Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

https://music.apple.com/us/album/five-souls-ep/1667317884

Is an ATMOS album and the locations in placement is virtually identical on my 7.1.4 system and the TF360.

There are some very strong differences between the original version of TIME and the ATMOS version.  

2 hours ago, STC said:

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.

My apologies. Dark side of the moon wasn’t recorded with QSound. I was referring to Amused to the death. dark side of the moon was experimented with quadraphonics which supposed to give you a 360 lateral effect. The 90s demo was with Amused to Death. 

Some quick notations that might help to understand if the TigerFox does indeed reproduce sounds accurately around the listener  

Do high performance headphones position sounds from two channel audio in their proper locations around the listener? (understanding that headphones normally place a tiny left speaker in one's left ear and a tiny right speaker in one's right ear - understanding also that the Immerse 360 pod places a left loudspeaker at a strategic left positioned location and a right loudspeaker at a strategic right location)

If there is doubt that headphones do this, simply ask a competitive first person video gamer that uses (and relies on) a good pair of headphones to play - and win - their games.  They will tell you that they need to rely -  sometimes only - on the location around them of very subtle game changing sonic cues that are intentionally positioned into critical locations within the game's sonic landscape by the game designer in order to indicate to the player where key "life and death" sounds are located around them.

(Many times the player cannot "see" the location of these important sounds which are placed in the game's landscape out of the gamer's view - understanding that humans can "see" with our eyes only about ⅓ of a real 360-degree landscape).

Start here in the understanding of what two channel audio can spatially do.

Then please consider objectively comparing headphone sound produced by speakers in ones ears to the sound produced by even relatively low cost loudspeakers set up within the Immerse 360 pod.  You'll hear those same sounds with the 360 pod now positioned not just around your ears like with headphones but physically expanded out and positioned at their same spatial locations within a realistic 360-degree hemispherical soundscape that is now positioned physically around your whole  body.  

Incidentally, the soundboard wall of the Immerse 360 pod is constructed out of the same polymeric material that many modern loudspeaker diaphragms are made of (the part of the speakers that actually reproduce the sound itself.

As to the importance of physically touching the speakers to the wall, I've found that that's open-ended at this time but actually not needed many times in my speaker testings and listening sessions. The critical part is the shape of the surrounding soundboard wall and its position in reference the the golden audiophile triangulation (more later on what that shape really is).

It is helpful to understand for reference the importance of soundboards over history in the design and manufacturing of musical instruments. (Soundboards do not actually produce the sound but they critically improve the sound made by the sound producing component - often improving it to a much higher level).  More later on this, but as an example, the surrounding acoustic soundboard that makes up the Stradivarius musical instrument violin (the part that does not produce the sound) is what actually causes that device to sound as great it does and which actually creates its tremendously high value - not the sound producing strings which are easily replaced and have a much lower value.  

There's really no better way to convince yourself of what the pod can do than simply to listen and sit back and enjoy audio presented to you in the pod. Sometimes all you need is a few minutes to really tell, but for many - why limit that experience to just a few minutes? Because the pod works literally with all stereo audio (not just new or specially recorded immersive 3D audio), you can pull out your most favorite legacy recordings going back over 50 years or more and hear them like new again.

The recording Time, by the way, is easy to hear where the individual sounds are located around the listener - including in back of the listener - while keeping in mind that these clock chimes are really expanding what "music" was considered previously limited to - it now includes nearly all three dimensionally placed real world "sounds" like game designers do.

Please let me know your thoughts!  (There are other helpful ways to explain how the shape of the pod works like it does) 

12 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

Some quick notations that might help to understand if the TigerFox does indeed reproduce sounds accurately around the listener  

 

Do high performance headphones position sounds from two channel audio in their proper locations around the listener? (understanding that headphones normally place a tiny left speaker in one's left ear and a tiny right speaker in one's right ear - understanding also that the Immerse 360 pod places a left loudspeaker at a strategic left positioned location and a right loudspeaker at a strategic right location)

If there is doubt that headphones do this, simply ask a competitive first person video gamer that uses (and relies on) a good pair of headphones to play - and win - their games.  They will tell you that they need to rely -  sometimes only - on the location around them of very subtle game changing sonic cues that are intentionally positioned into critical locations within the game's sonic landscape by the game designer in order to indicate to the player where key "life and death" sounds are located around them.

 

(Many times the player cannot "see" the location of these important sounds which are placed in the game's landscape out of the gamer's view - understanding that humans can "see" with our eyes only about ⅓ of a real 360-degree landscape).

 

Start here in the understanding of what two channel audio can spatially do.

 

Then please consider objectively comparing headphone sound produced by speakers in ones ears to the sound produced by even relatively low cost loudspeakers set up within the Immerse 360 pod.  You'll hear those same sounds with the 360 pod now positioned not just around your ears like with headphones but physically expanded out and positioned at their same spatial locations within a realistic 360-degree hemispherical soundscape that is now positioned physically around your whole  body.  

 

Incidentally, the soundboard wall of the Immerse 360 pod is constructed out of the same polymeric material that many modern loudspeaker diaphragms are made of (the part of the speakers that actually reproduce the sound itself.

 

As to the importance of physically touching the speakers to the wall, I've found that that's open-ended at this time but actually not needed many times in my speaker testings and listening sessions. The critical part is the shape of the surrounding soundboard wall and its position in reference the the golden audiophile triangulation (more later on what that shape really is).

It is helpful to understand for reference the importance of soundboards over history in the design and manufacturing of musical instruments. (Soundboards do not actually produce the sound but they critically improve the sound made by the sound producing component - often improving it to a much higher level).  More later on this, but as an example, the surrounding acoustic soundboard that makes up the Stradivarius musical instrument violin (the part that does not produce the sound) is what actually causes that device to sound as great it does and which actually creates its tremendously high value - not the sound producing strings which are easily replaced and have a much lower value.  

 

There's really no better way to convince yourself of what the pod can do than simply to listen and sit back and enjoy audio presented to you in the pod. Sometimes all you need is a few minutes to really tell, but for many - why limit that experience to just a few minutes? Because the pod works literally with all stereo audio (not just new or specially recorded immersive 3D audio), you can pull out your most favorite legacy recordings going back over 50 years or more and hear them like new again.

 

The recording Time, by the way, is easy to hear where the individual sounds are located around the listener - including in back of the listener - while keeping in mind that these clock chimes are really expanding what "music" was considered previously limited to - it now includes nearly all three dimensionally placed real world "sounds" like game designers do.

 

Please let me know your thoughts!  (There are other helpful ways to explain how the shape of the pod works like it does) 

Christina Aguilera’s Stripped in 12 channel Atmos has tracks with her vocals only in the rear channels. Playing the two channel Atmos version, from two front speakers in the Immerse 360, are you saying the vocals will only be heard behind the listener, even though the sound is coming from the front and only two speakers? 

49 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

Some quick notations that might help to understand if the TigerFox does indeed reproduce sounds accurately around the listener  

 

Do high performance headphones position sounds from two channel audio in their proper locations around the listener? (understanding that headphones normally place a tiny left speaker in one's left ear and a tiny right speaker in one's right ear - understanding also that the Immerse 360 pod places a left loudspeaker at a strategic left positioned location and a right loudspeaker at a strategic right location)

If there is doubt that headphones do this, simply ask a competitive first person video gamer that uses (and relies on) a good pair of headphones to play - and win - their games.  They will tell you that they need to rely -  sometimes only - on the location around them of very subtle game changing sonic cues that are intentionally positioned into critical locations within the game's sonic landscape by the game designer in order to indicate to the player where key "life and death" sounds are located around them.

 

(Many times the player cannot "see" the location of these important sounds which are placed in the game's landscape out of the gamer's view - understanding that humans can "see" with our eyes only about ⅓ of a real 360-degree landscape).

 

Start here in the understanding of what two channel audio can spatially do.

 

Then please consider objectively comparing headphone sound produced by speakers in ones ears to the sound produced by even relatively low cost loudspeakers set up within the Immerse 360 pod.  You'll hear those same sounds with the 360 pod now positioned not just around your ears like with headphones but physically expanded out and positioned at their same spatial locations within a realistic 360-degree hemispherical soundscape that is now positioned physically around your whole  body.  

 

Incidentally, the soundboard wall of the Immerse 360 pod is constructed out of the same polymeric material that many modern loudspeaker diaphragms are made of (the part of the speakers that actually reproduce the sound itself.

 

As to the importance of physically touching the speakers to the wall, I've found that that's open-ended at this time but actually not needed many times in my speaker testings and listening sessions. The critical part is the shape of the surrounding soundboard wall and its position in reference the the golden audiophile triangulation (more later on what that shape really is).

It is helpful to understand for reference the importance of soundboards over history in the design and manufacturing of musical instruments. (Soundboards do not actually produce the sound but they critically improve the sound made by the sound producing component - often improving it to a much higher level).  More later on this, but as an example, the surrounding acoustic soundboard that makes up the Stradivarius musical instrument violin (the part that does not produce the sound) is what actually causes that device to sound as great it does and which actually creates its tremendously high value - not the sound producing strings which are easily replaced and have a much lower value.  

 

There's really no better way to convince yourself of what the pod can do than simply to listen and sit back and enjoy audio presented to you in the pod. Sometimes all you need is a few minutes to really tell, but for many - why limit that experience to just a few minutes? Because the pod works literally with all stereo audio (not just new or specially recorded immersive 3D audio), you can pull out your most favorite legacy recordings going back over 50 years or more and hear them like new again.

 

The recording Time, by the way, is easy to hear where the individual sounds are located around the listener - including in back of the listener - while keeping in mind that these clock chimes are really expanding what "music" was considered previously limited to - it now includes nearly all three dimensionally placed real world "sounds" like game designers do.

 

Please let me know your thoughts!  (There are other helpful ways to explain how the shape of the pod works like it does) 

I really think gaming, using DSP, where the sounds are designed to come from around the listener, is very different from music. 
 

I’m trying to understand what the Immerse 360 does and how it relates to accurately reproducing music. I have zero problems with people liking it or hating it, I’m just focusing on accuracy. 
 

If the Immerse 360 is accurate, then there should be many recordings where the sound is only presented in front of the listener, on a soundstage similar to a real stage. For example, here’s a track from Foo Fighters. 
 

https://music.apple.com/us/album/all-my-life/538257183?i=538257185

I’m also trying to distinguish the differences between Immerse 360 and the Bacch SP. Bacch is all DSP and while it presents an immersive style sound from two speakers, it has nothing to do with accurately reproducing what’s on the recording. It makes an image the designer thinks you want to hear. 
 

To be honest, the Immerse 360 website and the examples given so far with words that have fuzzy definitions, don’t give me confidence that the company is willing to discuss it using straight forward language. That’s just my take. I’m not suggesting the product is bad or good or that any of the language choices are done with deceit in mind. 

Some quick notations that might help to understand if the TigerFox does indeed reproduce sounds accurately around the listener  

Do high performance headphones position sounds from two channel audio in their proper locations around the listener? (understanding that headphones normally place a tiny left speaker in one's left ear and a tiny right speaker in one's right ear - understanding also that the Immerse 360 pod places a left loudspeaker at a strategic left positioned location and a right loudspeaker at a strategic right location)

If there is doubt that headphones do this, simply ask a competitive first person video gamer that uses (and relies on) a good pair of headphones to play - and win - their games.  They will tell you that they need to rely -  sometimes only - on the location around them of very subtle game changing sonic cues that are intentionally positioned into critical locations within the game's sonic landscape by the game designer in order to indicate to the player where key "life and death" sounds are located around them.

(Many times the player cannot "see" the location of these important sounds which are placed in the game's landscape out of the gamer's view - understanding that humans can "see" with our eyes only about ⅓ of a real 360-degree landscape).

Start here in the understanding of what two channel audio can spatially do.

Then please consider objectively comparing headphone sound produced by speakers in ones ears to the sound produced by even relatively low cost loudspeakers set up within the Immerse 360 pod.  You'll hear those same sounds with the 360 pod now positioned not just around your ears like with headphones but physically expanded out and positioned at their same spatial locations within a realistic 360-degree hemispherical soundscape that is now positioned physically around your whole  body.  

Incidentally, the soundboard wall of the Immerse 360 pod is constructed out of the same polymeric material that many modern loudspeaker diaphragms are made of (the part of the speakers that actually reproduce the sound itself.

As to the importance of physically touching the speakers to the wall, I've found that that's open-ended at this time but actually not needed many times in my speaker testings and listening sessions. The critical part is the shape of the surrounding soundboard wall and its position in reference the the golden audiophile triangulation (more later on what that shape really is).

It is helpful to understand for reference the importance of soundboards over history in the design and manufacturing of musical instruments. (Soundboards do not actually produce the sound but they critically improve the sound made by the sound producing component - often improving it to a much higher level).  More later on this, but as an example, the surrounding acoustic soundboard that makes up the Stradivarius musical instrument violin (the part that does not produce the sound) is what actually causes that device to sound as great it does and which actually creates its tremendously high value - not the sound producing strings which are easily replaced and have a much lower value.  

There's really no better way to convince yourself of what the pod can do than simply to listen and sit back and enjoy audio presented to you in the pod. Sometimes all you need is a few minutes to really tell, but for many - why limit that experience to just a few minutes? Because the pod works literally with all stereo audio (not just new or specially recorded immersive 3D audio), you can pull out your most favorite legacy recordings going back over 50 years or more and hear them like new again.

The recording Time, by the way, is easy to hear where the individual sounds are located around the listener - including in back of the listener - while keeping in mind that these clock chimes are really expanding what "music" was considered previously limited to - it now includes nearly all three dimensionally placed real world "sounds" like game designers do.

Please let me know your thoughts!  (There are other helpful ways to explain how the shape of the pod works like it does) 

The more I read on the TigerFox site the more I think the only way to understand the Immerse 360 is to start by having one measured, using in-ear microphones. 
 

If anyone wants to submit a unit for measurement, I’ll see to it that it’s done accurately. 

"are you saying the vocals will only be heard behind the listener, even though the sound is coming from the front and only two speakers?"

Yes would be my immediate answer.  I'll test this recording in the pod and get back.

Quick answer before that, using any number of speakers that sound great in the Immerse 360, but not actually test hearing this specific recording yet, I have heard vocals in many different recordings (going back many years) coming only from directly in back of me when sitting in the pod's listener location. NO part of that vocal sound, by the way, was heard coming from the speakers location which are physically located only 36" directly in front of me.

Please explain what is objectively needed to relay the information that you would like discussed.

The site was worded more for general audience and audio newbies - and we removed a 100 page Tech page because most people got lost within it. We're considering reducing it down to a white paper but in the meantime, let me know your specific questions and I will be as direct, objective and helpful as I can.  

It may not be understood exactly how it works but as mentioned the shape of the soundboard pod is most important in relation to the speaker-listener triangulation that is exactly proportionally positioned within it.

The pod really is a new audio technology that needs to be studied and heard to be believed. Let me know what I can do to help make that happen for you.  I think you'll be

This discussion ties in directly with an audio direction I have been pursuing for perhaps 9-10 months now and expect to spend at least another year on (with EOL implications, I'm 76 years old) Heretofore, I've had large speakers, and do believe that they have been historically the easier path to good sound given adequate room size. I am a DIYer but that has been the case for all my audio(phile) experience (1969 to present).

Initially my move to smaller speakers was motivated by my recognition that growing difficulties would arise in construction and movement of large heavy speakers, and the likelihood that we would move into a smaller residence with lower maintenance requirements for I and my wife. As I started this adjustment, I was also following Chris' immersive environment explorations and concluded that there was a thread worth pursuing -- full-range/wide-range drivers. Doing without crossovers, at least in the 100hz to 10khz range removes alot of the complexity in achieving coherence particularly when considering lateral and speaker distance configuration.  My current target involves 3-5 fullrange speakers using a Schiit Syn preamp. I built and have been using two Markaudio Alpair 11MS drivers in small Nostromo cabinets, so I will build 1-3 more to fill out the installation after I get the Syn. The Nostromos are much, much better dynamically than I expected.  A long-term goal for 25 years has been playing stereo through three channels with better-than-simple-summing center-channel upmixing.

Bringing my discussion to this thread -- I can't help but think using high-quality modern widerange drivers in sealed 'boxes' with an appropriate subwoofer could be the ultimately most coherent configuration for the Tigerfox environment.

Perhaps Rick has heard of or actually listened to such as system in his booth?

Skip

6 hours ago, ROPolka said:

Do high performance headphones position sounds from two channel audio in their proper locations around the listener?

I am sure the multiple authors you referred in your patent already explained about headphones difference. Without pinna, the will be no externalization and sound will be confined in side the head. By using pinna filter either generic or personalized then you have the externalization and stage become life size.
 

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Christina Aguilera’s Stripped in 12 channel Atmos has tracks with her vocals only in the rear channels. Playing the two channel Atmos version, from two front speakers in the Immerse 360, are you saying the vocals will only be heard behind the listener, even though the sound is coming from the front and only two speakers?

 One is object based audio and another is channel based. I am skeptical that it could do so but listeners can be convinced to believe so. I have witnessed this in so called room device which did nothing but listeners were convinced they were hearing the sound as described by designer. 
 

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m also trying to distinguish the differences between Immerse 360 and the Bacch SP. Bacch is all DSP and while it presents an immersive style sound from two speakers, it has nothing to do with accurately reproducing what’s on the recording. It makes an image the designer thinks you want to hear.

This is so wrong and misleading. The object is to deliver the exact ILD and ITD of each channel without corruption.  Occasionally, in the hands of novice you get weird positioning but the problem is the recording itself and that too can be addressed. 
 

5 hours ago, ROPolka said:

As to the importance of physically touching the speakers to the wall, I've found that that's open-ended at this time but actually not needed many times in my speaker testings and listening sessions.

 Thanks for confirming this point. I think it is a novel approach to mask the IAC errors but it could be technically explained. 
 

Once again, thank you for your time. 
 

ST

3 minutes ago, STC said:

This is so wrong and misleading. The object is to deliver the exact ILD and ITD of each channel without corruption.  Occasionally, in the hands of novice you get weird positioning but the problem is the recording itself and that too can be addressed. 

When I've sat through Bacch SP demos and heard Sonny Rollins playing almost behind me, I concluded it has nothing to do with accurately reproducing the source material. How could it? The music was never meant to sound like that and never released in a format to sound like that. DSP is causing the wrap-around effect. Neat effect, but effect nonetheless. 

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

When I've sat through Bacch SP demos and heard Sonny Rollins playing almost behind me, I concluded it has nothing to do with accurately reproducing the source material. How could it? The music was never meant to sound like that and never released in a format to sound like that. DSP is causing the wrap-around effect. Neat effect, but effect nonetheless. 

I have read another review of BACCH SP and when he describe the sound I knew it was not correctly setup. The concept of BACCH is solid but implementation requires precise adjustments. Problem is BACCH trying to please the 60 degrees crowd and under such implementation you need to be an audiophile to get it correctly done. I cannot afford BACCH but technically it supposed to function like any other XTC with added advantage of head tracking.  I have read his early development papers including the IR approach for cancellation. But at 60 degrees speakers position you are going to have phassy effect if they still want to achieve what it supposed to do at 20 or lesser degrees speaker position. Was Choueiri there during the demo?

Mind telling which Sonny Rollins album and track you listened to.

Thank you. 
ST

56 minutes ago, STC said:

Was Choueiri there during the demo?

He setup the demo specifically for me and customized it for my ears etc...

Can't remember which Rollins album. 

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

He setup the demo specifically for me and customized it for my ears etc...

 

Can't remember which Rollins album. 

 
You are not the first one!😂😂😂

There was another place where his setup didn’t work either.  60 degree solution is not feasible for all, IMO.  Not to say not workable but requires elaborate setting up.
 

Thanks, Chris.  

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 
You are not the first one!😂😂😂

 

There was another place where his setup didn’t work either.  60 degree solution is not feasible for all, IMO.  Not to say not workable but requires elaborate setting up.
 

Thanks, Chris.  

I should also say that I thought the demo was really cool, but I don't believe it has anything to do with accuracy to what's on the recording. 

7 hours ago, Skip Pack said:

Bringing my discussion to this thread -- I can't help but think using high-quality modern widerange drivers in sealed 'boxes' with an appropriate subwoofer could be the ultimately most coherent configuration for the Tigerfox environment.

 

Perhaps Rick has heard of or actually listened to such as system in his booth?

Hey Skip: Here's my thoughts.

If you're considering using two speaker "boxes" (simply a stereo left and right), this was what the Immerse 360 system was designed for. No need for a center channel, additional speakers, their added wiring or their needed added electronics. This keeps the system as simple, clean, and as connection free as possible, which as you know, is an audiophile basic from way back.

As far as adding a sub (or even two), go for it with the Immerse 360! As previously mentioned, the positioning of the sub isn't at all as important as the 2 speaker - listener triangulation. Let me know if you'd like me to add some photos of where subs have been traditionally positioned near the pod's entrance but it's nothing to be worried about. They'll work great. The sub(s) can be placed on the floor next to the entrance of the pod out of the way.

The pod as well increases the speaker's bass as experienced by the listener in the pod in quite a noticeable way - so much so that most listeners are happy with listening to most types of music just using their speakers alone (speakers with drivers 6 inches and over) without an added sub.

Note that the design of the Immerse 360's positioning mat exactly positions the listener and the 2 speakers in their correct relationship to each other and relative to the shape and positioning of the surrounding soundboard wall. This pre-set system gives the best repeatable positioning of these components quickly without the need for measurements and multiple movements.

Thanks for your question! Hope this helps. Let me know your added questions!

I think I misled in my first post here. Yes, I have been working on a 3 or 5 system, but my sense is that just two good wide/full range single driver speakers, possibly with a well coordinated sub might be a very good solution  in the Immerse 360.  The quality of the crossover particularly with respect to inter-driver spacing is critical when you are that close to them. I'm sure the really good 2-way standmounts can do a great job, but I imagine any number of speakers that sound very nice (with little surround effect) at 6+ feet may not work so well as close as they need to be in your remarkable environment. 

2 hours ago, STC said:

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

are you saying the vocals will only be heard behind the listener, even though the sound is coming from the front and only two speakers?

 One is object based audio and another is channel based. I am skeptical that it could do so but listeners can be convinced to believe so. I have witnessed this in so called room device which did nothing but listeners were convinced they were hearing the sound as described by designer.

Yes, I have seen these so called "room devices" that present a view of the soundscape or room with the sounds shown in their "correct" locations. These visual positioning cues are needed and often used in video games because gamers mostly use headphones which do not accurately convey the location of sounds that are positioned either directly in back, directly overhead or directly in front of the listener.

I've heard headphone manufacturers say the reason is because the speakers in headphones are positioned on each side of the head and "out of view" of these 3 areas around the head. So, if headphone users close their eyes and hear a generic sound, they seem to guess wrong most of the time as to where sounds positioned in these locations are coming from.

This is one of the things that gamers tell me that they like a lot when comparing headphone-produced sounds with the same sounds produced with the Immerse 360. That is, they can actually tell with their eyes closed where sounds positioned in these locations are coming from.

To get around this built-in technical problem with headphones, most of the sounds designed into video games are not positioned in any of these 3 locations.

56 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I should also say that I thought the demo was really cool, but I don't believe it has anything to do with accuracy to what's on the recording. 

I think I remember about the Sonny Rollins CD. I think it was something like hard left and right panned sound. Over cancellation can result in the sound being placed right to the ears in the case of hard panned sound. The problem is during cancellation they didn’t take ( IMO) take into account that most stereo recording mastered to provide 60 degrees stage. If they are going to rely on clean cancellation hard panned recording going to sound weird with sound coming at the extreme left or right and some would even say behind. Correct cancellation should take into account of weird wrap around sound . I guess they didn’t. 

17 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

I've heard headphone manufacturers say the reason is because the speakers in headphones are positioned on each side of the head and "out of view" of these 3 areas around the head. So, if headphone users close their eyes and hear a generic sound, they seem to guess wrong most of the time as to where sounds positioned in these locations are coming from.

Headphones cannot provide outside the head experience because the role of pinna is eliminated. Without pinna filtering the frequencies reaching the ears, the brain cannot tell if the sound is coming from front or back or top or bottom. The unique shape of the pinna alters the frequency response depending from which direction they are coming from.  Localization by pinna is a learning process as brain needs to learn the difference in the FR coming from different direction. I am not sure how the headphone manufacturer justify their position by using visual aid for localization.  

SmythRealizer mimics the changes of the frequency response to create real space with headphones. I think Samsung apps now takes picture of your pinna to create the filter for externalization of sound. 
 

cheers!

ST

18 minutes ago, Skip Pack said:

I imagine any number of speakers that sound very nice (with little surround effect) as 6+ feet may not work so well as close as they need to be in your remarkable environment.

With respect to the size and positioning of speakers and their drivers in the Immerse 360, what we found most important for "working well"  or not with listening within the close-range pod were that the drivers not be positioned far apart from each other in the layout of the speaker, that the tweeter and driver should be close to each other and best vertically above or below each other (if they are vertically offset from each other - the tweeters of the left and right speakers should be closer toward in the left and right setup), the speakers shouldn't be positioned in their horizontal (on side) position, and that many drivers in each speaker are not needed and do not seem to help - if anything they reduce Immerse 360's near-field experience.

It was interesting to me that, even though larger speakers are not needed and seem outsized for the size of the Immerse 360, I've had several users rave to me about their positioning very large speakers in the pod including adding 2 subwoofers which actually filled-up the opening of the pod.

To alleviate entering and exiting the pod, instead of having to move any of these, they simply moved one of the walls away from the side of the speakers, exited through that opening and when they returned, simply moved the wall back into place next to the speaker (an easy 5 second process).

I hope this helps - let me know added questions.

3 hours ago, STC said:

I’m also trying to distinguish the differences between Immerse 360 and the Bacch SP. Bacch is all DSP and while it presents an immersive style sound from two speakers, it has nothing to do with accurately reproducing what’s on the recording. It makes an image the designer thinks you want to hear.

Accuracy of the recording is important!. Thank you!

Just a note that, even tho immersive sound from conventional two channel audio is the objective, the technologies of the Immerse 360 and Beach-like systems are very far apart from each other. Almost total opposites in so many ways.

One is exclusively digital based and the Immerse 360 is pure acoustic based. I can't image the difficulty of designing a digital system to obtain accuracy of a recording as there are so many ways it could go off or wrong.

Conversely, with the Immerse 360, the dare-I-say "natural" result of using purified sound itself (audio is not corrupted up by the room, speakers or lack of knowledge of the listener) is the automatic revelation of the true original accurate recording itself. 

Where "purified audio" here means audio that's been cleaned-up to where the traditional huge sound reproduction problems of playing back two channel in a room have been removed or corrected - including removing the room itself to where it is not the massive acoustic "elephant" that it was, to where the speaker's powerfully corrupting crosstalk have been completely corrected, and to where the listener is not in change anymore of positioning the speakers and the listener in their perfect golden triangle locations.

The accuracy of the Immerse 360, therefore - and logically - is accuracy beyond the normal accuracy that's been limited with normal two channel playback in a room. The acoustic result of this is accuracy beyond what was even heard or experienced before in two channel playback.

That truth is what I believe the definition of accuracy is, especially for an acoustic designer.

40 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

Accuracy of the recording is important!. Thank you!

 

Just a note that, even tho immersive sound from conventional two channel audio is the objective, the technologies of the Immerse 360 and Beach-like systems are very far apart from each other. Almost total opposites in so many ways.

 

One is exclusively digital based and the Immerse 360 is pure acoustic based. I can't image the difficulty of designing a digital system to obtain accuracy of a recording as there are so many ways it could go off or wrong.

 

Conversely, with the Immerse 360, the dare-I-say "natural" result of using purified sound itself (audio is not corrupted up by the room, speakers or lack of knowledge of the listener) is the automatic revelation of the true original accurate recording itself. 

 

Where "purified audio" here means audio that's been cleaned-up to where the traditional huge sound reproduction problems of playing back two channel in a room have been removed or corrected - including removing the room itself to where it is not the massive acoustic "elephant" that it was, to where the speaker's powerfully corrupting crosstalk have been completely corrected, and to where the listener is not in change anymore of positioning the speakers and the listener in their perfect golden triangle locations.

 

The accuracy of the Immerse 360, therefore - and logically - is accuracy beyond the normal accuracy that's been limited with normal two channel playback in a room. The acoustic result of this is accuracy beyond what was even heard or experienced before in two channel playback.

 

That truth is what I believe the definition of accuracy is, especially for an acoustic designer.

 

How come this was misquoted? I didn’t say that!  
 

Anyway, accuracy according to what? We do not have a reference. Toole described this as ‘circle of confusion’. Your 30 degree to the left sound could be 40 degrees to the mastering engineer. Someone can claim that the system is producing the accurate sound ( I am not referring to FR and confine to localization only), they need to be sure the sound is reproduced with the exact ITD and ILD as heard and capture by the mics. The reproduction should produce exactly the same placement within reasonable stage. 
 

If you ask Miller or Choueiri or Glasgal about the reproduction they would insist that correct based on measurement but if you ask the mastering engineers they would insist that not what it supposed to be. But common sense would tell you that Sonny Rollins shouldn’t sound at your extreme left with 3D but setup that wrongly done would show that because that was mathematically correct. Technically, sound just coming from one channel should be at the extreme left. but that’s wrong. What is accurate here?

As far as audio accuracy goes, which I believe includes a realism component, a spatial positioning component, an audio quality component and a natural ambient immersive component seems to me to be not able to be heard or experienced with all the commonly known and so far very difficult to remove sound reproduction problems of the room, the speakers, the positioning of the listener and the electronics used.

In other words, audio that's been massively cleaned-up to where the difficult sound reproduction problems of playing back two channel in a room have been removed, to where crosstalk corruption from the speakers has been completely corrected and to where the listener and speakers are correctly sweet spot triangulated would logically be audio that not only sounds more accurate to the listener with a given set of electronics but that in fact is more accurate by definition.

The Immerse 360 sound positioning pod removes the sound corrupting reflections of the room and the normal loss of massive quantities of indirect sound from the speakers into the room (including the loss of the sound information that's hidden within that lost sound that's otherwise not heard). It cancels crosstalk completely removing its sound distortions, and the pod automatically triangulates the speakers and listener into the magic triangulated sweet spot location.

The result is loudspeaker sound that's so clear and clean that you've never heard it before that "accurately" presented to you. Pod listeners report experiencing an improved quality of sound (to where $150 speakers sound like $4,000 speakers), significant improvement in the realism of sound (to where they emotionally feel present within a real ambient space), and sound positioning that extends not just left and right and in front of and behind a pair of stereo speakers, but that completely is able to hemispherically surround their entire body in direction, depth, and, yes, even height.

To be truly objective, one must experience first-hand a revolutionary (and somewhat radical and disruptive) new technology. And then try to figure it out. That's just my hope.

Your thoughts?

@The Computer Audiophile Thank your for raising the questions that came to my mind as well. I agree that in-ear microphones would be the best way to compare the Immersive 360 to an actual multi-channel setup.

On the topic of accuracy: Hi-fi traditionally aims for reproducing music "the way the artist intended". It's impossible to know what the musician(s) intended (many of them don't care too much about their exact placement in the mix anyway), so the artist in this sentence is the mastering engineer. Mixing and mastering engineers usually intend that their work sounds as good as possible on any sound system, but it's reasonable to try and get as close as possible to what they heard. Maybe we can even reproduce some more details with the very best electronics and speakers, but the general concept should be the same in my opinion.

When we look at mastering rooms for two-channel recordings, almost all of them are set up in a traditional stereo triangle. In most cases, the rest of the room is a compromise of having as much absorption as possible with the amount of reflective surfaces needed for humans to feel comfortable. (Check out Northward Acoustics' Front-To-Back Room Concept to see what's considered state of the art in this field). So the goal is to hear as much direct sound from the speakers and as little reflections from the room as possible. The Tigerfox Immersive 360 does the exact opposite - it adds lots of reflections all around the listener. I imagine that the resulting effect can be fascinating and also may sound better (subjectively) than the usual wall/window reflections in a typical domestic room. But the claim that this sound is more accurate and "cleaned up" seems far-fetched to me. I don't thing mixing/mastering engineers imagine sounds coming from behind when working on two-channel music - everything they hear takes place in front of them.