I was told the same thing. UEF dots and panels doesn't work with HFT. I still bought the HFT, HFT 2.0, HFT-X, Atmosphere mid tower and Black Box since I already have GIK acoustic panels and sound diffusor in my room.
14 responses Add your response
s1nn3r -- I think you'll find that the various HFTs work very well with your existing treatments. I also combine SR products with more traditional acoustic treatments, in my case the Acoustic Science Sound Planks, Tube Traps and an Acoustic Soffit. The two systems are very complementary with the SR products helping really open the room up.
Also well worth treating the speakers, I think this is where I would start first if I was you using the 2.0 and X on the speakers.
rnwong -- regarding the various sizes of Atmosphere I think it's more a question of room size, in my small/medium room the traditional atmosphere works fine so choose based on how large a room you need to treat
Thanks for the input. Currently using the HFT's along with traditional acoustic treatments of absorption/reflection. Getting a very balance and neutral sound field for a small/medium sized room.
Any input as to the difference between the first generation HFT's and the HFT-X's..? In my case "good" is the enemy of "better"...Finding Neverland!
You're absolutely right. Combined traditional room treatment with modern tech opens up the sound. Made my room sound larger. I also forgot to mention I have 4 bass traps 1 on each corner. Here is the link to my sound check:
The HFT-X sound cleaner than regular HFT and the HFT2.0 is warmer. I removed some regular HFT when I started to get vocal sibilance then replaced some with HFT2.0 took care of that problem.
Thanks for the differentiation as to the HFT's sound characteristics. I also have all four corners bass trapped. Any guidance on how you determined which HFT's to remove and replace with the HFT 2.0's.?
I have about 15 regular HFT's situated on front and back walls side wall and four on my ceiling which is 13 feet tall. Room is 15 feet wide and 21 feet front to back. Did you use any HFT-X's in your mix. Thanks
I use HFT-X on top and front of speakers and one in the middle of the front wall between speakers. HFT2.0 on both side of the speakers and 1 on the bottom wall under the HFT-X and 2 on the back wall 8' up on each sides. Regular HFT 5' and 8' up on each sides of front wall and about 12' up center of front wall and HFT 5' up on each sides back wall and 5' up center of back wall. 2 HFT 5' up side wall aligned to my listening position. Every room is unique so results will vary. I hope this helps.
BTW I also forgot to mention my entire front wall is covered in acoustic carpet used for theaters.
The UEF acoustic panels were designed originally for recording studios and other commercial installations. The HFT system is less noticeable visually especially in a home environment. I have the the HFT"s installed in two different rooms. The HFT system (using a combination of original HFT, HFT- 2.0, and HFT- X) gives a much richer, fuller, and harmonically complex sound than only using the original HFT's. The diagrams at the Synergistic Research web site (scroll down to find) are quite good at showing where to add the HFT 2.0 and HFT-X and where to then move existing HFT"s. My room was significantly helped by adding HFT2.0 to the speakers and walls. HFT-X (which increase high frequency information) were tried but not needed.
It does take trial and error to really dial in a room but immediate and positive results are easily and quickly obtained with placing about 10 HFT's in any room. This is true even in those rooms already acoustically treated with traditional approaches of absorption and diffusion.
So in summary, the HFT System in where one experiments with the three types of resonators has given me an an acoustically tuned room that is wonderful both sonically and visually.
This is good to hear, as I tried the 'original' hft's and found the sound to be a 'little' hi fi ish...a little too much emphasis on the highs leaning towards bright...at first it sounds great...then maybe a little fatiguing over time. I am trying the panels and the uef dots as I was told they are warmer sounding. I did not have all the HFT's at my disposal to 'tune' the room which would have been nice. Will let you know how I like the panels and dots...I already have the acoustic art 'bell's and like those a lot. I am hoping though that the panels and dots 'do' kind of like the orignal hft's but warmer -
I noticed some of you using synergistic research HFT and black box with traditional bass traps. I currently have GIK bass tri-traps, mega bass trap and 242 panels in my dedicated 2-channel listening room, I believe some of you using GIK products too. From what I read on the SR website, their black box seems to have the similar effects as bass traps, is that correct in your experience? Have you tried SR HFT and black box with or without bass traps? If yes, do you prefer to use them together? Thanks.
@zheng4 regarding your question on SR HFTs and other room acoustic treatments -- my room has a full complement of HFTs as well as the ART system and a full set of ASC room treatment including full size bass traps in each corner. The three systems are complementary, Think of the ASC stuff as firstly minimizing the impact of the room itself by making it as neutral and smooth across the frequency range as possible. The SR stuff then has the effect of moving the walls out -- it somehow makes the room seem larger -- you can also fine tune things by adding or removing a HFT or two, or a ball on the Vibratron. While I do have a set of four ART bass stations I have never tried the black box -- I find the former work well and their presence is notable, I would imagine the black box would also work well but I currently don't really have room for a pair of them