Jump to content
  • bobfa
    bobfa

    Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

     

     

    Audio: Listen to this article.

     

     

    Tigerfox Immerse 360

    An in-house-portable immersive audio system

     

    Main TigerFox Logo - Tiger PAW extends most here .jpg

     

     

    Once in a while, something happens to you, and you cannot describe your reaction.  Do you remember the first time you heard —A Great Horned Owl in the Woods on a winter night, Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven, or A Family of Coyotes Talking to each other on a summer evening?  Your brain is at a loss, and your emotions swing.  

     

    My first experience with the Immerse 360 was at the 2022 Axpona Audio Show.  I was stunned and confused by the demo. Yet I was amazed. Is this the future?  How the heck did this thing work? Was there a gimmick?   It is 18 months later, in June of 2023, and I finally have a path to navigate for this review.


    Here are my first impressions after I first listened inside the Tigerfox Immerse 360:

     

     

     

     

    Background 

     

    I started building my 7.1.4 ATMOS audio-only playback system last fall, which I completed early this year.  After spending a lot of quality time in and around the listening chair, I have a good idea of what ATMOS can do.  I also have the words and experience to describe the Immerse 360.  While the ATMOS system was built for different reasons, it has proven to me that immersive audio is here to stay in my listening rooms.

     

    One of the keys to immersive system design is the correction for the room, the speakers, and the first arrival time to the listener's ears!  Timing is everything.  In my ATMOS system, these corrections are done via Digital Signal Processing software and proper room measurements, with custom correction profiles which are very effective.  

     

    If you look at the setup of my ATMOS system, its design is primarily near-field.  Everything is contained in a 12ft x 16ft space with less than 8ft ceiling height.  Near-field listening helps improve the overall sound by bringing the direct sound closer to the listener.  


    On the other hand, the Immerse 360 pod is a portable single-listener near-field system designed to provide the proper timing of first-order reflections where the music is presented to the user as an immersive sound field.  The roll-up wall is an acoustic soundboard reflecting the speaker's audio to the listener and, on the outside, reflecting away extraneous sound. Pure Physics!  This system concentrates the audio inside the pod, reducing power needs and controlling the sound field. Finally, the wall is black, reducing visual distractions.  

     

    Some will balk at the presence or the look of the Immerse 360, but with the fast setup and take-down, that is simple to mitigate.  

     

    Over the last few years, I have learned that spatial data can be heard in many 2-channel recordings. Our standard 2-channel playback systems launch that information into the room environment, where most of it is destroyed by reflections, crosstalk, and timing errors.  Headphone listening demonstrates this as well.

     

     

    The Path

     

    It has been a rather long road to get where I am today!  Some of the steps along the route are worth talking about.  

     

    The TigerFox team has used Apple iPhones, the Apple Dongle DAC, or other USB DACs like the AudioQuest Dragonfly series.  The DAC is then cabled to the speakers, chiefly Studio Monitor types.  I set up the Immerse 360 with an eclectic list of speakers and designs.  I have used multiple DAC and Streaming Amplifiers in the system.  I have decided that I do not need to go overboard.  While $20,000 of hardware in the system's front end was terrific, it was also unnecessary and out of character for a $479 portable room in my use case.

     

    One of the critical portions of the setup process is placing the wall ends against the speaker's side!  This can create issues with existing stands where the baseplate interferes with the pod wall.  You can see this problem in the setup shot of the LS60 speakers.    


    We mitigated that manually after that shot.  My friend Chris was shocked at how much better it sounded with the wall aligned.  Physics Wins Again!  Thanks to the folks at Holm Audio for allowing me to listen one late evening!

     

     

    IMG_1193.jpg

     

     

     

    SPEAKERS
    (Choose wisely)

     

    I have set up the following speakers in the Immerse 360 and will briefly outline my observations.


    JBL 305B
        This is the first speaker I heard at Axpona, and DAMN, it works well.

     

    M-Audio BX-5
        These were my first studio Monitors.  They are old, and they are not up to the task.

     

    Dali Minuet SE
        I set these up with an Arcam SA-30, and they did not do it for me.  Sad as they sound great on their own.

     

    Kali IN-5
        Something about the concentric tweeter messes with the physics, and they do not sound right at all.

     

    Dali Calisto 2C
        These have a dual tweeter system, which also messes with the physics.

     

    Heavenly Soundworks 517
        The best sound in the Immerse 360 I have heard.  

     

    Audio Engine A2+
        For $270 a pair, these win the low-cost award. They sound great, and this is a winning combo with the small sub (another $299).

     

    Sonos Move (pair)
        OK, laugh at me all you want.  These work exceptionally well in the pod.  

     

    KEF LS-60
        I was initially astounded at how they sound, but I must evaluate them further.  Again they are also out of the cost profile I want to use.

     


    Accessories and People

     

    I have been fussing over just the right chair for the Immerse 360.  I borrowed folding chairs, test-fitted old chairs, and so many chairs!  Comfort is essential so is lower seat height so that your ears are correctly placed in the vertical plane.  I am working with the two Ikea chairs suggested by the TigerFox team.  I am a lot closer to “Just Right.”  Oh, storing extra chairs is a lot worse than equipment boxes!

     

    Speaker stands have been another piece of the puzzle. The base gets in the way of the bottom of the pod wall; the stand is too flimsy or too heavy to move in place.  I have a solution I will talk about towards the end of the review.

     

    Wires are the bane of my existence!  Passive speakers have the advantage that they only need speaker cables.  Active speakers simplify the full setup but need power, and interconnects run out to the speakers. 

     

    Smartphones and Dongle DACs have wires running between them and out to the speakers.  Is there no end to cables?

    I have a solution; read on.

     

     

    More Physics

     

    Before I get into some sound comparisons, I want to talk more about physics.  A few years ago, I was getting my annual physical, and the nurse measured my height at 5’ 5”.  Which is about 2” shorter than when I was younger; gravity sucks! This is a time when being a short person is an advantage.  I have some friends who tower over me, and they do not get the best experience. Very tall individuals need to plan how they will get proper head placement in the Immerse 360.  Bean bag Chair?  Yoga Pose?

     


    My TigerFox system
    Setup and Listening


    IMG_1201.jpgThe combination of the TigerFox Immerse 360 and a pair of Sonos Move Speakers gives me a fantastic immersive sound system that I can set up in almost any room of my house.  All run on batteries with no wires.  My system is controlled with either an iPad or an iPhone.  I like using my iPad mini with Apple Pencil as the controller hardware.  

     

    Sonos limits the audio bit rate to 24/48 PCM on the S2 systems like the Move speakers, so do not expect to play DSD 1024.  The Sonos App has an extensive menu of integrations to select from.  In addition, the Move is an Airplay device.  

     

    My base setup is Sonos Radio and Apple Music, with BandCamp and SoundCloud for direct artist interactions and Focus@will for sound therapy.

     

    The Sonos Move speakers are the stereo listening system in my Living Room.  Since they are battery-powered, they can be taken from their docking rings to any location in the house as long as the Sonos network reaches them. 

     

     

    IMG_1259.jpgSpeaking of “Time,” I will start with Pink Floyd’s Time from the Dark Side of the Moon.  I created a  playlist on Apple Music for this review, the first track is Time from the 50’th remix in ATMOS, and the second is the original version from 1973, also on Apple Music. 

     

    NOTE:  I am out of my comfort zone diving down to individual tracks. Usually, I would be listening to the whole album: “As the Artist Intended?”

     

    The only reason for both tracks is to understand what has changed from the original.   I enjoy the new release.  The sound placement is precise and easy to track when listening in ATMOS on my 7.1.4 system.  Listening in the Pod with 2-channel speakers, the sound placement comes from the exact locations as the ATMOS playback!  It is uncanny.  

     

     

    IMG_1260.jpgNext, I want to introduce you to Todd Boston. Todd is a musician, producer, and composer.  Todd has an “Hope” album that you can find on Apple Music in the original and ATMOS under “Hope Deluxe.” Grab the track “Spiral”  from both into a playlist for convenience.  Todd used his mastering skills to build the ATMOS version, and the new version is haunting!  Sitting in the Immerse 360 enhances the sound of the entire experience with the reduction in outside stimulation.  In this case, I prefer listening to this track in the Pod vs. the ATMOS system.  

     

     

     

    IMG_1261.jpgHere is a second introduction.  The Artist is BT.  The album is from 2006, “This Binary Universe.”  You can read his biography on Apple Music.  BT has given us many gifts, from his music to software engineering and audio plug-in development!  Check out Stutter Edit 2 in iZOTOPE:  

     

    I'm BT, and This Is Stutter Edit 2:

     

    This Binary Universe is a stereo album with some fantastic immersive content hidden inside.  Try this one on your best headphones to start with.  In the Immerse 360, you must listen to the whole hour and 14 minutes of the album!

     

    Rick O’Polka at TigerFox has a collection of tracks he uses for demoing the Immerse 360.  I converted that playlist to Apple Music here.

     


    Is this the end?

     

    I always dread the end of an article.  First, it feels so final; second, I worry I missed something or went astray.  In this case, I feel torn inside. I have two immersive sound systems.  One that looks forward in my ATMOS 7.1.4 and one that screams hey do not forget what is already here.  Both are single-listener systems that only have one sweet spot per system. I only have one “perfect” chair to use in both systems.  I am torn when casually listening in the Living Room: I wonder what this would sound like in one of the immersive systems. I am torn when I want to share the immersive audio experience with others.  Nothing is perfect, and I always seek the right balance.  I am the only one who sits down to listen on purpose to listen to music—building the ATMOS system in the basement to not interfere with others’ entertainment.  

     

    I hope I have been able to convey the value and experience of the Immerse 360 to you.  I also hope that you understand the trade-offs. I have assembled a system that is easy to set up and tear down.  There are no wires to deal with, and you can use the system in almost any room in your home. 

     


    One (two) More Thing(s)


    I have been setting up the Pod in the center of my listening room to listen to immersive 2-channel music with the Sonos Move speakers. 

     

    I assembled a two-speaker support from a cut-down shelf clamped to a hefty Monolith 28 speaker stand in the middle.  This way, the speaker stand does not interfere with  Immerse 360 wall.  The move speakers sit so that they hold the wall ends in place!  I enter and exit the Pod by opening one side.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I have been listening extensively in the Pod over the last couple of weeks.  My second system design is a bit more conventional and has wires!  I love the AudioEngine A2+ speakers even without their sub.  Using the JDS Labs Element III DAC/preamp puts it over the top.  I can also switch to headphones to compare.  I have not decided about using the IsoAcousitcs stands.  The wiring is all out of the way.  I mostly use Apple Music on the iPad for playback in this system. 

     

     

    Tigerfox Immerse 360 setup using the Audio Engine A2+ speakers.


    Using a single speaker stand with a shelf attached to the top, I have aligned the shelf with the speaker placement markers on the base.  The speakers are on Audioengine small wedge stands.   I have notched the ends of the shelf to hold the ends of the Pod walls in place next to the speakers.

     

    IMG_1255.jpg IMG_1258.jpg

     

    IMG_1264.jpg IMG_1266.jpg

     

    IMG_1265.jpg IMG_1268.jpg

     

    IMG_1269.jpg IMG_1272.jpg

     

     

     

    Equipment List

     

    • Two Sonos Move Speakers    $800
    • Audio Engine A2+        $269
    • JDS Labs Element 3        $450
    • iPad mini 5            $499
    • Tigerfox Immerse 360     $479
    • Two Flexson Stands        $300 (in the Living room)
    • One Monolith 28in stand    $60

     


    Where do I go from here?

     

    Both my ATMOS system and the Immerse 360 could be considered unconventional.  One has twelve speakers, and the other has this wall you set up in the room. One has more wires than 99.9% of systems; the other has no cables and relies on batteries.  I have two more ideas for immersive audio systems, and the hardware is on the way for one!


    Note.  Thanks to Rick O’Polka for assistance in understanding the design and goals for the Immerse 360.  Also, thanks to Tony Tang for the Axpona videos.   

     

     

     

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Rick,  Make this very simple.  Use the system I suggested above.  Measure inside the TF then as a bonus take down the wall and measure the room.

     

     

    Bob

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, ROPolka said:

    I'll try to make this real simple (with the request to re-read what was very difficult to write with an open mind):

     

    Measuring with a proper microphone, etc will tell us A frequency spread WITHOUT the TF360Pod - but that control measurement cannot be used as an accurate benchmark to test compare the frequencies of the TF360Pod to because those measurements do not include what you're trying to include in the measurements! - i.e. those initial measurements do not include the EXTRA content that the TF360Pod captures - and which will be included in its separate comparative frequency measurement sweep!

     

    That huge quantity extra sound content captured by the mics WITHOUT the TF360Pod - is either lost out into the room or recycled back towards the microphone before it even hits the microphone - this mess ends up being recorded by the initial control frequency test as both non-existent sound (a gap of sound) and as damaged sound (frequencies) that's bounced around the room before it's recorded.

     

    It's not rocket science, but one really needs to think about this!

    Rick, I have to tell you this gets fishier and fishier every day. 

     

    I suspect you guys have already measured this stuff. How could you possibly develop this product without some objective measurements of the type used in every audio application the world over for decades, without knowing objectively what's happening. 

     

    You have endless excuses for not having measurements and now have reasons for why the measurements, while valid for every other audio product known to man, won't be valid for your product. 

     

    I hate to say it, but your responses remind me very strongly of someone running for a political office. 

     

    I'm not a huge fan of measurements. For me they are either a starting point or a brief stop on the way to audio bliss. I like when they tell me something is way off or very strange, but I couldn't care less if one DAC measures 0.00005% better on a single measurement. When a measurement shows something strange, sometimes a listener can then focus on that and hear the outcome. Other times, you can't not hear it, once you've heard it. 

     

    What interests me most about seeing the TigerFox measurements is to see if something is way out of the ordinary. Is this thing a giant comb filter that produces sound people like? Nobody outside of TigerFox knows. Does it measure "perfectly?" Who knows? 

     

    I asked a writer for Audiophile Style if he could use his binaural in-ear microphones to measure the TigerFox, but unfortunately he is just too busy. The best people are always busy with projects that pay the bills. 

     

    I'm still searching for a qualified person I trust to measure the TigerFox. 

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    What interests me most about seeing the TigerFox measurements is to see if something is way out of the ordinary.


    The measurements are there but it only proves the focusing effect. Even placing umbrellas or even unused satellite dishes around the listeners would should the increase in dB. 
     

    What the measurements need to show is whether it can improve the spatial imaging. That can easily done by taking the level difference between the two ears. Accurate measurements is difficult but a simple Sound Professional mics can prove the point. If the level difference is greater with the pod then it will be more dimensional. Could it achieve 10 dB or more to be effective? I doubt but who knows?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, STC said:


    The measurements are there but it only proves the focusing effect. Even placing umbrellas or even unused satellite dishes around the listeners would should the increase in dB. 
     

    What the measurements need to show is whether it can improve the spatial imaging. That can easily done by taking the level difference between the two ears. Accurate measurements is difficult but a simple Sound Professional mics can prove the point. If the level difference is greater with the pod then it will be more dimensional. Could it achieve 10 dB or more to be effective? I doubt but who knows?

    I'd like to see some standard measurements with and without the pod. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    I'd like to see some standard measurements with and without the pod. 

     

    Why? You will be measuring the original room and all it will do is confuse the issue.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    I'd like to see some standard measurements with and without the pod. 


    There are many measurements graphs in the patent and all confirming the higher reflection. From the graph, you can get general idea the absorption coefficient of the material for a given frequency. Changing the materials can alter the response. They all confirm other research on concert hall design of horseshoe architecture. 
     

    IMG_1126.thumb.jpeg.b110259a8e69ff0b77d1bdb6800b82aa.jpegIMG_1125.thumb.jpeg.efbd69df292ca1f2d497aa1eb37750f9.jpeg
     

     

    These measurements were taken by placing the microphone in the centre. However, with ears it gets complicated as the receiving point is two.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

     

    Why? You will be measuring the original room and all it will do is confuse the issue.

     

    If we setup the pod, take a measurement, the remove the walls of the pod and take a measurement without changing anything else, we will have some data from which to work. if one's room is sufficiently large or none-lively, it could be very relevant. 

     

    If the pod measurement looks like this (below), that certainly tells us something.

     

    comb-filterhead.jpg

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, STC said:


    There are many measurements graphs in the patent and all confirming the higher reflection. From the graph, you can get general idea the absorption coefficient of the material for a given frequency. Changing the materials can alter the response. They all confirm other research on concert hall design of horseshoe architecture. 
     

    IMG_1126.thumb.jpeg.b110259a8e69ff0b77d1bdb6800b82aa.jpegIMG_1125.thumb.jpeg.efbd69df292ca1f2d497aa1eb37750f9.jpeg
     

     

    These measurements were taken by placing the microphone in the centre. However, with ears it gets complicated as the receiving point is two.

     

    That's certainly some interesting data. In a way it's like an EQ. The measurement without the pod looks much flatter. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, STC said:

    These measurements were taken by placing the microphone in the centre. However, with ears it gets complicated as the receiving point is two.

    This is one reason why I wanted to get someone with binaural mics to measure it. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    That's certainly some interesting data. In a way it's like an EQ. The measurement without the pod looks much flatter. 


    I am not sure why the response drops after 12.5KHz. Looking at Stereophile’s measurements the difference is quite a lot and more so the loss in HF in a non anechoic room. 
     

    IMG_1127.thumb.jpeg.c53c6a849ccf6980c12c9e1de7a00707.jpeg

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

     

    If we setup the pod, take a measurement, the remove the walls of the pod and take a measurement without changing anything else, we will have some data from which to work. if one's room is sufficiently large or none-lively, it could be very relevant. 

     

    If the pod measurement looks like this (below), that certainly tells us something.

     

    comb-filterhead.jpg


    IMO, it will not look like that. The reflection is pretty even due to a small area . The reflection would have started within 1 or 2 ms and evenly hit the listeners continuously for more than 10ms. That is only for the first reflection. The reflection will continue for much longer. I don’t recall seeing IR chart in the patent we do not know the RT which will have a bigger effect on the listeners. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    IMG_1128.png.44ed14f8acad2c984327aa139a7f672b.png

     

    The are very few musical recordings in such arrangement. 2L uses them occasionally but that for getting the correct spatial ambiance. 
     

    I do not know if any microphones that is capable of distinguishing rear and front sound. Depending on the polar patter of mics, it is possible to guess if a sound is from rear or front but that is based on our prior exposure to such arrangement. 
     

    But to claim the pod could, isolate the instruments coming from the front speakers and isolate them separately defying laws of physics and to reflect that one instruments from  the rest is a miracle. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, STC said:

    IMG_1128.png.44ed14f8acad2c984327aa139a7f672b.png

     

    The are very few musical recordings in such arrangement. 2L uses them occasionally but that for getting the correct spatial ambiance. 
     

    I do not know if any microphones that is capable of distinguishing rear and front sound. Depending on the polar patter of mics, it is possible to guess if a sound is from rear or front but that is based on our prior exposure to such arrangement. 
     

    But to claim the pod could, isolate the instruments coming from the front speakers and isolate them separately defying laws of physics and to reflect that one instruments from  the rest is a miracle. 

    My thoughts almost exactly. I say almost because I'm very from your level of experience with this stuff :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Here is how 2L records - PDF Link

     

    2L-175_recording-sessions-4-scaled.jpg


    2L main format is multichannel and I think they are the only ones still producing Aura3D musical tracks. Their arrangement of mics is entirely different as the have to capture the complete sound scene and recreate them via Aura 3D. For stereo, the mix will be different with omission or reduction of some mics input due to stereo is only about the frontal stage and attempts to reproduce the full spectrum meant for multi channel would result in muddy sound. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Looks like the 2L website changed. I remember reading of a section how the recording were created for different formats but unable to find it there. 
     

    Anyway, here is a video of the recording of Magnificat. These files were once made available for free when 2L was new. ( Now it explains why my videos getting copyright claim for the short samplers of this 😂). See where is the piano placed. No way, stereo could extract this and produce the sound from rear. 

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 8/4/2023 at 10:02 AM, bobfa said:

    Rick,  Make this very simple.  Use the system I suggested above.  Measure inside the TF then as a bonus take down the wall and measure the room.

     

    I understand the general confusion that many audiophiles must be thinking about the TigerFox Immerse 360 (TF360Pod) from reading some of the recent posts, including how to test it. I can hear people saying: What’s going on with this new technology? Is it something entirely out of the wheel house of most audiophile’s long established conceptions about audio equipment?

     

    What is the TF360Pod?

     

    To help get one’s head around what the TP360 Pod is. First, the TF360Pod is not an electronic device. Because it’s not an electronic device, does not connect directly into electronic devices, does not produce electricity and is not electrically powered, it does not intrinsically have an electronic frequency on its own to test. (See below for what it can test however)

     

    What it is - is a soundboard designed from and like musical instrument soundboards

     

    As such, it does what well-designed musical instrument soundboards are supposed to do and have been doing very well on sound producing devices that don't use electricity for centuries. (How the principle of the musical instrument soundboard is an important part of the TF360Pod’s design will hopefully be explained in a later post.)

     

    Keeping to the point, however, even tho the TF soundboard doesn’t generate its own electricity etc., its enhanced and negative affects with and on electronic speaker-produced sound can be tested for how the TF soundboard affects that electronically produced sound in a room through two speakers. (Let me know of problems here)

     

    With this understanding in mind,

     

    My thoughts on the suggested frequency sweep test - Full Steam Ahead!

     

    From what I can understand about the suggested frequency sweep test, it can accurately generate (and is able to record) its own full sound frequency range (sweep) using two speakers.

     

    (It wasn’t clear, however, if special speakers are to be used. Somehow it must be correcting for the fact that most speakers can’t produce a full equalized frequency range).

     

    Assuming its thankful ability to do this, this is great news to me!

     

    This test, therefore, removes a lot of problems I initially expected including removing the question of which speakers to use, what electronics, what content? etc. And it removes my concern about generating reliable repeatable results. In total, this test sounds very practical to actually do.

     

    Let’s continue to try to get consensus on it and find someone with this kind of test to do it. You have my full support and assistance where possible including supplying the demo unit if needed.

     

    Because it was heavily requested for me to keep these posts short, I will stop here for now and continue on a later post with:

     

    1. What I’d like this test to be sure to cover, including doing more than one test.

     

    2. Detailing some not previously mentioned variables revealed in one of our patents about the TF360 Pod and how these variables will affect frequency measurements. (These variables are important to know and consider in advance)

     

    Until then, my best,

     

    Rick

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

    understand the general confusion that many audiophiles must be thinking about the TigerFox Immerse 360 (TF360Pod) from reading some of the recent posts, including how to test it. I can hear people saying: What’s going on with this new technology? Is it something entirely out of the wheel house of most audiophile’s long established conceptions about audio equipment?


    Um, no. We aren’t confused. You like to reword stuff to fit your narrative. Then, market the heck out of it in several more paragraphs. 
     

    Audiophiles like to play music unchanged from the source. Many of us want to know how much your product changes the sound. Based on the patent it looks like a big EQ. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Rick, sorry I talked you into talking to these turncoats. It seems, like ASR, they have their own little hissy fit thing.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, botrytis said:

    Rick, sorry I talked you into talking to these turncoats. It seems, like ASR, they have their own little hissy fit thing.

    You had to make it personal because you “know” Rick. 
     

    Read what he writes with totally objective glasses on. It’s identical to numerous charlatans we seen before. I’m not saying he is one, I’m saying his language is identical. As someone who leans objective and is a phd in a science, I can’t believe you are taking the stance you are. 
     

    Look at how he words responses to people who ask him for real information. He twists  it to put him in a position of all knowing. “Sorry you don’t understand” or “Sorry you’re confused by this new technology” or similar language. Then using a fire hose of bolded marketing speak to deflect the issue. 
     

    You specifically asked why I want measurements with and without the pod. It turns out, so did Rick. They are in the patent, albeit limited. The pod is an EQ. Why he is avoiding talking about what it does to the frequency response is beyond me. Perhaps it can all be done in DSP, making the pod irrelevant. I don’t know. 
     

    P.S. What is actually new about reflected sound? Hasn’t that been studied for a hundred years? 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    The pod is an EQ. Why he is avoiding talking about what it does to the frequency response is beyond me. Perhaps it can all be done in DSP, making the pod irrelevant. I don’t know. 


    DSP can’t do it. It is room in room. It reflects the sound in uniform manner to the listener. It creates the rich envelopment. The experience to listening to it can be significantly more enjoyable depending on the genre. Looking at the first reflection time it is possible solo piano can sound wonderful. Even drums will have more bite. Piano could feel sound wrapping around you. Just like any room it imparts it’s own coloration. In a way, my DCH is similar to that where I use 26tiny speakers arranged similarly to regenerate the reflection ( can be controlled from 1ms to 4s long digitally).

     

    My interest  was about the XTC claim which I tried but not workable and NOT possible so I thought there was some possibility after reading the claim but it is not possible. Mathematically not possible. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, STC said:


    DSP can’t do it. It is room in room. It reflects the sound in uniform manner to the listener. It creates the rich envelopment. The experience to listening to it can be significantly more enjoyable depending on the genre. Looking at the first reflection time it is possible solo piano can sound wonderful. Even drums will have more bite. Piano could feel sound wrapping around you. Just like any room it imparts it’s own coloration. In a way, my DCH is similar to that where I use 26tiny speakers arranged similarly to regenerate the reflection ( can be controlled from 1ms to 4s long digitally).

     

    My interest  was about the XTC claim which I tried but not workable and NOT possible so I thought there was some possibility after reading the claim but it is not possible. Mathematically not possible. 

     

    I'm totally cool with music sounding great inside the pod. I would never doubt anyone's preference. I just read the outlandish claims from Rick and on his website, and know what he claims isn't possible. It would be great to see industry measurements of this thing. 

     

    Thanks for showing the limited info from the patent that shows how the pod EQs the sound. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The more I tried to understand the subject the more questions I have about it.  But I think the point of energy being focused is making sense. 
    IMG_1129.thumb.jpeg.4342d7d34179a08a922986a44c7e1e6e.jpeg

     

    From this diagram the critical radius appears to be only 52 inches. So room where the measurement took place seemed to reach the balancing point of direct vs reverberation at 52 to 62 inches.  Now let’s look at the pod. 
     

    IMG_1130.thumb.jpeg.9e8f858da84ce120e1a3fb370290d78c.jpeg

     

    So we have an increase of 8 db compared to no pod measurement. Around 17 inches from

    the speakers the level should be around 76dB.  The calculation is based on 6db loss for each doubling of distance. 
     

    The question is how is it possible for the pod to increase the level to 75dB ? is it possible for the reverbs to be higher than the direct sound?  Or is this just cupping effect  like the picture below which was used to hear planes flying above which would be heard otherwise. 
     

    IMG_1131.thumb.jpeg.d0bfbaa8a0222c88fae4079169d13365.jpeg

     

     

    The the last one is about the spatial perception. Looking at the possible first reflection timing and duration, the RT could well be within 50 ms which can only add tonal changes. If you want spatial perception than you want the reflection to arrive later than 50ms. 
     

    💡Mmmm…. Maybe I too doing something wrongly 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, STC said:


    Oh dear!  Looks like @ROPolka claim of 3D could be true after all. If it works like a cupping effect then the level different between left and right ears could be higher than sound without pod! You need to do binaural measurement. Maybe, there is something here. 

    Not sure what 3D means in audio terms. The pod for sure reflects sound and changes the frequencies. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...