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)

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!

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

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.

I understand the general confusion that many audiophiles must be thinking about the TigerFox Immerse 360 (TF360Pod) from reading some of the recent posts, including how to test it. I can hear people saying: What’s going on with this new technology? Is it something entirely out of the wheel house of most audiophile’s long established conceptions about audio equipment? What is the TF360Pod? To help get one’s head around what the TP360 Pod is. First, the TF360Pod is not an electronic device. Because it’s not an electronic device, does not connect directly into electronic devices, does not produce electricity and is not electrically powered, it does not intrinsically have an electronic frequency on its own to test. (See below for what it can test however) What it is - is a soundboard designed from and like musical instrument soundboards As such, it does what well-designed musical instrument soundboards are supposed to do and have been doing very well on sound producing devices that don't use electricity for centuries. (How the principle of the musical instrument soundboard is an important part of the TF360Pod’s design will hopefully be explained in a later post.) Keeping to the point, however, even tho the TF soundboard doesn’t generate its own electricity etc., its enhanced and negative affects with and on electronic speaker-produced sound can be tested for how the TF soundboard affects that electronically produced sound in a room through two speakers. (Let me know of problems here) With this understanding in mind, My thoughts on the suggested frequency sweep test - Full Steam Ahead! From what I can understand about the suggested frequency sweep test, it can accurately generate (and is able to record) its own full sound frequency range (sweep) using two speakers. (It wasn’t clear, however, if special speakers are to be used. Somehow it must be correcting for the fact that most speakers can’t produce a full equalized frequency range). Assuming its thankful ability to do this, this is great news to me! This test, therefore, removes a lot of problems I initially expected including removing the question of which speakers to use, what electronics, what content? etc. And it removes my concern about generating reliable repeatable results. In total, this test sounds very practical to actually do. Let’s continue to try to get consensus on it and find someone with this kind of test to do it. You have my full support and assistance where possible including supplying the demo unit if needed. Because it was heavily requested for me to keep these posts short, I will stop here for now and continue on a later post with: 1. What I’d like this test to be sure to cover, including doing more than one test. 2. Detailing some not previously mentioned variables revealed in one of our patents about the TF360 Pod and how these variables will affect frequency measurements. (These variables are important to know and consider in advance) Until then, my best, Rick

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!

Frequency measurement test being setup for the TigerFox Immerse 360 Sound System Background: New technology and product that reproduces immersive audio (aka spatial audio, 3D audio, three-dimensional sound, 360 audio, surround sound, home theater audio, etc) I’m looking forward to helping setup and do a frequency measurement test for the TigerFox Immerse 360 (TF360Pod)! One of reasons is because frequency measurements are one of the important ways to comparatively prove the worth of an audio product. However, doing a good one with the TF360Pod, as you’ll see explained here, will be difficult to do and get right. An accurate, objective and comparatively done frequency measurement test also goes beyond the decibel (dB) tests that were initially done for the TF360Pod patents (listed at each patent’s beginning). The initial dB tests were exhaustively carried out with the help of a physics professor who also worked on the first moon landing project. He took careful measurements with appropriately calibrated instruments and the results were carefully recorded. However, I remember they were quite tedious to do, extremely time consuming (an unexpected 7 hours from setup to finish) and a real hassle to not only insure that everything was done right (some things also needed to be repeated) but to write out and explain afterwards. In the process, however, I learned a lot that will help this frequency measurement test be accurately done with professional integrity, objectivity, and hopeful conclusive results. Checklist of considerations (to be first agreed on before the test) In order to get an accurate whole picture of the frequency measurements for the TF360Pod - to the satisfaction of all interested audio enthusiasts, how to setup and do a proper bench mark and frequency measurement test for this new technology must be agreed on first. This control benchmark will then be used as the absolute (or the calibrated reference control point) for the TF360Pod’s measurements. Here’s an initial checklist to consider and agree on (and add to or change as needed) to get things started: The understood objective is to determine the accurate real frequency measurements of the TF360Pod. To do this, let’s first agree on: 1. What frequency test(s) will provide the needed consensus measurements? 2. What measurement devices and test instruments are needed? What are the proper setup and calibrations for the instruments? Where and how will they be positioned, used, etc? 3. IMPORTANT (with #6) - What is the overall frequency measurement benchmark to be used as the control reference for comparing the TF360Pod to? And how will this be accurately measured? 4. What are the agreed-upon speakers to be used? Where will they be positioned? What is (how does one develop) the accurate frequency measurement(s) for the speakers alone? 5. What room will be used for the frequency measurement tests? How does one develop an accurate bench mark frequency measurement for the room alone? 6. For the combination of the speakers and the room, what is (and how does one obtain) the initial bench mark frequency measurement for these in combination? (as the reference control point for the test) 7. What is the content to be used for the test? At what setting or volume level? What are the content’s frequency measurement considerations if any? 8. What other electronics (not including the speakers) are to be used? What are their frequency measurement considerations if any? 9. How will the tests carried out? Time (approx.) to do them? Who will do them? And how many people are needed there? 10. How will the results be recorded and written up? How will they be distributed? And who will do these? 11. Can the test be reliably repeated at different times and locations with the same results? 12. What other tests or different measurements should be comparatively included to augment or compliment the frequency measurement test? Getting CONSENSUS is #1 First is to get a consensus for the answers to the above questions and everyone’s okay from those interested in having the tests done. (please indicate your okay and any adds or changes) To help avoid doubt and disagreements with the test results: It would be best, as I see it now, that if one is not involved in this pre-approval process, no post criticism should be allowed about the methods or the results. i.e. let’s not waste anyone’s precious time and effort here. Let’s do a good and thorough job the first time! This test is difficult to do! Potential setup problems with frequency measurement tests - to be worked out first and avoided. At first, it seemed simple enough to just do a before and after frequency measurement test - first in the TF360Pod at the listener’s location. Then simply do another one without the TF360Pod at the same location and look at the difference for the assumed frequency measurement results of the TF360Pod. However, there’s no way this simple and quick frequency measurement test could be assumed to be accurate! Here are some of the reason why not: See considerations #3 through #8 above (for reference) As a starting point, one could assume that the specs that came with the speakers could be used as the comparative benchmark (the control) for frequency test. However, that’s not what’s going to end up being measured. What will actually be measured is the room and its massive acoustical affect that the room has on the actual frequency spectrum of the speakers. Normally, measuring the frequencies of speakers and content in a room is not so difficult, but this is significantly complicated by the TF360Pod and what it does. Here’s why: Problems start to come in when it’s understood that frequency measurement results from a pair of speakers are dramatically changed by the room in different, unpredictable, and significant ways. Frequency measurement results also vary and are different in every room. They also vary and are different in different parts of a room. And no two rooms seem to even be close to each other in measured frequency response without massive sound control measures (see anechoic chambers and open-air tests below). A personal example of how problematic this is - every audiophile store I’ve ever auditioned speakers in would not guarantee that the speakers I heard in their store will sound the same in any room in my house (this is because of the massive frequency distortions caused by “the room”). Unfortunately every room changes (corrupts, bastardizes, corrupts) the frequency range of the speakers (and the content). Even in special sound absorbing anechoic chambers, or in a total sound dead outdoor locations, frequency measurements obtained in these acoustically controlled locations cannot easily be used as the bench mark for the TF360Pod frequency tests. This is because the frequency measurements obtained in any room as well as in either of these two sound control room alternatives do NOT include the sound that’s being lost by the dispersion pattern of the speakers and by the room - but which IS NOT LOST and IS heard at the listener location in the TF360Pod. This is important for the TF360Pod frequency test! To explain more, the same sound that’s being lost from the speakers into the room or damaged by the room is not being lost by the TigerFox Pod. Instead, the TF360Pod salvages, includes, and utilizes this massive quantity of otherwise lost speaker and room sound (as well as the frequencies, the content and the sound information within them). These ARE heard in a beneficial way by the listener at the listener’s location. Be reminded that this is what the TF360Pod is designed to do - that is: protect, preserve and prevent the original sound (and the frequencies, sound information and the details within it that were originally built into the content and the sound signals) from being dispersed away by the speakers and being lost or corrupted by the room. With this important consideration in mind, How does one develop, therefore, an accurate benchmark frequency measurement for the speakers and the room - to be used as the control to test the TF360Pod against? (This must be answered first) People have different opinions of what the results will be. Here's my take on the most likely expected results from doing a thorough, fair and accurate frequency measurement test WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod: I sincerely think (based on doing years of listening comparisons with vs. without the TF360Pod) there is a high probability that: 1. Measurements of frequency changes, losses and corruption WITH the TF360Pod will be minimal and will stay very close to the same at the listener’s location wherever the TF360Pod is placed in any room and in any part of a room. Whereas in comparison, I expect there’s also a high probability that: 2. Significant and far more frequency changes, losses and corruption will be measured WITHOUT the TF360Pod, wherever frequency measurements are taken in any room and in any part of a room. 3. Also, I see a high probability that WITHOUT the TF360Pod, those changes, losses and corruption will vary far more, and be far more significant depending on the room and where in the room the frequency measurements are taken, in comparison to those taken at the listener’s location IN the TF360Pod. These are my expectations and I look forward to seeing this through. If you’re interested in the actual measured frequency comparison results, let us know your thoughts, interests and concerns, and sign up to be included in this test (and maybe even help). I greatly look forward to working with you, helping with the product and the frequency test! I’m also looking forward to helping do other tests or different measurements that should comparatively be included to augment or compliment this frequency measurement test My best, (Your suggestions on getting this going?) Rick PS To explain the expected results I mentioned above a little more, I’ve included below a rough illustration that helps to graphically compare stereo sound reproduction WITH vs. WITHOUT the TF360Pod.

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.

Rick is deliberately avoiding the measurement discussions.

Sorry you were confused by this one part of this one illustration in one of our patents. I sense your frustration. In patents, it is helpful to keep in mind that the illustrations are supported by the content. Because the content is more important, it needs to be carefully looked at in it's entirety and included in a discussion of the illustration. For that, so various parts of the illustration are not misunderstood or misinterpreted, I need to differ to the patent content describing this illustration which I mentioned is lengthly (too lengthly for this forum) and goes through the entire patent. Let's continue this part of the conversation therefore off-line if, after reading the content, you would like to discuss this one part of the physics further. This one illustration, by the way, is only one of many different illustrations and embodiments in our patents that, as a whole, describe what's going on with the system. As you'll see there, there are many ways to explain how and why it works. In general, however, here's some boiled-down relevant information that may help. Of importance is that the reflections don't have to be perfectly the same exact length in order for the system as a whole to work in a human functionally-perfect way. Flexibility and forgiveness are importantly built into the design of the Immerse 360 acoustic system! If all of the reflections, for example, were required to be exactly the same physical length for the system to work, the sweet spot would be smaller and the system would be more restrictive. Other shape-oriented factors as well come into play in making the physical structure work smoothly, efficiently and practically. It might help to also keep in mind that this isn't theory here anymore. The system works! And it works well with enough with built in versatile forgiveness to work immediately out of the box, including with a simple 3-minute tool-free, electronics-free, and wire-free setup, along with being adaptive to different types, shapes and sizes of speakers and rooms, and it being able to compatibility work with different electronics along with a multiplicity of different content from high-performance music playback, to 360-degree video games and full theater surround sound movies. There are other functional and difficult to get one's head around important things going on here as well that need to be included in an objective discussion of functional integrity. Like my prior mention of the golden spiral and golden ratio that directly relates to the physical design of the Immerse 360's structure (see general Googled short videos explaining this amazing physical phenomenon). Another difficult to get one's head around thing going on here too that's related to the functional design of the Immerse 360 is the musical instrument soundboard. Why and how it works. And how it relates to the Pod and a Stradivarius violin (which I will touch on in another post). I'm looking forward to it! My best Rick

Your question on how crosstalk is cancelled by reflection Stereo speaker crosstalk is completely cancelled by the Immerse 360 by the capture, preservation and the mathematical control of massive quantities of indirect sound that otherwise would be lost, damaged or damaging sound and sound information in any room. It works by precisely time-aligning this huge quantity of normally "excess" throw away sound by carefully orchestrated it from the instant it exits the speakers and continues to force control it in a coordinated way all the way to the listener's location. This was generally explained in a prior post and much more completely in one or more of our issued utility patents. You mentioned you have read portions of one of TigerFox's patents referring to a crosstalk illustration there. To more fully understand what is going on with the product and crosstalk, please read all of that particular patent's content, especially the parts that refer to the crosstalk illustration you saw. It's quite lengthly (more lengthly than what belongs here) but it should completely answer your inquiry. Removing the corruption of crosstalk, and how this is functionally accomplished, is one of the parts of our patent's intellectual property that was completely new to the world. We organized and shared that new information in order to receive patent protection. (As you know, US and foreign utility patents are given only for revealing previously unknown, substantially novel and functionally important information). Cancelling crosstalk is only one of the sound reproduction problems the Immerse 360 corrects in a synergistic way. While you're there, the patents get into many more. Does the Immerse 360 work with other products to provide better cancellation? About your question on this, because the Immerse 360 cancels crosstalk on its own in a very low cost way. Because it works reliably in most any size, shape and sound quality of room, including working in virtually any location in the room and while facing in any direction. And because its results are latency free and do not interfere with or intrude upon the original sound signals. Because of these operational results (while it operates in an energy-efficient, sustainable way), there's no need to further correct crosstalk, especially by using other add-on methods or products that work by intruding into the sound signals or by cancelling one or more parts of the original audio signal. By keeping how the Immerse 360 works as simple and intrusion-free as possible (as audiophiles know) it is then more possible to allow the electronics and the quality of the original music to unfold and bloom, to be heard and enjoyed in a more pure way - which provides the basis for getting the best sound out of one's content. One thing to keep in mind, tho. This new technology is nothing like something experienced before. It needs to be experienced because it does a number of things for the sound never done before. And in new ways never experienced synergistically before. I hope this is helpful. I plan on getting into measurements in the next few days. My best, Rick PS, here's a comparison illustration that hopefully helps to graphically explain how sound looks after it leaves the speakers without controlling it, vs. it being captured, controlled and orchestrated by the Immerse 360 when it leaves the speakers and time-aligning it to converge with synchronization at the listener's location:

You just contradicted yourself. Echoic memory lasts just few seconds. But sound scene is reconstructed based on prior knowledge. Just place your phone on the other side of the place you usually put and you will notice that when the phone rings you would naturally hear as if it is coming from the side where you usually put them. Once you realized it’s not there then the localization cues are used to find the phone. I took a little time researching echoic memory, (our human's prior spatial memory of sound location), reflecting on its definition, and how it was used above to suggest that this phenomenon limits a listener's ability "to reliably determine whether a soundtrack's sounds are heard in the same physical locations around the listener in the TigerFox Pod as with an ATMOS playback of the same soundtrack". I don't think I clearly explained what I meant along with what I didn't mean to suggest. By definition, if there was prior "learning" (i.e. if a same sound is heard coming from a same physical location or object around the listener, especially if that sound is repeatedly heard from that same location), it seems correct that echoic learning could definitely come into play. Also, I might add after thinking about it, if the sound heard would naturally be heard coming from a preset location in the space around them, (like a refrigerator noise) it would be assumed by the auditory senses to always come from the refrigerator's location no matter where around the person's location the frig was located. In this instance as well, it also seems correct that echoic "learning" could definitely come into play. However, it's important to understand that: (1.) Where there is no prior "learning", echoic "memory" does not come into play. That is, if the listener never heard a sound's location before, there is no echoic "memory". How this relates to the TigerFox sound positioning accuracy statement in italic above is, even where the listener never heard a soundtrack before (and therefore never "learned" a sound's particular location), a sounds spatial location around the listener is immediately localized by the TigerFox Pod to the point where the listener can clearly point to it's exact physical location around them. Not only its 360-degree location, but the listener can also hear and relate it's location around them as a factor of depth or distance, height and movement as that sound was positioned in the original immersive stereo content. (2.) Also, it is more important to understand (this may hard to believe by those who have not personally experienced the TigerFox Pod), that TigerFox's ability to localize sound positioning is far more powerful than echoic memory! That is, it overwhelms the listener's prior echoic memory the first time the soundtrack is heard by the listener! For example were a listener has not only heard a particular soundtrack before (like the Time soundtrack by Pink Floyd) but heard that particular soundtrack hundreds of times played back before with two stereo speakers alone (without the TigerFox) and where the positions of the clocks were firmly established as always coming from the same locations in front of the listener, the first time that same listener hears that same original recording of Time in the TigerFox, that listener is immediately able to not only clearly hear, but exactly point out around them the locations of each and every single bell, even tho about half of those bells are now clearly heard coming from new physical locations around them, like from in back of them on their left side, or slightly above their head in back of them on their right side. With this documented ability by the TigerFox Pod in mind to consistently position sounds around the listener at the same repeatable locations as positioned within the original stereo signals (even in clearly positioned overhead locations heard with YouTube "Sounds On a Car Roof" recordings), it makes industry sense to objectively test in different ways the comparative sound positioning experience being delivered by TigerFox's new acoustical physics technology against other systems that the industry recognizes as doing similar things. I'm 100% looking forward to getting this started ASAP with your help and suggested assistance. This hopefully will include comparatively testing the TigerFox Pod with different new immersive audio formats and against immersive audio hardware, like against the most advanced headphones on the market, against well setup stereo systems and high-performance listening rooms, home theater systems, and (as I intended to highly recommend in the above italic sentence), even against well setup 12 speaker ATMOS systems. And, to avoid any assumed TigerFox Pod bias or echoic memory concerns, like in side-by-side listening tests, simply start listeners off in the TigerFox Pod first with never-before-heard (but well recognized and appropriate) immersive content so there's no doubts, "memory" problems, or other issues with the TigerFox Pod on the results!. Rick

Rick is deliberately avoiding the measurement discussions. Thank you bobfa for your offer to loan your TigerFox during your downtime to someone in the Chicagoland area if they have the tools and knowledge to do the proper measurements. The above measurements seem like something easy to do. I would also like to offer a TigerFox loan unit to someone in the extended Milwaukee area if they have the tools and prior knowledge to do the proper measurements. I absolutely believe in measurements (I've relied on them my whole life starting at age 5 with learning how to properly use a micrometer) so long as they are the proper ones used with professionally calibrated devices, setup and carried out correctly, able to be repeated with the same results, and they were carried out along with different measurements and tools in order that the most whole picture of what they are supposed to measure in conglomerate is accurately and dependably determined. With this in mind, after carefully reading TAS and Stereophile reviews including their accompanying measurements for over 40 years, altho measurements are important, I believe many TAS and Stereophile readers also agree that measurements by themselves never seem to give the complete answer or the most important answer they were looking for. That most important answer comes from careful comparative listening over time with a variety of well-known and appropriate content and comparing what is heard to similar products or to other products that do similar things. The problem with the TigerFox Immerse 360 is that most folks do not know, or have not heard, what it can do for immersive stereo audio. However, professional auditions are critical. In this important regard, I would also like to suggest (and even recommend) that the TigerFox Immerse 360 Pod not only be test measured by competent objective scientists or reviewers using appropriate and reliable instruments that produce repeatable results, but also it needs to be carefully tested in side-by-side A/B listening tests against other well setup 2 speaker stereo systems, against well setup listening rooms (that could cost up to $200,000), against the best headphones on the market, and especially against high-performance immersive music and theater-grade surround sound systems including against a well setup ATMOS system These comparative listening tests should be carried out by audio evaluation specialists for overall sound (1.) quality (2.) realism (3.) 360-degree hemispherical sound positioning accuracy (4.) the best qualities of immersion and (5.) for the comparative system's ability to reproduce appropriate natural ambient details. I would most appreciate starting these measurements and listening tests as soon as possible. Please communicate with me directly too. Let's see if we as an audio community can put something together! You have my full support and assistance!