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

psychoacoustic trickery?

[einer]

An $800 ventriloquist?

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.

Re:Area of effect

[ergo98]

Like all simulated surround, this one likely requires you to be in a very specific sweet spot (does anyone recall the Madonna CD of some 12 years ago or so that had "surround sound" on it? To actually experience it you had to be in an absolutely precise spot).

Having said that, it is hardly surprizing that this can be done -- we only have two ears. Our brain is determining location by phase between ears and tonal balance (sound hitting the ear from different angles, such as in front or behind, get different tonal characteristics). Presuming someone knew all of the functions involved it should be doable, at least with two speakers. I'm a little confused as to how they could manage left/right separation, though - using one speaker one would have to encourage a soundwave to hit one ear before it hits the other...

Re:Area of effect

[tiled_rainbows]

In my amateur playing about with software synthesis etc, particularly the very cool (and free) Buzz (www.buzz2.com), I've found that the coolest stereo effects come from panning using both delay and volume differences - that is, delaying the sound in one channel and making it slightly quieter.
Interesting effects, to varying levels of "realism", can also be acheived with stereo reverb - having, for example, the "dry" sound of an instrument dominate in the left channel, but the reverby sound dominate in the right.

Re:Practical Application

[GwabbaWabba]

However, you'd have to have fairly long arms to work a handheld gaming device that must be a minumum of six feet away, wouldn't you?

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

Re:Gimmick

[nicsterrr]

It's not a gimmick at all. It's actually a product based on years of signal processing research.

With regards to how many speakers are needed, the more speakers used, the more control one has in forming the acoustic wave field via signal processing techniques.

It all boils down to error minimisation techniques - given a desired sound field and a set of acoustique sources, minmise the difference between the desired field and the combined field output by the acoustique sources.

Binaural recordings anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised no one ever seems to mention the binarual method of recording and playback when it comes to surround sound.

The main techniques used by humans to locate the direction of sound are: the volume of the sound, the phase difference between the sound hitting each ear at slighlty different times and the effect that the head, ears, body have on altering the frequency makeup of the sound.

The way to recreate this is to use a dummy head with miniature microphones placed in each ear of the dummy to record whatever sounds you want and then to play that recording back over headphones.

The dummy head recreates all the subtle phase and frequency effects that a real human head would in the real environment and the headphones allow that recording to be delivered to each ear free of the distorting effects that loudspeakers are prone to have(room effects, cross channel problems, phase problems etc).

Checkout http://www.binaural.com/ for MP3 samples of this technique.

The realism of binaural is simply staggering when used with the right headphones. No multi-channel surround sound that I have ever heard comes anywhere near close. It is so realistic that it can have you looking around to locate the source of the sound to make sure it wasn't really something in your immediate environment. The problem is that most people don't want to wear headphones when watching movies I suppose.

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?

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