Synergistic Research HFT
- Thread starter RBFC
- Start date
It's frustrating when some members go on and on about something they have not heard. I wonder if they spend all their time trolling on forums because their system "measures" well but don't sound so goodSince I use "conventional" and "snake oil" acoustic treatment like the FEQ/HFT, here are my two cents.
Like the ART system, the FEQ/HFT system is complementary with each other and "traditional" acoustic treatment. My dealer has a good sounding room with traditional treatment like corner traps and panels. With Burmester Top Line electronics and Wilson MAXX speakers, the sound is already very good. The introduction of the ART system audibly improved the soundstage, bass articulation, and overall resolution. The difference was not subtle even though most of us were initially skeptical. The FEQ seems to lower the noise floor further, while the HFT provide further improvement to the soundstage and high-end. The HFT can also be easily placed on awkward locations (eg. ceiling). In my room, the ART and FEQ/HFT coexist quite well with my ASC Tube Traps. Without the tube Traps, the bass modes would be audible. Without the ART and FEQ/HFT, I would have less bass definition, smaller soundstage, and higher noise floor.
It's easy to experiment with the FEQ/HFT placement. The HFT are so light that they can be place and removed from the ceiling or walls. The FEQ doesn't seem to be fussy about placement. By comparison, I got rid of four Tube Traps because they were taking up too much space. Unlike the FEQ/HFT, the Tube Traps are cosmetically-challenged (ie. my wife hates them).
The FEQ/HFT is relatively affordable. The package is about $1,050 (750 + $300). By comparison, a pair of Tube Traps will cost $1,200-1,400, and most rooms need more than one pair. Companies like RPG also make make good-looking acoustic treatment but they're similarly expensive. In an untreated room, it's a toss-up as to which treatment will be better. In a decent sounding room with some acoustic treatment, I suspect that the FEQ/HFT will probably be more cost-effective and less ugly. Hear them and decide for yourself.
RichDavis and GaryProtein apply an unrealistic standard when they ask for detailed measurements. I don't know of any acoustic treatment company that publish "typical" before and after in-room measurements. ASC provides absorption coefficient measurements for its Tube Traps but that's about it. The reason is that it's virtually impossible to define and measure a "typical" room. A company like Rives Audio will provide consulting and measurement service, but they don't make publish before and after in-room measurements for the same reason. Even with digital room correction like DEQX and TACT, the user is encouraged to fine-tune the adjustments by ear.
Measurements are useful, but don't replace actual listening sessions. Some of the best sounding concert halls were designed before the age of computers and electronic measurements (eg. Musikverein, la Scala, Boston Symphony Hall). Conversely, some modern halls sound mediocre despite access to detailed measurements and computer models (eg. Sydney Opera House, Avery Fisher, Roy Thomson Hall). I wonder if Theophil Hansen and early designers were denigrated because they had the audacity to rely on experience and hearing rather than wait for measurements.
Your results may vary, but why debate endlessly when it's so easy to audition with no financial risk?
Good post!
Can you say Cyril Harris?
How about Concert Hall at the JFK Center for the Performing Arts. One of the worst halls I've ever heard (the other award goes to Festival Hall in London!).It's frustrating when some members go on and on about something they have not heard. I wonder if they spend all their time trolling on forums because their system "measures" well but don't sound so good
Like the ART system, the FEQ/HFT system is complementary with each other and "traditional" acoustic treatment. My dealer has a good sounding room with traditional treatment like corner traps and panels. With Burmester Top Line electronics and Wilson MAXX speakers, the sound is already very good. The introduction of the ART system audibly improved the soundstage, bass articulation, and overall resolution. The difference was not subtle even though most of us were initially skeptical. The FEQ seems to lower the noise floor further, while the HFT provide further improvement to the soundstage and high-end. The HFT can also be easily placed on awkward locations (eg. ceiling). In my room, the ART and FEQ/HFT coexist quite well with my ASC Tube Traps. Without the tube Traps, the bass modes would be audible. Without the ART and FEQ/HFT, I would have less bass definition, smaller soundstage, and higher noise floor.
It's easy to experiment with the FEQ/HFT placement. The HFT are so light that they can be place and removed from the ceiling or walls. The FEQ doesn't seem to be fussy about placement. By comparison, I got rid of four Tube Traps because they were taking up too much space. Unlike the FEQ/HFT, the Tube Traps are cosmetically-challenged (ie. my wife hates them).
The FEQ/HFT is relatively affordable. The package is about $1,050 (750 + $300). By comparison, a pair of Tube Traps will cost $1,200-1,400, and most rooms need more than one pair. Companies like RPG also make make good-looking acoustic treatment but they're similarly expensive. In an untreated room, it's a toss-up as to which treatment will be better. In a decent sounding room with some acoustic treatment, I suspect that the FEQ/HFT will probably be more cost-effective and less ugly. Hear them and decide for yourself.
RichDavis and GaryProtein apply an unrealistic standard when they ask for detailed measurements. I don't know of any acoustic treatment company that publish "typical" before and after in-room measurements. ASC provides absorption coefficient measurements for its Tube Traps but that's about it. The reason is that it's virtually impossible to define and measure a "typical" room. A company like Rives Audio will provide consulting and measurement service, but they don't make publish before and after in-room measurements for the same reason. Even with digital room correction like DEQX and TACT, the user is encouraged to fine-tune the adjustments by ear.
Measurements are useful, but don't replace actual listening sessions. Some of the best sounding concert halls were designed before the age of computers and electronic measurements (eg. Musikverein, la Scala, Boston Symphony Hall). Conversely, some modern halls sound mediocre despite access to detailed measurements and computer models (eg. Sydney Opera House, Avery Fisher, Roy Thomson Hall). I wonder if Theophil Hansen and early designers were denigrated because they had the audacity to rely on experience and hearing rather than wait for measurements.
Your results may vary, but why debate endlessly when it's so easy to audition with no financial risk?
What's more frustrating is that people don't think logically when it comes to a product such as this.
Here are the claims the manufacturer is making.
1. Improves ALL aspects of system performance. (What does this mean? Does it mean all of the specs of the entire system is just magically better because you placed a bunch of metal pieces the size of the end of your pinky around the room and some box that plugs into the wall? To me, that suggests that your power amps will create more wattage, lower signal to noise, lower THD, wider bandwidth, flatter frequency response, your pre amps will also have lower noise, your speakers will magically have a wider and flatter frequency response, lower distortion, your digital equipment will have lower jitter, your turntable will have lower wow and flutter, etc. etc.? That's what that claim suggests.)
2. Significantly expands soundstage width, depth, and height.
3. Tightens and controls low frequencies.
4. Lower your systems noise floor.
5. Effectively treats regular and irregular shaped rooms.
6. Most advances Acoustic Treatment System.
Now, I have a little knowledge of what goes on in an audio system and room acoustics. I'm not an expert, but I'm also not an idiot that just automatically buys ANYTHING that says "Guaranteed or your money back."
I've been interested in room acoustic treatment for many, many years and have spent some time talking with acoustic engineers that measure, design and recommend acoustic treatment for improving room acoustics.
In order for a company to make these types of claims, they had better show some proof. If you want to waste your money on something, that's your thing, but I'm just adding some common sense, logic, sound reasoning to this type of product. The company mentions they have patents on their EM Power Cell technology, yet I don't see any Patent information or even a patent number on their website and after doing some Patent Searches on my own, the only thing that I found that says anything close to Power Cell patent is something by another company that's related to nuclear energy, which I assure you this isn't anything related to that.
Now, I suggest that you be a little more critical of some of these claims before you leap in and buy into what someone else tells you about the product. There were several people that also claimed they didn't hear any difference to this product.
In the audio industry, there are some companies that actually list specs of a product and some don't. I looked up one company called LAMM, one of the top mfg of amps and pre amps. They actually have their products sent out to an independent testing lab and they show the results of those tests, and the graphs associated with their equipment. That, to me, is pretty darned impressive and I wish others would do the same thing. At least it shows they aren't hiding anything. I have also gone to several room acoustic treatment mfg., and they post specs on their products. Here's a couple you might want to look at. Acoustic Fields, Auralex, ASC, and others that do a lot more than just make claims about their products without having some technical information to help you not only understand the product, but also to show you what it does from a measurement standpoint and they are typically VERY helpful in giving you measurement specs of their products so you can figure out what you need and they offer either free services based on their years of experience in modeling rooms, or if need be, you can hire them to perform room measurements, etc. to achieve a more perfect room acoustic listening environment. Room treatment of the types these companies make are based on literally decades of experience, and it is a scientifically proven discipline. Installing the Synergistic Research system to me, seems like a complete joke. I've seen videos where they claimed you can hear the difference on their YouTube video and I quite frankly couldn't hear any difference. The room still had a lot of problems with room acoustics before and after.
To get on my back or others that agree with me is pointless. I am NOT going to waste my time with a product such as this until their are some REPUTABLE acoustic engineers that have tested and measured before and after what it does to the room acoustics and can prove that they do change the room acoustics to indicate that they improve the listening experience.
So far, there have been plenty of people that have these things and also have room measurement equipment, but no one has shown any measurements to indicate that there is an improvement. This is something that one, with proper training, can perform within a few hours.
I would HIGHLY suggest is to not buy into someone's product without investigating it from an objective perspective, especially when it comes to unproven technology. Just because someone says they have a patent, doesn't necessarily mean anything. Plenty of patents have been granted on products that were failures. But what got me is they don't have the patent number listed, nor do they have the patent filing available on their site and I can't find it on any patent search site. To me, that spells RED FLAG. it's a buyer beware scenario and the only way I will even change my stance on such product is by someone of credibility (acoustic engineer) showing me before and after room measurements, and it would even be nice if there were some test measurements on equipment, since THEY ARE MAKING those claims. Until then, there is nothing one can say about these products that will make me swallow the bait.
It's too bad your dealer doesn't show test measurements of their room before an after. I know the ART product MIGHT do something, although I don't know how much it would do since they appear to be quite small, unless you put a bunch of those things up. I've read about Helmholtz resonators, but I found that they might be a little too difficult to get working properly, which is why most people don't use them. They use things like diffusors, sound absorption, sound reflection products and the proper way is to measure the room first, calculate what you need and where, and then retest the room and this whole process can many times take months to completely ring out a room, sometimes more. I've read about rooms that took several years to ring out all of the problems, so it's not so easy.
Asking for detailed measurements is NOT unrealistic. In the realm of acoustic treatment, it's almost a given that a company will release what the related product will do. go check out Acoustic Fields. That company is VERY forth coming of product tests. So an acoustic engineer with understand the product, what it controls, and how to determine what's needed. These companies will also take your room measurements and plug them into their computer modeling software which is based on years of research and they can show you where your problem areas are likely going to be.
If you want DIY products, Go to Acoustic Fields, ASC has relatively inexpensive products as does a few others. Unfortunately, room treatment products aren't cheap. especially if they use the fabric that is common amongst that industry. It's just not cheap fabric. But to think that placing 25 tiny cylinders around the room that are the size of your pinky, and plugging in what sounds like an electro magnet just doesn't sound all that scientific that it's going to do anything.
Trust me, getting proper room treatment is going to assure proper room acoustics a LOT faster than the HFTs and FEQ.
Measurements are something that are used to figure out the problem areas and with someone that is actually trained in the area that can understand and interpret the room measurements will tell you that they are invaluable in ringing out problems in a room. And based on their measurements, they have devised software to model rooms to do a cheap and dirty room analysis to help with room treatment, which these companies offer typically for free. And it can do probably around 80% of what needs to be done. But the only shortcuts in room treatment are things like pillows, curtains, stuffed furniture with fabric, speaker placement, listening position. But it does take legitimate room treatment to really control the sound waves in a room.
You sound like one of Synergistic's shills trying to conjure up more sales for them. If i ask them to send me the kit, they charge my credit card and have use of MY money for a month or more. That's another scam, plus I have to pay for shipping it back, and that whole process. For what? to know that the product doesn't really work and I just wasted my time? Sorry, I don't buy into that easily. I've had my experience with scam products before and I don't have time for more.
I would rather save my $1000+ and apply that towards proper room treatment that I know is going to work, or in my current situation, my room sounds just fine and the only thing I'm going after now is better equipment, but I really can't do much further in my room without starting from scratch, which I plan on doing one of these days when I move.
Well, I don't care about what someone says, i prefer some concrete, repeatable measurements before and after. It should be EASY to do and there is no arguing with proper test measurements. That's tangible, that's provable. One's subjectivity is not provable. How many people THOUGHT BOSE 901's back in the 70's was high end audio and what do they say about BOSE 901's now? I read subjective listening tests to those by the "audiophile" community in the magazines and so-called "EXPERTS" back in the 70's and now, the "audiophile" community pretty much discards that product as a genuine POS. Right? See my point?
Rich-Go buy them, measure them, and get back to us with the info. Your endless haranguing of the manufacturer has gotten so old it's farting dust. I'm sick of you repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. See my point?
Rich you can say whatever you want 10^6 times and it's not going to change matters nor make it any more true than saying it once. So please spare us the hyperbole. It's become rather long in the tooth.
RD is like the boy who cried wolf. Sadly for us that lad used only one word and did not have a cut and paste app.
Good post!
Can you say Cyril Harris?
The problem with room measurements that I'm aware of in a large concert hall is that the measurements are based on the where they place the microphone. In a small room, they typically put it where YOU are sitting and listening from. in large concert halls, they have thousands of listening positions so it might be a little more difficult to perform those measurements. I haven't been in those two concert halls, but I've been in some where they added sound reinforcement systems, but I don't think the building was originally designed for proper sound with a PA. I spent some time at Meyer Sound Labs which was making their room measurement system they called the SIM. What they did was they placed microphones throughout the concert hall to measure from different seats and then they apply processing to improve the QoS throughout the hall, rather than the "sweetspot". For small rooms, we have different challenges. Yes, bass seems to be one of the biggies, but when they do measurements, they usually only do it from one position not 5000 in a concert hall. But some of these concert halls sound like crap when they use a PA system, because they didn't tune the PA very well.
Well, so are subjective listening tests for an unproven technology. Sounds like you are easily manipulated by mfg because you want to make money from advertisers. Sad, but it's usually true. For someone with a PhD, you certainly don't act like it. Of all of the PhD's that i've known over the years, most of them rely on objective measurements FIRST and FOREMOST. I've known quite a few during my life. You of all people should know this, but what did you do? Sell out?
What does what you posted have anything to do with what I posted? Who cares about the measurements? Yeah we all know about sweet spots or seats. That's hardly news.
It's how the hall the sounds. Have you ever attended a concert in Avery Fisher in NYC or Orchestra Hall in DC? If not, I'm not interested in your speculation.
And if you must know, Cyril Harris tried to apply equations meant for small halls to larges halls. Epic fail.
A few points
1. I have not yet even had the time to install the HFTs. Unlike some, who seem to have infinite time to spend pontificating on their points, my work in heart surgery actually has limited my time for audio affairs recently.
2. While I, too, would prefer to see a standardized set of measurements applied to audio products, repeatedly using WBF bandwidth to chastise members (most of whom have not purchased or even heard the HFTs) about the company's providing of data is a waste of our time. WBF members are quite intelligent and certainly understand Rich's point. Unfortunately, his continual recitation of the same speech only serves to lessen his message, not reinforce it.
If I see another round of the same speech, I will take action. I just can't understand how a supposedly intelligent person would allow such an emotional cause to jeopardize their membership when they have zero financial/professional risk in the product.
Lee
1. I have not yet even had the time to install the HFTs. Unlike some, who seem to have infinite time to spend pontificating on their points, my work in heart surgery actually has limited my time for audio affairs recently.
2. While I, too, would prefer to see a standardized set of measurements applied to audio products, repeatedly using WBF bandwidth to chastise members (most of whom have not purchased or even heard the HFTs) about the company's providing of data is a waste of our time. WBF members are quite intelligent and certainly understand Rich's point. Unfortunately, his continual recitation of the same speech only serves to lessen his message, not reinforce it.
If I see another round of the same speech, I will take action. I just can't understand how a supposedly intelligent person would allow such an emotional cause to jeopardize their membership when they have zero financial/professional risk in the product.
Lee
Hi Myles,
How much experience do you (or others) have with Davies Hall in San Francisco?
I went to several concerts numerous years ago, when the hall was relatively new, and I found the sound to be "toppy" and "thin" with a distinct lack of midrange bloom and low bass definition.
I know they played around with the "glass deflectors / diffusor" things (looked like miniature flying saucers) above the audience to try to address the issue.
The hall was absolutely stunning from a "modern" architectural perspective but quite underwhelming sonically.
Any updates from you or anyone else?
FWIW I, along with a well seasoned listener friend, did hear a demo of the SR ART tuning system at Rocky Mountain Audio Fest three years ago. Clearly audible and much for the better with the devices installed.
GG
Ever hear of RAL? That's short for Riverbank Acoustical Laboratories.
This is where they test acoustic room treatment products, etc.
They are the people that these mfg of "ROOM TREATMENT" products send their products so they can get it independently tested.
They create response curves, etc. on a product so that when an acoustic engineer needs some form of treatment, they can look at the RAL specs to see what might work best. So, if some company wants to market a "ROOM TREATMENT" product to treat a room, they'll go to RAL to get it tested and validated.
SR didn't do this. I'm sure if there are tests that can validate the product, RAL should be able to perform independent tests to prove that it works or doesn't work.
Now, stop acting like fools about this. Large room acoustics can take YEARS to get right, and it costs MONEY. Lots of it. So, whomever operates these concert halls are, they have to want to spend money to improve the sound quality, and sometimes, they don't have it. The acoustic engineers can only work with what products they KNOW about that might solve those issues, same goes with small room acoustics. They have budgets, and those budgets don't always include doing what needs to be done to get perfect room acoustics. When building a new room that's never been done before, they can only model it as best as they can, and then it's an ongoing fine tuning. Plus, room acoustics is measurable, but still has a certain degree of subjectivity involved.
SR should have RAL test the products and come back with a report to back up their claims. They have a LOT of claims in their ads and website and they are just too good to be true. If they had nothing to worry about, then why don't they show measurements?
http://www.alionscience.com/en/abou...s/acoustics/riverbank-acoustical-laboratories
It's amazing that one would slam products simply because there are no published measurements. I would venture a guess that installation location, etc. has a large effect on the final result, whether the product is RAL-certified or not. From personal experience, I know I got different results when I placed my half-dozen ASC tube traps in different spots in my room, but they have measurements on their site. So, there are more requirements to be met than merely having measurements that show the effect of the devices under a single (or limited #) of circumstances.
Lee
Lee
At least it's applicable and reasonable to think that it's what should have been done.
They are making a lot of money from something that hasn't been tested by an independent testing lab for room treatment. It's what every legitimate acoustic room treatment company does. Look at RPG, Acoustic Fields, ASC, Sonex, etc. etc. They have their products tested and they either post the results on-line or can send you the test results before you buy it. And they typically have money back guarantees as well.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |