Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

Thanks so much for this review @bobfa. I didn't get a chance to hear this at Axpona, and I looked forward to your assessment. I know you spent a serious amount of time with the Immerse 360 and it shows. I really appreciate how you tried it with so many speakers. You saved others from expensive and time consuming trial and error. 

Your enthusiasm for the Immerse 360 over the last several months and in this review is clear. It makes me excited to try it!

I know Rick will pipe in on this. When I did the demo at my house, for the Chicago Audio Society also a pre-Christmas party, I had several speakers to try out. The best ended up being some old stand mount speakers, Royd Envoys. Of course, the system driving the speakers was interesting. Source was a Daphile PC with it's own WiFi system. I used an android pad for control. The DAC was an original iFi Nano (not upgraded to the mqa fiasco) then to an Audio Research SP-16. The speakers were powered by my rebuilt Pioneer M-22. We also tried Royd Abbott floor standers, and KEF LS50's (not so good that day). In talking with Rick, I think how the tweeter's dispersion pattern is, has to do with how the speaker woks with the TigerFox system.

I think we need a scaled up version, say twice the width and twice the depth.

1 hour ago, RickyV said:

I think we need a scaled up version, say twice the width and twice the depth.

Well, I know Rick can talk to this, but from what I can remember, there is a limit to the size and that is due to the farther the distance the more diffuse the wave is. So, the more diffuse the information is the harder it is for our ears to pinpoint the source. Meaning, there is a limit to the size the TigerFox system can be. It is also limited by physics.

With the right speakers, it is eerie how good it can sound. Also, the 3D effect is amazing.

I would be willing to set that system again, that I had for Rick - it was an extraordinary sounding setup. 

5 hours ago, RickyV said:

I think we need a scaled up version, say twice the width and twice the depth.

@RickyV  Physics does not allow for it to be larger.  The shape and the size are needed to get the reflections off of the sound board  “just right”.

18 hours ago, bobfa said:

@RickyV  Physics does not allow for it to be larger.  The shape and the size are needed to get the reflections off of the sound board  “just right”.

 

 

mmm, I suspect size has something to do with the common distance between our two ears, engineering the surround reflection path distances/angles for R-L time coherency

and  insuring that signal attenuation over distance is kept to a workable level. A bigger circumference would definitely see  fall off in reflection db level

As to a taller listener height, wouldn't the answer there  just be to raise the height of the device and using good damping below the device?

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

mmm, I suspect size has something to do with the common distance between our two ears, engineering the surround reflection path distances/angles for R-L time coherency

and  insuring that signal attenuation over distance is kept to a workable level. A bigger circumference would definitely see  fall off in reflection db level

 

As to a taller listener height, wouldn't the answer there  just be to raise the height of the device and using good damping below the device?

It has to be in the walls - I think line 1/4 to 1/3 max to the top.

@bobfa 1) Could you please tell me how much you lose the 3D effect without the reflection wall?

2) reading the Tigerfox page, they claim that the sound can emerge from the rear. Do you have any stereo sample that could demonstrate the claim?

Thank you. 
ST

It is easy to do with Gaming sounds. It can sound like things behind you.

10 hours ago, STC said:

@bobfa 1) Could you please tell me how much you lose the 3D effect without the reflection wall?

 

2) reading the Tigerfox page, they claim that the sound can emerge from the rear. Do you have any stereo sample that could demonstrate the claim?

 

Thank you. 
ST

 

The 3d reflection is not there when the wall is not up!    Virtually any recording works! A good pick is BT "This Binary Universe"

Bob, I'm having a hard time just figuring out what this thing is, since you really didn't say. So, it's basically like a cubicle that you unroll vertically and set up? In other words, start with a nearfield speaker set up, and then enclose it in the Tigerfox pod?

I assume you just play 2ch mixes, since there are only 2 speakers? If you play a surround mix (5.1, 7.1, Auro-3D, Atmos), I again assume you need to downmix it to 2ch. So, is there any benefit to the surround mix?

EDIT: Sorry, I should have watched the video. Now it makes sense! I AM still curious about what role mixes (2.0 vs. surround downmixes) play in this. What has been your experience?

7 hours ago, bobfa said:

The 3d reflection is not there when the wall is not up!    Virtually any recording works! A good pick is BT "This Binary Universe"

Wow ! this is amazing!

Interesting that the isolation of the sound to each ear is done by the pod alone and without any DSP, although I am still not sure how the crosstalk of the speaker is eliminated or reduced since the line blue as describe in the diagram can be neutralized by the reflection. 

Any way to add a small subwoofer?

1 hour ago, Brucemck2 said:

Any way to add a small subwoofer?

No problem to do that.  I am looking to raid the piggy bank for the Audioengine 6in sub to put in mine.  I know folks that have them set just outside the opening.  I will put mine inside.

The timing reflections are mostly in the midrange/high end as these are 'directional' waves, unlike bass, below 200 Hz, which is omnidirectional. Also, the enclosure enhances the bass already produced by the speakers.

I don't doubt that this product achieves some of its intended effects. However, staying in a cramped booth and keeping my head in a fixed position doesn't seem like the best experience to relax and enjoy music.

To each his own.

8 hours ago, botrytis said:

The timing reflections are mostly in the midrange/high end as these are 'directional' waves, unlike bass, below 200 Hz, which is omnidirectional. Also, the enclosure enhances the bass already produced by the speakers.

 
I have been reading TF patents but still keen on finding out how the cancellation is done by the reflection. The patent diagrams showing Lc and c being the crosstalk but I am still unsure how the c was eliminated. 
 

Can this be used in tandem with my other XTC to provide better cancellation?

I am not the expert, Rick is. I will let him talk about it.

On 7/15/2023 at 6:36 PM, STC said:

Wow ! this is amazing!

 

Interesting that the isolation of the sound to each ear is done by the pod alone and without any DSP, although I am still not sure how the crosstalk of the speaker is eliminated or reduced since the line blue as describe in the diagram can be neutralized by the reflection. 

Let me see if I can explain how the Immerse 360 pod works to eliminate crosstalk - and its result.

One of the ways the Immerse 360 pod "eliminates" crosstalk isn't really by stopping it from happening in the first place. But by the pod greatly overpowering the smaller, weaker time-corrupted crosstalk quantity of sound that reaches the opposite ears of the listener.

The pod does this by capturing and preserving in-a-pure-form a much larger quantity of correctly-timed (kept-pure) indirect sound from the left and right stereo speakers and focus-directing it to the listener's corresponding left and right sides. This control-focusing of massive quantities of kept-pure indirect sound by the pod completely overpowers the much smaller left and right corrupted crosstalk quantity of sound, effectively neutralizing it from being heard. (Note that the indirect sound utilized by the pod is otherwise lost into the room or comes back to be heard by the listener as off-timed "damaged" indirect "room" sound - the pod prevents this from happening.) 

Using precision reflectometry and elliptical physics, the controlled timing of indirect sound from the speakers to the listener is orchestrated by the pod's geometrically-designed acoustic soundboard shape that's simultaneously combined with the pod's audiophile triangulation of the two speakers and the listener. Audiophile triangulation positions the two stereo speakers at the left and right base of a perfect triangle and the listener is positioned at the vertex of the triangle. This triangle, sometimes called the golden triangle, is then proportionally interconnected within the pod's soundboard shape. 

The very unique result synergistically time-aligns the large quantity of acoustically-pure indirect sound to now arrive fully-surrounding the pod-positioned listener and the listener can now much more fully experience the surrounding sound field that was originally built into the two stereo sound signals.

An amazing thing (the "audio magic") of TigerFox Immerse 360 pod, in addition to it eliminating the surrounding "room" sound and upgrading audio quality, is that if a three-dimensional sound field was originally built into or folded into the two stereo sound signals (as is done by normal stereo capture like in Pink Floyd's Time on the Dark Side of the Moon, or by design), the pod can reproduce around the pre-positioned listener this same three-dimensional sound field that was built into the original signals.  

This means the listener can now experience normal (and even specially encoded immersive) "stereo" music, video games and movies from two speakers with the sound not just heard coming from the general direction of the two stereo speakers. Instead - within the pod and with crosstalk now neutralized - the speakers acoustically disappear as the sound source and the sounds are now heard physically reproduced around the listener as a seamless three-dimensional hemispherical sound field in distance, depth and height - simply using two universal stereo sound signals that are normally feed through two standard stereo loudspeakers. Something one might call stereo-to-3D-stereo.

To understand the functional stereo simplicity of this a little better, this similar stereo-to-3D-stereo result by the Immerse 360 is now also universally done with high-performance "3D" headphones. But, with the Immerse 360, instead of the 2 stereo sound signals being fed through two very small permanent headphone speakers that are physically attached to your head, these same 2 stereo sound signals are now fed through two conventional stereo loudspeakers in the normal way. The difference is, the Immerse 360 pod allows these same 2 stereo sound signals to recover their original three dimensional immersive positioning - not just around your ears like with headphones - but in a physically-real three dimensional sound field positioned around you like in real life.  

New technologies are very difficult to describe especially those with so little prior reference to compare them to! Please excuse the length of this and let me know any questions. 

4 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

if a three-dimensional sound field was originally built into or folded into the two stereo sound signals (as is done by normal stereo capture like in Pink Floyd's Time on the Dark Side of the Moon, or by design), the pod can reproduce around the pre-positioned listener this same three-dimensional sound field that was built into the original signals.  

This absolutely can't be true, or it's a matter of semantics. If the Atmos version of Time has clocks behind the listener and guitars in front of the listener, and these are folded into the stereo version, it isn't possible for the Immerse 360 to differentiate which sounds should come form the back or the front of the listener. Sound waves are sound waves and all of them must be reproduced / bounced around the immerse 360 pod. Both clocks and guitar will be bounced in the exact same way. Thus, it's a completely different three dimensional sound field than what's on the album. 

As many of you know I have a 7.1.4 ATMOS system and an Immerse 360.  Using the Apple Music version of the ATMOS version of TIME the placement of the sounds from the two-channel presentation in the TigerFox are virtually identical to the the 12 channel presentation.  

I do not even dare to try to understand the reasons for my observations.

NOTE: I have been testing between the AudioEngine A2+ speakers and a pair of Sonos Move speakers and the overall imaging immersive effect is the best to my ears with the Sonos Moves.  

Thank you for the lengthy reply. Much obliged.

1 hour ago, ROPolka said:

New technologies are very difficult to describe especially those with so little prior reference to compare them to!

I am well versed with most of your reference you quoted in patents that you filed and that’s the reason I was curious to see the workings of the pod.

1 hour ago, ROPolka said:

One of the ways the Immerse 360 pod "eliminates" crosstalk isn't really by stopping it from happening in the first place. But by the pod greatly overpowering the smaller, weaker time-corrupted crosstalk quantity of sound that reaches the opposite ears of the listener.

 
I suspected that TF is masking the crosstalk. However, I am still unsure how the reflected sound could reach within the about 90 μs (based on the speakers setup as in the demo videos) ITD to reach the ear to mask the crosstalk. Is the pod touching the speakers critical for the effect? The only way stereo speakers could produce the frontal azimuth of 180 degrees is when no crosstalk is heard within about 700 μs. In the absence, the stage is confined within the width of the speakers placement except with effects such as QSound or simple phase/level trick. 
 

1 hour ago, ROPolka said:

as is done by normal stereo capture like in Pink Floyd's Time on the Dark Side of the Moon, or by design),

Dark Side of the moon is QSound processed. It works great in such enclosures. In the late 90s, where the QSound was demonstrated - it was within a small circle of space surrounded with curtains just with stereo setup. QSound supposed to produce a more immersive experience than typical stereo but limited to short duration effects.