Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Movies

Single Speaker Unit Delivers Surround Sound 231

Posted by simoniker from the just-showing-off dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Single Speaker Unit Delivers Surround Sound More

Single Speaker Unit Delivers Surround Sound

Comments Filter:

  • /me adjusts his AFDB [zapatopi.net]

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

    • I beg to differ. If real reality beat virtual reality we wouldn't see so many hentai games.

    • Re:Still can't beat... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by alwsn ( 593349 )

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

      I disagree. Most people who would try to setup a midrange sound system are going to mess up the placement of the speakers. The point the article also makes is that it's much nicer to just have one speaker in one spot, rather than have to mess around with 6 different speakers that each have to be mounted in very specific positions. I would have loved to have one of these in my dorm in place of my traditional surround s

      • Ehem, the grandparent was about being THERE, in the concert hall or in the middle of the battle of Midway :), instead of reproducing the sounds on speakers.
      • Dude, let's be realistic. Its not hard to place speakers where they are supposed to go. If your talking more technical like the right height, correct distance on axis, off axis blah blah etc, those same things would apply to this wonder speaker also as it will not magically compensate itself for your placement and specific characteristics in your room. Overall this seems like a neat idea but only for specific issues where space might be a concern. I see very little in the articles about the actual quali
    • You probably haven't played Better Than Life [redbay.com]
    • $800? ill run my own speakers, thank you.

  • psychoacoustic trickery? (Score:4, Funny)

    by einer ( 459199 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:49AM (#7462782) Journal
    An $800 ventriloquist?

    • Single speaker surround sound? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > The single speaker unit actually contains five individual
      > speakers

      In other news, auto manufacturers have released a one wheeled car that handles every bit as good as a four wheeled car. The one wheeled unit actually contains 4 individual wheels...
  • 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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by GwabbaWabba ( 722891 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:51AM (#7462794)
      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?
      • 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.
    • It's really old technology. and it has not been put to use in games because it sucks compared to having 4 speakers or more.

      It's called Carver Sonic Holography. I had one in 1986..

      then it used your 2 regular speakers placed specifically and you had to sit in a specific zone.

      they also made a single speaker cabinet that is like what they describe in the article to "enhance" the effect.

      old tech being rolled out as new again.... just like the tablet PC.

  • Area of effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:51AM (#7462793) Journal
    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 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 )
      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

      • RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

        by Phrogz ( 43803 )

        Like all simulated surround, this one likely requires you to be in a very specific sweet spot [...]

        RTFA. I quote:

        The signal manipulations require 600 million calculations per second. Nirotek also claims its system

        does not require the listener to be directly in front of the speaker to be effective.

        No sweet spot. It likely is doing signal manipulation to mimic the accoustic modification your ear makes as sound comes in from various locations, rather than just phase differences.

    • You'd probably need a set of headphones that kept track of their orientation and signaled back that info to the sound processor which would then adjust the sound to what you were supposed to hear in that orientation. A good application for wi-fi.


      Of course the marketers would catch on and program a sales pitch voice that would follow you about the room or house. You wouldn't be able to get away from it.

    • 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

    • Also, one can assemble a pretty decent six channel sound system for about that price. As it is five speakers in ONE cabinet, I think I'd trade the tricky electronics for four more cabinets and an amp, thank you.

  • the trickery being (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    try to seperate your cash from your wallet all while trying to convince you that the laws of physics have been broken specifically for this product.

    • try to seperate your cash from your wallet all while trying to convince you that the laws of physics have been broken specifically for this product.

      Hasn't that already been done, as detailed in the Bose speaker/radio adverts?

  • I've seen a TV that claimed to be able to fake surround sound by bouncing directed sound waves off the walls at different angles. Of course, that one only would have worked if the TV and the viewer were in certain places in a rectangular room.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

      by natd ( 723818 )
      Well, funny you should mention that because I moved house a year ago and lost the use of my 5.1 system as it belonged to a flatmate. So I was back to my Phillips TV which claimed to have virtual surround. It had never been any use but in my new place, which had bare walls behind the TV and behind where I sit it is excellent - the sound is all over the place, so under the right conditions it seems to work.
      • All over the place?

        The point with surround sound to me is to have sound come from specific locations. Like a sound behind you to the right. If such a TV doesn't pull off that I don't really see the point with it.

        • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

          by natd ( 723818 )
          'all over the place' as in the intro to Saving Private Ryan...it's all over the place! The positioning isn't as discrete as a proper system, but I like the sound of it - it's a good effort on a 6 year old TV which I had no expectation would actually work (from that perspective). If I think a sound came from the back of the room and I didn't pay for a speaker there, I'm happy :)
          • Oh, I see.. doh :-) Then it sounds pretty amazing.

            It's interesting with these kind of fake surround things. Even if I happen to have a proper surround system, it was still eerie when I once tested my speaker setup. A voice went on telling "front left", "front center", "front right", "behind left", "behind right". Then it went on with "behind center" and it really sounded like that too even if it's just a wall there. :-) Made my jump in my sofa a bit. hehe

  • Serious Question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does this work for people with hearing problems in one ear? And if so, does it matter when the hearing loss started to occur? (i.e., congenital problem vs. problem that developed with age)

    I'm asking this on the off chance that someone here is working on a PhD or something and can answer this...
    • i would assume that this will not be able to compensate the loss of spatial information caused by being (half) deaf on one side.

      after all, to be able to hear the phase differences, you need at least two different sites (ears/earshells) from where you observe sound.

      like it is impossible to see depth with only one eye, it will most probably be impossible to hear depth with one ear.

      but then again, i didn't get my PhD on psychoacoustics or something like that... just trying to apply common sense here

  • yack.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by dcordeiro ( 703625 )
    These "head related transfer functions" take account of differences in the time at which a sound arrives at each side of the head, as well as subtle distortions caused by the shape of each ear.

    the subjects used to test this new gadget were very very ugly...
  • I guess the first thing that comes to mind, is that why would anyone spend $799 on a single speaker, when there are cheaper and (maybe) better speaker sets (including amp) out there? Well, apartment dwellers, especially city dwellers, this is great news! Great quality surround sound without the mess! Arcade Games, including pinball machines could benefit from this system (albeit a cheaper version). Oh, and fuck Bose, fuck their tiny little speaker, fuck them in their stupid asses! :)

  • Gimmick (Score:2, Informative)

    by FromWithin ( 627720 )

    It's surely a gimmick? If you're using HRTFs, you don't need 5 speakers in there. We've only got two ears so you only need two speakers!

    Proper 3D sound has been around for years, the best being from Sensaura [sensaura.com], as licensed on the Xbox and most PC sound chips.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Gimmick (Score:3, Informative)

      by nicsterrr ( 529317 )
      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.

    • Re:Gimmick (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      Proper 3D sound has been around for years, the best being from Sensaura, as licensed on the Xbox and most PC sound chips.

      this is a very lame hack compared to the real thing.

      Carver Sonic Holography. you could buy one in 1985 and makes all the "3D" systems out there today sound like a complete joke.

  • Invasion of the carnies? (Score:3, Redundant)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:21AM (#7462887) Homepage
    First we see motorized unicycles [slashdot.org]... now we are seeing single-speaker units that deliver surround sound. What is next in this circus show of singularity?!
  • Can somebody describe how natural sound is perceived by the human ear and what is needed to reproduce it as close as possible to the original sound?

    • your answer from Bob Carver. the man that invented hi-fi and all this 3d surround sound....

      The illusion that can be created from a two-channel source by our ear-brain systems decoding the timing cues the spatial cues can be so incredibly beautiful and so deliciously three-dimensional, that it's difficult to warm up to five speakers. Five speakers provide a nice sense of envelopment and immersion, but it's different from the three-dimensionality that a good two-channel system can have. But for theatre, I
  • are at least six feet away from the speaker unit

    I really hope they didn't take six feet under [hbo.com] too seriously.

  • Every person has different HRTF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Prune ( 557140 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:26AM (#7462911)

    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 [soton.ac.uk] 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 [soton.ac.uk] first or it won't work).

    • Nice explanation of why this won't work very well. Along the same lines, though, I wonder if it would be possible to "train" some equipment to the user's HRTF? e.g. you'd stick some earbuds with microphones on them deep in your ear, sit in the sweet spot, and play the training sounds (pink noise and what-not). The system could then pick up the sounds (with the user's native HRTF already applied), and come up with a better approximation tailored to that user.

      • Yeah, and while it does that, in the slightly darkened room, a laser draws a grid all across your face and around your head as if to take detailed measurements, while the camera makes a 360 around you.

        Some beeps in the background, and then in true hollywood fashion a very beautiful woman in laboratory clothes steps forward to do something with a little flashlight in your ear that looks remotely medical of nature. She then proceeds to inform you that the calibration procedure was successful.

        You get up, and
    • I remember some years back when I was young and stupid, and decided to waste my money on a Sound Engineer degree. One day the teacher showed-up with this "amazing 3-D sound effect recording", that presumably we could get the full 3-D effect while listening through regular stereo headphones. About 1/3rd of the students in the class actually heard the effect, while the rest of us just heard some random noises in stereo. And I'm sure some of the students who heard the full 3-D were just experiencing a good

  • Real Home Audio Improvements (Score:5, Insightful)

    by goofy183 ( 451746 ) * on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:28AM (#7462927)
    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 [fyristorg.com] 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.
    • I'd go for balanced interconnects, but I'd also like to see a single cable with a single connector for both channels, with the capability to optionally carry video as well.

      Better yet would be digital connectors (firewire, coax, or even optical) between system components to minimize cable clutter.

      I think some Pioneer systems, even at the low end, have a microphone that can be used to optimize surround modes for a specific listening spot. My super-ancient VSX93000S has pretty decent balance controls for it

    • Re:Real Home Audio Improvements (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThisIsFred ( 705426 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:25AM (#7464036) Journal
      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

      • Provided you have little enough impedance to your speakers, it mostly doesn't matter what kind of cables you have there. Monster cable's improvement (or any other "premium" low-impedance shielded cable, of course) is in the connections between components. High-power signals are simply more resistant to noise; Those 1.5V connections are where noise enters the system (besides inside the components themselves.)

        Probably the best thing you can do for noise is to put all your components on their own power condi

      • Even with "full range" speakers, a subwoofer still helps, and they are even used in most movie theaters. Most full range speakers corner at between 30 and 40 hz. A sub can improve the response between the 15-30Hz range. In terms of money spent, getting a full range speaker that corners at 15Hz is probably prohibitivly expensive compared to just getting a sub that "fills the gap".
        • Even with "full range" speakers, a subwoofer still helps, and they are even used in most movie theaters. Most full range speakers corner at between 30 and 40 hz. A sub can improve the response between the 15-30Hz range.

          A decently designed set of full range speakers can reproduce the sounds down that low. The drop-off below 50 or 60 Hz (typical) is not so sharp that nothing is reproduced below that frequency, so even if the full range speaker is less efficient there, it is still reproducing the sound, or
    • they really need to introduce using Cat5 as a balanced interconnect cable for analog or digital (or both! like DVI-D)
      Cheap, abundant, can carry a balanced stereo pair, or a single channel with phantom power, snaplocks, etc. etc.
  • First of all, this is not a "one-speaker" solution at all - it is several speakers in one box. I suppose it depends on whether you think of "speaker" as referring to the mechanism for converting electrical impulses into acoustic pressure waves by means of a moving diaphragm, or the cabinet containing one or more of such devices .....

    But how many speakers do you need anyway? I mean, you've only got two ears, for crying out loud ..... meaning you know which side a sound is coming from {left or right} bu
    • ...but you can't actually tell whether a sound is coming from ahead or behind unless you cheat and move your head around.

      The brain learns the filtering characteristics of your ear, and can do a very good job of figuring out where a sound is coming from.
    • First of all, this is not a "one-speaker" solution at all - it is several speakers in one box.

      The unit producing the 'surround sound' effect is absolutely a one-speaker solution. The units that produce the sound are called drivers. A speaker is an enclosure which holds one or more drivers.

      Of course, if you count the sub-woofer too then this is a two-speaker setup ;-)
    • Uh. I dunno about you, but in most cases I can tell whether a sound is coming from ahead, behind or above or below. Sometimes the reflections off walls or phase changes etc fool me but in most cases it doesn't. So far this seems possible for many people too, and I'm not a rare exception.

      Seems to me that my brain can recognize that there is a particular (one) _sound_ and since that "one" sound sounds different in the left ear compared to the right ear, it then can work out from experience that a particular

  • Binaural recordings anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:53AM (#7463036)
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:16AM (#7463157)
    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?
  • Is there a good fairly-technical introduction to how this stuff works? ("This stuff" being current surround-sound, ambience, 3D sound, 5.1 sound, etc...)

    I'm not even clear on how things like 5.1 encoding works--I don't think there are five independent full-bandwidth channels in there. Obviously none of these systems are accurately reproducing the three-dimensional movement of air in the volume surrounding one's head...

    • You're probably right about the fact that it's not 5 full channels...Generally, if I recall correctly, there is a full-bandwidth "front" channel, a full-bandwidth "rear" channel, and a full-bandwidth "center" channel (subwoofer usually is on the center also.)

      Then, there are smaller "delta" channels, which split the front-mono into front-left and front-right by measuring their differences.

      The center is full bandwidth because it is single-channel.

  • Only two ears but the point you're missing is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:30AM (#7463232)
    ...the size of the 'sweet spot'. In a regular 2 channel stereo recording, the only place where the recording sounds 'right' is in the middle. If you move to one side, the perceived middle of the stereo image moves as well. These speakers attempt to solve this by reconstructing the wave front of the original sound wave, so that it corresponds as much as possible with the original. In plain language, kinda like the difference between a regular stereo image and a hologram which can be viewed from different angles. Of course, using a regular stereo recording will *still* not give 'holographic' sound, so for now the manufacterers settled for attempts to increase the size of the sweet spot. And yes, the bose speakers that bounce sound off the walls are based on the same principle.

  • But... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @08:30AM (#7463238) Homepage
    I've read the review but I'm wondering. Sometimes I watch a movie together with friends. They are usually spread around the room hanging on different chairs and the couch. Will the surround sound experience be equally good for all of them, or is the person sitting directly in front of the set (far) better off than the rest?

  • For $800.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Phreakiture ( 547094 )

    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..

    • For $800, you can buy four or five reasonably nice bookshelf speakers and a subwoofer (and even get change back!)

      Five reasonably nice bookshelf speakers: $800.
      Bookshelves to place them on: $80.
      Nails and brackets to install the bookshelves: $8.

      The look on your landlord's face when he finds out you've completely remodeled your apartment: Priceless.

      • Wow your nails are expensive! Do you always use silver-plated nails?

      • Five reasonably nice bookshelf speakers: $800.
        Bookshelves to place them on: $80.
        Nails and brackets to install the bookshelves: $8.

        If you need $8 for nails and brackets, you got ripped off paying $80 for a bookshelf.

        Man you really got ripped off.

  • HRTFs are real enough, but they are mostly dependent on the shape of the listener's outer ear, which varies a lot from person to person. You can create surround sound with headphones (yes I know this has more drivers -- the required tech is the same). But it takes microphones that fit in the ear canal, some tedious calibration, and preferably an anechoic chamber. Hopefully the box for this thing lists these as "not included".
  • I was just about to say "who the hell wants to spend $800 for one speaker? Hell, for that I'll buy a whole system". But then as I sit here in my cramped room I went "oh yeah...it would be nice not having to string cable all over my room, find space for all the speakers, etc". If it really works (can't wait to read the reviews), it could be fun buying this and having my head messed with.
  • You must be more than six feet away, but less than 14,874.24 gnat's eyes. You have to be taller than 1.67 meters but shorter than 1.632 hands. You weight must be under 180 pounds unless you have an abnormally low body mass index in which case you must be heavier than 11 stone.

    For perfect, optimal performance, your name must be Jim, Sally or Skeeter. Red hair will cause slightly better reception than brown hair, and you blondies are just SOL.

    Anyone remember quadraphonic sound?

  • I'll take my Definitive Technology speakers over that thing any day.

  • To clear a few things up.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:40AM (#7463700)
    First, to everyone who says "why would I want 5 speaker cabinets all over the place instead of one?". Simple, sound is largely effected by the shape of the room, not to mention what is contained in the room. With 5 drivers in one box the surround is simulated, bouncing the sound off the walls with different timings to simulate surround sound. Slight problem though, every room is not shaped the same so this box will only be optimally effective in a room with the dimensions it was designed for. In a real surround system you can make adjustments for the shape of the room. Try doing that with this box. Second, this is actually a 1 speaker system, 2 if you count the sub. The one speaker contains 5 drivers. Before you flame the poster, check the terminology. A speaker consists of all the drivers and the physical box. Third, If you really want to do yourself justice before you talk about how great a box like this is/would be. Take a visit to a local high-end audio shop. Compare a true surround system from say, B&W, driven by some nice amps through a good processor to this all-in-one box. The all-in-one wont sound so great anymore. In fact neither will that circuit-city bose crap. In short, as with most things you get what you pay for.

  • True Surround Sound (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KD5MDI ( 442061 )
    If you want to see a true "single point source" surround sound system. Check out Pioneer's Digital Sound Projector. I think this may also have been featured in a /. story a few months ago.

  • Mixed feelings (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mwood ( 25379 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:56AM (#7464382)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TimTheFoolMan ( 656432 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:31AM (#7464793) Homepage Journal
    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

  • The sleek new box, which actually contains 5 CPUs...

  • It's not a one-speaker system if it contains 5 or 6 speakers in one box. That is a 5 or 6 speaker system. I fail to see why people are excited over this, it's just 5 speakers in one box with the individual speakers aim different directions to achieve the surround sound effect.
  • I have the Altec Lansing ADA-105, and it works great as a stereo speaker, and sometimes I do hear surround-sound effects - but it's not the same as a full set of speakers.
  • So long as this thing clamps your head in a vice 6 feet away and does a laser scan of your cranium, inner ear, and the room it's in, I'll believe that it produces accurate "Surround Sound", but until then, all it's doing is cutting the audio out of phase enough that it appears to sound as if it's coming from a different direction than the speaker itself. It sounds cool to a lot of people, and that's just fine, but the reproduction is not especially accurate. A regular 4, 5.1, etc setup will do a lot better
  • Old news, again. Even the USA Today story is two weeks old! The system was announced back in August and has been shipping since October!

    Here's the real link for the company: http://www.niro.net/en/ [niro.net]. Go Nakamichi-san Go!

  • Surround sound is a necessary compromise; yes, you can get perfect surround sound with just good headphones (and a sub for that added feel on the low end.)

    So who's gonna wear the headphones - you or your gf? Oh... the problem comes into focus now doesn't it! If you want to have more than one person listening to surround sound, you need a system.

    Furthermore, tracks, movies, games, etc these days aren't mixed for good surround on headphones - they are usually mixed for 2 ch being stereo speakers and surroun
  • Pray tell how that's an improvement on separate speakers six feet apart.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close