Article: Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

[The Computer Audiophile]

Thanks so much for this review @bobfa. I didn't get a chance to hear this at Axpona, and I looked forward to your assessment. I know you spent a serious amount of time with the Immerse 360 and it shows. I really appreciate how you tried it with so many speakers. You saved others from expensive and time consuming trial and error. 

 

Your enthusiasm for the Immerse 360 over the last several months and in this review is clear. It makes me excited to try it!

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

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 absolutely can't be true, or it's a matter of semantics. If the Atmos version of Time has clocks behind the listener and guitars in front of the listener, and these are folded into the stereo version, it isn't possible for the Immerse 360 to differentiate which sounds should come form the back or the front of the listener. Sound waves are sound waves and all of them must be reproduced / bounced around the immerse 360 pod. Both clocks and guitar will be bounced in the exact same way. Thus, it's a completely different three dimensional sound field than what's on the album. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

49 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

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

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

56 minutes ago, STC said:

Was Choueiri there during the demo?

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

 

Can't remember which Rollins album. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 
You are not the first one!😂😂😂

 

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

Thanks, Chris.  

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

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 24.23 MB · 0 downloads

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?

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes 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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Getting CONSENSUS is #1

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

 

To help avoid doubt and disagreements with the test results:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Here are some of the reason why not:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

With this important consideration in mind,

 

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

 

People have different opinions of what the results will be.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Rick

 

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

 

 

Obfuscation by firehose.

 

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

[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. 

 

 

 

[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. 

[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. 

[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

 

[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. 

[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? 

[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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

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. 

Not sure what 3D means in audio terms. The pod for sure reflects sound and changes the frequencies. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, STC said:

After making suggestion to read the patent to understand how TigerFox works, now we being told ….. (and I quote)

 

What a waste of time!
 

It is sad that no proper controlled speakers of known measurements were used for the patent. The HF would be very much relevant as the energy of HF in the small enclosure would be bouncing all around. Probably, a broken speakers with high roll off of higher frequency can yield a better listening experience inside the pod. 
 

And now it’s clear that the measurements were with both speakers simultaneously and therefore that too didn’t support the crosstalk masking claim. My initial comment on the possibility of XTC was on the assumption it was the measurement of the right speaker only based on the line drawn next the the right speaker in the chart.  Now that the claims in the patent is no longer relevant there is no supporting evidence of crosstalk cancellation. My interest is only XTC in regards to TigerFox as I have reiterated before and not disputing the focusing or better listening environment. 
 

The YouTube reference only confirms a good listening room experience though I am wondering which studio want so much first reflections for mastering. There is  also other YouTube reference of TigerFox which said otherwise. 
 

Note:- I don’t have commercial interest in anything I do. It is freely available so please don’t paint a picture that I have an agenda or an axe to grind. 
 

 

 

More of what I suspected. The measurements are conveniently for another product. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

After obtaining a consensus,

Here’s what tests I would like to see:

 

Let’s not just do one comparison test in one room at one location.

 

A. Let’s do the same test at 2 or 3 different locations within the same room (i.e. simply moving the speakers and the pod to a different location in the room and repeating the same scan from that location both with and without the pod).

 

B. Let’s also do the same test in one or more different rooms of a different size or shape.

 

C. Then let’s simply assemble and compare (all) the frequency scans taken from the different locations (separately for with and without the pod). In other words, assemble all the scans together:

 

1. Without the pod - this is just the measurements in the open room), graphing all the results without the pod on the same graph and

 

2. Repeat this separately for the measurements taken with the pod.

 

What will these tests show?

 

This importantly will show the magnitude of variation of the sound (separately for without and for with the pod) at different frequencies, and isolate which individual frequencies (and which locations) are affected the most, least, etc. separately for 1 and 2 above.

 

D. THEN, let’s compare the two graphs from #1 and #2 above side-by-side and see what’s happening with vs without the TF360 soundboard in the equation. This will allow us to study the variations between them, frequency by frequency, and magnitude by magnitude.

 

However, there is no absolute bench mark (control) in this test to compare either the sound with or without the TF soundboard to.

 

The importance of the “CONTROL” frequency

 

What’s also needed is the accurate unadulterated frequency range that the speakers are putting out without the room.

 

The room measurement (#1 above) is a corrupted measurement

 

We all know that the room corrupts the speaker’s sound after it leaves the speakers and before it’s measured at the listener’s location in different ways. And we should, therefore, assume that this affects (changes) the measured frequency range, including by a lot in some cases.

 

A corrupted measurement should not be the control measurement

 

Important: Where it’s known that normal rooms are a huge frequency corrupters, that a corrupted room measurement on its own shouldn’t then be used as the benchmark comparison measurement to evaluate or judge the measurements taken within the TF enclosure without knowing how accurate or inaccurate that original room comparison measurement is. (The reason is that one of the main purposes and benefits of the Pod is that is not only corrects crosstalk but mostly removes the room and its corruption affect from the sound the listener otherwise hears.)

 

Without a control, we’re only looking at two measurements (without and with the pod), one we know is messed up (the room) and the other one will be different for sure, but it won’t tell us if that difference is more toward the perfect (control) or in fact further away from it.

 

What is the “control” measurement and why is it important?

 

A control measurement, on the other hand, used as a benchmark, is an accurate, unadulterated, or “perfect” frequency range that would tell us which (with or without the pod) distorts the original unadulterated sound the least? The most? Including what specific frequencies?

 

Without this accurate control, however, these measurements would not tell us which is more towards the perfect or how far either may be “off” or more “accurate” as compared to what the real frequency measurement should be if the room was not in the equation and if the enclosure was not in the equation.

 

Putting it another way may be clearer:

It doesn’t make the best professional sense to use what we know is a corrupted sound measurement (the room measurement) as the bench mark to evaluate or judge the accuracy of something that may or may not be corrupted in the same or different ways. (we won’t know if, what’s corrupted, or how far off the “mark” any measurement is on its own or in comparison)

 

That is - is the pod improving or making worse the sound?  The measurement from the pod may in fact be less or more corrupted. But we won’t know that because there’s no original uncorrupted sound measurement to compare either the room sound to or the pod sound to.

 

The sound created in the pod may be significantly different

 

Keep in mind that the pod soundboard is made 100% of the same acoustic material that the sound producing part (diaphragm) of many speakers are made of - the part that actually creates the original sound waves.

 

This may (we believe) create a more synergistic and synchronous frequency response, or this may do the exact opposite, or have no effect at all. We won’t know without the control. The control, therefore, is needed.

 

Is there a way to somehow remove the corrupted sound (for example, digitally) to get an artificially created control?

 

Is there a way we could manufacture a control to be a “work around” control (i.e. a true unadulterated frequency measurement range) as a starting point from which both measurements (with and without the pod) can be independently and accurately compared to? (without also having to digitally include any room correction in the actual scans? - that may be a separate test.)

 

Working with what we have - even without the control

 

However, even without a control (and I don’t know how at this point we could obtain the accurate control), the A thru D measurements mentioned above would give us a lot more information about what’s going on without the pod vs. with the pod.

 

Looking ahead!

 

Let’s continue, therefore, to try to find the right test(s) and get consensus on it (them).

 

My full support and assistance where needed are given here, including supplying the demo unit.

 

My concern, however, is that without the control - disagreements, nit-picking, and arm chair hyper-chatter might open up a can of worms (which I’d like to think we would all like to avoid)

 

What’s your thoughts? (which I’m sure will be interesting)

 

My best,

Rick

•  
• Bookmark
•  
•  
• Quote

Unread replies

 bobfa

• 
•  1.8k
• immersus music

• Author

Posted August 10

The number of variables is too large.  You have not even talked about speakers!

 

Let me noodle on it while I am working on two projects and taking some time off with my wife!

You keep spamming this topic with the same nonsense. I think everyone has given up on you ever doing anything reasonable. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, ROPolka said:

So before any test is done, there must be total unquestionable agreement on exactly what they want and specifically what test will give them the exact frequency results they need. Or we'll all just waste our time.

 

Who is they? Is all of this being written for you by someone else and you're just reposting it?

 

 

 

12 hours ago, ROPolka said:

Is positive discussion possible on this forum?

Incidentally, it would be helpful to also address the positive advantages of this new high-end sound reproduction technology for the possible assistance it provides to those now on a low budget, and or those who don't have the knowledge, space and time to setup a professional listening room on their own, including those who stream most of their music now.

Even tho these newbies don't start out as an audiophile (and may not even know one or be near to the few remaining high end audio stores still in business today), they soon could become one once they've heard what true audiophile level stereo can sound like but without the many prior highly-restrictive requirements needed to get the components just right.

 

Nice attempt to reframe the discussion. Much like a politician. 

 

A huge positive would be showing people how this thing works, with real information, not the infomercial language you've continued to post. No matter how many times you call it "new high-end sound reproduction technology" it isn't high end and it isn't new. 

 

Do you ever read your own posts? They are dripping with charlatan speak.

 

When you're called out on the meaurements, you claim the measurements are for a product that never existed and aren't relevant. Now, you bring up the same measurements and want a discussion about them. You're trying to muddy the waters with a firehose of disinformation and deflection. Sound like a politician? 

 

Stop the nonsense, buy a microphone or even binaural microphones, and take some measuerments. My guess is you guys have this already. You clearly measured the non-existent product already.