SR HFT + FEQ ... Voodoo or ???
- Thread starter Jazzhead
- Start date
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
First: I attended a seminar similar to this; they also used an integrated amplifier: maybe to simplify or to demonstrate results on upper mid-fi/lower high-end?
Second: I own that same shirt
Second: I own that same shirt
HUGE differences between untreated and level 1...
BUT I know why....the cardboard box was left on the the left speaker and COMPLETELY changed the freq response of that speaker! Ted charges good money for those boxes and now we can all see why, LOL.
BUT I know why....the cardboard box was left on the the left speaker and COMPLETELY changed the freq response of that speaker! Ted charges good money for those boxes and now we can all see why, LOL.
Notice, the presenter's own voice doesn't change as he places those things, and he expects us to hear improvement in the music.
I think the Youtube video was only intended as an application guide. No one should use a video (or even an audio show) to evaluate a tweak or component.
The best method is an extended audition in your own system. Since Synergistic offers a 30-day money-back guarantee, it's easy to test the FEQ/HFT. You won't need the FEQ/HFT If your room has great acoustics.
If you have a typical room with acoustic issues, then it can be an cost-effective option. I have a mid-size room (13' x 24') with hardwood floor, large window, open doorway, and asymmetric rear corners. Not exactly a great starting point with a bright treble and bass modes. I started with GIK bass traps and then ASC Tube Traps and panels to tame the bass modes and smooth out the top end. The bass improved to the point where I could use a pair of JL Audio Fathom subs without exciting the room modes. The ASC panels also smoothed out the top end and improved dispersion.
My room acoustic improved further when I tried the Synergistic Research ART system. I was just shopping for cables when my dealer gave me a demo. His clients were buying a lot of Tranquility Bases, and the Synergistic rep convinced to put on an ART demo. Despite our initial skepticism, the ART system significantly improved an already good room and system. The Wilson MAXX speakers (driven by Burmester electronics) generated a much bigger soundstage with more low-level detail. The bass was noticeably more articulate.
I borrowed a demo set and was able to get similar results in my room. As a bonus, I was able to remove some of the ASC Traps and get better sound. I still use the Tube Traps in the front corners but got rid of ones on the sidewall and rear corners.
When the FEQ and HFT came out, I learned that they will complement the ART or other acoustic treatment and borrowed another demo set. The soundstage became bigger and more defined, with better extension at both extremes. For instance, the top end on my Revel Studio2 is cleaner with more decay. At the other extreme, the bass is more articulate and allow me to hear more of the recording venue.
I don't really understand how this FEQ/HFT works but it definitely improves the sound. This stuff drives my wife crazy but she reluctantly agrees that it's not voodoo.
The best method is an extended audition in your own system. Since Synergistic offers a 30-day money-back guarantee, it's easy to test the FEQ/HFT. You won't need the FEQ/HFT If your room has great acoustics.
If you have a typical room with acoustic issues, then it can be an cost-effective option. I have a mid-size room (13' x 24') with hardwood floor, large window, open doorway, and asymmetric rear corners. Not exactly a great starting point with a bright treble and bass modes. I started with GIK bass traps and then ASC Tube Traps and panels to tame the bass modes and smooth out the top end. The bass improved to the point where I could use a pair of JL Audio Fathom subs without exciting the room modes. The ASC panels also smoothed out the top end and improved dispersion.
My room acoustic improved further when I tried the Synergistic Research ART system. I was just shopping for cables when my dealer gave me a demo. His clients were buying a lot of Tranquility Bases, and the Synergistic rep convinced to put on an ART demo. Despite our initial skepticism, the ART system significantly improved an already good room and system. The Wilson MAXX speakers (driven by Burmester electronics) generated a much bigger soundstage with more low-level detail. The bass was noticeably more articulate.
I borrowed a demo set and was able to get similar results in my room. As a bonus, I was able to remove some of the ASC Traps and get better sound. I still use the Tube Traps in the front corners but got rid of ones on the sidewall and rear corners.
When the FEQ and HFT came out, I learned that they will complement the ART or other acoustic treatment and borrowed another demo set. The soundstage became bigger and more defined, with better extension at both extremes. For instance, the top end on my Revel Studio2 is cleaner with more decay. At the other extreme, the bass is more articulate and allow me to hear more of the recording venue.
I don't really understand how this FEQ/HFT works but it definitely improves the sound. This stuff drives my wife crazy but she reluctantly agrees that it's not voodoo.
mtseymour welcome to WBF , good of you to chime in . Interesting to know that an acoustically treated room , housing a quality rig can benefit from the HFT + FEQ . What level are you at , in terms of the number of HFT 's in use ? They must be selling fast , price just increased for the FEQ's from 750$ to 995$
I'm using ten HFT. The biggest improvement was with the FEQ and the first 5 HFT. The improvement from the next 5 was more subtle. It's easy to move the HFT around to find the optimal placement. The FEQ/HFT are selling well because the benefits are usually obvious in a home demo. My dealer is a upfront guy and his inventory is turning over quickly.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Welcome mtseymour...!
So with the HFT, was this a subjective observation or were these measured differences?
So with the HFT, was this a subjective observation or were these measured differences?[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the welcome. Glad to find this site and read all the informative posts.
I'm relying on subjective observations, partly because I don't know how to measure some of the things that I'm hearing. For example, Jennifer Warnes Famous Blue Raincoat (track 3) has a nice acoustic bass line. With the FEA & HFT, it's much easier to follow the bass part and hear the studio ambiance. With Brucbeck's Time Out (also a 45rpm pressing), the drum solo is much cleaner and dynamic. The recording space come across as more lively and reverberant. Other than a A/B comparison, how do I measure soundstage, imaging, attack & decay, dynamics, and articulation?
Don't get me wrong, I measure when it's practical. I've used a SPL meter with my Rives PARC analog equalizer to measure bass modes. I've also used my iPhone app AudioTools to check the placement of ASC Tube Traps. I just got the XTZ Room Analyzer II, and may see if the room response is smoother than before.
Another reason is that I'm cautious about tweaks, and won't buy something frivolous if I can divert funds for a new phonostage (Audio Research Ref Phono 2SE) or amp (Pass x250.8). The FEQ & HFT are obviously good enough that I don't want to irritate my wife by hearing the same test tracks over and over, LOL.
Paul
This type of product is easy to test to validate whether they work or not. Take a bare room, perform a room acoustics measurement test using precise test equipment. Place the things around the room, plug in the box and then retest using the same test equipment. You'll see before and after test results and if the difference is big enough, you'll see it. Please, do some proper measurement tests. If i was the mfg of this type of product, I would have those test results before releasing the product.
He is joking isn't he??
if not, it isn't voodoo, it's DOODOO!
I'm not drinking the Kool-aid. He's full of crap.
It sounds exactly the same.
A handful of marble sized anythings aren't going to change the sound in a room.
He could easily have used real equipment to measure what he wants us to hear if it was real.
if not, it isn't voodoo, it's DOODOO!
I'm not drinking the Kool-aid. He's full of crap.
It sounds exactly the same.
A handful of marble sized anythings aren't going to change the sound in a room.
He could easily have used real equipment to measure what he wants us to hear if it was real.
But it has to do with the Flux Capacitor. That's what the whole thing is based on. /s
I find it amusing that some will make disparaging comments while holding the FEQ/HFT to a different standard. First of all, the video was intended to show placement options, not to evaluate the product via low-rez audio in a YouTube video.
More importantly, acoustic treatment companies provide minimal specs for their products. Although ASC doesn't publish any specs for its Tube Traps, it's widely considered to be effective at reducing bass mode and improving diffusion. I still use several Tube Traps because they improve the sound. Some acoustic companies like RPG publish absorption coefficient data, but nothing about in-room response (probably because there are no "typical" rooms). How we assess these products without hearing them at home?
Since there are JL Audio owners on this thread, why doesn't it provide specs on the ARO (Automatic Room Optimization) system? I think that it's effective (because I've owned a pair of Fathom 110s), but JL Audio doesn't provide any measurements on the ARO system.
How about McIntosh? The 275 has similar published specs to the NAD M2 amp, but does it sound different or better? My friend has tried different KT88s on the 275 (with audible improvements), but I don't think he relies on published specs to choose his tubes. I can't find or rely on published specs when I search for 6SN7 tubes. Does that make tube rolling voodoo or DOODOO?
I don't want to pick on McIntosh because many hi-end brands don't publish detailed specs. Is there any measurable difference between the Pass .5 to .8 series? How about from Pass XA to the XS series? I'm sure that the XS preamp and XP-30 will sound better than my XP-20, but I can't make that determination from the published specs. Should I call the Pass XS amp snake oil or voodoo before I hear it?
How about vinyl? Are there any measurements to show the difference between a peripheral ring over a vacuum platter? I love my Tri-Planar Mk VII arm, but I don't think it measures better than my old VPI 10.5. Since most CD players measure better than vinyl, is the latter voodoo? I don't think so.
It should be noted that Synergistic is the only company on this list that offers a 30-day money back guarantee. I also haven't heard a negative comment from someone who's actually heard the FEQ/HFT in a proper setup. It may not work for everyone or setups, but how many products do? Measurements are useful but so are our ears.
More importantly, acoustic treatment companies provide minimal specs for their products. Although ASC doesn't publish any specs for its Tube Traps, it's widely considered to be effective at reducing bass mode and improving diffusion. I still use several Tube Traps because they improve the sound. Some acoustic companies like RPG publish absorption coefficient data, but nothing about in-room response (probably because there are no "typical" rooms). How we assess these products without hearing them at home?
Since there are JL Audio owners on this thread, why doesn't it provide specs on the ARO (Automatic Room Optimization) system? I think that it's effective (because I've owned a pair of Fathom 110s), but JL Audio doesn't provide any measurements on the ARO system.
How about McIntosh? The 275 has similar published specs to the NAD M2 amp, but does it sound different or better? My friend has tried different KT88s on the 275 (with audible improvements), but I don't think he relies on published specs to choose his tubes. I can't find or rely on published specs when I search for 6SN7 tubes. Does that make tube rolling voodoo or DOODOO?
I don't want to pick on McIntosh because many hi-end brands don't publish detailed specs. Is there any measurable difference between the Pass .5 to .8 series? How about from Pass XA to the XS series? I'm sure that the XS preamp and XP-30 will sound better than my XP-20, but I can't make that determination from the published specs. Should I call the Pass XS amp snake oil or voodoo before I hear it?
How about vinyl? Are there any measurements to show the difference between a peripheral ring over a vacuum platter? I love my Tri-Planar Mk VII arm, but I don't think it measures better than my old VPI 10.5. Since most CD players measure better than vinyl, is the latter voodoo? I don't think so.
It should be noted that Synergistic is the only company on this list that offers a 30-day money back guarantee. I also haven't heard a negative comment from someone who's actually heard the FEQ/HFT in a proper setup. It may not work for everyone or setups, but how many products do? Measurements are useful but so are our ears.
http://www.tubetrap.com/tubetrap-technical.htm ASC does publish measurement data on their products, you just have to go to their site and dig around, if you need anything additional, I'm sure they will be glad to show you measurements on a particular product if it's needed. If you are an acoustic engineer designing a room and use a particular brand of product, they'll certainly help you with measurement data on their products to pick which has the proper absorption, etc. But to the average person, it's usually above most people's heads, so they typically will discuss this with acoustic engineers that understand this information. All you have to do is request the information and I'm sure they'll provide it for you, but they probably want to talk to intelligent people that would better understand their products.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |