Single Speaker Unit Delivers Surround Sound

Makarand writes "A one-speaker home theater system that is able to deliver surround sound has been unveiled by Nirotek America (Torrance, CA). The single speaker unit actually contains five individual speakers packed horizontally into a single case. The surround sound effect is achieved by playing some sophisticated psychoacoustic trickery on the human brain. Realistic surround sound from movies and stereo CDs can be obtained as long as listeners are at least six feet away from the speaker unit and the unit stands near the front edge of whatever surface it is placed on. The unit is priced at around $799 and USA Today has a review."

Comments

Still can't beat...

[WegianWarrior]

...actually beeing there. Real Reality beats Virtual Reality nine times out of ten.

Practical Application

[CrystalChronicles]

This is pretty cool. I can see this technology being put to good use on a handheld gaming device or even handheld pc where space is a premium and good sound only enhances the gaming experience.

Re:Practical Application

[mek2600]

I realize that your post was in jest, but with different and smaller speakers the 6 feet distance would drop. I'm not *quite* what you'd call an expert at this sort of stuff, but that's how I understand it to work. So, for far less than $800 they could put cheaper, smaller speakers in a handheld and have a very nice product.

Re:Awesome! Having two speakers really sucks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, having 4 speakers really sucks.
Wires trailing all around... if this does
work and gets mass produced, it will be the
end of those clumsy 5+1 speaker combos.

Bring it on!

Area of effect

[Space cowboy]

I'm not sure I believe that using electronic trickery (presumably phase differences and relative volume) can create a realistic surround-sound volume-of-space for people to sit in.

Even 5,6,7-speaker systems struggle to produce a large coherent area where the sound "sounds natural"...

Simon.

Every person has different HRTF

[Prune]

The Head Related Transfer Function is, well, head related -- it depends on the shape of your head. The problem with this approach is that you are limited in having to use an approximate average. While left-right imaging can be still excellent, front-back imaging usually is below par of a discrete system. The effect is more realistic with the specific HRTF of the listener, but obviously that's not practical.

As an aside, you can check out this interesting (if dated) stereo dipole demo with only two speakers right in front of you that have minimal separation between them but can produce the illusion of extreme left-right (make sure to set up according to the readme first or it won't work).

Real Home Audio Improvements

[goofy183]

I just wish some of the simpler features on pro audio equipment would work it's way down to consumer level stuff. Companies have no real incentive to clean up the sound since they can sell snake oil fixes for audio quality problems *cough*monster cable*cough*. Simply using balanced audio connections on all pre-amp connections would reduce a lot of noise coming from the usual mess of cables behind most peoples home theater systems. Moving the power supplies for the components away from any audio proccessing circutry and shielding them, Further reducing noise. Many suround sound systems would also benifit GREATLY from a simple user adjustable delay on each channel to help compensate for an odd speaker placement. Home and car audio has to be the biggest snake oil industry today. I know I'm glad I've worked with pro level equipment running concerts and such. Really opens your eyes to what needs to be there for a good clear sound.

Re:Real Home Audio Improvements

[ThisIsFred]

Companies have no real incentive to clean up the sound since they can sell snake oil fixes for audio quality problems *cough*monster cable*cough*

Yeah, and what's sad is a lot of audio rags promoted these snake oil products, claiming there was a noticeable difference. I once did a comparison between using a thick cable, a thin cable and UTP cable (!) to my speakers, and I found no difference. Perhaps there was a small difference in sound quality, but I couldn't hear it, and Joe Sixpack probably wouldn't notice either. Probably because, like many people, I was using relatively low power, a mediocre amp and mediocre speakers. I cancelled my subscription to some audiophile magazine when they tried to pull the same crap with [fiber]optical connections, claiming that a bad cable would "reduce the dynamic range of your sound". While I can understand the problems caused by a bad digital link-up, I think I would describe it as "abrupt end of data stream and therefore a lack of sound." A bad optical connection would immediately be obvious.

Many suround sound systems would also benifit GREATLY from a simple user adjustable delay on each channel to help compensate for an odd speaker placement

Many mid- to high-end AC3 and DTS decoders already do allow you to adjust the delay on each channel. Not many people ask for this feature in low-end home theater set-ups, because they have no idea what it's supposed to sound like. Joe Sixpack doesn't know or care about seating position or speaker placement.

I know I'm glad I've worked with pro level equipment running concerts and such. Really opens your eyes to what needs to be there for a good clear sound.

I think that they majority of low- and mid-end home theater set-ups would get an immediate benefit from improved speaker design, probably more immediately noticeable than with balanced signal cables (although that would certainly be nice). Most of the speakers I've heard are built like this:

With "reflex" ports to increase low-end efficiency and "flatten" out the peak a little.

With mismatched mid-range and tweeters (with regard to efficiency).

Thin platic enclosures, or fiberboard lacking the appropriate amount of internal support.

Bass reflex ports are a way to flatten the response curve and extend the low end (just putting it out there; I'm sure you know all this already), but most cheap speakers aren't designed correctly (or can't be due to the size of the speaker), and the resulting sound is boomy and annoying. I guess it's just cheaper to use as little material as possible in the cabinet, then glue a tube to it.

A lot of speaker manufacturers seem to purposely mismatch higher-efficiency tweeters (or midrange drivers) with the other drivers in the cabinet. Due to the limiting factor of size, they'll never get it exact, since woofers need so much precious real estate (and air volume). But manufacturers aren't even trying to get close. The recent popularity of horn-loaded drivers makes the situation worse. Even though the resulting sound is not so great, it raises the average peak efficiency of the speaker system, and it makes for a nice number to print on a color brochure.

Many low-end home theater speakers are made of relatively thin plastic with no internal support. The surface area of the cabinet is probably radiating sound more efficiently than the drivers attached to it. Too bad the cabinet isn't designed to accurately reproduce this sound. It's big bucks before we get into enclosures with internal support or better materials.

***

Sellers need comparable figures to sell against their competition. Unfortunately, power output is the easiest one for consumers to understand. Some consumers have become mindful of speaker efficiency as well, but not too many really understand that the efficiency varies between drivers and depends on the frequency of the sound being reproduced, and they don't understand that the quoted figures for efficiency ar

It doesn't work, and it's too expensive

[SuperBanana]

I'm not sure I believe that using electronic trickery (presumably phase differences and relative volume) can create a realistic surround-sound volume-of-space for people to sit in.

It can't. I've heard this kind of technology, and sometimes it works, more often it doesn't...and even when it does, the sound just "feels" "weird" but has no direction. Any directional effect is usually quite weak.

If I understand it correctly, it's based off the way sounds are affected by the shape of your ear- but if you've ever noticed, people have differently shaped ears and I imagine their brains become 'calibrated' to their ears...

Further, it's stupid in this price point. Nice idea, but considering for HALF the price you can get a really nice sounding, REAL system from someone decently respectable like Cambridge Soundworks...I fail to see the point. Usually this kind of technology is provided by laptop manufacturers or cheap A/V equipment makers. Not $800 speakers.

Glengarry Glen Ross

[That's Unpossible!]

I sampled scenes from several DVDs: Toy Story, Men In Black II, Glengarry Glen Ross and The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring.

Ahh yes, GGR... a cacaphony of surround sound! (?)

If I didn't know better, I'd think the physical and verbal explosions ... were emerging from the six speakers, including subwoofer

Umm, voices of main characters shown on the screen are supposed to come from the center channel in almost all cases. They shouldn't sound like they are "emerging from the six speakers."

It really sounds like this guy is not qualified to review a surround sound package?

For $800....

[Phreakiture]

For $800, you can buy four or five reasonably nice bookshelf speakers and a subwoofer (and even get change back!), and placement, although still important, is not downright critical.

As for the psychoacoustic trick, it's not a new one. It is really the same thing as two-speaker surround, it is just that the two speakers are in one enclosure. Yes, yes, it has five. That sounds like two tweeters, two mids and a woofer.... not that I've been able to find a grill-off picture of it anywhere to confirm this....

Re:One speaker as good as 5?

[jargoone]

You were shopping at the wrong places. For the cost of your Bose, you could easily get a Paradigm setup that will trounce it with authority.

Bose does one thing, and they do it VERY will: marketing.

Mixed feelings

[mwood]

On the one hand: cool idea, glad to see someone still thinks.

On the other hand: would somebody please kick the marketing genius who decided to say "one-speaker" when what he really meant is "one-cabinet (with a whole lotta speakers inside)".

Nakamichi

[TimTheFoolMan]

Did everyone fail to notice that Niro Nakamichi is behind this? Even if you haven't studied precedence and psychoacoustics, you should at least give the benefit of the doubt to a company founded by audiophiles, and that has always catered to audiophiles.

These aren't garage mechanics that had a paper-napkin idea. This is similar to what Polk delivered with the SRS series, but is done electronically. And while it's true that everyone's head and ears are shaped differently (and therefore respond differently to psychoacoustic phenomena), most serious research has shown that only people whose heads are dimensionally way outside of the norm hear "bizzare effects." 90% (or more) of the general population will be astounded, and will have a dramatically simpler system to set up.

Mr. Nakamichi's knowledge of psychoacoustics rivals that of EVERYONE reading /., so it would behoove you to listen to it before you dismiss it out of hand. Don't just read the articles, read about the technology and the company behind the product.

But wait... this is /.

Tim