Synergistic Research HFT

[RichDavis]

Measurements are not necessarily a validation of positive improvement and while I do not trust anyone else's single pair of ears, I might be persuaded by many temperate responses that the tweak works or does not work as advertised. Ultimately, the final determinant is whether I personally hear a difference and whether that difference improves the sound.

I have never purchased any piece of audio equipment because it measured well. I purchased it because I heard a difference that elevated my enjoyment beyond what I had before. There are tons of products with stellar measurements and none of them sound the same, so even if you could obtain measurements in support of the manufacturer's hypothesis of why his product works, that still does not address the reason why most of us are here.

I like to at least see some sort of proof about something. Here's where I'm coming from. A LONG time ago, I used to read all of the various stereo related magazines. After I got to know someone in the industry that i have some degree of respect for, he indicated and was later supported by a variety of others, that SOME of the magazines write reviews that are not much more than a regurgitation of the marketing press releases. They basically liked everything they wrote about and it was primarily because it would attract the big advertisers like Bose, Sony, etc., etc. etc. Now, I eventually stumbled on Stereophile, which DID do a certain amount of test measurements, and didn't always suck up to the mfg. I appreciated the honesty they used to have a long time ago. I know personally that some magazines and/or web site reviewers will only publish positive reviews of a product. To me, that's not honest journalism. That's just sucking up to mfg to get more money and just being another form of marketing for the mfg. I'm all about honesty and from my background, as I have some amount of technical training and have spent most of my early years around engineers, I see what THEY will do to analyze a product. I also know that listening is ultimately what it's all about, but there should be some degree of validity to the technology if it's new and not generally accepted in the industry. I had a tough time when MIT Cables first came out. I just didn't understand their products, couldn't swallow the cost, etc. But as I spent time reading technical information, it helped me understand their product better and it actually helped me in listening to the products to help me figure out if I can hear these subtle differences. So over time, I've learned. They showed measurements of different cables to point out there was a difference because up until then, I thought a cable is a cable. I know now, that isn't the case. Whether I buy their cables is another thing, but at least THEY proved by measuring that there is validity to the argument.

To go without studying technical measurements just seems a little blind to me. I also know that some companies pay employees or others to act as shills on the internet now. I won't mention which companies, but I do know that it is done from time to time and that sort of practice sickens me. Just like some reviewers write reviews to get free or heavily discounted product, so they might write a positive article, when in fact, all they were doing was trying to get something free from the mfg. That DOES happen from time to time, but they won't tell their audience this. So, when I read an article that's void of measurements, I read it with a grain of salt, I try to take time to understand the reviewers and I know that sometimes, they just don't give me the indication that I should listen to them. Some I do respect their opinion, because of their background, their testing methodology and usually they are the ones with measurements and can explain them so I can better understand. But I also look at industry people that are respected and see what experience they might have had with a product. But, i just use these resources as a means to travel through the waters, but I will always love to look at measurements as some sort of guide. But when it comes to new technology that's unproven, sorry, I need a lot more than some marketing prose that's meaningless, and a couple of people I don't know on a message blog telling me the product is great. I have friends in the industry that I know well and I trust THEIR judgement and some of them will or would tell me that a product is junk because THEY experienced it as they get products to check out all of the time, even if the product gets rave reviews in the magazines. I almost bought a pair of speakers because it was getting nothing but rave reviews and a local dealer had the product, thought it wasn't that great and they ended up not carrying the product line, but I was VERY seriously considering getting a pair. It's becoming more and more critical as more products on the market that make claims without credible measurements. Sorry, but I know better. I have just noticed that a lot of these reviewers are not giving us really honest reviews all of the time. So, I have to take the buyer beware attitude and will just trust those that I trust and would love to see some valid measurements to at least give SOME indication that it actually does something.

I'm still trying to figure out what product doesn't measure well, but is a great sounding product. If you have some examples, that would be great to hear about those examples.

That's where I'm coming from.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

We need to create measurements for posts... (out of 100).

This post is measured:
1) 11.5 for research.
2) 98.2 for adverse selection bias.
3) 89.1 for emotional involvement.
4) 3.1 for industry correlation.
5) 99.1 for hearsay.
6) 32.5 for belief conversion attempt.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Originally Posted by RichDavis

Just like some reviewers write reviews to get free or heavily discounted product, so they might write a positive article, when in fact, all they were doing was trying to get something free from the mfg. That DOES happen from time to time, but they won't tell their audience this.

Care to share a few examples so I can get in on the gravy train?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well, it all depends on what recordings you listen to. The audiophile recordings of classical, acoustic jazz, etc. where they deploy simple techniques with no signal processing, yeah, they'll use Audiophile speakers, cables, amps, etc. If you listen to a movie soundtrack that's done by SkyWalker sound, they actually use custom designed MIT boxes on their microphones for both sound tracks and the foley work, and then it runs through MIT cables to the "audiophile' amps (I think they use Bryston, but I could be mistaken) and then it goes to a B&W 800 series speaker. I have a friend that was a second engineer on a Kronos quartet recording and that's where they do a lot of their albums and then they send it off typically to Bob Ludwig, of Gateway Mastering, who just so happens to use Eggleston IVY (he's uses other models previously, and he'll use Yamaha NS-10s if he's told to use them, but he prefers NOT to use them), and his studio has Transparent cable throughout. I did some research and looked up a variety of mastering and recording studios and I see a LOT of the top end mastering studios for both classical recording and pop recording actually using both MIT and Transparent cables. I also see monitors such as Wilson, B&W, Eggleston, Duntech (no longer made), as well as other high end audiophile speakers and they use a variety of amps, but Cello, Bryston, Classe, etc. are common. Yeah, one piece of music can be mixed on a variety of playback systems as they might create a mix just for radio, a mix just for iTunes, a mix just for this and that, so there are sometimes several different mixes floating around of the same pop song. That happens. I like reading liner notes of recordings and I like to know what equipment they used, if possible.

Auratones are generally used when they create a radio mix for the radio stations. Or they are doing a pop recording just to check. These recording studios have and use anything from tiny aura tones, to NS-10s, to big Westlake, custom speakers, Dynaudio, Ocean Way, etc. etc. etc. and everything in between. But I see more and more studios taking a little more care in the playback equipment than they used to. But I generally stay away from the recordings that have lots of signal processing, compression or are tailored for teenage girls. So you won't be seeing Justin Bieber albums in my home.

Abbey Road, which makes a lot of recordings use B&W and NS-10s, Classe power amps and they actually designed their own cables, they actually sell them, but I don't know of anyone that has bought them. But you can buy them if you want.

It's a good thing to read magazines such as MIX as they interview various engineers and talk to them about the equipment they use, plus you can cruise the internet and go to various studio's web sites and see what equipment they use, sometimes they'll mention the cabling, sometimes not, but there is a trend for studios to use more "audiophile" equipment for the top end recordings, but there is the other end of the spectrum where people are doing recordings in their home, but they might not be what you listen to. Some studios might have 5 to 10 different speakers systems at their disposal, some engineer actually travel with their own speakers, some like the Grateful Dead, use Meyer HD-1's and they used Meyer systems for live tours after they ditched their huge JBL/McIntosh PA.

Go check out the various studios, both mastering and recording and check out the equipment they use. AIR studios, which is George Martins, has custom Dynaudio, but he used to go to Abbey Road. Back in the old days, many engineers would use Tannoy, or JBL systems were prevalent. Some still use those old Tannoy mastering speakers. There's a studio near where I live that still use those things, even though they have a variety of other speakers, but this particular studio does primarily voice overdubs for ads and they'll also do music recording from local bands.

It's unfortunate that we don't always know specifically what's used during the tracking, mixing, and mastering of an album or soundtrack, but it's possible to find out for many recordings.

I read an interview with Bob Ludwig who did the Rolling Stones remasters, he explained what he did and used, but a lot of these top mastering engineers don't like using lots of processing if at all possible. Those were done on his Eggleston/Cello/Transparent system and he uses modified Neumann desk with a variety of outboard mastering equipment, but he generally doesn't put that much on the masters unless it's for radio. But they will for radio versions. I think James Newton Howard, that does a lot of famous sound tracks has B&W 800 series speakers, I forget what other equipment he uses, but I think he uses Classe power amps if I'm not mistaken.

Thank you I'm well aware of all the studios and a few more. I've been to a few including Bob's in Maine which I wrote up about 15 years ago now. Basically with the exception of Wilson, none of the other speakers particularly float my boat. Oh, are those the stock NS-10s or the ones with the tissue paper mod?

I still stand by my statement: do you think they're listening for the same things that we are?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Really? Oh, OK. So the people that buy horn speakers shouldn't care what amp they use because they'll all sound the same? Oh, OK. Wattage is just ONE measurement. I've run into some that only look at wattage, which i think is ridiculous, but that's what some people only look at, but they forget to look at the THD rating as some wattages are measured with .1%, .05%, etc. distortion levels.

Go ahead, spend $1100 on something that's has no valid proof of anything other than what people THINK they hear.

It would be nice for the power cable mfg to take a power amp, test it using the supplied cable and then re test it again using their cable and see how it might affect the specs of the power amp. I would LOVE to see that type of testing. It would make sense if it changed SOME aspect of it. I've played around with power cables and some I didn't hear any difference, some I did. But the differences can range from little to no difference to drastic enough to warrant spending the money.

Keep in mind, a room treatment product should be validated by acoustic engineers FIRST before I would even consider it. I have to know if my room needs that sort of treatment first. Maybe the room problems I have requires a different form of treatment, to think for one second that one form of room treatment will fix all of your problems is ridiculous on every level.

http://www.herronaudio.com/images/Measurements.pdf

The first paragraph tells all you need to know.

 

[RBFC]

OK, we'll do this the hard way.

Rich, you've gone from inflammatory requests for measurements by members who have no such facilities, to accusations of corruption in the review industry. All this has been aimed at a hobby where funds are spent in a discretionary manner. Since you are not required to purchase anything you do not wish to, you are under no obligation to "waste" your money on any product. I suggest that you direct your criticism and concerns to the manufacturers of products which you feel are insufficiently supported by scientific measurements. Your continual comments here are akin to berating purchasers of an automobile whose braking distances are not documented to your satisfaction.

On top of this, you have taken up a great deal of space in a thread where I asked a simple question about the membership's experience with a product I GOT FOR FREE.

Please consider this a warning to discontinue inflammatory posting that serves no useful purpose except to air (repeatedly) your contention with some advertising practices by manufacturers.

Of course, you are free to start your own thread in the General audio discussion forum where you question the measurement and reporting practices of audio manufacturers, providing you abide by the WBF Terms of Service. Posting in multiple threads with the same platform is unacceptable.

Thank you,

Lee

 

[RichDavis]

Care to share a few examples so I can get in on the gravy train?

I was asked to be a reviewer for a web site by the owner of the website. I didn't go to them, they came to me. They told me that they only want articles posted that were positive about the product in question, and that instead of getting paid, it was a way to get free and/or discounted product. I declined to work for this website. I won't mention the site, but I can tell you, I was put off by the way they handle product reviews. No, it wasn't your site.

I just bought some Stereophile mags because I enjoy reading some of their articles. I noticed in a recent issue they had two DACs being reviewed and they should a fair amount of measurements and discussed them to a fair degree. I enjoy reading that sort of information. It tells me several things. It tells me that they are looking at the product from an objective manner in addition to their subjective listening tests and if they can draw a correlation in their review, even better. To me, it shows me that the reviewer actually cares about the quality of their review instead of just rambling on about how great something is, which may or may not be the same experience that I or others have.

This is not the only industry with suspicious activity, the Musical Instrument industry is filled with even more BS. I've been around that crowd as well, and many of those companies pay endorsers to endorse a product, even though they might not even use the product, except for on stage. Some of the endorsers are very honest, some aren't. I've seen both sides. I've hung around musicians at NAMM show where their sole purpose was to get as many endorsement deals as possible and some of them (even some big names in the industry) were looking for cash money in addition to the product. I just shook my head at the underbelly of that industry. I know some of the manufacturers actually won't give product away because they are too small, but some of the major mfg give the product away like water, even if it's not a product they use.

 

[RichDavis]

We need to create measurements for posts... (out of 100).

This post is measured:
1) 11.5 for research.
2) 98.2 for adverse selection bias.
3) 89.1 for emotional involvement.
4) 3.1 for industry correlation.
5) 99.1 for hearsay.
6) 32.5 for belief conversion attempt.

My test measurements were a little different. For research, mine tested at 0 because no solid research has been conducted to validate the product from an acoustic engineer that is completely unbiased and taking a scientific approach to evaluating a form of room treatment. But good attempt.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

My test measurements were a little different. For research, mine tested at 0 because no solid research has been conducted to validate the product from an acoustic engineer that is completely unbiased and taking a scientific approach to evaluating a form of room treatment. But good attempt.

Hi Rich,

My measurements were for your post

So you are indeed correct at 0 for research being conducted to validate your post.

See we agree.

 

[RichDavis]

Hi Rich,

My measurements were for your post

So you are indeed correct at 0 for research being conducted to validate your post.

See we agree.

Well, i am talking about ALL posts and videos on the product. Didn't you mention that the guy was either a Magician or it was pseudoscience? There isn't any such thing a TRUE magician, just illusionists creating a false scenario. But I agree with your conclusion of pseudoscience.

Peter, with all due respect, i have to be convinced that a new technology such as this has to be thoroughly tested by qualified people running measurements and listening tests. I have not seen that by anyone, including the mfg, so I've made no claims other than it's unproven technology and judging by my knowledge of acoustic treatment that I don't see how this would work. Why don't you consult with a certified acoustic engineer, ask them what measurement tests should be performed for this type of product and then conduct those tests BEFORE any listening tests and show both a subjective and objective review and do it without the mfg in the room. some people have a difficult time telling the mfg on a video that they don't hear anything because the want to be polite. Sorry, but this product has no proven track record from a credible source that specializes in the area of room acoustic measurements and room treatment. I know people that are, and they quite frankly would laugh about this product. Maybe that's why there are no serious validation by acoustic engineers on this product as of yet. I'm sure you know some acoustic engineers that could help you with an evaluation, but you need to do them without the mfg there and you need to not be worried about hurting their feelings. They make a lot of money on this product if they sell them by the thousands or tens of thousands. I have not seen a review of yours were you simply didn't like a product, you seem to like everything you review, which to me is highly suspicious. That's just my gut feeling that some people don't want to hurt the mfg.'s feelings. To me, I don't mind, if they are serious about their product, then they will do better to test their products and have more credibility in the future.

 

[asiufy]

Please consider this a warning to discontinue inflammatory posting that serves no useful purpose except to air (repeatedly) your contention with some advertising practices by manufacturers.

Posting in multiple threads with the same platform is unacceptable.

Thank you,

Lee

No, THANK YOU!


alexandre

 

[Swelfelo]

Rich Davis, I would like to point out that I did not write that any equipment with bad measurements sounded good. All I said is that various equipment all with excellent measurements sounded different. Not the same thing. That is why measurements do not mean much to me. Obviously, your mileage does vary.

 

[GaryProtein]

I am quite curious to try these but... My last trial with the SR ARTS system I took some measurement (albeit with only REW and not some pro rig).

I played with various locations and listened, removed, listened, added them back, listened, had someone else remove them, and listened. I heard no difference...I was hoping to so I don't have to get panels. Then I took measurements and they showed not much difference.

View attachment 13879

YMMV.

You could get that slight variation running REW two times a minute apart withjout changing anything.

 

[RBFC]

Lee,

So how do they sound to you?

Swelfelo

Haven't even had the chance to install them yet. Darn thing about heart surgery is that patients don't care about your audio system! Been on forum via cell phone.

Lee

 

[HedgeHog]

You could get that slight variation running REW two times a minute apart withjout changing anything.

Gary, I think that was my point. No significant audible nor measurable difference with the ART system in. But I would like to try the HFT stuff...probably won't make any difference in my space again.

 

[Swelfelo]

How Inconsiderate of Them

Haven't even had the chance to install them yet. Darn thing about heart surgery is that patients don't care about your audio system! Been on forum via cell phone.

Lee

How inconsiderate of them. It is too bad you can't just stick the TFTs on the patients and cure them.

 

[jap]

From: http://www.theaudiobeat.com/ces2014/ces2014_paul.htm

"Synergistic Research did their usual fascinating and sometimes immensely frustrating thing. The system consisted of a Western Digital 2TB hard drive and a stock Mac Mini driving a Luxman DA 06 DAC ($5000 plus $1000 in Synergistic Research fuses and HFTs), Rogue Audio’s Hera II line stage ($8995) and Special Edition Apollo "Dark" mono amps (250 watts each, $10,995 per pair), and Magico Q3 speakers ($39,500 per pair). Racking was a pair of Solid Tech three-shelf racks ($1799 each) and amp stands ($799 each), with all eight shelves carrying a Synergistic Tranquility Base XL electrical/mechanical isolation platform ($2995 each). Synergistic Research Galileo LE-series interconnects ($7500 for the first meter) and speaker cables ($15,000 per eight-foot pair), the active-shielding systems of which were powered by the Transporter ULTRA SE ($2895), connected everything. AC cords were Synergistic’s Galileo LE Digital and Analogue ($5600 per five-foot length), and power conditioning was via a Galileo LE PowerCell ($10,000).

The room and system treatments included six boxes of Synergistics’ High Frequency Transducers ($299 per box of five), which can be placed on cables, walls, speakers or other components; two FEQ Frequency Equalizers ($995 each), small, soft-sided boxes with who-knows-what inside that plug in to wall sockets in the same room as the audio system; a full set of ART System room treatments ($5600); and, finally, the new XOT Crossover Transducers ($399 per pair), which one installs on the terminals of loudspeakers via their spade lugs or banana plugs.

The system sounded wonderful, and Synergistic’s Ted Denney always plays fun music, including a fairly lengthy session of really slamming trance and techno one evening. What was infuriating was his demonstration of the effects of the HFTs, FEQs and XOTs. Real-time immediate A/B comparisons with these devices in and out of this very fine-sounding system were infuriating beyond words. The removal of one HFT from the FireWire cable going into the DAC had a clearly deleterious effect on the sonics, and the removal of the XOTs from the speakers led to a substantial soundstage collapse, quickly rectified by their reinstallation. Shutting off the FEQs also muddled things a bit. Denney categorically refuses to discuss what is in these devices, but Marc Mickelson and I heard exactly what they did and agreed completely about what we heard while Ted’s evil laugh cackled in the background. I have issued a standing invitation for Ted to come to my listening room and do the voodoo that he did in the Venetian with these frustrating yet undeniably effective tweaks. I double-dog dare ya, Ted. Bring it on!"

 

[RichDavis]

From: http://www.theaudiobeat.com/ces2014/ces2014_paul.htm

"Synergistic Research did their usual fascinating and sometimes immensely frustrating thing. The system consisted of a Western Digital 2TB hard drive and a stock Mac Mini driving a Luxman DA 06 DAC ($5000 plus $1000 in Synergistic Research fuses and HFTs), Rogue Audio’s Hera II line stage ($8995) and Special Edition Apollo "Dark" mono amps (250 watts each, $10,995 per pair), and Magico Q3 speakers ($39,500 per pair). Racking was a pair of Solid Tech three-shelf racks ($1799 each) and amp stands ($799 each), with all eight shelves carrying a Synergistic Tranquility Base XL electrical/mechanical isolation platform ($2995 each). Synergistic Research Galileo LE-series interconnects ($7500 for the first meter) and speaker cables ($15,000 per eight-foot pair), the active-shielding systems of which were powered by the Transporter ULTRA SE ($2895), connected everything. AC cords were Synergistic’s Galileo LE Digital and Analogue ($5600 per five-foot length), and power conditioning was via a Galileo LE PowerCell ($10,000).

The room and system treatments included six boxes of Synergistics’ High Frequency Transducers ($299 per box of five), which can be placed on cables, walls, speakers or other components; two FEQ Frequency Equalizers ($995 each), small, soft-sided boxes with who-knows-what inside that plug in to wall sockets in the same room as the audio system; a full set of ART System room treatments ($5600); and, finally, the new XOT Crossover Transducers ($399 per pair), which one installs on the terminals of loudspeakers via their spade lugs or banana plugs.

The system sounded wonderful, and Synergistic’s Ted Denney always plays fun music, including a fairly lengthy session of really slamming trance and techno one evening. What was infuriating was his demonstration of the effects of the HFTs, FEQs and XOTs. Real-time immediate A/B comparisons with these devices in and out of this very fine-sounding system were infuriating beyond words. The removal of one HFT from the FireWire cable going into the DAC had a clearly deleterious effect on the sonics, and the removal of the XOTs from the speakers led to a substantial soundstage collapse, quickly rectified by their reinstallation. Shutting off the FEQs also muddled things a bit. Denney categorically refuses to discuss what is in these devices, but Marc Mickelson and I heard exactly what they did and agreed completely about what we heard while Ted’s evil laugh cackled in the background. I have issued a standing invitation for Ted to come to my listening room and do the voodoo that he did in the Venetian with these frustrating yet undeniably effective tweaks. I double-dog dare ya, Ted. Bring it on!"

Wouldn't you be upset if you found out that all he's doing is playing different versions of the same tracks from his iPad? Sorry, but I just don't buy into "voodoo" room treatment. I like to see measurement tests since you'll see the effects of room treatment in proper room measurements. I saw a video where he had those ART bowls all over the place and he said that's the only room treatment he had, yet there was a fairly thick curtain going the full length of the room behind the speakers, there was other things that would help create a more desirable room like a wall of room treatment, couch with lots of pillows that was in the hotel room, but he says they are treating the room with just ART. Yeah, right. I still don't see how an active base will lessen the noise from a computer. Is it an electro magnet. If he has patents on his products, he shouldn't be that worried. Maybe I should read his patents. I could care less what's exactly inside, but the basic principals and some measurements of either a product he's trying to improve, or room measurements before/after is all I'm asking for. He should be more than accommodating to provide that. Maybe I'll look his patents and view them. He has to talk about his technology in those, if he patents. Anyone know his patent numbers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYuZ2nVNqA

 

[jap]

RichDavis,

I don't know why you feel the need to comment on every post in this thread, but I couldn't care less what you think about Synergistic Research, their products or the measurements you keep asking for.

I would like to hear from the OP, about his experience with the SR products he won.

 

[mtseymour]

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?