Article: Tigerfox Immerse 360 Review

[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. 

[STC]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

Three dimensional sound is what you hear is perceived to be natural and live like.  All sound cues that is delivered to the ears comply with cues how the sound in natural heard by us are similar than it is called 3D sound. 
 

Stereo sound heard the same way like we hear real sound. It delivers the cues to the ears to recreate the object in the space. It can be accurate reproduction except for the interaural crosstalk errors. The never ending upgrades and tweaks are due to the fact that we are constantly reminded that brain detects that the soundstage of stereo producing additional cues which doesn’t comply to natural hearing. 
 

Just like 2D and 3D TV, the reality is different although 70s kids would remember that their old Sony Trinitron colour TV was producing lifelike 3D image in until they experience a real 3D TV. 

 

If the pod is somehow delivered a higher level difference than the comb filtering effect would be reduced. This would still make the sound more three dimensional although a better version would be the ability to eliminate or mask the 220 μs delayed crosstalk error for the stage to expand beyond the stereo triangle. 
 

It is just more 3Dimensional than stereo but will be nowhere to the sound with the partition in between like this.

 

 

 

 

[ROPolka]

On 8/5/2023 at 6:37 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

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? 

 

[ROPolka]

Getting back to the forum about the measurement concerns for the TigerFox® Immerse 360® sound reproduction pod.

 

Sorry that I have not had enough time to return comments on many recent posts! (It took me some time to look up and arrange the following needed info to try to address them - patience please!)

 

The website, I agree, is a mess and full of some unexpected and far out claims as was pointed out.  (Thanks to the direction of several audiophile friends, the site is in the process of restructure and removing most of the excessive content.)

 

It was also recently mentioned that the issue with TigerFox is not so much about the website, it’s about the “wild” claims in the website

 

Most of the “wild” claims on the site, however, are factual. The TigerFox Immerse 360, I truly believe, is a "miracle" phenomenon. ("Miracle" phenomena can’t be fully explained scientifically).  I’m sincerely humbled by what it can do. (It’s way bigger than I am.)

 

The technology and product, however, have also been supported by many audio professionals who have test demoed the actual product themselves with their preferred reference soundtracks, including Jason Victor Serinus of Stereophile Magazine who directly addresses these wild claims in Unrolling the TigerFox Immerse 360 | Stereophile.com and Ingo Schulz, owner of Fidelity Magazine https://youtu.be/SojX1oc2iis.

 

I thank them for their professional and objective support and I stand with them. Many other audio professionals are stepping forward to stand behind this new technology.

 

Most recently and more seriously, however, is that it’s not only about the claims, it’s about the audio measurements, specs, numbers, etc. in the TigerFox patent(s) that have been brought into the forum discussion by members and which are now being used to evaluate and judge the functionality, accuracy and worth of the technology and the Immerse 360 product.

 

Because this information presented in this forum didn’t fully make sense to me knowing the product well (and I hadn’t thought much about the test since it was submitted), I looked up and checked the measurements, specs and numbers in the patent they were pulled from.

 

I will confirm that the test reports in that patent were done carefully, professionally, objectively, and that they included all relevant data, however:

 

Gentlemen, after carefully rechecking that patent information, here are the facts about those measurements, illustrations and specs that were pulled from that patent.   

 

In as clear and straightforward way as I can say it, the measurements, illustrations and specs currently being used on this forum to professionally evaluate and judge the Immerse 360 are from a product that does not exist!

 

Those audio measurements, illustrations and specs were done over 10 years ago, long before the Immerse 360 product was actually brought to market. They were done on a substantially different sized, shaped and functioning structure that was never sold.

 

Here is a breakdown of what I found: (in short, there are extremely different variables used for the test than on the product we sell that greatly affect the acoustic result)

 

A. The measurements in the patent were taken from distances and locations that are not the marked distances and locations on the product that we have always sold (see Fig. 1H from patent below).

 

40% longer and 10% wider test structure than on the product we have always sold. The tested length of the pod in the patent was 60 inches long (see Fig. 1H from patent below). This is 40% longer than the 43 inch length on the now much smaller and different sized product that we have since perfected and brought to market.

 

The much smaller sized product we manufacture and sell significantly reduces the volume within the structure thereby concentrating the quantity and timing of captured sound from the speakers within that much smaller performance area.

 

The soundboard wall on the test structure was also 3” shorter (48 inches) all the way around than the higher enclosure wall on the product we have always sold (51”). (see Fig. 1E from patent below)

 

This increase in structure height in the product we sell, together with its now much smaller size, captures more of the speakers sound and further concentrates its acoustic information toward the listener sweet spot than on the structure used in the test.

 

(Without knowing what this will do to new test numbers, this greatly improved realism, sound positioning clarity, center channel localization and caused even tiny detailed nuances to become noticeably more audible).

 

B. Important different shape and acoustics on the test product than the product we’ve always sold.

 

Since the patent, we also shortened the width of the structure by 10% from the tested size. This substantially changed the length-to-width ratio resulting in radically changing the product’s shape which significantly improved the product’s acoustic performance.

 

The new shape and curvature on the product now follows that of the "Golden Spiral" (see link: Golden Ratio)

 

This new acoustic shape now conforms more perfectly to the shape of the Golden Spiral which in nature is used in human hearing anatomy. It's the shape of our outer ears and the shape of the cochlea in the inner ear.

 

This means the specific shape and curvature of the soundboard wall on the Immerse 360 now conforms to the same golden spiral shape and curvatures as is used in human hearing. (The mathematics of this golden spiral and the curvature of its shape have also been used over the centuries in classical architecture design, art and music, including in music instrument soundboard designs like in the violins made by Antonio Stradivari)

 

Size of pod versus quality of sound - as pod size goes up performance goes down (we learned).

 

We discovered through years of A/B testing (long after paperwork was sent to the patent office) that there’s an exponential inverse relationship between the size of the pod and the quality of the sound that exists within the dynamics of this technology. This relationship is one of the reasons for the significant reduction in enclosure size since the test.

 

C. Totally different distances between the 2 speakers and from the speakers’ counterpoint to the listener on the product we manufacture and sell than on the tested product in the patent (see Fig. 1H from patent below). Specifically:

 

1. The distance between the 2 speakers was 64% wider apart in the test than on product being sold.

 

The performance setting distance apart for the 2 speakers for playing music in the Immerse 360 product we sell is 22 inches. This is 14 inches (or a whopping 64%) closer together than the tested 36 inch speaker distance apart in the patent test (see Fig. 1H below for the test speaker’s 36 inch location ).

 

Current specifications for using the pod show two different speaker apart locations, the music listening speaker apart location and movie/video game speaker apart location (with a wide screen TV able to be seen between the speakers). However, both of these locations are much closer together than the 36 inch tested speaker distance apart.

 

2. The distance between the center point between the 2 speakers and the listener’s sweet spot was 62% further away in the test than on product being sold.

 

The performance setting distance for the listener’s sweet spot was 20 inches (62%) further away from the center point between the two speakers on the test than on the product we sell (52 inches in the test vs 32 inches now - see Fig. 1H below)

 

3. These two differences (in 1. and 2. above) and the significantly smaller enclosure in the product sold make a significant difference on the acoustics delivered to the listener’s sweet spot between the product being sold and the tested product in the patent.

 

(We learned since the test that as these distances decrease, the structure’s acoustic performance significantly increases at the listener’s sweet spot and we subsequently manufactured this into the product before it was sold.)

 

Moving the speakers just a few inches closer together and moving the speakers much closer to the listener were found to make a significant audible difference after the patent’s paperwork was sent in. Acoustical performance increased so much that the “sound shapers” (overhead positioned acoustic wings) designed for an earlier larger model mentioned in the patent became redundant and unnecessary even as an accessory item. (Auxiliary acoustic wings were to be attached to the top sides of the larger unit to increase the pod’s performance at the listener location)

 

D. The test wall materials were totally different materials. The plastic (and paper) soundboard wall materials used for the test were not the material or the acoustic grade of the material we use on the product we sell.

 

Those materials used for the soundboard wall in the test are not the material, not the thickness, not the quality of material, nor did they have the same structure as the soundboard material on the product we sell.

 

The soundboard wall we sell is comprised of a triple layer of virgin polymeric material specifically comprised of the same acoustic polymeric (PP) material that many modern speaker diaphragms are made of (the part of the speaker that vibrates and actually creates the sound).

 

Conversely, the plastic materials used for the reflection wall in the test were a single layer of 100% recycled paper and a single layer of different 100% recycled plastics.

 

(We hoped to use a 100% recycled plastic material in the product for its sustainability aspect, even tho it was more expensive to produce. However, it became totally unsuitable for manufacturing and for a quality acoustic home product because it was made from different types of unknown reused plastic, had unsightly surface bumps and imperfections, small holes, different shades of color across the sheet, and it literally smelled like “garbage” - and it continued to smell!).

 

The plastic and paper refection tests in the patent were also made at the time mostly for comparison purposes for the patent. They were shown on the same graph in the patent to comparatively demonstrate in the patent how a 100% recycled generic plastic material compares to a 100% recycled generic paper material. They were labeled later in the patent as “acoustic skins” (see Addendum excerpt from the patent at bottom of this post).

 

E. The two Harbeth HL-P3 speakers used in the test were not test measured for their actual performance nor were the P3 speaker specs from the Harbeth company used or listed in the patent because their actual outputs were not known.

 

As a Harbeth dealer at the time, I had five P3s on hand (including one from a broken set) that I used interchangeably both for stereo demos and 5.1 surround sound demos (not sure if a matched pair was used for the test). As demo speakers, they were moved and reconnected a lot meaning they were not in perfect new condition at the time of the test.

 

For these reasons, the Harbeth HL-P3 specs pulled up by someone in the forum should also not be used as a reference against the measured specs in the patent because their actual outputs were not known.(See Fig. 1E from patent below - green line shows the control or the room as measured from the speakers without the test unit. Yellow line shows the measurements at same locations for the speakers and listener, measured with the test unit)

 

F. Symmetrical soundboard wall was approximated for the test

 

Left and right wall symmetry is critical for the best performance in the Immerse 360 especially for music reproduction. However, the left and right sides of the soundboard wall at the time of the test could only be approximately positioned into location. The test in the patent was done, therefore, without knowing if symmetry down to + / - two centimeters was achieved (the pre-marked mat on our product importantly now provides this degree of perfected symmetry).

 

 

Re-test needed!  In summary, it’s obvious TigerFox has made significant structural and acoustic changes since the acoustic tests in the patent, including about 70 improvement tweaks and cost reductions including significant acoustic upgrades since. As such, the Immerse 360 product that’s sold should, of course, be re-tested.

 

I’ll follow up shortly with what tests I would really like to see.

 

Once the tests are hopefully agreed on, I would appreciate starting them as soon as possible. However, I would like the product to be tested objectively.

 

Bobfa from this forum, who spent years with the pod is my number one first choice if and when he could or would do the test(s). He is not someone with a biased motive, an ax to grind or has a competitive hidden technology to protect.

 

He has checked the pod out and has reported in a straightforward way what it does, along with having the added professional ability to compare the immersive results of the pod with his amazingly-setup 12 speaker ATMOS system. He’s also extremely meticulous and I trust him! (He’s also not an armchair critic, or someone who evaluates a book by its cover, or who would feel comfortable judging a movie he hadn’t actually seen.)

 

Let's see if we as a professional unbiased audio community can put something credible together to honestly and comparatively test this new technology in an appropriate manner.  You have my full support and assistance!

 

Due to a prior commitment, I hope to return to address comments, etc. after August 17th - (In the meantime, I hope the community doesn’t continue to explode with wild TigerFox accusations during my absence.  Fingers crossed!)

 

Addendum: “Acoustic skin” excerpt from the patent for reference

 

The ability to produce a product with acoustic materials of different levels and the ability to hang (temporarily attach) different acoustic materials from the inside top of the structure’s wall for a variety of acoustic results is identified in the patent as “acoustic skins”.

 

Here’s a small excerpt from line [0001], TigerFox Patent F&L 107347-0102 that explains acoustic skins

(see lines [0002], [0006],and [0007] in the patent for additional information on acoustic skins relating to audiophiles):

 

“Acoustic skins can be made from many different materials each with its own unique sound revealing, sound shaping, and/or sound-controlling effect.  Acoustic skins successfully provide different sizes and shapes that can be quickly, easily, adjustably, and interchangeably positioned for more acoustic versatility. Acoustic skins allow comparing and experimenting with almost any material for its acoustic qualities alone.”

 

For a current example of acoustic skins, commercially produced rolls of “green screen” paper or plastic sheeting can simply be hung from the inside top of the pod wall for different acoustic results as well as to make the pod into a “presentation pod” where the green screen is used as a backdrop behind the user.

 

[STC]

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

 

1 hour ago, ROPolka said:

Gentlemen, after carefully rechecking that patent information, here are the facts about those measurements, illustrations and specs that were pulled from that patent.   

 

In as clear and straightforward way as I can say it, the measurements, illustrations and specs currently being used on this forum to professionally evaluate and judge the Immerse 360 are from a product that does not exist!

 

Those audio measurements, illustrations and specs were done over 10 years ago, long before the Immerse 360 product was actually brought to market. They were done on a substantially different sized, shaped and functioning structure that was never sold.

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. 
 

 

 

[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. 

[ROPolka]

On 8/8/2023 at 7:46 PM, ROPolka said:

Re-test needed!  In summary, it’s obvious TigerFox has made significant structural and acoustic changes since the acoustic tests in the patent, including about 70 improvement tweaks and cost reductions including significant acoustic upgrades since. As such, the Immerse 360 product that’s sold should, of course, be re-tested.

 

I’ll follow up shortly with what tests I would really like to see.

 

Once the tests are hopefully agreed on, I would appreciate starting them as soon as possible. However, I would like the product to be tested objectively.

 

Bobfa from this forum, who spent years with the pod is my number one first choice if and when he could or would do the test(s). He is not someone with a biased motive, an ax to grind or has a competitive hidden technology to protect.

 

He has checked the pod out and has reported in a straightforward way what it does, along with having the added professional ability to compare the immersive results of the pod with his amazingly-setup 12 speaker ATMOS system. He’s also extremely meticulous and I trust him! (He’s also not an armchair critic, or someone who evaluates a book by its cover, or who would feel comfortable judging a movie he hadn’t actually seen.)

 

Let's see if we as a professional unbiased audio community can put something credible together to honestly and comparatively test this new technology in an appropriate manner.  You have my full support and assistance!

 

 

[ROPolka]

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

[bobfa]

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!

 

 

[STC]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:41 AM, 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

Just like the 107 page of patent, there is nothing concrete here. Your measurement is not going to prove your multiple claims.  You need to show what the measurements supposed to show. The measurements must show crosstalk cancellation. It must show that the instrument location is extracted correctly.  
 

On 8/10/2023 at 9:41 AM, ROPolka said:

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

That’s why they take the measurements in anechoic chamber. In the absence of an anechoic chamber, they use quasi anechoic environment. Alan Shaw of Harbeth uses this method for his speakers measurements. 
 

On 8/10/2023 at 9:41 AM, ROPolka said:

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.

Diaphragm of transducers are made from many different materials. As a then Harbeth dealer, you would have known about the UK grant for their RADIAL cone which supposedly less colored compared to other cone materials at that time. It may no longer relevant today. 
 

No speakers are capable of reproducing the original sinewaves of the recordings. 

 

Diaphragm themselves do not produce sound. The movements of the diaphragm is what actually make the sound. There a lot of materials available freely on this subject.

 

On 8/10/2023 at 9:41 AM, ROPolka said:

Keep in mind that the pod soundboard is made 100% of the same acoustic material that the sound producing part (diaphragm) o

The diaphragm is the weakest link to reflect the sound. What you want is a material that is capable of reflection all sound without loss. You “theory” and the material you use contradict your claim!

 

On 8/10/2023 at 9:41 AM, ROPolka said:

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.)

Nope! The pod cannot ‘correct’ crosstalk.  Nothing in your patent or tech page support this claim.  Frequency response cannot show that unless you use in ear measurements. 
 

A single mic of frequency response cannot tell if the sound is mono or stereo. You can make educated guess if you know the original response. 
 

You have NOT provided a single authority to prove that the does crosstalk cancellation or masking. 
 

 

[ROPolka]

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!

[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. 

[Jud]

On 8/5/2023 at 5:37 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

My audio dealer used to do a thing where he would turn facing the wall close up and shout "The sound of Bose!"

[ROPolka]

Getting back to bobfa and the test setup as I see needed. 

 

What's needed for a good frequency test as I see it

In addition to the requirements explained above, as I see it now, for a proper test, there would need to be 2 speakers setup in the TigerFox in the Music Mode position with the measurements taken at the listener's location both WITHOUT and WITH the TigerFox pod soundboard wall - keeping everything else exactly the same.

 

What speakers to use?

I don't know which speakers to use (I think a pair that produce as much of the frequency scan as possible without a sub) and I don't know how to obtain an accurate "control" frequency scan from the speakers for many reasons. Also, we can't use the manufacture's frequency line as that's been "adjusted" and probably is not what the speakers are actually producing.

 

Getting an accurate frequency scan from the speakers - without the room messing it up first!

Somehow we need to figure out how to get an accurate measurement of what these two speakers are actually emitting (I believe) at the speaker's exit point, without getting any of the room mess in that control frequency scan.

 

Consider the option of taking a control measurement very close to the speakers' sound exit point (with sound absorbers added)

First, we don't want to try to use an anechoic room or an open space as we do want to see what the measurements are in a normal room with vs. without the TigerFox soundboard in location around the speakers (including at different room locations and in different rooms as originally mentioned).

 

For the speaker's control, what about the option of possibly taking a frequency scan right at the exit point of each speaker independently (one could be off) with heavy sound absorbers placed in back of the mic and around the front of the speakers. The idea is to isolate and encapsulate the mic and the front of the speakers - so very little of the room creeps into the measurement. 

 

Even tho this will not tell us quantity of sound at the listener's location (to measure the relative loss between WITHOUT and WITH the soundboard in position), it will, I believe, give us a very close to accurate frequency scan from which to judge the change at the listener's location both WITHOUT and WITH the soundboard. Which I believe is what has been requested. i.e  you urgently want to know if the soundboard is somehow messing up the frequency at the listener's location - correct?

 

My concluding thoughts on doing this frequency measurement

These are my thoughts on the needs to do a correct frequency test for the TigerFox 3D stereo sound reproduction system.

However, judging from the few responses from the discontented among us, I have doubts that this, or any, test will satisfy their discontent(s).

 

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.

 

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.

 

(I will address the crosstalk question separately in a later post)

 

In the meantime, let's relook at the dB scan (added below) from the patent  - as it contains valuable information even tho it's not complete.

Altho those dB measurements were taken using a much larger - and less effective - soundboard size, shape and material, the 2 scans clearly show - at that same listener location - roughly the same frequency scan line WITH the soundboard (the yellow line) as compared to WITHOUT the soundboard (for the speakers alone) - the green line. 

 

What frequencies are in pink noise?  This dB scan is helpful as it includes as much of the whole frequency range as in pink noise and that was able to be reproduced by those speakers, (but, of course, the scan was limited by the speaker's inability to evenly reproduce all the frequencies - see the without green scan line - and by their inability to reproduce both ends of the spectrum)

 

Important here is that not only are the two colored frequency dB lines (with and without the soundboard) approximately the same curvature of line but this scan also shows an astounding increase in the overall quantity of sound reaching the listener's location WITH the soundboard as opposed to WITHOUT the soundboard. 

 

The open question here is, even without the requested important frequency scan, what do you think is IN that massive added content that now reaches the listener?  (comparing the difference in sound content added between the green and yellow lines)

[STC]

52 minutes ago, ROPolka said:

The open question here is, even without the requested important frequency scan, what do you think is IN that massive added content that now reaches the listener?  (comparing the difference in sound content added between the green and yellow lines)

Perhaps, if you can give a definition for the terminologies you used then we can have a better understanding what you are really trying to say or prove? Addressing the question asked directly would make us to understand the pod better but…..

 

What is:- 

1) 3D 

2) Immersive 

3) Critical radius/distance

4) spacious

And then refer to the reference you cited in the patent and quote one line that supports the pod’s claim that it would produce 3D sound. 
 

The massive added content is nothing more than higher reflection level. The same effect you get when you play music with your phone in open field vs large room vs in a small fully tiled bathroom. 
 

In a way, it works like the Bose reflector speakers ( thanks Jud) and that is very much realistic and enjoyable. Your pod got a valid point but you are unaware and unable to give proper explanation what it supposed to do. If you read Bose reflector patent and the technology behind that, you can understand the workings of your pod better and explain them in a non misleading way by NOT citing reference which only adds confusion and contradict your claim. 
 

Picture below shows how the Bose reflector speakers work. Your pod is doing just that. And that is great! 
 

[STC]

It better to use these instead of speakers. 
They are fixed and more accurate than any speakers response for the given value. 

 

[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. 

[STC]

@The Computer Audiophile , I believe that the pods can enhance the listening experience and improve the venue influence. That’s about it.  
 

The rest is nothing but just some puff talk. Is it out of ignorance or deliberate attempt to mislead? I don’t know but probably I will never know because I am just an arm chair critic to him. There is no sincere attempt to clarify but just diversion of the real issue. 
 

This is the pod function.