Synergistic Research HFT + FEQ

The Wide Angle version HFTs may provide a short cut for you, and
result in better sound.  You can really "dial in" the sound!

Are these an option for you?
If they were available in the beginning, I think I would have saved 
time and money.

Bit surprised by this, the UEF dots made quite an impact.  I borrowed 6 HFT's for the wall behind my speakers (Magnapan 1.7i's) and they made a small difference in soundstage depth (made a huge difference on my friends system though).  Tried a 10 pack of UEF dots and the difference was astounding.  Added 5 more and even more imaging precision and timbre accuracy.  Has anyone tried level 4 and 5 (20/25 dots)?  Do the improvements continue?

Even though I have four Shatki Holograms (one in each corner of the room) and a compliment of Tube Traps in the rear, a ten pack of HFT’s transformed the room and finally completed the room treatments. Great product and highly recommended.

Frank

  I recently installed 10 hft's, 5 hft 2.0 and the 3 wide angle x pack along with the feq. It's quite amazing to hear the improvement  soundwise.

  I put the x wide angle which I a golds color dead center on the wall between the speakers and the other 2 normal wide angles at ear height either side of the listening position.

  Couldn't be happier.

sabai,

Is the PARKER 3GF-10 you linked to is of size appropriate for 1/4" (large) Hareline Brass Cone Head?

Have you made your HFT using these elements? What are your impressions?

glory,

These plumbing accessories are identical looking to the product Audio Magic sells. I suspect they may be the same -- in which case he has an excellent profit margin, 

I managed to source for the 1/4" copper cones but have no such luck finding 1/8" copper caps from plumbing suppliers and other hardware stores here in Singapore. Any kind soul here willing to sell me your extras if you have any?

Sabai

You have the Parker?

Looks like my AM bell.

If you use something like this then you don't need the copper caps:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PARKER-3GF-10-Seal-Bonnet-45-deg-Copper-Flare-PK-10-/381935277769?epid=11107...

Has anyone compared the HFT's to the new UEF Acoustic Dots?

If one is not a DIY person, I do hope you will consider trialing the Synergistic family of room treatments. I am extremely happy with the sonic improvement to my listening room. I use the HFT's on the walls and ceiling, and on the speakers. I was just at the LA Audio Show and the sound from their room was outstanding!
I do think rooms need acoustic tuning and the Synergistic Research approach have been much more positive than the old approach of damping and diffusion. In addition my living room does not look like a sterile recording studio.

David Pritchard

@ozzy Can you tell and show us what you used to make your own HFT's? I read about 'copper pipe caps with a copper cone inside'.

So far I have found this: https://goo.gl/Px4bjU for the copper caps

Is this OK - and how do the copper cones look like to put inside?

Dave,
There is another thread on Audiogon, just called,"Synergistic Research HFT's".  That thread seems to have a little more activity.  I've just posted a few things over there.  Oregon Papa has already noticed my activity, so maybe others might be able to help you on that thread.  This one seems to be dead.

Toolbox

Dave;
Did you ever have success with Ozzy's HFTs?  I am thinking about buying supplies to try these, but your post raised some red flags.  Not having seen any of the actual parts I wonder if there are better way to put here together - is there a "best glue" to use?  Is there a preferred glue technique?   Do you have a close-up photo of one of yours?  Maybe if Ozzy sees this post he can provide a close-up photo. (I can't find them in his photos of his setup).

Hi all,

I know that this is a (very) old thread, but I have been experimenting with DIY HFT clones built exactly to ozzy’s directions (I think) and am having unexpected negative results. I started with 5 of them in the SR Stage 1 config, added 5 more according to the SR Stage 2 config. They are very powerful in their effect. The highs became excrutiating in both configs. I move them around on the wall, mostly moving them progressively downward toward the floor, and noticed a change in tonality with each movement, but the high-frequency ringing was still killing my ears.

I then tried them on my room’s rear wall (only) and am liking the effect, moving the soundstage forward and adding perceived space between and behind performers. I had exactly the same experience with my Shakti Hallographs. Didn’t work well in the same room’s front corners (behind speakers), but work very nicely in the rear corners (behind my listening position).

I have the supplies to build 20 more and am hoping for some advice from those that are using them successfully around their room.

Best to you,
Dave

FYI - pay attention to ozzy! I thought he made a typo so bought some 1/4 inch caps and they are way too large for the cones. Go figure. Turns out the 1/4 inch caps spec out at around 3/8 in.

FYI - Ozzy confirmed via PM that it is the 1/4" large cones he used with the 1/8" caps.

Ozzy - I own 10 HFTs and a FEQ. They are crazy good so your DIY version being even better really intrigues me. I understand you use 1/8" copper caps. I found the Hareline cones on Amazon. You said to use the "large" cones. The "large" cones are 1/4" according to Amazon. Is that the correct ones to use? The other options are medium at 7/32", small at 3/16" and x-small at 5/32". Yours appear to fit so well I just want to make sure I order the right cones to fit the 1/8" caps. Thanks again Ozzy!

Years ago I read about glass and similar materials
as they apply to vibration control. I have had excellent
results with pieces I have bought from Prism Research Glass, Inc.
in Raleigh N.C.

I use the sixteenth inch thickness of Quartz glass discs
in conjunction with vibration control pieces, such as Symposium,
BDR, and Aurio. I place the discs on both sides of these pieces,
making a sandwich of them, so that the Quartz glass has contact with the
bottom of the speaker or electronic piece and the shelf.
It does change the sound, for the better, IMO.

I also experimented with DIY HFTs, and found that, by breaking
the discs into smaller triangular pieces (the company does not make
them smaller than 2" discs, I think) they provide "support" for the HFT.
I roll a thin bead of BLU Tack and affix it to the open side
of the HFT. Then I attach it to the Quartz glass, and affix the
Quartz glass to the wall, for example. On the back of the
Quartz piece is either a piece of double sided Scotch tape or
a small circle of Blu Tack. I can hear an improvement this way, versus
simply placing the HFT directly to the wall. I think the Quartz glass might
be "energizing" the movement of air?

Goetzfam, I think adding a crystal to the finished product would block the horn like shape.
Perhaps if I build more I'll put a crystal in before I insert the cone into the cap.

Goetzfam, I think adding a crystal to the finished product would block the horn like shape.
Perhaps if I build more I'll put a crystal in before I insert the cone into the cap.

Ozzy, any thought of putting a quartz crystal in?

Ozzy,

I thought so -- as per your earlier post. My DIYers are excellent. I have no basis for comparison because I have not heard the SR or Audio Magic. What do the bells add to your SQ?

I am finding some of the SR placements not so good. It takes a lot of experimenting to get this right. Your suggestion about digital is helping me optimize. My DAC and transport are now the focus of my attention.

Ozzy,

You were right on the money about using HFTs on digital components.

Sabai, To me my DIYers are the best. Followed by the Bells and then Synergistic.
But I own all three so I use all three.

Ozzy,

Have the Audio Magic Bells made a significant improvement in your system?

Ozzy,

Thanks for this information. I thought you were using DIY HFTs in your system. Are you not? You said in an earlier post that yours were better sounding than the SR HFTs.

Sabai,
The HFT's are the Synergistic units. I have those mixed throughout with the others.
I think after the walls the best place is on Digital equipment.

I also will have a few packs of the SR ECT's to place inside my digital gear.
I would liked to have tried my DIY inside but they are copper and very conductive.

Ozzy,

Thanks for this valuable information. When you say "I also have the HFT's" are you now referring to them on the walls?

I have about 50 in my system. I found the same thing. They are most effective on front and back walls. They constrict the sound stage on the side walls.

Do you find they are more effect on one component vs. another?

I think I have about 30.
Yes, I have 4 on each speaker. And then 4 on all sides of my Dac and Player. I also placed 4 each on the bottoms of the those same components.

But, I also have the HFT's and the Audio Magic Bells.

On my walls I have 3 on each side wall placed at first reflection points and in between.
I have many on the front and back walls. They seem to work best on the front and back placed within the speakers.

I also have them placed on the backs of my JL F113 subs and on the wall behind them.

Ozzy,

How many DIY HFTs are you using? Do you use mainly front and back walls? Do you use any on components?

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.

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.)

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!

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.

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.

Sabai, Not yet.
Better still I'll explain how I made them.
I'm using 1/8"copper pipe caps with a copper cone inserted inside. I bought the cones from a fishing lure company. It has the right tapering and the right opening inside.
Now, Audio Magic uses a crystal inside the cone, mine does not. But, I might experiment further.

Ozzy,

Do you have any close-up pics of yours?

Placement of these little devices can change the tonal qualities. If you place them too high they do seem to accent more of the higher frequencies.

Except for a few places in the room, the majority of mine are placed either at speaker height or near the floor level at the middle and behind subs and speakers.

I also have many placed on equipment. The speaker placement was ok and on most of my digital equipment there is an improvement. But, not so good on other equipment such as Amp or Preamp.
I now have 15 of the SR, 15 of the Audio Magic, and about 30 of my DIY versions.

I would rate the Audio Magic the best, with my DIY versions second and then the SR's. Again, I think it is because of the copper.

Ozzy, nice stuff! My friend and I experimented with the HFT's on his system. They were very effective once several packs were used. With just one pack, the height of the soundstage (or stage position) went up too high. Voices kind of on top of you. Tone shifted towards the highs. With many packs around the room they did expand soundstage and provide higher resolution and I think tone went back to normal. Results will vary, room to room, system to system. I'm reluctant to try HFT's with the tall Magnepans. I don't think they improved tonal qualities, so it's interesting that yours do that! Copper is likely a better material. The AM kit is interesting, but still a bit of money for me. My friend also has the FEQ. All around amazing product, well worth the cost! To me it was similar to the effect of the aR2p-TO, in terms of resoltion, dynamics and soundstage. But the FEQ goes about this in a very relaxed way. My friend made his own plug in cable out of silver wire and an Oyaide 004 connector. I was shocked at the improvements. Even clearer, more soundstage/resolution/bass, no ill effects.

There's a damping product from a European company called the "Entreq Vibb Eater." Much like the HRS damping plates they are placed on top of a device. On the P10 it really helped all areas. The Vibb is a basically a leather pouch with several pounds of damping sand. It may have some EMI properties as well and pebbles, I'm not sure. The HRS plate was tremendously effective on top of my Oppo 105. It took the player to a whole new level, while somehow taking away much grain and harshness at the same time. I bought one more plate, but have yet to try if a second will add further improvements. For the money, I haven't come across such an easy effective tweak (aside from HighEnd CC's 75ohm terminator, best $20 bucks ever spent). I haven't tried any damping material inside of my components yet. I was looking at the Fo.q stuff (but the HRS plates cost just a little more). I'll take a look at Herbies offering! After experimenting with the Acoustic Revive QR-8, I feel their's got to be an effective damping product for the audience aR2p-TO. I'm also looking for a way to dampen all my Oyaide 079 connectors.

The SR Red's are a bit pricey but I'm considering buying. Unfortunately, I can't find what they actually changed. I did find out that it should sound similar to the SR20 with an increase in resolution and lower noise floor. I looked closely at the pictures and it appears the end caps are the same. So changes are likely inside the fuse. I wonder if SR added damping filler like Furutech... Has anyone tried one of these yet?

Audiotunesx, Thank you ! They look even better in person.
Sound wise they are as good or better than the SR units. I think its because copper has better tonal qualities. The SR units appear to me to be there tuning units used in there active shielding and are cut in half.

The Audio Magic bells are not posted on the web site yet. But, they are listed on Audiogon. Do a search for AudioMagic.

Question:
Are you saying that your friend is using dampening material on the PS Audio P10? If so, I have found that Herbies makes a DB heavy pad that can stick to the cover very well. I use them now on several pieces.

Also, what is so special about the SR Red fuses?

Ozzy, I'm impressed with the DIY HFT's! They look cooler IMO. I don't see any bells on Audio Magic's website. Are these prototypes? I had great luck with the AM PEA's and appreciate your observations last time. Works well with the ZX Pulse Gen (have this on an Oyaide 079 plugged into the ar2p-to). I actually found the Akiko Tuning stick worked on my system (I cut the AC plug off and placed it on one of my amps negative terminals). I came across your findings recently on the WA Quantum fuse chips and now I'm waiting on those to come in for the SR20's I have. Too bad that power chip didn't work on the audience! I tried an Acoustic Revive qr-8 on the top of it with a friend. Insane soundstage effect and precise imaging, but sadly the highs overtook the other frequencies and introduced harshness. On his system damping the top of the P10 has a nice all around effect (Entreq Vibb). Not sure if HRS plates will do the same (the thicker DPX model is awesome on my source). Next up, SR RED fuses!

Ha Ha I will take 15.

I just made some home made HFT/Bells. These costs a couple of bucks and they sound better than the SR version.

If you look at my system picture you can see my copper version. The SR is in the center of the picture and it is slightly larger.

Now I need bells? Better than HFT?

I just received 15 of the Audio Magic "Bells".
Compared to the Synergistic Research HFT's these are much better. Better with deeper, wider soundstage. And the bass seems to be clearer and stronger.
So, with the 15 Synergistic Research HFT's I have I am using them as placement Four & Five and a few other places.

Oh yeah and the Bells are much less expensive than the HFT's.

Removing the Tube traps to "try" will be a pain.
I was hoping that you had experience using the HFT's without any other room treatments.