Article: Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

[mForMusic]

@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.