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 TchangÂs 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.
