Synergistic Research HFT + FEQ

Hi Ozzy,

Thanks for this information. Very creative. I'd like to try this out myself. If you don't mind, please let me know the diameter and the length of copper pipe you use for each segment. Also, do you have a link or specs for the copper cones? Thank you.

For all you DIY's. I have received many emails to make these items. They are quite simple to make.

I used 1/8" copper caps with a large copper cone from a company called "Hareline" inside. Hareline makes items for fishing lures and can be bought from Amazon.

The caps however, will need to be purchased from a plumbing house. Then just simply glue the cone inside the cap. The cone is a direct drop in. I used Elmer's school glue to seal the cone inside the cap.

Audio Magic also places a crystal in the middle of there "Bells". I suppose you could use (Blu Tack)to hold a crystal in the cap before gluing the cone in it.
Personally I don't think its necessary.

When you place the cones (I used blue tack) on the wall or the equipment, place them in the middle first with one at the height of your speaker, then near the floor and perhaps one up high. If you go to high with them it may accent the higher frequencies. But do experiment.

The others were placed at the first and second reflection points on the side walls.

At the wall behind you, I placed them again in the middle, at floor level, mid and high.

Then from there you can experiment through your room and equipment. Some places they worked good and some not so good.

I must add that I also own the SR FEQ unit which is supposed to excite these things.

Just received my FEQ. So far so good! If anyone else is skeptical like me and want to see pics of internals send me a message!

My version, DIY: (thanks, Ozzy)

Parts...

1) copper fitting reducer 3/8 to 1/4 (about an inch long)
OR any 1/4 diameter copper pipe, bought from AC, refrigeration supplier

2) 7mm (9/32) brass fly tying coneheads, 100 count, from
Rip Lips Fishing

Process...

Clean all metal surfaces with Wright's anti-tarnish silver polish
Use a hacksaw to cut the fittings to size (cut in half, using a vise)
Place conehead on top of open (1/4) end of fitting, and, on a solid surface,
strike about five times with a hammer, forcing the larger conehead into the fitting so that the tops are level. This way, one fitting can turn into two completed units when each contains its own conehead.

Total cost is just under two dollars per unit, and no glue is needed.
And the sound? To me, a bit harsher and more "forward" than the originals.
This is not necessarily bad, as you can experiment, creating different placement patterns of the DIY and original versions, to suit your taste.

Where else can you have so much fun, for so little money?
(They can also work in your car.)

Having developed my own version of the HFTs for my system -- thanks to comments made by Ozzy -- and with very good results -- I am surprised at the OP by Augwest. But it is unfair, given no evidence whatsoever, to assume that he has an agenda. There is nothing at all to justify this notion that attempts, in a fashion typically found on many threads, to dismiss the validity of his observations. Has anyone but him heard the HFTs in his system? So, where do others get off making this unfounded accusation?

I must premise my comments by saying that, although I have never heard the HFTs or FEQs before, I am convinced they work well for most people and are a credit to Ted Denney's efforts. But since my HFTs are stunning at $1 each I would never consider the outrageous price SR is charging for theirs. In addition, I have about 50 in my system, and counting. That would amount to $3000 worth of SR HFTs. No way I would pay such an outlandish price -- even if they performed somewhat better than mine, which I am not sure they would.

As many posters have pointed out, you really need to think for yourself here and experiment to find out what works with the HFTs in your own system. From my experience with my DIY version, I no not believe that one size fits all regarding placement and the number of "levels", which I consider as much a marketing tool as a guide.

I have stated in another thread, I find it odd that Ted Denney who claims the HFTs are the culmination of his life's work should introduce them with a Bose Wave instead of with an expensive system -- as he has done at shows when introducing all other SR products. One would have thought HFTs would have deserved a more appropriate introduction if they were the culmination of a life's work. My opinion.

Regarding marketing, I do not believe SRs statement is accurate -- that the HFTs and their identical ECT twins are transducers. Can anyone explain how they can possibly be in the same class as transducers like microphones and speakers? I believe transducer is a term SR is using for marketing purposes -- to hide the fact that the HFTs and ECTs are simple resonators.

In fact, the SR HFTs appear to be a cross between the Novum PMR out of Germany and ASI Liveline Franck Tchang's "Sugar Cubes" and resonator bowls, the precursors to the SR ART system that was mysteriously and coincidentally "discovered" during Ted Denney's 3-year solo Pacific sailing adventure – after Franck Tchang’s resonators had already been on the market. I note that SR never called their ART system a collection of transducers. They were always called resonators. And can anyone explain the difference – besides the color scheme – between the HFTs and the ECTs? They look identical, and both cost $60 each.

Has anyone had a look at the YouTubes of the 2 Peters promoting the HFTs and ECTs? Did anyone notice how they talk down to their audience as though they were talking to morons – counting each HFT 1,2,3,4,5 as they show us how to remove them from the package – showing us how to take a piece of Blu Tack from the strip and apply it to each HFT -- and showing us how to put them on the wall? Thank you, fellows. This YouTube should have been entitled HFTs for Dummies -- the YouTube that accompanies the culmination of a life's work. With Peter Breuninger nodding and nodding throughout the video like a nodding toy on your dashboard. It was a good laugh.

And what of their YouTube where they spill the ECTs into a component chassis like jelly beans without testing to see what the results are at each stage? I mean, with a lavish coating of up to 20 ECTs per component you would think this enhancement would deserve a more methodical approach.

Can you really afford to spill these ECTs into each of your components at a cost of up to $1000 or more per component? -- with the assurance they are certainly doing great things, as we surely know is true for all Synergistic Research products -- but without any proof except for their claim and good copy writing. IMO, SR has been more fortunate with the HFTs than with so many lack-luster products of yesteryear that have been duly relegated to the dustbin of high end audio history.

When Augwest says "I was assured that there was no trade-off, and that sonic degradation was impossible." I agree with his observation that this is not true. My experience has been that sonic degradation is very possible with poor placement, including some of the placements suggested by SR.

I agree with Ozzy when he says "Just don't tell the wife how much they cost each ...". They wife would find the price outrageous. And she would be right -- except for those who are able to afford throwing money at they systems.

I agree with Heyimderrick when he says "SR seems to be the one with an agenda to mute any naysayers." Lamentably, this has been the fact in the past.