Article: Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

[ROPolka]

On 7/15/2023 at 6:36 PM, STC said:

Wow ! this is amazing!

 

Interesting that the isolation of the sound to each ear is done by the pod alone and without any DSP, although I am still not sure how the crosstalk of the speaker is eliminated or reduced since the line blue as describe in the diagram can be neutralized by the reflection. 

Let me see if I can explain how the Immerse 360 pod works to eliminate crosstalk - and its result.

 

One of the ways the Immerse 360 pod "eliminates" crosstalk isn't really by stopping it from happening in the first place. But by the pod greatly overpowering the smaller, weaker time-corrupted crosstalk quantity of sound that reaches the opposite ears of the listener.

The pod does this by capturing and preserving in-a-pure-form a much larger quantity of correctly-timed (kept-pure) indirect sound from the left and right stereo speakers and focus-directing it to the listener's corresponding left and right sides. This control-focusing of massive quantities of kept-pure indirect sound by the pod completely overpowers the much smaller left and right corrupted crosstalk quantity of sound, effectively neutralizing it from being heard. (Note that the indirect sound utilized by the pod is otherwise lost into the room or comes back to be heard by the listener as off-timed "damaged" indirect "room" sound - the pod prevents this from happening.) 

Using precision reflectometry and elliptical physics, the controlled timing of indirect sound from the speakers to the listener is orchestrated by the pod's geometrically-designed acoustic soundboard shape that's simultaneously combined with the pod's audiophile triangulation of the two speakers and the listener. Audiophile triangulation positions the two stereo speakers at the left and right base of a perfect triangle and the listener is positioned at the vertex of the triangle. This triangle, sometimes called the golden triangle, is then proportionally interconnected within the pod's soundboard shape. 

The very unique result synergistically time-aligns the large quantity of acoustically-pure indirect sound to now arrive fully-surrounding the pod-positioned listener and the listener can now much more fully experience the surrounding sound field that was originally built into the two stereo sound signals.

An amazing thing (the "audio magic") of TigerFox Immerse 360 pod, in addition to it eliminating the surrounding "room" sound and upgrading audio quality, is that if a three-dimensional sound field was originally built into or folded into the two stereo sound signals (as is done by normal stereo capture like in Pink Floyd's Time on the Dark Side of the Moon, or by design), the pod can reproduce around the pre-positioned listener this same three-dimensional sound field that was built into the original signals.  

This means the listener can now experience normal (and even specially encoded immersive) "stereo" music, video games and movies from two speakers with the sound not just heard coming from the general direction of the two stereo speakers. Instead - within the pod and with crosstalk now neutralized - the speakers acoustically disappear as the sound source and the sounds are now heard physically reproduced around the listener as a seamless three-dimensional hemispherical sound field in distance, depth and height - simply using two universal stereo sound signals that are normally feed through two standard stereo loudspeakers. Something one might call stereo-to-3D-stereo.

To understand the functional stereo simplicity of this a little better, this similar stereo-to-3D-stereo result by the Immerse 360 is now also universally done with high-performance "3D" headphones. But, with the Immerse 360, instead of the 2 stereo sound signals being fed through two very small permanent headphone speakers that are physically attached to your head, these same 2 stereo sound signals are now fed through two conventional stereo loudspeakers in the normal way. The difference is, the Immerse 360 pod allows these same 2 stereo sound signals to recover their original three dimensional immersive positioning - not just around your ears like with headphones - but in a physically-real three dimensional sound field positioned around you like in real life.  

 

New technologies are very difficult to describe especially those with so little prior reference to compare them to! Please excuse the length of this and let me know any questions. 

[ROPolka]

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) 

[ROPolka]

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) 

[ROPolka]

"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

[ROPolka]

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!

[ROPolka]

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.

[ROPolka]

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.

[ROPolka]

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.

 

[ROPolka]

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?

[ROPolka]

 

My comments to bobfa for his excellent report about the TigerFox® Immerse 360® sound system to the audio community

 

Thank you bobfa, for an outstanding job of accurately explaining this new immersive audio product and technology (the physics-based TigerFox Immerse 360 sound system) that’s not only entirely different, but complicated, difficult-to-describe, and even more confusing-to-understand. 

 

Those familiar with your strict, factual-based reporting appreciate your well-researched and objective review that gives credibility to this illusive product and helps convey the value of its unique experience to others in the community. More so, I’m humbled to say, than the train-wreck of the TigerFox360.com website itself!  

 

Your report now allows those who have had legitimate reservations about what it is and how well it works, to understand it better. Especially those who have not personally experienced what it’s capable of doing by revealing and enhancing the immersive content otherwise hidden inside of stereo recordings.

 

I feel it helped immensely that you are also closely familiar with an incredible top-quality Atmos 7.1.4 immersive object and speaker-based system that was setup by you right next to the TigerFox Pod to critically compare its immersive audio results to! This adds even more authority to this report.

 

The 5 Most Important Take-Away Points

After taking some time to reflect, I think the most important 5 take-aways in your report to the audio community (correct me if I’m off) are that:

 

1. You communicated quite well that the TigerFox Pod is able to convey the important emotional experience, or the feeling that’s often missing or not able to be fully experienced in the playback of a sound recording. 

 

As you explained in the first paragraph of your report, the Pod is able to really put you there like experiencing the indescribable sound of coyotes in the wild.

 

2. Your assessment and important affirmation that individual sounds heard in the 2 speaker TigerFox Pod system were spatially positioned around the listener at the exact same locations as a meticulously-setup 12 speaker Atmos system! 

 

Like you explained with Pink Floyd’s Time from the Dark Side of the Moon, even tho the recordings were different, the sounds positioned by the Pod were “uncanny” in their locational accuracy. 

 

This is most important to communicate to the community because the Pod faithfully positions sounds around the listener as they were positioned in the recordings. If originally well positioned, they are not generalized or only a nice “effect”! 

 

3. It is important to those considering a TigerFox Pod that you actually preferred listening to an original recording in the TigerFox Pod over listening to its new mastered version in the fully setup 12 speaker Atmos system. 

 

As you mentioned, for example in your reference recording of Spiral, “Sitting in the Pod enhances the sound of the entire experience”. 

 

4.  I was very happy and encouraged to read in your overall final assessment that you felt “torn inside” when having to choose between the TigerFox system and the Atmos system. 

 

This was especially notable after spending over a year with the Pod and after comparing the two systems over time and with many different immersive recordings. 

 

This is also valued information when considering the significant differences in size, setup, numbers of components, and the sheer cost disparity between the 2 immersive systems!

 

5. It was also noted that you explained very well in your report something rarely mentioned in audio reviews - that the Pod breaks the audiophile cost-benefit principle. That is, $6,000 speakers and $20,000 worth of electronics are not needed to achieve the high-end immersive improvements that the Immerse 360 provides. 

 

This is because: (a.) by removing the massive sound corrupting effects of the room, (b.) by repairing speaker crosstalk, and (c.) by precision time-aligning the speakers’s direct sound with the large quantity of otherwise lost indirect sound, even $150 speakers, other low cost electronics, and simple streamed music can be upgraded by the Pod to achieve ultra-high-performance music playback results.

 

However, even after intuitively understanding the new audio synergism that results when the Pod effectively removes these prior sound reproduction problems and limitations, the Pod is not believable! 

 

As bobfa will testify, this totally new audio physics-based technology only becomes believable when it’s been personally experienced.

 

Thank you, again, bobfa. 

 

Audiophiles can look forward to your leading the way in explaining to the community the subtle details of high performance immersive audio which are finally here for music lovers to fully enjoy, both in its complex electronic forms and now in its complex acoustical physics form with the TigerFox Immerse 360.

 

Hats off to you!

[ROPolka]

On 7/26/2023 at 9:31 AM, Archimago said:

 

@ROPolka: 

As per discussions, this device is a "room within a room" product that introduces boundaries for the purpose of creating reflections all around the listener. As such, do you have any measurements you can show of the change in frequency response with and without the Tigerfox360 in a typical room you're testing this in? This might help the consumer understand the accentuations in frequency response we might see for speaker selection.

 

 

[ROPolka]

Answering your request for some typical room measurements with vs. without the TigerFox360 Pod, here is a copy of a page from one of our issued patents.

 

It shows dB measurements around the room both without (Figure A - the Control) and with various sized Pods (Figures B, C, & D) where the sound is coming from the same two speakers in the same location (1aL and 1aR) in all figures.

 

Measurements were taken at the same locations in the room.  For reference, a dB of 6 is considered either a doubling or halving of the sound volume.

 

if you look behind the listener's location (behind 19A) on this page (outside of the Pod) at the underlined dB measurements in Figures A and B, you will see the dB difference between a given location in the room without the Pod (67 dB is seen in Figure A (the Control) vs. the dB at the same location with the soundboard wall in place (58 dB as seen in Figure B). This is a drop of 9dB at the same place in the room with vs. without the soundboard wall in place. 

 

Looking at other locations in the room in Figure A vs Figure B, you'll see other dB measurements in the room with vs. without the TigerFox pod in place.

Fig. H dB tests 026.tiff

[ROPolka]

Added Note: These measurements were taken in a typical room with vs. without the TigerFox Immerse 360's soundboard wall in place in dB which shows the total sound from the speakers (1aL and 1aR) and not broken down into the individual frequencies as you originally requested. Even tho the frequencies are not individually shown, hopefully this information will help you with your question.

 

Let me know any further questions in this regard!

[ROPolka]

On 7/20/2023 at 9:27 PM, STC said:

.the brain is good at recreating the sound scene in the head based on what’s previously heard.

 

[ROPolka]

Just a note about our human ability to remember sound. 

 

That's an interesting thought.

 

I have not had the same experience of people being able to remember the sound even for a very short time.

 

For example, when doing comparative A/B tests using the same content and keeping everything in the system the same but just changing one component to evaluate it's + or - affect, most people I've noted have a very difficult time comparatively remembering the sound between just 2 close together tests of the same content to the point where we need to keep the listening length down to about 15 seconds.

 

It seems any longer than that (even using the same content) and doubt creeps into their ability to remember A vs. B.

[ROPolka]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I believe he asked for frequency response information, and you provided decible information. Do you have any frequency response measurements? Do you have anything close to industry standard measurements?

Even tho individual frequencies are not done for these decibel room measurements, hopefully this information will help others understand how sound from the speakers is generally attenuated at many different locations around a typical room by the Immerse 360 for nearby non listeners as requested earlier for a possible home office use. 

 

These general dB measurements, as thought in another post, would attenuate mostly the higher frequencies of the audio content being played.  

 

Note too that bothersome non-listener sound depends both on the volume of the sound from the speakers and by the content being played in the Pod (natural rain sounds and background forest sounds are usually not bothersome to those nearby while being greatly enhanced at the listener location by the Pod) 

Furthermore, because the Pod is made for near field playback (your speakers are only about 36" from your ears) and because the sound volume from the speakers is greatly reduced within the Pod enclosure, low volume would be heard by those nearby while "normal" listening volume can be enjoyed by those in the Pod's sweet spot. 

(It's interesting to take a close look at the dB comparisons at the listener location (19a) inside the Pod vs at different locations around a typical room in Figure H, resubmitted here for reference)

Fig. H dB tests 026.pdf

[ROPolka]

On 7/20/2023 at 9:27 PM, STC said:

Whether the sound of TF360 is similar to ATMOS playback can easily be proven with a $100 binaural mics.

Good news! 

 

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.

 

This is easily and quickly determined. 

 

One's ears alone can easily hear the exact locations of individual sounds positioned around the listener both in a special ATMOS playback version of a soundtrack and using the original version of the same soundtrack in the TigerFox Pod.

 

Also, those sound locations around the listener are immediately obvious in the TigerFox Pod.  Their locations are not subtle. One simply needs to test this for themselves.

 

This, of course, assumes that one has normal, balanced hearing. And assumes that ATMOS had positioned the sounds in their special playback version in the same location as in the original stereo version.

 

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?

 

[ROPolka]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Rick, maybe you should explain your background, so they know this is based on physics and how we perceive sound.

The product should be the background

My background I usually don't share because I feel that the product alone should speak for itself and take on its own spotlight. I think most agree that audio performance is were the "rubber meets the road".

 

Fortunately, the technology built into the physics-based TigerFox® Immerse 360® system (that I've managed to perfect after 624 versions) finally does a very good job on its own, with little else needed.

 

My prior audio background

As for myself, I've been a compulsive perfectionist my whole life (my father showed me the importance of a micrometer at the age of 5). And, I've been an audiophile-in-learning for over 40 years. (I have books and piles of Stereophile and TAS magazines that I read cover-to-cover on the subject.)

Along with years of studying audio from every angle, I've been able to visit countless high-end (and some low end) audio stores from coast to coast over the years, often going back again and again to comparatively hear and test different electronics against each other as much as they would allow me to. 

 

With this, I've learned that setup precision is very important, that it makes a predicable difference in audio playback. And I've learned to understand that seemingly small things, the physics, makes a huge difference in the results.

 

What I didn't have along the way, however, was an unlimited budget to be able to purchase the really "good stuff".  Nor did I have the needed space in our home to put it. This provided the need and the basis for discovering the physics behind the Immerse 360.

 

My prior work background

Some things in my life that helped with the physics were 10 years of university studies that gave me an open mind, my original work at Oldsmobile plastics lab which allowed me to develop on my own a new high-performance automotive top coating, my 45 year background in ultraviolet photonics (the study and performance of light) including the development of several industrial-grade UV reflector products, my 50 years of product development and self-employment giving me the self-confidence and openness to think for myself, engineer, develop and manufacture new products on my own in industries that are very diverse. 

 

The physics behind the Immerse 360

Along with this background, what really got me going tho and what put this product together was the Devine inspiration of using what is called the golden geometric triangle. The golden geometric triangle has been broadly utilized since ancient times in physics, art and architecture. And it is also used in the audiophile industry for the precise positioning of two stereo speakers and one listener .

 

The Golden Spiral

In the development of the Immerse 360, however, the golden triangle is used at the center of, and along with, what is referred to as the golden spiral. If you googled it or the golden ratio, it would show you the exact soundboard shape, and it reveals the physics used behind the product.

 

If you can envision it, how the physics of the Immerse 360 works is - the outer spiral shape was doubled, one side flipped, and both sides fused together, along with the golden triangle intricately positioned inside of the combined shape.

 

The rest was years of work, trial and error, A/B testing, and ultimately perfection!

 

The result

The result is an amazing harmonious relationship between all the important components in stereo sound reproduction!

(It's been called "audio magic" by many who have experienced immersive stereo recordings played back at the sweet spot inside of the Immerse 360)

 

The musical instrument soundboard (not mentioned here)

Let me know if you would like me to discuss what the ancient musical instrument soundboard has to do with the development of the Immerse 360.

 

[ROPolka]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

20 hours ago, 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. 

Thank you bobfa for your offer to loan your TigerFox during your downtime to someone in the Chicagoland area if they have the tools and knowledge to do the proper measurements. The above measurements seem like something easy to do.

 

I would also like to offer a TigerFox loan unit to someone in the extended Milwaukee area if they have the tools and prior knowledge to do the proper measurements.

 

I absolutely believe in measurements (I've relied on them my whole life starting at age 5 with learning how to properly use a micrometer) so long as they are the proper ones used with professionally calibrated devices, setup and carried out correctly, able to be repeated with the same results, and they were carried out along with different measurements and tools in order that the most whole picture of what they are supposed to measure in conglomerate is accurately and dependably determined. 

 

With this in mind, after carefully reading TAS and Stereophile reviews including their accompanying measurements for over 40 years, altho measurements are important, I believe many TAS and Stereophile readers also agree that measurements by themselves never seem to give the complete answer or the most important answer they were looking for.

 

That most important answer comes from careful comparative listening over time with a variety of well-known and appropriate content and comparing what is heard to similar products or to other products that do similar things.

 

The problem with the TigerFox Immerse 360 is that most folks do not know, or have not heard, what it can do for immersive stereo audio. However, professional auditions are critical.

 

In this important regard, I would also like to suggest (and even recommend) that the TigerFox Immerse 360 Pod not only be test measured by competent objective scientists or reviewers using appropriate and reliable instruments that produce repeatable results, 

but also it needs to be carefully tested in side-by-side A/B listening tests against other well setup 2 speaker stereo systems, against well setup listening rooms (that could cost up to $200,000), against the best headphones on the market, and especially against high-performance immersive music and theater-grade surround sound systems including against a well setup ATMOS system

 

These comparative listening tests should be carried out by audio evaluation specialists for overall sound (1.) quality (2.) realism (3.) 360-degree hemispherical sound positioning accuracy (4.) the best qualities of immersion and (5.) for the comparative system's ability to reproduce appropriate natural ambient details.

 

I would most appreciate starting these measurements and listening tests as soon as possible. Please communicate with me directly too.

 

Let's see if we as an audio community can put something together! You have my full support and assistance!

[ROPolka]

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

[ROPolka]

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:

 

[ROPolka]

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

[ROPolka]

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.

 

[ROPolka]

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.

 

[ROPolka]

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.