Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

Rick, please go on. It is really a fascinating subject.

I am in the middle of an air-sealing project in my basement.  I will not use my TF or ATMOS system for the next few months.....  Do not worry about me. I have a pair of KEF LS60 W speakers in the Living Room for evaluation!

Anyway, if there is someone with the tools and knowledge in the Chicagoland area to do measurements on the TF I will loan it to them.  

PM Me.

17 hours ago, ROPolka said:

Positioning observation: After listening to more than 50 such dual recordings (ATMOS & stereo versions of the same soundtrack) streamed with Tidal using various playback devices and in the TigerFox Pod with an assortment of speakers, I have not personally heard individual sounds positioned in noticeably different locations between the ATMOS and the original stereo version of the same soundtracks.

 

Does this help answer your question?

Thank you for the detail description.

I couldn’t reply to this much earlier as I couldn’t play the Dolby version earlier to try to understand what Bob was describing. After listening to both version of Time the difference in details is telling but with the AirPod spatial I didn’t hear any out of ordinary difference perhaps a little sense of height.

For music, most of the direct source is a frontal event. Multi channel me ATMOS could be adding reverbs for the envelop feel and occasionally some sound just to trigger surround effect of sound around you. So for music, you are right to say there’s not much individual sound outside the normal soundstage of stereo. Now it makes sense to what Bob described. Thanks again for clarifying the point.

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

Thank you for the detail description.

 

I couldn’t reply to this much earlier as I couldn’t play the Dolby version earlier to try to understand what Bob was describing. After listening to both version of Time the difference in details is telling but with the AirPod spatial I didn’t hear any out of ordinary difference perhaps a little sense of height.

 

For music, most of the direct source is a frontal event. Multi channel me ATMOS could be adding reverbs for the envelop feel and occasionally some sound just to trigger surround effect of sound around you. So for music, you are right to say there’s not much individual sound outside the normal soundstage of stereo. Now it makes sense to what Bob described. Thanks again for clarifying the point.

I prodded Rick to join the forum, so blame me 🤣

17 hours ago, bobfa said:

I am in the middle of an air-sealing project in my basement.  I will not use my TF or ATMOS system for the next few months.....  Do not worry about me. I have a pair of KEF LS60 W speakers in the Living Room for evaluation!

 

 

Anyway, if there is someone with the tools and knowledge in the Chicagoland area to do measurements on the TF I will loan it to them.  

 

PM Me.

Hey @bobfa, wish I was nearby to even grab a quick measurement of the frequency response. If you do have a chance, just take a reading with and without the TF360 with a measurement mic placed around the locale of one of the ears. Sorry you'll be without the immersive systems for a bit...

Just a quick note. I am glad that audiophiles are considering how to make their music listening more "immersive" these days whether it be "effects processors" like TF360 or actual multichannel/Atmos systems. I hope it's a step towards our hobby shedding its unfounded adherence to 2-channel stereo. Lately I've been enjoying the heck out of old albums remixed in multichannel/Atmos mainly on Apple Music.

I have no doubt that folks are enjoying the TF360 and the effect it brings to "surround" the listener. Nonetheless, it's still 2-channel audio so discrete rear content or height effects would obviously be missing even if it's a great facsimile. Even if one were to use the same mastering from say a 7.1.4 folded-down to 2.0, there will be data missing and the "exact" sound of that multichannel mix would be impossible to extract.

Depending on timing, we could do it at my home. I have equipment and we can setup in the basement like we did with CAS.

6 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

I prodded Rick to join the forum, so blame me 🤣

 

 

Thank you for being Rick here. The more we discuss the better we can understand and improve the system. 

On 7/29/2023 at 2:38 AM, botrytis said:

Sorry for the typo. I meant to say “Thank you for bringing Rick here”. Not ‘BEING’ . Just noticed the mistake. 
 

On 7/29/2023 at 7:08 AM, STC said:

Thank you for being Rick here. The more we discuss the better we can understand and improve the system. 

58 minutes ago, STC said:

Sorry for the typo. I meant to say “Thank you for bringing Rick here”. Not ‘BEING’ . Just noticed the mistake. 
 

 

I understood totally, so that is why I wrote the reply I did. After talking to Rick, I realized he has a lot of great information. He came up with this system. He is a nice guy to talk to. He is an audiophile, also. Rick fits right in with this group, who have enough knowledge and understanding to appreciate this system, I bet one of the little Denon mini-systems would be great for it.

On 7/27/2023 at 5:20 PM, STC said:

On 7/27/2023 at 2:04 PM, ROPolka said:

The average person doesn't need special binaural mics or complex measuring devices to reliably determine whether a soundtrack's sounds are heard in the same physical locations around the listener in the TigerFox Pod as with an ATMOS playback of the same soundtrack.

You just contradicted yourself. Echoic memory lasts just few seconds. But sound scene is reconstructed based on prior knowledge. Just place your phone on the other side of the place you usually put and you will notice that when the phone rings you would naturally hear as if it is coming from the side where you usually put them. Once you realized it’s not there then the localization cues are used to find the phone.

I took a little time researching echoic memory, (our human's prior spatial memory of sound location), reflecting on its definition, and how it was used above to suggest that this phenomenon limits a listener's ability "to reliably determine whether a soundtrack's sounds are heard in the same physical locations around the listener in the TigerFox Pod as with an ATMOS playback of the same soundtrack".

I don't think I clearly explained what I meant along with what I didn't mean to suggest. 

By definition, if there was prior "learning" (i.e. if a same sound is heard coming from a same physical location or object around the listener, especially if that sound is repeatedly heard from that same location), it seems correct that echoic learning could definitely come into play.

Also, I might add after thinking about it, if the sound heard would naturally be heard coming from a preset location in the space around them, (like a refrigerator noise) it would be assumed by the auditory senses to always come from the refrigerator's location no matter where around the person's location the frig was located. In this instance as well, it also seems correct that echoic "learning" could definitely come into play.

However, it's important to understand that:

(1.) Where there is no prior "learning", echoic "memory" does not come into play. That is, if the listener never heard a sound's location before, there is no echoic "memory".

How this relates to the TigerFox sound positioning accuracy statement in italic above is, even where the listener never heard a soundtrack before (and therefore never "learned" a sound's particular location), a sounds spatial location around the listener is immediately localized by the TigerFox Pod to the point where the listener can clearly point to it's exact physical location around them. Not only its 360-degree location, but the listener can also hear and relate it's location around them as a factor of depth or distance, height and movement as that sound was positioned in the original immersive stereo content. 

(2.) Also, it is more important to understand (this may hard to believe by those who have not personally experienced the TigerFox Pod), that TigerFox's ability to localize sound positioning is far more powerful than echoic memory! 

That is, it overwhelms the listener's prior echoic memory the first time the soundtrack is heard by the listener! 

For example were a listener has not only heard a particular soundtrack before (like the Time soundtrack by Pink Floyd) but heard that particular soundtrack hundreds of times played back before with two stereo speakers alone (without the TigerFox) and where the positions of the clocks were firmly established as always coming from the same locations in front of the listener, the first time that same listener hears that same original recording of Time in the TigerFox, that listener is immediately able to not only clearly hear, but exactly point out around them the locations of each and every single bell, even tho about half of those bells are now clearly heard coming from new physical locations around them, like from in back of them on their left side, or slightly above their head in back of them on their right side.

With this documented ability by the TigerFox Pod in mind to consistently position sounds around the listener at the same repeatable locations as positioned within the original stereo signals (even in clearly positioned overhead locations heard with YouTube "Sounds On a Car Roof" recordings), it makes industry sense to objectively test in different ways the comparative sound positioning experience being delivered by TigerFox's new acoustical physics technology against other systems that the industry recognizes as doing similar things.

I'm 100% looking forward to getting this started ASAP with your help and suggested assistance.

This hopefully will include comparatively testing the TigerFox Pod with different new immersive audio formats and against immersive audio hardware, like against the most advanced headphones on the market, against well setup stereo systems and high-performance listening rooms, home theater systems, and (as I intended to highly recommend in the above italic sentence), even against well setup 12 speaker ATMOS systems. 

And, to avoid any assumed TigerFox Pod bias or echoic memory concerns, like in side-by-side listening tests, simply start listeners off in the TigerFox Pod first with never-before-heard (but well recognized and appropriate) immersive content so there's no doubts, "memory" problems, or other issues with the TigerFox Pod on the results!.

Rick

2 hours ago, ROPolka said:

However, it's important to understand that:

 

(1.) Where there is no prior "learning", echoic "memory" does not come into play. That is, if the listener never heard a sound's location before, there is no echoic "memory".

 

How this relates to the TigerFox sound positioning accuracy statement in italic above is, even where the listener never heard a soundtrack before (and therefore never "learned" a sound's particular location), a sounds spatial location around the listener is immediately localized by the TigerFox Pod to the point where the listener can clearly point to it's exact physical location around them. Not only its 360-degree location, but the listener can also hear and relate it's location around them as a factor of depth or distance, height and movement as that sound was positioned in the original immersive stereo content. 

[Before I continue to respond, let me make my position clear. My interest in TFP ( TigerFox Pod) is the claim that the crosstalk is masked. I am interested to find out how it is done because it can help my own setup where I use crosstalk cancellation for my system. How interaural crosstalk cancellation is achieved is well documented with several AES papers published. Now, the question is whether crosstalk masking is possible?]
 

Echoic memory I referred to was in relation to localization as the duration was short. Audio sensory memory is said to be somewhere from 10 to 20 seconds. Curiously, sound that that we became familiar with experience can be recalled even after several years. Since you are now sharing observation of listeners who had not previously heard the particular tracks then I suggest we stick to how human localize sound and how stereo create phantom images to appear to come from a particular direction. These subjects have been well researched and understood.

Now let’s consider what stereo can do without TFP.

1) The stage width will be within the spread of the speakers.

2) Depth depends variance of reverbs where we recreate the distance based on prior knowledge to estimate the distance based on the changes in the frequencies and reverbs.

3) although there no height information in stereo, it is possible the changes in frequencies can give you sense of height like how the LEDR test produces height information. I’d leave it to the reader to decide if the height is above the head like in ATMOS or limited to the frontal elevation along the speakers.

3) stereo with effects can:-

 a) produce sound to appear even from the rear. QSound recordings are good example.

 b) the information of sound coming from extreme side or rear often just for short duration. 
 

This is what ordinary stereo without TFP could do in a well treated room.

From the measurements you posted earlier, TFP indeed focuses the sound and increases the level. This is well documented in concert hall research of shoehorn shaped halls. I fully agree and believe with this claim and it can indeed sound better than the typical listening without the pod.

The only point that you can demonstrate to prove that 360 degrees sound with the pod is to demonstrate how the masking changes the position of the sound. This involves sound arriving within the 90 μs ( estimation based on the speakers position as shown in one of the TFP video) being masked that calculation could clearly establish the arrival time of the reflections.

Looking at the size of the pod, all reflections are likely to be within 10ms. There could be reflection happening immediately with the direct sound but this reflection should all come within 650 μs to mask any crosstalk sound that’s going to reach the opposite ear for sound localization purpose. As I said earlier, the pod’s dimension indicates reflections to come for about 10 ms and that’s within Haas effect that would no have any effect on localization. BUT can correlated prolonged reverbs of 10 ms long of certain frequency band somehow affects the localization to the extend the interaural crosstalk masked? That’s what I am interested to find out if the claims about TFP can be verified.

I cannot think of a proper method to demonstrate the rear localization. Even with binaural recordings you won’t perceive the externalization with BRIR. But the following video should be a good demo to show the difference with and without TFP with binaural recording. It is not going produce the full effect but obviously there will be differences in the placement. 

On 7/16/2023 at 6:53 PM, STC said:

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?

Your question on how crosstalk is cancelled by reflection

Stereo speaker crosstalk is completely cancelled by the Immerse 360 by the capture, preservation and the mathematical control of massive quantities of indirect sound that otherwise would be lost, damaged or damaging sound and sound information in any room.

It works by precisely time-aligning this huge quantity of normally "excess" throw away sound by carefully orchestrated it from the instant it exits the speakers and continues to force control it in a coordinated way all the way to the listener's location.

This was generally explained in a prior post and much more completely in one or more of our issued utility patents.

You mentioned you have read portions of one of TigerFox's patents referring to a crosstalk illustration there. To more fully understand what is going on with the product and crosstalk, please read all of that particular patent's content, especially the parts that refer to the crosstalk illustration you saw. It's quite lengthly (more lengthly than what belongs here) but it should completely answer your inquiry.

Removing the corruption of crosstalk, and how this is functionally accomplished, is one of the parts of our patent's intellectual property that was completely new to the world. We organized and shared that new information in order to receive patent protection. (As you know, US and foreign utility patents are given only for revealing previously unknown, substantially novel and functionally important information).

Cancelling crosstalk is only one of the sound reproduction problems the Immerse 360 corrects in a synergistic way. While you're there, the patents get into many more.

Does the Immerse 360 work with other products to provide better cancellation?

About your question on this, because the Immerse 360 cancels crosstalk on its own in a very low cost way. Because it works reliably in most any size, shape and sound quality of room, including working in virtually any location in the room and while facing in any direction.

And because its results are latency free and do not interfere with or intrude upon the original sound signals. Because of these operational results (while it operates in an energy-efficient, sustainable way), there's no need to further correct crosstalk, especially by using other add-on methods or products that work by intruding into the sound signals or by cancelling one or more parts of the original audio signal.

By keeping how the Immerse 360 works as simple and intrusion-free as possible (as audiophiles know) it is then more possible to allow the electronics and the quality of the original music to unfold and bloom, to be heard and enjoyed in a more pure way - which provides the basis for getting the best sound out of one's content.

One thing to keep in mind, tho. This new technology is nothing like something experienced before. It needs to be experienced because it does a number of things for the sound never done before. And in new ways never experienced synergistically before.

I hope this is helpful.  I plan on getting into measurements in the next few days.

My best, Rick

PS, here's a comparison illustration that hopefully helps to graphically explain how sound looks after it leaves the speakers without controlling it, vs. it being captured, controlled and orchestrated by the Immerse 360 when it leaves the speakers and time-aligning it to converge with synchronization at the listener's location:

2 hours ago, ROPolka said:

Your question on how crosstalk is cancelled by reflection

Stereo speaker crosstalk is completely cancelled by the Immerse 360 by the capture, preservation and the mathematical control of massive quantities of indirect sound that otherwise would be lost, damaged or damaging sound and sound information in any room.

 

It works by precisely time-aligning this huge quantity of normally "excess" throw away sound by carefully orchestrated it from the instant it exits the speakers and continues to force control it in a coordinated way all the way to the listener's location.

 

This was generally explained in a prior post and much more completely in one or more of our issued utility patents.

 

You mentioned you have read portions of one of TigerFox's patents referring to a crosstalk illustration there. To more fully understand what is going on with the product and crosstalk, please read all of that particular patent's content, especially the parts that refer to the crosstalk illustration you saw. It's quite lengthly (more lengthly than what belongs here) but it should completely answer your inquiry.

 

Removing the corruption of crosstalk, and how this is functionally accomplished, is one of the parts of our patent's intellectual property that was completely new to the world. We organized and shared that new information in order to receive patent protection. (As you know, US and foreign utility patents are given only for revealing previously unknown, substantially novel and functionally important information).

 

Cancelling crosstalk is only one of the sound reproduction problems the Immerse 360 corrects in a synergistic way. While you're there, the patents get into many more.

 

Does the Immerse 360 work with other products to provide better cancellation?

About your question on this, because the Immerse 360 cancels crosstalk on its own in a very low cost way. Because it works reliably in most any size, shape and sound quality of room, including working in virtually any location in the room and while facing in any direction.

 

And because its results are latency free and do not interfere with or intrude upon the original sound signals. Because of these operational results (while it operates in an energy-efficient, sustainable way), there's no need to further correct crosstalk, especially by using other add-on methods or products that work by intruding into the sound signals or by cancelling one or more parts of the original audio signal.

 

By keeping how the Immerse 360 works as simple and intrusion-free as possible (as audiophiles know) it is then more possible to allow the electronics and the quality of the original music to unfold and bloom, to be heard and enjoyed in a more pure way - which provides the basis for getting the best sound out of one's content.

 

One thing to keep in mind, tho. This new technology is nothing like something experienced before. It needs to be experienced because it does a number of things for the sound never done before. And in new ways never experienced synergistically before.

 

I hope this is helpful.  I plan on getting into measurements in the next few days.

 

My best, Rick

 

PS, here's a comparison illustration that hopefully helps to graphically explain how sound looks after it leaves the speakers without controlling it, vs. it being captured, controlled and orchestrated by the Immerse 360 when it leaves the speakers and time-aligning it to converge with synchronization at the listener's location:

 

I or rather “we” have gone through the 107 page patent and no where I/we find how cancellation was done. You also referred to Glasgal and Ambiophonics papers. I too rely on them. Miller’s DSP was the one I started with for cross stalk cancellation before moving on to other DSP. You also referred to Gardner besides Miller and Farina. Except seeing their papers getting mentioned in the footnote, you have not shown which part of their papers supported your patent. 
 

I have estimated  the duration of the reflection. That duration of reflection is only correct if somehow the sound waves stop magically at the listener and doesn’t go to the other side of the wall and gets reflected. You have not engaged on that point.  You have not answered any of the questions I asked. You just repeated the same as in the patent which also told nothing about the question I asked. 
 

The only way crosstalk can be cancelled by physical plane is by placing them in the middle. 

 

Looking at the patent diagrams where it was described that the speakers were placed 36 inches apart. Mathematically, the sound wave path C will be longer than L. The precise timing of the sound reaching the ears can be calculated. The same goes for the reflection.

To cancel the crosstalk the reflection should arrive at the same time as C but none of the reflection can be the same length/distance as C and therefore cancellation is not possible. Even masking is not possible as non of the reflection can reach at the same time as C since the path is longer.

So far this has not been explained anywhere.

Sorry you were confused by this one part of this one illustration in one of our patents. I sense your frustration.

In patents, it is helpful to keep in mind that the illustrations are supported by the content. Because the content is more important, it needs to be carefully looked at in it's entirety and included in a discussion of the illustration.

For that, so various parts of the illustration are not misunderstood or misinterpreted, I need to differ to the patent content describing this illustration which I mentioned is lengthly (too lengthly for this forum) and goes through the entire patent.

Let's continue this part of the conversation therefore off-line if, after reading the content, you would like to discuss this one part of the physics further.

This one illustration, by the way, is only one of many different illustrations and embodiments in our patents that, as a whole, describe what's going on with the system. As you'll see there, there are many ways to explain how and why it works.

In general, however, here's some boiled-down relevant information that may help.

Of importance is that the reflections don't have to be perfectly the same exact length in order for the system as a whole to work in a human functionally-perfect way.

Flexibility and forgiveness are importantly built into the design of the Immerse 360 acoustic system!

If all of the reflections, for example, were required to be exactly the same physical length for the system to work, the sweet spot would be smaller and the system would be more restrictive.

Other shape-oriented factors as well come into play in making the physical structure work smoothly, efficiently and practically.

It might help to also keep in mind that this isn't theory here anymore. The system works!

And it works well with enough with built in versatile forgiveness to work immediately out of the box, including with a simple 3-minute tool-free, electronics-free, and wire-free setup, along with being adaptive to different types, shapes and sizes of speakers and rooms, and it being able to compatibility work with different electronics along with a multiplicity of different content from high-performance music playback, to 360-degree video games and full theater surround sound movies.

There are other functional and difficult to get one's head around important things going on here as well that need to be included in an objective discussion of functional integrity. Like my prior mention of the golden spiral and golden ratio that directly relates to the physical design of the Immerse 360's structure (see general Googled short videos explaining this amazing physical phenomenon).

Another difficult to get one's head around thing going on here too that's related to the functional design of the Immerse 360 is the musical instrument soundboard. Why and how it works. And how it relates to the Pod and a Stradivarius violin (which I will touch on in another post). 

I'm looking forward to it!

My best

Rick

5 hours ago, ROPolka said:

Sorry you were confused by this one part of this one illustration in one of our patents. I sense your frustration.

 

In patents, it is helpful to keep in mind that the illustrations are supported by the content. Because the content is more important, it needs to be carefully looked at in it's entirety and included in a discussion of the illustration.

 

For that, so various parts of the illustration are not misunderstood or misinterpreted, I need to differ to the patent content describing this illustration which I mentioned is lengthly (too lengthly for this forum) and goes through the entire patent.

 

Let's continue this part of the conversation therefore off-line if, after reading the content, you would like to discuss this one part of the physics further.

 

This one illustration, by the way, is only one of many different illustrations and embodiments in our patents that, as a whole, describe what's going on with the system. As you'll see there, there are many ways to explain how and why it works.

 

In general, however, here's some boiled-down relevant information that may help.

 

Of importance is that the reflections don't have to be perfectly the same exact length in order for the system as a whole to work in a human functionally-perfect way.

 

Flexibility and forgiveness are importantly built into the design of the Immerse 360 acoustic system!

 

If all of the reflections, for example, were required to be exactly the same physical length for the system to work, the sweet spot would be smaller and the system would be more restrictive.

 

Other shape-oriented factors as well come into play in making the physical structure work smoothly, efficiently and practically.

 

It might help to also keep in mind that this isn't theory here anymore. The system works!

And it works well with enough with built in versatile forgiveness to work immediately out of the box, including with a simple 3-minute tool-free, electronics-free, and wire-free setup, along with being adaptive to different types, shapes and sizes of speakers and rooms, and it being able to compatibility work with different electronics along with a multiplicity of different content from high-performance music playback, to 360-degree video games and full theater surround sound movies.

 

There are other functional and difficult to get one's head around important things going on here as well that need to be included in an objective discussion of functional integrity. Like my prior mention of the golden spiral and golden ratio that directly relates to the physical design of the Immerse 360's structure (see general Googled short videos explaining this amazing physical phenomenon).

 

Another difficult to get one's head around thing going on here too that's related to the functional design of the Immerse 360 is the musical instrument soundboard. Why and how it works. And how it relates to the Pod and a Stradivarius violin (which I will touch on in another post). 

 

I'm looking forward to it!

 

My best

 

Rick

Hi Rick,

I am not disputing the fact that pod is capable of being immersive since sound being reflected back by focusing towards the listens. You can such filling when you play music in an empty cargo container or tiny bathroom. The patent could have put some spectrum graph and the absorption coefficient value of the pod to explains that point. 
 

The main point is the patent was for “Portable Sound System”  NOT for immersive or crosstalk cancellation. So maybe I am confused to think this is doing some sort of crosstalk cancellation based on the claim.
 

Thank you for your time. Not many designer or manufacturer would do so. 

Cheers!

On 7/28/2023 at 1:20 PM, ROPolka said:

On 7/27/2023 at 2:10 PM, botrytis said:

I think what the gent was asking was, does the tigerfox reflect all frequencies equally? That could easily be done with an cellphone, a frequency sweep generator, a calibrated mic, and a dB meter app for the phone. Setup the system, put the mic stand where a person would sit, height of ears when sitting and then play the frequency sweep generator through the audio system.

Rick is deliberately avoiding the measurement discussions.

On 8/2/2023 at 7:08 PM, STC said:

Hi Rick,

 

I am not disputing the fact that pod is capable of being immersive since sound being reflected back by focusing towards the listens. You can such filling when you play music in an empty cargo container or tiny bathroom. The patent could have put some spectrum graph and the absorption coefficient value of the pod to explains that point. 
 

The main point is the patent was for “Portable Sound System”  NOT for immersive or crosstalk cancellation. So maybe I am confused to think this is doing some sort of crosstalk cancellation based on the claim.
 

Thank you for your time. Not many designer or manufacturer would do so. 

 

Cheers!

Just because it says that, doesn't  mean that it can't do the other.

10 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

 

I don't think Rick is avoiding anything. 

Frequency measurement test being setup for the TigerFox Immerse 360 Sound System

Background: New technology and product that reproduces immersive audio (aka spatial audio, 3D audio, three-dimensional sound, 360 audio, surround sound, home theater audio, etc)

I’m looking forward to helping setup and do a frequency measurement test for the TigerFox Immerse 360 (TF360Pod)!

One of reasons is because frequency measurements are one of the important ways to comparatively prove the worth of an audio product.  However, doing a good one with the TF360Pod, as you’ll see explained here, will be difficult to do and get right.

An accurate, objective and comparatively done frequency measurement test also goes beyond the decibel (dB) tests that were initially done for the TF360Pod patents (listed at each patent’s beginning). The initial dB tests were exhaustively carried out with the help of a physics professor who also worked on the first moon landing project. He took careful measurements with appropriately calibrated instruments and the results were carefully recorded.

However, I remember they were quite tedious to do, extremely time consuming (an unexpected 7 hours from setup to finish) and a real hassle to not only insure that everything was done right (some things also needed to be repeated) but to write out and explain afterwards.

In the process, however, I learned a lot that will help this frequency measurement test be accurately done with professional integrity, objectivity, and hopeful conclusive results.

Checklist of considerations (to be first agreed on before the test)

In order to get an accurate whole picture of the frequency measurements for the TF360Pod - to the satisfaction of all interested audio enthusiasts, how to setup and do a proper bench mark and frequency measurement test for this new technology must be agreed on first.

This control benchmark will then be used as the absolute (or the calibrated reference control point) for the TF360Pod’s measurements.

Here’s an initial checklist to consider and agree on (and add to or change as needed) to get things started:

The understood objective is to determine the accurate real frequency measurements of the TF360Pod. To do this, let’s first agree on:

1.  What frequency test(s) will provide the needed consensus measurements?

2.  What measurement devices and test instruments are needed?  What are the proper setup and calibrations for the instruments?  Where and how will they be positioned, used, etc?

3.  IMPORTANT (with #6) - What is the overall frequency measurement benchmark to be used as the control reference for comparing the TF360Pod to? And how will this be accurately measured?

4.  What are the agreed-upon speakers to be used? Where will they be positioned? What is (how does one develop) the accurate frequency measurement(s) for the speakers alone?

5.  What room will be used for the frequency measurement tests? How does one develop an accurate bench mark frequency measurement for the room alone?

6.  For the combination of the speakers and the room, what is (and how does one obtain) the initial bench mark frequency measurement for these in combination? (as the reference control point for the test)

7.  What is the content to be used for the test? At what setting or volume level? What are the content’s frequency measurement considerations if any?

8. What other electronics (not including the speakers) are to be used? What are their frequency measurement considerations if any?

9. How will the tests carried out?  Time (approx.) to do them? Who will do them?  And how many people are needed there?

10. How will the results be recorded and written up? How will they be distributed? And who will do these?

11. Can the test be reliably repeated at different times and locations with the same results?

12. What other tests or different measurements should be comparatively included to augment or compliment the frequency measurement test?

Getting CONSENSUS is #1

First is to get a consensus for the answers to the above questions and everyone’s okay from those interested in having the tests done. (please indicate your okay and any adds or changes)

To help avoid doubt and disagreements with the test results:

It would be best, as I see it now, that if one is not involved in this pre-approval process, no post criticism should be allowed about the methods or the results. i.e. let’s not waste anyone’s precious time and effort here. Let’s do a good and thorough job the first time! This test is difficult to do!

Potential setup problems with frequency measurement tests - to be worked out first and avoided.

At first, it seemed simple enough to just do a before and after frequency measurement test - first in the TF360Pod at the listener’s location. Then simply do another one without the TF360Pod at the same location and look at the difference for the assumed frequency measurement results of the TF360Pod.

However, there’s no way this simple and quick frequency measurement test could be assumed to be accurate!

Here are some of the reason why not:

See considerations #3 through #8 above (for reference)

As a starting point, one could assume that the specs that came with the speakers could be used as the comparative benchmark (the control) for frequency test. However, that’s not what’s going to end up being measured.

What will actually be measured is the room and its massive acoustical affect that the room has on the actual frequency spectrum of the speakers.

Normally, measuring the frequencies of speakers and content in a room is not so difficult, but this is significantly complicated by the TF360Pod and what it does. Here’s why:

Problems start to come in when it’s understood that frequency measurement results from a pair of speakers are dramatically changed by the room in different, unpredictable, and significant ways.

Frequency measurement results also vary and are different in every room. They also vary and are different in different parts of a room. And no two rooms seem to even be close to each other in measured frequency response without massive sound control measures (see anechoic chambers and open-air tests below).

A personal example of how problematic this is - every audiophile store I’ve ever auditioned speakers in would not guarantee that the speakers I heard in their store will sound the same in any room in my house (this is because of the massive frequency distortions caused by “the room”).

Unfortunately every room changes (corrupts, bastardizes, corrupts) the frequency range of the speakers (and the content). Even in special sound absorbing anechoic chambers, or in a total sound dead outdoor locations, frequency measurements obtained in these acoustically controlled locations cannot easily be used as the bench mark for the TF360Pod frequency tests.

This is because the frequency measurements obtained in any room as well as in either of these two sound control room alternatives do NOT include the sound that’s being lost by the dispersion pattern of the speakers and by the room - but which IS NOT LOST and IS heard at the listener location in the TF360Pod.

This is important for the TF360Pod frequency test! To explain more, the same sound that’s being lost from the speakers into the room or damaged by the room is not being lost by the TigerFox Pod.  Instead, the TF360Pod salvages, includes, and utilizes this massive quantity of otherwise lost speaker and room sound (as well as the frequencies, the content and the sound information within them). These ARE heard in a beneficial way by the listener at the listener’s location.

Be reminded that this is what the TF360Pod is designed to do - that is: protect, preserve and prevent the original sound (and the frequencies, sound information and the details within it that were originally built into the content and the sound signals) from being dispersed away by the speakers and being lost or corrupted by the room.

With this important consideration in mind,

How does one develop, therefore, an accurate benchmark frequency measurement for the speakers and the room - to be used as the control to test the TF360Pod against? (This must be answered first)

People have different opinions of what the results will be.

Here's my take on the most likely expected results from doing a thorough, fair and accurate frequency measurement test WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod:

I sincerely think (based on doing years of listening comparisons with vs. without the TF360Pod and listening to folks discuss what they heard in demos of the technology) there is a high probability that:

1. Measurements of frequency changes, losses and corruption WITH the TF360Pod will be minimal and will stay very close to the same at the listener’s location wherever the TF360Pod is placed in any room and in any part of a room.

Whereas in comparison, I expect there’s also a high probability that:

2. Significant and far more frequency changes, losses and corruption will be measured WITHOUT the TF360Pod, wherever frequency measurements are taken in any room and in any part of a room.

3. Also, I see a high probability that WITHOUT the TF360Pod, those changes, losses and corruption will vary far more, and be far more significant depending on the room and where in the room the frequency measurements are taken, in comparison to those taken at the listener’s location IN the TF360Pod.

These are my expectations and I look forward to seeing this through. If you’re interested in the actual measured frequency comparison results, let us know your thoughts, interests and concerns, and sign up to be included in this test (and maybe even help).

I greatly look forward to working with you, helping with the product and the frequency test!

I’m also looking forward to helping do other tests or different measurements that should comparatively be included to augment or compliment this frequency measurement test.

My best,  (Your suggestions on getting this going?)

Rick

PS To explain the expected results I mentioned above a little more, I’ve included below a rough illustration that helps to graphically compare stereo sound reproduction WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod.

10 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

Frequency measurement test being setup for the TigerFox Immerse 360 Sound System

 

Background: New technology and product that reproduces immersive audio (aka spatial audio, 3D audio, three-dimensional sound, 360 audio, surround sound, home theater audio, etc)

 

I’m looking forward to helping setup and do a frequency measurement test for the TigerFox Immerse 360 (TF360Pod)!

 

One of reasons is because frequency measurements are one of the important ways to comparatively prove the worth of an audio product.  However, doing a good one with the TF360Pod, as you’ll see explained here, will be difficult to do and get right.

 

An accurate, objective and comparatively done frequency measurement test also goes beyond the decibel (dB) tests that were initially done for the TF360Pod patents (listed at each patent’s beginning). The initial dB tests were exhaustively carried out with the help of a physics professor who also worked on the first moon landing project. He took careful measurements with appropriately calibrated instruments and the results were carefully recorded.

 

However, I remember they were quite tedious to do, extremely time consuming (an unexpected 7 hours from setup to finish) and a real hassle to not only insure that everything was done right (some things also needed to be repeated) but to write out and explain afterwards.

 

In the process, however, I learned a lot that will help this frequency measurement test be accurately done with professional integrity, objectivity, and hopeful conclusive results.

 

Checklist of considerations (to be first agreed on before the test)

 

In order to get an accurate whole picture of the frequency measurements for the TF360Pod - to the satisfaction of all interested audio enthusiasts, how to setup and do a proper bench mark and frequency measurement test for this new technology must be agreed on first.

 

This control benchmark will then be used as the absolute (or the calibrated reference control point) for the TF360Pod’s measurements.

 

Here’s an initial checklist to consider and agree on (and add to or change as needed) to get things started:

 

The understood objective is to determine the accurate real frequency measurements of the TF360Pod. To do this, let’s first agree on:

 

1.  What frequency test(s) will provide the needed consensus measurements?

 

2.  What measurement devices and test instruments are needed?  What are the proper setup and calibrations for the instruments?  Where and how will they be positioned, used, etc?

 

3.  IMPORTANT (with #6) - What is the overall frequency measurement benchmark to be used as the control reference for comparing the TF360Pod to? And how will this be accurately measured?

 

4.  What are the agreed-upon speakers to be used? Where will they be positioned? What is (how does one develop) the accurate frequency measurement(s) for the speakers alone?

 

5.  What room will be used for the frequency measurement tests? How does one develop an accurate bench mark frequency measurement for the room alone?

 

6.  For the combination of the speakers and the room, what is (and how does one obtain) the initial bench mark frequency measurement for these in combination? (as the reference control point for the test)

 

7.  What is the content to be used for the test? At what setting or volume level? What are the content’s frequency measurement considerations if any?

 

8. What other electronics (not including the speakers) are to be used? What are their frequency measurement considerations if any?

 

9. How will the tests carried out?  Time (approx.) to do them? Who will do them?  And how many people are needed there?

 

10. How will the results be recorded and written up? How will they be distributed? And who will do these?

 

11. Can the test be reliably repeated at different times and locations with the same results?

 

12. What other tests or different measurements should be comparatively included to augment or compliment the frequency measurement test?

 

 

Getting CONSENSUS is #1

First is to get a consensus for the answers to the above questions and everyone’s okay from those interested in having the tests done. (please indicate your okay and any adds or changes)

 

To help avoid doubt and disagreements with the test results:

It would be best, as I see it now, that if one is not involved in this pre-approval process, no post criticism should be allowed about the methods or the results. i.e. let’s not waste anyone’s precious time and effort here. Let’s do a good and thorough job the first time! This test is difficult to do!

 

Potential setup problems with frequency measurement tests - to be worked out first and avoided.

 

At first, it seemed simple enough to just do a before and after frequency measurement test - first in the TF360Pod at the listener’s location. Then simply do another one without the TF360Pod at the same location and look at the difference for the assumed frequency measurement results of the TF360Pod.

 

However, there’s no way this simple and quick frequency measurement test could be assumed to be accurate!

Here are some of the reason why not:

 

See considerations #3 through #8 above (for reference)

 

As a starting point, one could assume that the specs that came with the speakers could be used as the comparative benchmark (the control) for frequency test. However, that’s not what’s going to end up being measured.

 

What will actually be measured is the room and its massive acoustical affect that the room has on the actual frequency spectrum of the speakers.

 

Normally, measuring the frequencies of speakers and content in a room is not so difficult, but this is significantly complicated by the TF360Pod and what it does. Here’s why:

 

Problems start to come in when it’s understood that frequency measurement results from a pair of speakers are dramatically changed by the room in different, unpredictable, and significant ways.

 

Frequency measurement results also vary and are different in every room. They also vary and are different in different parts of a room. And no two rooms seem to even be close to each other in measured frequency response without massive sound control measures (see anechoic chambers and open-air tests below).

 

A personal example of how problematic this is - every audiophile store I’ve ever auditioned speakers in would not guarantee that the speakers I heard in their store will sound the same in any room in my house (this is because of the massive frequency distortions caused by “the room”).

 

Unfortunately every room changes (corrupts, bastardizes, corrupts) the frequency range of the speakers (and the content). Even in special sound absorbing anechoic chambers, or in a total sound dead outdoor locations, frequency measurements obtained in these acoustically controlled locations cannot easily be used as the bench mark for the TF360Pod frequency tests.

 

This is because the frequency measurements obtained in any room as well as in either of these two sound control room alternatives do NOT include the sound that’s being lost by the dispersion pattern of the speakers and by the room - but which IS NOT LOST and IS heard at the listener location in the TF360Pod.

 

This is important for the TF360Pod frequency test! To explain more, the same sound that’s being lost from the speakers into the room or damaged by the room is not being lost by the TigerFox Pod.  Instead, the TF360Pod salvages, includes, and utilizes this massive quantity of otherwise lost speaker and room sound (as well as the frequencies, the content and the sound information within them). These ARE heard in a beneficial way by the listener at the listener’s location.

 

Be reminded that this is what the TF360Pod is designed to do - that is: protect, preserve and prevent the original sound (and the frequencies, sound information and the details within it that were originally built into the content and the sound signals) from being dispersed away by the speakers and being lost or corrupted by the room.

 

With this important consideration in mind,

 

How does one develop, therefore, an accurate benchmark frequency measurement for the speakers and the room - to be used as the control to test the TF360Pod against? (This must be answered first)

 

People have different opinions of what the results will be.

 

Here's my take on the most likely expected results from doing a thorough, fair and accurate frequency measurement test WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod:

 

I sincerely think (based on doing years of listening comparisons with vs. without the TF360Pod and listening to folks discuss what they heard in demos of the technology) there is a high probability that:

 

1. Measurements of frequency changes, losses and corruption WITH the TF360Pod will be minimal and will stay very close to the same at the listener’s location wherever the TF360Pod is placed in any room and in any part of a room.

 

Whereas in comparison, I expect there’s also a high probability that:

 

2. Significant and far more frequency changes, losses and corruption will be measured WITHOUT the TF360Pod, wherever frequency measurements are taken in any room and in any part of a room.

 

3. Also, I see a high probability that WITHOUT the TF360Pod, those changes, losses and corruption will vary far more, and be far more significant depending on the room and where in the room the frequency measurements are taken, in comparison to those taken at the listener’s location IN the TF360Pod.

 

These are my expectations and I look forward to seeing this through. If you’re interested in the actual measured frequency comparison results, let us know your thoughts, interests and concerns, and sign up to be included in this test (and maybe even help).

 

I greatly look forward to working with you, helping with the product and the frequency test!

 

I’m also looking forward to helping do other tests or different measurements that should comparatively be included to augment or compliment this frequency measurement test.

 

My best,  (Your suggestions on getting this going?)

Rick

 

PS To explain the expected results I mentioned above a little more, I’ve included below a rough illustration that helps to graphically compare stereo sound reproduction WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod.

 

Obfuscation by firehose.

Buy a microphone and measure it using the industry standard protocols. It isn't that hard. 

I ran REW on the TF but the laptop I used does not have the files otherwise I would have published it. 

58 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Buy a microphone and measure it using the industry standard protocols. It isn't that hard. 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Buy a microphone and measure it using the industry standard protocols. It isn't that hard.

Frequency measurement test being setup for the TigerFox Immerse 360 Sound System

Background: New technology and product that reproduces immersive audio (aka spatial audio, 3D audio, three-dimensional sound, 360 audio, surround sound, home theater audio, etc)

I’m looking forward to helping setup and do a frequency measurement test for the TigerFox Immerse 360 (TF360Pod)!

One of reasons is because frequency measurements are one of the important ways to comparatively prove the worth of an audio product.  However, doing a good one with the TF360Pod, as you’ll see explained here, will be difficult to do and get right.

An accurate, objective and comparatively done frequency measurement test also goes beyond the decibel (dB) tests that were initially done for the TF360Pod patents (listed at each patent’s beginning). The initial dB tests were exhaustively carried out with the help of a physics professor who also worked on the first moon landing project. He took careful measurements with appropriately calibrated instruments and the results were carefully recorded.

However, I remember they were quite tedious to do, extremely time consuming (an unexpected 7 hours from setup to finish) and a real hassle to not only insure that everything was done right (some things also needed to be repeated) but to write out and explain afterwards.

In the process, however, I learned a lot that will help this frequency measurement test be accurately done with professional integrity, objectivity, and hopeful conclusive results.

Checklist of considerations (to be first agreed on before the test)

In order to get an accurate whole picture of the frequency measurements for the TF360Pod - to the satisfaction of all interested audio enthusiasts, how to setup and do a proper bench mark and frequency measurement test for this new technology must be agreed on first.

This control benchmark will then be used as the absolute (or the calibrated reference control point) for the TF360Pod’s measurements.

Here’s an initial checklist to consider and agree on (and add to or change as needed) to get things started:

The understood objective is to determine the accurate real frequency measurements of the TF360Pod. To do this, let’s first agree on:

1.  What frequency test(s) will provide the needed consensus measurements?

2.  What measurement devices and test instruments are needed?  What are the proper setup and calibrations for the instruments?  Where and how will they be positioned, used, etc?

3.  IMPORTANT (with #6) - What is the overall frequency measurement benchmark to be used as the control reference for comparing the TF360Pod to? And how will this be accurately measured?

4.  What are the agreed-upon speakers to be used? Where will they be positioned? What is (how does one develop) the accurate frequency measurement(s) for the speakers alone?

5.  What room will be used for the frequency measurement tests? How does one develop an accurate bench mark frequency measurement for the room alone?

6.  For the combination of the speakers and the room, what is (and how does one obtain) the initial bench mark frequency measurement for these in combination? (as the reference control point for the test)

7.  What is the content to be used for the test? At what setting or volume level? What are the content’s frequency measurement considerations if any?

8. What other electronics (not including the speakers) are to be used? What are their frequency measurement considerations if any?

9. How will the tests carried out?  Time (approx.) to do them? Who will do them?  And how many people are needed there?

10. How will the results be recorded and written up? How will they be distributed? And who will do these?

11. Can the test be reliably repeated at different times and locations with the same results?

12. What other tests or different measurements should be comparatively included to augment or compliment the frequency measurement test?

Getting CONSENSUS is #1

First is to get a consensus for the answers to the above questions and everyone’s okay from those interested in having the tests done. (please indicate your okay and any adds or changes)

To help avoid doubt and disagreements with the test results:

It would be best, as I see it now, that if one is not involved in this pre-approval process, no post criticism should be allowed about the methods or the results. i.e. let’s not waste anyone’s precious time and effort here. Let’s do a good and thorough job the first time! This test is difficult to do!

Potential setup problems with frequency measurement tests - to be worked out first and avoided.

At first, it seemed simple enough to just do a before and after frequency measurement test - first in the TF360Pod at the listener’s location. Then simply do another one without the TF360Pod at the same location and look at the difference for the assumed frequency measurement results of the TF360Pod.

However, there’s no way this simple and quick frequency measurement test could be assumed to be accurate!

Here are some of the reason why not:

See considerations #3 through #8 above (for reference)

As a starting point, one could assume that the specs that came with the speakers could be used as the comparative benchmark (the control) for frequency test. However, that’s not what’s going to end up being measured.

What will actually be measured is the room and its massive acoustical affect that the room has on the actual frequency spectrum of the speakers.

Normally, measuring the frequencies of speakers and content in a room is not so difficult, but this is significantly complicated by the TF360Pod and what it does. Here’s why:

Problems start to come in when it’s understood that frequency measurement results from a pair of speakers are dramatically changed by the room in different, unpredictable, and significant ways.

Frequency measurement results also vary and are different in every room. They also vary and are different in different parts of a room. And no two rooms seem to even be close to each other in measured frequency response without massive sound control measures (see anechoic chambers and open-air tests below).

A personal example of how problematic this is - every audiophile store I’ve ever auditioned speakers in would not guarantee that the speakers I heard in their store will sound the same in any room in my house (this is because of the massive frequency distortions caused by “the room”).

Unfortunately every room changes (corrupts, bastardizes, corrupts) the frequency range of the speakers (and the content). Even in special sound absorbing anechoic chambers, or in a total sound dead outdoor locations, frequency measurements obtained in these acoustically controlled locations cannot easily be used as the bench mark for the TF360Pod frequency tests.

This is because the frequency measurements obtained in any room as well as in either of these two sound control room alternatives do NOT include the sound that’s being lost by the dispersion pattern of the speakers and by the room - but which IS NOT LOST and IS heard at the listener location in the TF360Pod.

This is important for the TF360Pod frequency test! To explain more, the same sound that’s being lost from the speakers into the room or damaged by the room is not being lost by the TigerFox Pod.  Instead, the TF360Pod salvages, includes, and utilizes this massive quantity of otherwise lost speaker and room sound (as well as the frequencies, the content and the sound information within them). These ARE heard in a beneficial way by the listener at the listener’s location.

Be reminded that this is what the TF360Pod is designed to do - that is: protect, preserve and prevent the original sound (and the frequencies, sound information and the details within it that were originally built into the content and the sound signals) from being dispersed away by the speakers and being lost or corrupted by the room.

With this important consideration in mind,

How does one develop, therefore, an accurate benchmark frequency measurement for the speakers and the room - to be used as the control to test the TF360Pod against? (This must be answered first)

People have different opinions of what the results will be.

Here's my take on the most likely expected results from doing a thorough, fair and accurate frequency measurement test WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod:

I sincerely think (based on doing years of listening comparisons with vs. without the TF360Pod) there is a high probability that:

1. Measurements of frequency changes, losses and corruption WITH the TF360Pod will be minimal and will stay very close to the same at the listener’s location wherever the TF360Pod is placed in any room and in any part of a room.

Whereas in comparison, I expect there’s also a high probability that:

2. Significant and far more frequency changes, losses and corruption will be measured WITHOUT the TF360Pod, wherever frequency measurements are taken in any room and in any part of a room.

3. Also, I see a high probability that WITHOUT the TF360Pod, those changes, losses and corruption will vary far more, and be far more significant depending on the room and where in the room the frequency measurements are taken, in comparison to those taken at the listener’s location IN the TF360Pod.

These are my expectations and I look forward to seeing this through. If you’re interested in the actual measured frequency comparison results, let us know your thoughts, interests and concerns, and sign up to be included in this test (and maybe even help).

I greatly look forward to working with you, helping with the product and the frequency test! I’m also looking forward to helping do other tests or different measurements that should comparatively be included to augment or compliment this frequency measurement test

My best,  (Your suggestions on getting this going?)

Rick

PS To explain the expected results I mentioned above a little more, I’ve included below a rough illustration that helps to graphically compare stereo sound reproduction WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod.

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!