Guys, this thread asked if anyone had experience with these devices. Let's leave the personal jabs out of it.
Lee
Lee
Synergistic Research HFT
- Thread starter RBFC
- Start date
You should understand that in stereo sound reproduction sometimes measurements do not precede perception, it is just the opposite. Once people systematically experience some type of perception, we can assume it exists. Then curious people must understand how it works and find a measurement that explains it. IMHO pretending that measurements developed to study room acoustics can explain the operation of this type of devices is pure fantasy. And I do not expect that their creator will risk presenting innovative theories on sound reproduction, exposing his product to unfair criticism.
People have made scientific work studying musical instruments using the appropriated technologies - the best known case if of the famous Stradivarius violin. Hundreds of thousands of hours of man work and millions were spent studying them. Do you want to do the same these devices? Please proceed. But IMHO the systematic claim for measurements and the poor examples you present show a large ignorance of the mechanisms associated with psychoacoustics and stereo reproduction.
We are free to doubt on the effect of these devices, ask for blind listening tests, doubt the opinions of others, but skepticism just based on the absence of instrumental measurements is ridiculous. Imagine someone measures and shows you the detailed absorption, excitation and decay of these objects versus frequency. What would you do with them? Write the same type of arguments you used with Shunyata power cables, expecting our enthusiastic applause?
Meanwhile I am considering trying the Synergistic Research HFT. Perhaps after I will post on them - it was what was asked in this thread.
I don't have to read your interview with Gordon Holt and the history of audio measurements.
How is knowing what your PhD is in? Well, my question is why are you so afraid to tell everyone? I told you it helps me understand a little more of your background. My guess is that it's nothing related to audio, acoustic engineering, or anything technical. Am I correct in that assumption? You unwillingness to share that information indicates that I'm right because if it was related, you would have told everyone a long time ago. I do know about human behavior and psychology, amongst a lot of other subjects.
Really you seem to read everything else and swallow the advertising hook, line and sinker. But when it comes to understanding that specs are always manipulated to show something in the best possible light, that's ok?
No you're simply trying to change the topic and deflect the criticism from you. Nice try but no cake.
No. Specs can be manipulated, so it's wise to understand HOW they can be manipulated. Now, with respect to RAL measurements, that's done by an independent laboratory that specializes in that area and the industry recognizes them as the leading experts in measuring room treatment products. So, if you get a copy of the test results on a product that was done BY RAL, then it's done with the same methods, etc. and the mfg can't alter those measurements. PERIOD.
Some mfg send their products out to an independent testing lab, (I wish more did this and it was the same testing lab using the same equipment and methodology). As I mentioned before LAMM does this, so if you go to their website, they show the test results from an independent testing lab. Again, I wish more mfg would do this so there were consistencies and the mfg wasn't able to twist the methodology and results in any way.
No Myles, you are trying to avoid a simple question on your educational background to give me and everyone else some indication that you have some degree of technical expertise. So, from that standpoint of your unwillingness, you probably won't know how to analyze and understand a test measurement. It's OK to admit that. There are some tests I don't understand, but if I can read more on the subject and there are people that can help me understand, I'm VERY willing to do so. I think everyone should do this that's passionate about a hobby or profession should do this. It's part of the learning process.
Personally, I think the Audio related magazines web sites that review audio equipment SHOULD hire someone that IS an Acoustic Engineer that has a background in designing, testing, etc. various treatments in audio listening rooms, home theater, studio control rooms should be dedicated to testing various room treatment products and HOPEFULLY shedding some light on the subject and comparing various products as to their effectiveness. I certainly would want to read such articles since there is so little done by anyone in the home audio world. I see it done more for studios, but they have different criteria and I haven't seen really good reviews that I can think of off the top of my head. Someone that has an electronics background wouldn't be as effective in that sort of review as would an Acoustic Engineer. I think it's VERY important aspect of OUR respective hobby of wanting to listen to better audio systems. The room is just as important as the equipment we use. Some would argue that it's more important, but I will say it's just as important.
Here's a little anecdote. I read a review of an amp and the amp that was being reviewed was hand built by the engineer that designed it rather than a standard production version. To me, that indicates that it's POSSIBLE that the amp in question might have had better quality components/better tested components than what we are to expect from a production unit. Doesn't that strike you as strange that the amp designer preferred to have a personally built model delivered for review rather than something off the shelf? I find it strange.
Last edited:
Has anyone, just for kicks, broken one of these open?
Seriously, these are about the size of a very short stack of dimes. A dime is approximately .0025 square feet. 400 of these things will cover ONE SQUARE FOOT of wall space. A room 8 feet high by 15 wide buy 20 long (an average room) has 120 square feet on the front wall alone. It would take 500 of these to cover ONE PERCENT of that front wall. What about the other three walls, ceiling and floor?
Is the set of five or 25 or 125 really going to do anything--especially for "low frequency extension/bass control?"
Seriously, these are about the size of a very short stack of dimes. A dime is approximately .0025 square feet. 400 of these things will cover ONE SQUARE FOOT of wall space. A room 8 feet high by 15 wide buy 20 long (an average room) has 120 square feet on the front wall alone. It would take 500 of these to cover ONE PERCENT of that front wall. What about the other three walls, ceiling and floor?
Is the set of five or 25 or 125 really going to do anything--especially for "low frequency extension/bass control?"
Attachments
GaryProtein,
Long time ago, in a thread about corner bass traps, I asked advice about low bass problems in my room. Ethan commented:
"If the bass is weak, then the more important problem is the two nulls between 100 and 200 Hz. What happens between 200 and 300 Hz? Nulls even as high as 300 Hz can affect fullness."
I have owned electronics that when cold sounded bass restrained and lacking scale and power. After one-two hours bass seem to develop and to be much more controlled. I am sure that there was no measurable difference in the room response bellow 200 Hz, but any one listening would say I had increased the bass level. Remember that bass subjective appreciation is not easy to translate in words.
We openly debated the effect of cables and power cables in bass reproduction. And I think I am not wrong when I say we all admit that the electrical effect of the cables in terms of frequency response or distortion of bass response is not measurable.
I agree that the room is critical, that it is often overlooked, and that it is often the limiting factor in getting really good sound. Having said that, many of us are restricted by budget or aesthetics, or both, to have a really good sounding dedicated room for our audio systems.
I recently heard the full SR HFT system and ART system in two dealer demo rooms. It was very difficult to asses the effectiveness of this system and to isolate it from the rest of the components, especially because I had no previous experience with these systems and these rooms. I will say that I found the sound to be rather diffuse, not clearly focused or grounded. In my opinion, the rooms could have benefitted from some absorption properly placed, especially at the first reflection points. I don't think these SR systems can be the only room treatment in a room for optimal sound, but that is only after a very limited demonstration.
We have many opinions on the effect of sound absorption at the first reflection points, and many divergences here. "Room Acoustics with Attitude," by Keith Howard in the March 2001 Hi-Fi News (p. 74) is a very interesting article referring to this subject and can be found in the Wilson Audifile May/June 2003 - volume 2 issue 3. http://www.wilsonaudio.com/pdf/vol2no3.pdf
The conclusion is great “But do bear in mind that all such ‘rules’, whoever espouses them, are for the adherence of fools and the guidance of the wise. You won’t find me arguing with the maxim: if it sounds right, it is right. However you achieve it.”
This thread reminds me of why we used Cliffs Notes back in the day
or 'ignore lists' on forums
Micro, Thanks for the link. It is an interesting read. I made my suggestion because absorption at the first reflection points in my room seemed to help focus the images and add overall clarity to the sound. A consultant I hired agreed with this when he visited the room. The two rooms in which I heard the SR HFT devices lacked some clarity and image specificity which is the basis for my suggestion. It could certainly be completely the wrong approach and advice. Based on the article, I'll try some new things. I have some diffusers behind my speakers and I will experiment by first removing the absorption from my side walls and then placing the diffusers there to see how it all effects the sound and sense of spaciousness.
Thank you for the suggestion. As someone who has actually heard the HFTs in two different rooms, I was not impressed enough to either buy them to try in my own room or try to borrow a set or four. I have also found explanations of what they do and how they do it to be somewhat vague. I do like their minimal size and modest cost for the supposed claims of sonic benefits. They also do look a bit odd on the front baffles of speakers, despite their size.
The Harmonix RFA-7800 room tuning devices claim results similar to those of the Synergistic Research HFT .
http://www.combak.net/roomtune/roomtuning.html
I tried the Harmonix Speaker speaker tuning devices (a different type of tweak) in the 90's and they definitively had some action in speaker sound - I remember I "tuned" just one speaker and a good friend and me could easily find which was which in blind tests. Also their mechanically tuned Reimyo CD 777 was for a long time one the best CD players in the market.
As far as I remember these type of devices are resonators tuned to a set of specific frequencies in a way the the ear is particularly sensitive to them. They act by absorption and re-emission of these frequencies.
http://www.combak.net/roomtune/roomtuning.html
I tried the Harmonix Speaker speaker tuning devices (a different type of tweak) in the 90's and they definitively had some action in speaker sound - I remember I "tuned" just one speaker and a good friend and me could easily find which was which in blind tests. Also their mechanically tuned Reimyo CD 777 was for a long time one the best CD players in the market.
As far as I remember these type of devices are resonators tuned to a set of specific frequencies in a way the the ear is particularly sensitive to them. They act by absorption and re-emission of these frequencies.
Micro, Here is a follow up: I read the article with interest and found the argument for diffusion or no treatment at the first reflection points instead of absorption to be convincing, so I did some listening experiments the other night. I have a small absorption panel at each side wall located at the first reflection point. I listened to a few familiar tracks. Then I removed them and listened again to the same tracks. Then I replaced the absorption panels and listened a third time. All I can say is that the sound is much better in my room, in my opinion, with the absorption panels in place. Overall clarity, image focus and spacial information are all better with absorption at the reflection points. Everything sounded more natural. I guess I'll follow the advice Mr. Howard offers in his conclusion. "...if it sounds right, it is right. However you achieve it."
Wow just went through 14 pages hoping to get some real world feedback on this product. I guess I was hoping for too much. I am open minded about tweaks but at the same time like to know the theory behind them as well, more out of curiosity. I also understand there is so much we don't understand about music and how our brains processes sound. If we don't know what to measure how do we measure it? Anyway, I have a couple boxes of HFTs coming on demo soon. I will report back with my impressions shortly so hopefully this thread can get back on track and provide useful information for us crazy audiophiles. I hope it isn't too late to save this thread.
Wow just went through 14 pages hoping to get some real world feedback on this product. I guess I was hoping for too much. I am open minded about tweaks but at the same time like to know the theory behind them as well, more out of curiosity. I also understand there is so much we don't understand about music and how our brains processes sound. If we don't know what to measure how do we measure it? Anyway, I have a couple boxes of HFTs coming on demo soon. I will report back with my impressions shortly so hopefully this thread can get back on track and provide useful information for us crazy audiophiles. I hope it isn't too late to save this thread.
Please do post your impressions!!! Rather than dissuading me, this thread has even piqued my interest
tboooe, Though the dealer did not remove the HFT treatments to give us a direct with/with out comparison, my general impressions of the product, or at least of the sound in the two rooms is expressed in the above quote. I look forward to reading your impressions of having them in your own system.
Hey Peter. Sorry for missing your comments in this thread. It must have been the other 137 off topic responses that distracted me.
My room already has some treatments so perhaps the HFTs will augment the sound. Frankly I cannot believe these little devices alone can eliminate the need for treatments.Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |