I think links I posted to WBF are going to the home page, unless you are a member. So I am cut-pasting a post from WBF, the link for which I had posted earlier in this thread.
For those interested, these Synergistic Research HFT/FEQ are available at 30-day money back guarantee from the Cable Co. I haven't tried them, but am planning to in a couple of months.
From User mtseymour on WBF:
"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 Since 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? "
For those interested, these Synergistic Research HFT/FEQ are available at 30-day money back guarantee from the Cable Co. I haven't tried them, but am planning to in a couple of months.
From User mtseymour on WBF:
"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 Since 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? "
