Article: Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

[ROPolka]

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!

[bobfa]

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

 

 

Bob

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, ROPolka said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

[STC]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

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

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

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

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

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

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

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

[STC]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

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

 

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

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

 

 

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

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

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

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

[STC]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

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

[STC]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

[STC]

 

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

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

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

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

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

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

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here is how 2L records - PDF Link

 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here is how 2L records - PDF Link

 

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

[STC]

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

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

 

 

 

[ROPolka]

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

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

 

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

 

What is the TF360Pod?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

With this understanding in mind,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Until then, my best,

 

Rick

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

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

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

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

[botrytis]

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[STC]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

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

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, STC said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[STC]

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

💡Mmmm…. Maybe I too doing something wrongly 

[STC]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

💡Mmmm…. Maybe I too doing something wrongly 

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