Synergistic Research HFT

RichDavis · Feb 6, 2014

asiufy said:
Well, let me just say you're not going to be measuring a concert room or an amphiteathre.
These products were recommended by a proponent of room measurements and DSPing, so if these are good enough for him, should be good enough for you:

Dayton Audio EMM-6 Electret Measurement Microphone
TASCAM US-366 4-In/6-Out or 6-In/4-Out USB Audio Interface

I understand your need for validation from a specialist, but if you're so curious about measurements, and think of them to highly, what's $350 (actually it's even less) to spend to fulfill that need, even though there'd always be better and more accurate means to do the same measuring?

You know what would be great? Why don't you put your $350 where your opinions are, and also take up Synergistic's 60-day money back guarantee offer? If they're not measuring, YOU can do it.

alexandre

The Synergistic is $1000+ plus time involved and I don't want to damage my reputation if certain people found out that I was playing around with these things. If they want to send them to me for free, I'll take the time to play around with them with as much skepticism as I can muster and I will give my honest opinion of them. But, I'm saving up for a new office system so i'd rather save my money and put it towards new speakers, electronics and cables than putting little tiny metal dots around the room. Quite frankly, some of my friends might want to have me committed if I did buy the SR product. Just saying, to me those things seems similar to one putting tin foil on their head trying to protect themselves from radiation or whatever those kooks would use it for. Sorry, I remember reading a LONG time ago about these plastic ear attachments to help the listener hear better. Whatever happened to those things?

If I want people to think I'm falling off the deep end, I'll buy the Google Glass when they come out.

I'll wait until someone with some room measurement system and that system to publish honest measurements and maybe if enough people can prove there is a measurable difference, maybe I might bite down on the fish hook, but right now, I'm swimming away from it.

GaryProtein · Feb 6, 2014

You should read the responses Stereophile got when they reviewed them. They were not complimentary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/synergistic-research’s-hft-and-feq-transform-bose-wave-radio

jap · Feb 6, 2014

GaryProtein said:
You should read the responses Stereophile got when they reviewed them. They were not complimentary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/synergistic-research’s-hft-and-feq-transform-bose-wave-radio

Another Internet food fight.

How would you or RichDavis answer the last post?

MylesBAstor · Feb 7, 2014

GaryProtein said:
You should read the responses Stereophile got when they reviewed them. They were not complimentary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/synergistic-research’s-hft-and-feq-transform-bose-wave-radio

Technically, that was not a review but a show report.

Bill Demars · Feb 7, 2014

GaryProtein said:
You should read the responses Stereophile got when they reviewed them. They were not complimentary.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/synergistic-research’s-hft-and-feq-transform-bose-wave-radio

I couldn't get through nor would I want to, the first few idiotic responses of the Stereophile coverage. I have the HFT and FEQ and like them. You can always try things and listen for yourself.

ptman · Feb 7, 2014

Stepping in cautiously...

I also have the HFT and FEQ. I have the "level 3" configuration, and there was noticeable improvement at level 2. The FEQ took more of the noise floor out.

I have minimal room treatment, four Cathedral Sound Panels which one would say should not bring noticeable improvement, but they did.

I can only say what I hear. If my navigation in the car shows me there isn't a road, but I'm looking at the road, I tend to believe there's a road.

RichDavis · Feb 7, 2014

ptman said:
Stepping in cautiously...

I also have the HFT and FEQ. I have the "level 3" configuration, and there was noticeable improvement at level 2. The FEQ took more of the noise floor out.

I have minimal room treatment, four Cathedral Sound Panels which one would say should not bring noticeable improvement, but they did.

I can only say what I hear. If my navigation in the car shows me there isn't a road, but I'm looking at the road, I tend to believe there's a road.

it's too bad that the people that have room measurement equipment and own this product would show before and after room measurements so we could see a measured difference.

jap · Feb 7, 2014

RichDavis said:
it's too bad that the people that have room measurement equipment and own this product would show before and after room measurements so we could see a measured difference.

What type of before and after room measurements would you like them to show?

Measuring Sound Quality:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/...d-negative-frequencies-go-measuring-sound-qua

RichDavis · Feb 7, 2014

jap said:
What type of before and after room measurements would you like them to show?

Measuring Sound Quality:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/...d-negative-frequencies-go-measuring-sound-qua

What an acoustic engineer would test if they are going to test the effectiveness of room treatment. If someone has the measurement equipment, they should learn what tests they need to perform to show what, if any, differences room treatment is making in a desired environment. These two products, from viewing SR's marketing, is trying to sell these products as a form of room treatment. Room treatment will help with frequency response, delay times, etc. If the room treatment is effective, it will show with measurements whatever changes the treatment does. If there are no changes, then the room treatment is ineffective.

RichDavis · Feb 7, 2014

jap said:
What type of before and after room measurements would you like them to show?

Measuring Sound Quality:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/...d-negative-frequencies-go-measuring-sound-qua

After quickly reading the post, that's more for testing the quality of a loudspeaker, not a room. When an acoustic engineer tests a room, they are testing the room from the listening position. When they test the loudspeaker, they are usually doing it from about a meter away from the speaker. They are looking at completely different results.

Here's a video to check out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmOBi2Fktc

jap · Feb 7, 2014

RichDavis said:
After quickly reading the post, that's more for testing the quality of a loudspeaker, not a room. When an acoustic engineer tests a room, they are testing the room from the listening position. When they test the loudspeaker, they are usually doing it from about a meter away from the speaker. They are looking at completely different results.

Here's a video to check out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmOBi2Fktc

I doubt if anyone on WBT has invested in the same measurement tools that an acoustic engineer uses.

They can probable measure frequency, but if there are no changes does that mean they can't hear any changes soundstage air, dimensionality or mid-range clarity?

"As I said in the section on reviewing in my 2011 Richard Heyser Memorial lecture* to the Audio Engineering Society: the audible effect of measurable defects is not heard as their direct effect on the signals but as changes in the perceived character of the oh-so-fragile acoustic models. And that is without considering the higher-order constructs that concern the music that those acoustic models convey, and the even higher-order constructs involving the listener's relationship to the musical message. The engineer measures changes in a voltage or pressure wave; the listener is concerned with abstractions based on constructs based on models." - John Atkinson, Editor, Stereophile

Bill Demars · Feb 7, 2014

RichDavis said:
After quickly reading the post, that's more for testing the quality of a loudspeaker, not a room. When an acoustic engineer tests a room, they are testing the room from the listening position. When they test the loudspeaker, they are usually doing it from about a meter away from the speaker. They are looking at completely different results.

Here's a video to check out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGmOBi2Fktc

Do you have ears? Use them.

RichDavis · Feb 7, 2014

jap said:
I doubt if anyone on WBT has invested in the same measurement tools that an acoustic engineer uses.

They can probable measure frequency, but if there are no changes does that mean they can't hear any changes soundstage air, dimensionality or mid-range clarity?

"As I said in the section on reviewing in my 2011 Richard Heyser Memorial lecture* to the Audio Engineering Society: the audible effect of measurable defects is not heard as their direct effect on the signals but as changes in the perceived character of the oh-so-fragile acoustic models. And that is without considering the higher-order constructs that concern the music that those acoustic models convey, and the even higher-order constructs involving the listener's relationship to the musical message. The engineer measures changes in a voltage or pressure wave; the listener is concerned with abstractions based on constructs based on models." - John Atkinson, Editor, Stereophile

There is at least one person that has a PhD is acoustic engineering that can easily test these products, but I don't think they will waste their time doing so.

I did listen to a demo on YouTube and I didn't hear any difference. Obviously, I wasn't in the room where they demo'd the product, but I didn't hear any difference in the video.

jap · Feb 7, 2014

RichDavis said:
There is at least one person that has a PhD is acoustic engineering that can easily test these products, but I don't think they will waste their time doing so.

I did listen to a demo on YouTube and I didn't hear any difference. Obviously, I wasn't in the room where they demo'd the product, but I didn't hear any difference in the video.

Why would anyone expect to hear a difference with YouTube video sound quaility?

GaryProtein · Feb 7, 2014

jap said:
Why would anyone expect to hear a difference with YouTube video sound quaility?

In the video, they said you could hear a difference in the video.

MylesBAstor · Feb 7, 2014

jap said:
Why would anyone expect to hear a difference with YouTube video sound quaility?

You mean with that wide bandwidth response?

GaryProtein · Feb 7, 2014

Bill Demars said:
I couldn't get through nor would I want to, the first few idiotic responses of the Stereophile coverage. I have the HFT and FEQ and like them. You can always try things and listen for yourself.

Maybe if those things were more expensive I would not be in disbelief of the claims. I just can't bring myself to give any credence to a tweak that isn't well into four figures.

RichDavis · Feb 7, 2014

jap said:
Why would anyone expect to hear a difference with YouTube video sound quaility?

Why did they create and post the video in the first place? It was created by a reseller of their product with someone from the company. Some people "claimed" to have heard a difference, and some people, such as myself, couldn't. So, I don't know what to tell you. All I know, is that I've had experience with acoustic engineers that have come to my home to test the room acoustics of my listening room, I've read books and other articles along the way, and have experimented around with various forms of PROVEN room treatment to hear what improvements room treatment does.

The mfg has not posted ANY test data or even and plausible explanation on HOW the technology works and what effects it's going to have on the room in terms of frequency range, time delay, etc. The mfg gives more of it helps with soundstage, or whatever other marketing prose they can think of. From my background, as limited as it is, dictates that this is pseudoscience until proven otherwise.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories." Wikipedia

RichDavis · Feb 7, 2014

Bill Demars said:
Do you have ears? Use them.

Before I use my ears, I use my brain and my brain has dictated that with lack of measurement tests conducted by credible sources, that this product is not proven, therefor I'll wait for credible test results from credible sources. So far, I've seen absolutely NO test results. That scares me for this type of product.

Some people like to be part of the crowd that says the Emperor has new clothes just to be part of one social group and some people like to say the truth where the Emperor has no clothes. I'm part of the group that likes to tell the truth that has no reason to lie. I don't make money by reviewing product where advertisements are a source of revenue, I'm not a reseller of the product, nor am i a friend of anyone trying to be a shill trying to help one's sales of the product. I kind of like to see some test results on a product like this or have some independent acoustic engineer provide some proof on acoustic treatment. It's just my nature.

RichDavis · Feb 7, 2014

GaryProtein said:
Maybe if those things were more expensive I would not be in disbelief of the claims. I just can't bring myself to give any credence to a tweak that isn't well into four figures.

Good one. LOL..

Synergistic Research HFT

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads