BACCH4Mac "Absolute Sounds Product of the Year 2024"

[AdamG]

Talk it out like Gentleman and resolve your disconnect with some examples or reference material that supports your position. Majority of arguments are from the difficulty of trying to convey complex concepts using only the written word. Find some pictures, drawings or graphic examples that will help you get your ideas understood by others. We are all hear to Learn and teach when we are able. Keep the spirit of ASR alive by trying to understand each others thoughts. It’s late, so maybe take a break and come back at this tomorrow with a fresh head,

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation Gentlemen.

 

[STC]

Anyone got a recording of what supposed to have hard panned component? I am just curious about the claim of hearing this close to the ear with XTC. Unless someone want to try out I don’t mind making a recording with XY and Spaced mics to experiment but I still have doubts that the would be too close to the ears not withstanding FAQ #15. Not sure how BACCH will behave.

 

[goat76]

It’s late, so maybe take a break and come back at this tomorrow

Where I live it is Thursday morning, and I have already had a good night's sleep.

Anyone got a recording of what supposed to have hard panned component? I am just curious about the claim of hearing this close to the ear with XTC. Unless some want to try out I don’t mind making a recording with XT and Spaced mic to experiment but I still have doubt that the would be too close to the ears not withstanding FAQ #15.

You can use one of those old “ping pong” stereo records with The Beatles. Almost everything in those records is hard-panned sounds so you will hear the effect of using crosstalk cancellation with such sounds in an isolated way without any abstraction.

One example: The Beatles - All I’ve Got To Do

 

[STC]

You can use one of those old “ping pong” stereo records with The Beatles. Almost everything in those records is hard-panned sounds so you will hear the effect of using crosstalk cancellation with such sounds in an isolated way without any abstraction.

One example: The Beatles - All I’ve Got To Do

Thanks again for the track.

( Note:- my XTC is NOT BACCH so YMMV)

Listened to the tracks ( stereo and mono) from Apple Music.

Main System ( Speakers spread is 20 degrees)

Stereo with XTC intro - drums about 30 degrees to the left. Vocal appear to be slightly from right speaker but not reaching 30 degrees where conventional stereo speaker position would be.

Stereo without XTC - Soundstage seems to be within the speakers. I expect the width to be according to the speakers spread and vocal to be localize to the right speaker much further than XTC.

Drums seemed to have more air and imaged well but slightly further away and vocal is more forward.

Mono track. Almost identical the vocal is slightly forward and maybe air with XTC but I am probably imagining because I am clicking the mouse doing the A/B.

With Apple Pro Gen2 which I use to check the correctness of my setup.
For stereo track - the Spatial in fixed position seemed to be more similar to my main system compared to Spatial turned off where I feel the sound is right at my ears.

The mono track - there’s a slight difference between the spatial turned on and off. The difference seemed to be the spatial in fixed appears to be the one closest to what I perceive with mono in XTC mode.

if I can find something to fault with XTc of the stereo playback I could hope the drums are more forward.

p.s. The AirPod soundstage is still relatively stuck closer to my head despite the spatial effect but with my system the phantom sound of drum appears like 6 feet behind the left speaker and the vocal is like 2 or 3 feet in front of the speakers. Il

 

[krabapple]

Honestly I think upmixing is like trying to use AI to make a 2D movie 3D. Even if it works well, it grates against a purist / authenticity-oriented mindset

I am not saying that mindset is better or even rational, but when it comes to audio I like trying to get closer to "the real thing" rather than create a new, improved thing.

My rational mind knows that "stereo is a lie" and there's no realistic hope of attaining the "reference experience", and the best you can do is get kinda close... but my irrational mind wants to know that I'm listening to something on the road to "perfection", which implies a single, ideal form of playback.

I am happy not to have the 'purist' mindset. Is seems Dr. Toole doesn't either.

I want the audio product that is delivered to me to be 'purist'. What I do with it from that point on, to make it sound better to me, is my choice.

 

[fredoamigo]

We must start from the principle that from the start Stereo is an illusion created by more or less good illusionists who do not follow any standards. what the illusionist “wanted” does not interest me and it is not for him that I buy the album but for the artist. If there is an algorithm that improves the illusion like Bacch, that interests me very much.

 

[dshreter]

We must start from the principle that from the start Stereo is an illusion created by more or less good illusionists who do not follow any standards. what the illusionist “wanted” does not interest me and it is not for him that I buy the album but for the artist. If there is an algorithm that improves the illusion like Bacch, that interests me very much.

I very much agree. While I do understand why one might want to listen to something as close as possible to what the artists had intended, if that is at all in conflict with what I enjoy hearing, I’m going with what I enjoy.

As an analogy, a restaurant might include mayonnaise on their sandwiches and think that is what tastes best. But I don’t like mayonnaise, so I will not be having it on my sandwiches. Being in conflict with the resaurant’s vision is not an issue to me at all.

 

[fredoamigo]

I very much agree. While I do understand why one might want to listen to something as close as possible to what the artists had intended, if that is at all in conflict with what I enjoy hearing, I’m going with what I enjoy.

As an analogy, a restaurant might include mayonnaise on their sandwiches and think that is what tastes best. But I don’t like mayonnaise, so I will not be having it on my sandwiches. Being in conflict with the resaurant’s vision is not an issue to me at all.

It's not so much that I don't want to hear what the engineer wanted, but it's mainly that we have no way of knowing what he wanted?! we can at best presume it. Here the circle of confusion is too large.

 

[STC]

It's not so much that I don't want to hear what the engineer wanted, but it's mainly that we have no way of knowing what he wanted?! we can at best presume it. Here the circle of confusion is too large.

Or it is like telling I want it to sound like how Beethoven intended when he composed Symphony No.9.

 

[goat76]

It's not so much that I don't want to hear what the engineer wanted, but it's mainly that we have no way of knowing what he wanted?! we can at best presume it. Here the circle of confusion is too large.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has been discussing what the audio engineer may or may not have "wanted". If "what he wanted" was in question, we would have to leave everything open, even absurd things like he may have wanted the guitar in the mix to be a violin instead.

It's possible that some audio engineers will prefer hearing their audio mix with crosstalk cancellation even if it was done in a system without crosstalk cancellation, that's something we will likely never know. But depending on what the mix contains and how it was done while mixing it on a system without crosstalk cancellation, the complete opposite could be true, and the engineer may have mixed it very differently if he had heard it with crosstalk cancellation and that the mix was intended to be heard with such filter applied.

The main question here is not what the audio engineer may have "wished for". If we know he mixed the songs under the "limitations" (if non-crosstalk cancellation reproduction is seen as a negative thing) of not hearing it with crosstalk cancellation, we can assume that he made the mix to sound as good as he could for the playback without crosstalk cancellation. We can then with great confidence also say that we 'know' that the audio engineer couldn't have made his mixing decisions with crosstalk cancellation in mind as we know he didn't hear the mix under those conditions, so there is very little confusion when it comes to that particular part.



It's really the other way around here as I see it...

Some of the hardcore users of BACCH say that using this filter will give the listeners a more correct reproduction of how the content was meant to sound and be heard, but that can simply not be true as long as the content creators didn't hear the mix under those conditions while making all the mixing decisions. Even if we all would agree that crosstalk is a fault that should be corrected based purely on a technical perspective, it doesn't matter as long as most of the content is created under "normal" non-crosstalk cancellation conditions.

 

[STC]

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has been discussing what the audio engineer may or may not have "wanted". If "what he wanted" was in question, we would have to leave everything open, even absurd things like he may have wanted the guitar in the mix to be a violin instead.

It's possible that some audio engineers will prefer hearing their audio mix with crosstalk cancellation even if it was done in a system without crosstalk cancellation, that's something we will likely never know. But depending on what the mix contains and how it was done while mixing it on a system without crosstalk cancellation, the complete opposite could be true, and the engineer may have mixed it very differently if he had heard it with crosstalk cancellation and that the mix was intended to be heard with such filter applied.

The main question here is not what the audio engineer may have "wished for". If we know he mixed the songs under the "limitations" (if non-crosstalk cancellation reproduction is seen as a negative thing) of not hearing it with crosstalk cancellation, we can assume that he made the mix to sound as good as he could for the playback without crosstalk cancellation. We can then with great confidence also say that we 'know' that the audio engineer couldn't have made his mixing decisions with crosstalk cancellation in mind as we know he didn't hear the mix under those conditions, so there is very little confusion when it comes to that particular part.



It's really the other way around here as I see it...

Some of the hardcore users of BACCH say that using this filter will give the listeners a more correct reproduction of how the content was meant to sound and be heard, but that can simply not be true as long as the content creators didn't hear the mix under those conditions while making all the mixing decisions. Even if we all would agree that crosstalk is a fault that should be corrected based purely on a technical perspective, it doesn't matter as long as most of the content is created under "normal" non-crosstalk cancellation conditions.

Interaural Crosstalk cancellation is to deal with unwanted errors that compromises the imaging.

Here are the diagrams I made for another forum to explain the misconception of what engineers intended. In these example I drew the speakers at 60 degrees but proper cancellation can only happen when speakers are in Ambiodipole position otherwise you will get all sorts of problem with XTC that some users are complaining about. It is not perfect but far better than conventional stereo playback. For example in my post about my perception of Beetles, I described the vocal is quite to the right. This problem is encountered by some users where one ear is extremely sensitive to the pinna directional cue and it is hard to suppress the cancellation. Some users may hear the vocal much further to the right. No matter how hard I tried to make the perfect cancellation for my ear the natural sense of direction will kick in when I don’t listen to the system for sometime. Unfortunately, although this problem was well known during RACE development but since everyone was commercial minded not much progress was made to understand the reasoning behind it and how to overcome it.

The diagrams :-

 

[STC]

….furthermore, the argument that engineers mixed with crosstalk intended them all such recordings should sound correct with headphones as headphones do not have any interaural crosstalk. XTC’s objective is to present such sound to the ears and as a bonus since this sound emerges from speakers far from ears, the pinna is now activated and adds frequency shaping which would results in binaural rendering something that headphones couldn’t do unless it is a binaural recordings or by using effects to make them binaural. If it works with headphones then in a correctly setup XTc system it should sound better than headphones due to pinnae role rendering the sound 3 dimensional outside the head.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has been discussing what the audio engineer may or may not have "wanted". If "what he wanted" was in question, we would have to leave everything open, even absurd things like he may have wanted the guitar in the mix to be a violin instead.

Why is that absurd? Unless explicitly told by all involved we don’t know. And even when explicitly told we may just find out there was no consensus as to what they wanted. We don’t know.

What we do know is what they gave us as a recording.

It's possible that some audio engineers will prefer hearing their audio mix with crosstalk cancellation even if it was done in a system without crosstalk cancellation, that's something we will likely never know. But depending on what the mix contains and how it was done while mixing it on a system without crosstalk cancellation, the complete opposite could be true, and the engineer may have mixed it very differently if he had heard it with crosstalk cancellation and that the mix was intended to be heard with such filter applied.

All very true.
So let’s explore the possibilities.
The hear it with crosstalk cancelation
1. They love it. It was what they wished it could have been.
2. They like it. It’s a surprising improvement they never considered.
3. They have mixed feelings.
4. They kind of like it but it’s too much and would prefer less.
5. They don’t like it. It’s too far removed from what they wanted.
6. They hate it. It’s a gross distortion of their art.
7. Every other possible reaction I left out.

Would any of these reactions change anything about the actual sound? No.
So I don’t see any reason for it to affect how I feel about that sound.

Consider the opposite. Do I like what I hear or do I not like what I hear? I’ll let some stranger decide for me whether I really agree with them or not. Kind of absurd no?

And consider that every other aspect of the work is free game for us to be critical of. We freely express opinions about the writing, the arrangements and the execution. We are free to be critical of every other aspect of the music. But this particular aspect is sacred and untouchable?

Not for me.

The main question here is not what the audio engineer may have "wished for". If we know he mixed the songs under the "limitations" (if non-crosstalk cancellation reproduction is seen as a negative thing) of not hearing it with crosstalk cancellation, we can assume that he made the mix to sound as good as he could for the playback without crosstalk cancellation. We can then with great confidence also say that we 'know' that the audio engineer couldn't have made his mixing decisions with crosstalk cancellation in mind as we know he didn't hear the mix under those conditions, so there is very little confusion when it comes to that particular part.

That is true. But I don’t see how it matters. Let’s take a classic significant real world example. The majority of the Rudy Van Gelder Blue Note stereo recordings. Recorded in stereo through 2-5 channels mixed directly to either hard right, hard left or center. Monitored in mono with the sole purpose of getting the best balance of level from the instruments in mono.

The intent was mono. And it can be argued that the stereo versions are inferior. Hard pans and all.

But with the BACCH these same compromised stereo recordings become remarkably dimensional and *life like*

All those spatial cues that he unintentionally documented in his stereo recordings are now rendered in a way that resembles what one may hear listening to live musicians in a real space.

Do we deny ourselves a vastly superior illusion of realism that is also vastly subjectively superior or do we limit ourselves to Rudy’s original intent?

It's really the other way around here as I see it...

Some of the hardcore users of BACCH say that using this filter will give the listeners a more correct reproduction of how the content was meant to sound and be heard, but that can simply not be true as long as the content creators didn't hear the mix under those conditions while making all the mixing decisions.

We don’t know intent. And as a “hard core BACCH user” speaking for myself only I never say it gives us a more correct reproduction of intent. Intent is unknown. It does give us a more accurate playback of what is actually on the recording. That crosstalk is not on the recording.
That is a big difference. We don’t know intent. We do know what’s on the recording.

I personally don’t adhere to the accuracy for the sake of accuracy philosophy. I adhere to the accuracy for the sake of subjective excellence philosophy. So I don’t care if it’s more or less accurate

Even if we all would agree that crosstalk is a fault that should be corrected based purely on a technical perspective, it doesn't matter as long as most of the content is created under "normal" non-crosstalk cancellation conditions.

It doesn’t matter either way. What matters are the results and how we feel about them. I’m not giving up the BACCH experience because some stranger maybe might not approve but we don’t know.

 

[LIΟN]

I'm not sure why we're discussing correcting problems that stem from the artist's intent and the way they listen in the same breath(XTC).
If I listen to a song in normal stereo at a distance of more than 7 meters without performing XTC correction, is that wrong? (Naturally, the difference in response between the two ears is reduced. Crosstalk is less likely to be a problem. Almost Natural XTC conditions)

can understand following the intent of the "original artist" when it comes to loudness targets or tonal balance, but I'm not sure about this things.
This is a correction that comes from the way we listen.
I was just looking at the thread and realized that what you're saying seems to be going in a slightly different direction.

 

[STC]

If I listen to a song in normal stereo at a distance of more than 7 meters without performing XTC correction, is that wrong? (Naturally, the difference in response between the two ears is reduced.

Why are you saying that at 7 meters the difference in response reduced? Are you saying if a bird tweet from seven meters away we cannot tell where the sound is coming from? XTC is the same as headphones listening plus pinnae’s role. If you look at my diagrams above the smearing of trumpet happens because of crosstalk. This is exactly why we perceive headphones sound to be more detailed and bigger stage despite being projected inside the head due to the absence of pinna role.

Stereo is meant to create the soundstage artificially. XTC meant to enhance that by eliminating the crosstalk errors. It wasn’t an issue 80 years ago as there were other errors much more problematic than XTC but as the fidelity of reproduction of sound improved the error becomes more obvious.

As I mentioned several replies ago it is a difficult to explain XTC unless you experience a proper setup personally. But just because we have plug-ins that could do XTC that doesn’t mean it has been setup correctly and that was the biggest problem with XTC we do not know what the other person is hearing. XTC requires individual adjustments. proper adjustment requires user input because no measurements could tell how loud or accurate your ears are. If you have weakness in hearing certain frequency in one ear then measurements at ears cannot tell you the correct attenuation level required. I understand why some users are critical or refused to believe in XTC potential. The problem is not new.

 

[LIΟN]

I understand why some users are critical or refused to believe in XTC potential. The problem is not new.

I agree with that.

Why are you saying that at 7 meters the difference in response reduced? Are you saying if a bird tweet from seven meters away we cannot tell where the sound is coming from? XTC is the same as headphones listening plus pinnae’s role. If you look at my diagrams above the smearing of trumpet happens because of crosstalk. This is exactly why we perceive headphones sound to be more detailed and bigger stage despite being projected inside the head due to the absence of pinna role.

That was just to give an example (in response to some talk about whether listening to a non-XTC recording as XTC is consistent with the artist's intent).
It was not a comment on you. I think I've attached the same graph a couple times on this.

The blue and red graphs correspond to the main signal for each speaker. (Left Speakr to Left Ear / Right Speaker to Right Ear)
And Orange and Green is what the response looks like when the same signal is applied to the crosstalk channel (opposite ear).
Gating the difference between those responses by 3-5ms (8ms depending on the environment) and canceling them in reverse phase.
As we all know, the difference between the bass response depends on the environment and the distance and angle of the speaker.

And a graph created for the same purpose.
This graph shows the difference when both ears hear the same signal just before XTC is applied, as I wrote above, rather than just FR.
In the previous graph, the difference between the two ears is clear, but beyond a certain distance, it becomes ambiguous.

That's why I gave an example: if some users listen to regular stereo music that was not created in the XTC environment and then apply it to XTC, isn't that violating the artist's intention?
Is it impossible to hear the artist's intention at all in listening conditions that naturally blur the differences between the two ears?(joke)
Stereo music should only be listened to from a close distance and at a limited angle for stereo image boundaries, so I was wondering if some users might want to separate the intentions of XTC and the artist.

 

[STC]

And Orange and Green is what the response looks like when the same signal is applied to the crosstalk channel (opposite ear).

Did you take these measurements using mics inside your ears? If so then the measurements in milliseconds were wrong.

Gating the difference between those responses by 3-5ms (8ms depending on the environment) and canceling them in reverse phase.

Interaural crosstalk cancellation deals with the errors happening within μs and not milliseconds. The longest possible interaural time delay between human ears is around 600 to 700 μs based on average human head size unless the head is over 1 meter diameter than milliseconds doesn’t apply for XTC. That itself could contribute to the graphs you are relying on.

Furthermore, you are referring to a single cancellation but XTC uses recursive signal where another delayed original signal would be launched by the same speaker to the intended ear by 2 times the delay of the inverted signal to the opposite ear. This process goes on till the attenuation is about 60dB. If I find time, I will attach a graph of RACE based XTC for comparison later.

Try doing the same measurements with recursive or convolved IR and see if matches the graphs you are showing. But the delays are in micro seconds. Anything longer is wrong.

That's why I gave an example: if some users listen to regular stereo music that was not created in the XTC environment and then apply it to XTC, isn't that violating the artist's intention?

How can an artist decides what is correct if he doesn’t know how it would sound with XTC. Does this mean all headphones listening is wrong because there is no crosstalk errors. If the artist really intended crosstalk then he should first capture the sound with crosstalk. Do you know of any artist using microphones that can capture crosstalk? There is no crosstalk in the recording. It is the by-product of what happens when we reproduce what was captured by the mics and certainly that not what the mics intended.

There are artists apply XTC when mastering or mixing. Chesky binaural + was mastered with the intention to be played with XTC and AFAIK majority of the users used it to play in their conventional system.

Stereo music should only be listened to from a close distance and at a limited angle for stereo image boundaries, so I was wondering if some users might want to separate the intentions of XTC and the artist.

Stereo was invented for cinema theater when Blumlein wasnt happy with the unrealistic soundstage accompanied the movie. I doubt the theater is just 21 feet long.

Just let the listeners to decide which is more faithful to realistic performance after listening to them before deciding what the artist intended. The only time an artist can be certain what he or she intended is when she’s performing solo and that too she is hearing the sound from a location that not one single person could be in such position.

 

[LIΟN]

Did you take these measurements using mics inside your ears? If so then the measurements in milliseconds were wrong.

Yes. this calibration should be based on the messurment from the ear microphone measurement.
That graph is only part of the calibration or correction. Messurement is fine. nothing wrong.

Interaural crosstalk cancellation deals with the errors happening within μs and not milliseconds. The longest possible interaural time delay between human ears is around 600 to 700 μs based on average human head size unless the head is over 1 meter diameter than milliseconds doesn’t apply for XTC. That itself could contribute to the graphs you are relying on.

Furthermore, you are referring to a single cancellation but XTC uses recursive signal where another delayed original signal would be launched by the same speaker to the intended ear by 2 times the delay of the inverted signal to the opposite ear. This process goes on till the attenuation is about 60dB. If I find time, I will attach a graph of RACE based XTC for comparison later.

Yes. I know. Same as the answer above. That's just part of the process. There's nothing wrong with the messurment, maybe is the semantics lost in my translation?

Here's an example of a response from one of the Few messurenets I have.

This is messurment by Ear-mic in Room. 4channel impulse recorded.
Let's summarize the words.
LL = Left ear listening to left speaker
LR= Right ear listening to left speaker
RL= Left ear listening to Right speaker
RR= Rightt ear listening to Right speaker

They are lagged by about almost 291us each.
I think misunderstood the graph I posted in another post as a generic FR.

And this graph is just part of that process.
What this graph represents is the residual that would be left if the response heard in the left ear from the left speaker (as in Bacch's example of bouncing both speakers alternately) was equalized so that it could be seen in the right ear from the left speaker.
It's not an effect in and of itself, but rather a paused view of the process in the middle of what's happening.

can see that the resulting response has the same timing as a traditional LR,RL impulse.
From here, it's just a matter of applying it and canceling it, the frequency and intensity of which will naturally vary from environment to environment, and there are limits.

So if we were to simulate what happens in real processing, un-pause and play again, it would look like this.
Align the Crosstalk extracted response on the right with invert polarity.

can also exclude roughly below 100Hz and above 8000Hz by applying a low cut/high cut. I didn't do this above, which is why the response fluctuates.
So when I looked at the example graph above and other people's messurements for different distances, I started to realize that the difference between LL/RR and LR/RL became unclear beyond a certain distance.
In practice, we didn't notice a significant difference in audibility with XTC, and our measurements didn't change much.
The reason for this was already shown in the graph above.

And a graph created for the same purpose.

I hope this conveys what I was trying to say.

How can an artist decides what is correct if he doesn’t know how it would sound with XTC. Does this mean all headphones listening is wrong because there is no crosstalk errors. If the artist really intended crosstalk the. He should first capture the sound with crosstalk do you know of any artist using microphones that can capture crosstalk? There is no crosstalk in the recording. It is the by product of what happens when we reproduce what was captured by the mics and certainly that not what the mics intended.

That's what I'm trying to say...

so I was wondering if some users might want to separate the intentions of XTC and the artist.

it's an oxymoron... =(
It was a joke that if you were following the artist's intentions with or without XTC's application, if you were listening at an unusual stereo distance, would that be ignoring the intentions. An irony and a joke!!! =(
I don't think so.

I'm not sure how the translation will reflect that, maybe if I write in short bursts it will translate well.
Stereo and XTC are nothing new.
Sometimes artist make mix binaurally.
XTC is not mysterious or new. It's just a doctor who fixes the errors in our listening.
It's a headache for all of us to talk about whether or not XTC should be applied and what the artist's intentions are.

 

[Newman]

What flippant comments? There's nothing negative here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...c-pro-edition-a-report.2373/page-4#post-75283

Toole is never flippant. It's just that justdafactsmaam is an all-in BACCH fan, and therefore is fully committed to dissing anyone who doesn't think it's the greatest thing ever. In much the same way as all-in dipole fans want to diss any attempt to measure dipoles that turn out badly.

It's not about Toole, it's about BACCH and "how dare you say that my baby isn't the most beautiful in the world". Simple bias and inability to step back and be objective.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

The thing with XTC is that it can sometimes get your senses working overtime