make the pickup sound like a mic (assuming in the studio for Fishman or at home for ToneDexter the mic was placed optimally). They need to sound great in some absolute way to make the sale. I think they are using other techniques (IIR - i.e. classic EQ) to "improve" the sound. Cuki reports that the in the published literature on deconvolution as applied to this problem, that there should be an increase bass content in the IR and that needs to be post processed to compensate. Maybe that post processing is what you don't like. My IR generator does not boost bass response beyond trying to match the mic and has no post processing (that would express my opinion about what sounds good).

I don't think using any IR precludes setting your tone controls to taste.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

The HFN really is a great pickup. For me though, it just lacked a bit of bottom end. I always say that it kind of reminds me of the Lyric. Yes the HFN is more full sounding but it's quite balanced. I have found that I like a bit of an enhanced bass tone. I try to now start with the fattest sounding pickup and then use the Tonedexter to enhance it.

Thinness of sound and feedback vulnerability are my current dissatisfactions with the Lyric. I've been seriously considering swapping it out for a passive HFN. The guitar has too much bass already, so I doubt that lack-of-bass would be an issue with the HFN.

In any event, every post like this which I read pushes me closer to a swap. We've already established (in a different thread) that my current preamp of choice (Zoom A1 Four) has a high enough input impedance to deal with a passive HFN.

[hiddenmickey]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Thinness of sound and feedback vulnerability are my current dissatisfactions with the Lyric. I've been seriously considering swapping it out for a passive HFN. The guitar has too much bass already, so I doubt that lack-of-bass would be an issue with the HFN.

In any event, every post like this which I read pushes me closer to a swap. We've already established (in a different thread) that my current preamp of choice (Zoom A1 Four) has a high enough input impedance to deal with a passive HFN.

I think that we all understand that pickups are not one-size fits all. I think that playing style, guitar size and materials need to be the first thing we consider when evaluating a pickup. Next would be band vs no band, venue size, loud/quiet, etc.

We have to stop accepting whatever the manufacturer installs in the guitar (when applicable) as an optimal match. We don't always do that with strings. Strings may not be a fair comparison because they are much cheaper than pickups, but think about the difference it makes when you find the best string brand and type that works for your application. The same is true for pickups.

I say this because there are varying opinions on the HFN (just like any other pickup). I will say that the HFN is the best match I've found for me. I am a strummer. My guitar is a Gibson Hummingbird (spruce/mahogany dreadnought). The HFN is balanced and has plenty of low end for my application. I've always been a strummer and played larger guitars. I had a J45 with a Lyric and it did not work for me. It did not like strummed chords with a pick - thin and harsh.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by hiddenmickey

I think that we all understand that pickups are not one-size fits all. I think that playing style, guitar size and materials need to be the first thing we consider when evaluating a pickup. Next would be band vs no band, venue size, loud/quiet, etc.

We have to stop accepting whatever the manufacturer installs in the guitar (when applicable) as an optimal match. We don't always do that with strings. Strings may not be a fair comparison because they are much cheaper than pickups, but think about the difference it makes when you find the best string brand and type that works for your application. The same is true for pickups.

I say this because there are varying opinions on the HFN (just like any other pickup). I will say that the HFN is the best match I've found for me. I am a strummer. My guitar is a Gibson Hummingbird (spruce/mahogany dreadnought). The HFN is balanced and has plenty of low end for my application. I've always been a strummer and played larger guitars. I had a J45 with a Lyric and it did not work for me. It did not like strummed chords with a pick - thin and harsh.

Good point. I have a feeling that many of the pickups that I have tried and dismissed would sound awesome in a warmer/fatter sounding guitar. My Taylor just doesn't have a huge low end so I often notice that missing from pickups. The HFN for me was weird though in that it wasn't just missing an enhanced low end; it also just seemed to not be amplifying the low E string in the same way it was the other strings. It was as if the sustain was missing when I would play single note lines.

I had mentioned a UST/HFN set up earlier but not sure if that would work now. I currently have a Matrix in my guitar and found that the wire coming from the Matrix and through the bridge is in the exact spot where one of the HFN feet needs to go. I wonder how people get around that?

[tadol]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

I am not absolutely sure, but I thought the Barbera has adjacent strings phase reversed which in-theory might be a training problem.

That is correct - and in training the Barbera with the Tonedexter, you need to play only alternate strings while doing the training. But the improvement from a properly made wavemap is extemely good.

As far as the Tonedexter rolling off bass, I have to doubt that. I recently installed one of the UltraTonic pickups in my SC baritone, and once the circuitry was adjusted, I got extremely strong bass response, with no feedback even while playing at high volume sitting directly in front of my amp. Then, training it with the Tonedexter, I got a wonderful clear acoustic tone along with the strong bass response. Its a great combination. I’ve noticed the same with the K&K going thru the Tonedexter -

If the instrument does not have good balance to begin with, maybe compensating with unbalanced pickups is one way to deal with it, but maybe a really good multi-band eq would be more useful?