BACCH4Mac "Absolute Sounds Product of the Year 2024"

[Gwreck]

What I find quite interesting is that he actually did do blind preference tests when they were perusing a type of cross talk cancellation system designed to simulate multichannel and the crosstalk cancelation system beat the actual multichannel system at it’s own game.

“At a trade show we mounted a demonstration of real vs. phantom 5.1 home theater. Long lines of people waited to hear it, and we collected reactions when they left. About half of the listeners said that they had no preference, but of the half that expressed a preference the phantom system won. When asked why, the popular answer could be interpreted as "distance" - the sounds came from much farther away than the real loudspeakers and the images were "softer"

I have expressed this before but I’ll say it again. It would be quite interesting to do some careful double blind preference tests between a BACCH based system and a Dolby Atmos system.

So far IME the BACCH simply crushes anything from Dolby Atmos when it comes to depth range and depth specificity. But my impressions are all from non bias controlled auditions.

I agree and there is much more continuity to the sound as it’s all the same speakers. There is a YouTube site that has binaural mixes of music including Dark side of the moon. The although the audio quality of the binaural mixes is not quite as good the spatial effects are much more interesting and “3d” than to atmos mix of the same album.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Why is it "flippant" when Toole explained it clearly to Choueiri?

I just explained specifically what I found to be flippant in Toole’s post that YOU cited. None of which was from his conversation with Edgar.

Feel free to address my actual answer to your question if you like. Toole calling the BACCH an “effects generator” is both flippant and factually incorrect. Offering opinions on the sound quality of a DSP that Toole has never auditioned much less done any blind listening tests on is inherently flippant and IMO pretty out of bounds.

Let’s not forget that by his own admission Toole has a horse in this race. Many of us are of the opinion that the BACCH sets a new standard of excellence in stereo playback and does so at it’s best with with speakers and rooms that violate parameters set by Toole’s research for state of the art. So in effect those parameters and much of Toole’s research is superseded by Edgar’s research and subsequent products IF it is deemed subjectively superior.

From what I see on ASR that’s a really hard pill for some folks to swallow. Emotional investments in beliefs about audio are not the sole domain of the “subjectivists.” A lot of folks are dismissing the BACCH out of hand based in some part on Toole’s flippant, insufficiently informed and in some cases factually incorrect comments. That along with their existing emotional and financial investments in Toole’s and Olive’s research.

 

[jimbill]

Yes, stereo. The boxes have evolved over the past 30 years but not the location, they are tilted down and toed in and room treatment including cloud. This is the bindery part of my printing operation:

View attachment 360643

So, is all the imaging above your head or does the downward tilt completely correct?

I still think BACCH would work for you. You could do the trial on the Intro version. If you don't have a Mac, maybe you could borrow one or do like I did, buy one from Costco with their 90-day return policy.

After getting the Intro I never even considered going back. It took me 6 months to convince myself to get the Audiophile, YOLO!

 

[Gwreck]

I just explained specifically what I found to be flippant in Toole’s post that YOU cited. None of which was from his conversation with Edgar.

Feel free to address my actual answer to your question if you like. Toole calling the BACCH an “effects generator” is both flippant and factually incorrect. Offering opinions on the sound quality of a DSP that Toole has never auditioned much less done any blind listening tests on is inherently flippant and IMO pretty out of bounds.

Let’s not forget that by his own admission Toole has a horse in this race. Many of us are of the opinion that the BACCH sets a new standard of excellence in stereo playback and does so at it’s best with with speakers and rooms that violate parameters set by Toole’s research for state of the art. So in effect those parameters and much of Toole’s research is superseded by Edgar’s research and subsequent products IF it is deemed subjectively superior.

From what I see on ASR that’s a really hard pill for some folks to swallow. Emotional investments in beliefs about audio are not the sole domain of the “subjectivists.” A lot of folks are dismissing the BACCH out of hand based in some part on Toole’s flippant, insufficiently informed and in some cases factually incorrect comments. That along with their existing emotional and financial investments in Toole’s and Olive’s research.

Yeah he is pretty dismissive on that statement and the side conversation where he gives kudos to the poster about their shared enjoyment for multichannel audio was annoying. For someone who is trying to be scientific the “realism” criticisms he makes are pretty weak and not well thought through. The whole issue with the Toole stuff I find is that the conclusion seems to be that wide even dispersion speakers has become the default standard as what a good speaker is. My ESL’s beg to differ.

 

[Gwreck]

So, is all the imaging above your head or does the downward tilt completely correct?

I still think BACCH would work for you. You could do the trial on the Intro version. If you don't have a Mac, maybe you could borrow one or do like I did, buy one from Costco with their 90-day return policy.

After getting the Intro I never even considered going back. It took me 6 months to convince myself to get the Audiophile, YOLO!

BACCH is good enough (IMO ) that tailoring your system around it maybe a good idea.

 

[NTK]

What I find quite interesting is that he actually did do blind preference tests when they were perusing a type of cross talk cancellation system designed to simulate multichannel and the crosstalk cancelation system beat the actual multichannel system at it’s own game.

“At a trade show we mounted a demonstration of real vs. phantom 5.1 home theater. Long lines of people waited to hear it, and we collected reactions when they left. About half of the listeners said that they had no preference, but of the half that expressed a preference the phantom system won. When asked why, the popular answer could be interpreted as "distance" - the sounds came from much farther away than the real loudspeakers and the images were "softer"

I have expressed this before but I’ll say it again. It would be quite interesting to do some careful double blind preference tests between a BACCH based system and a Dolby Atmos system.

So far IME the BACCH simply crushes anything from Dolby Atmos when it comes to depth range and depth specificity. But my impressions are all from non bias controlled auditions.

Why Toole thinks multi-channel is better:

BACCH4Mac Pro Edition: a report

Hi SoundArgument, Just happen to see your post here! Glad you are enjoying BACCH now! Greetings from Hong Kong Arthur @Arthur Cheng, welcome to ASR! I hope you find the discussion informative and/or entertaining, and I hope you're still enjoying BACCH!

www.audiosciencereview.com

I think I have a slight. bias because in the early phases of his work, Dr. Chouieiri promoted it as if he had discovered binaural sound and crosstalk cancellation. There was a "gee whiz" quality to the promotions. That was clearly not the case. Since then, he and his aids have obviously gone further, and I have no problems with this. The concepts are valid, and with today's computing power, many things are possible - for a single listener willing to listen in a sweet spot or through headphones.
...
In the end, I have long ago decided that multichannel audio is a preferable option for me because it is capable of providing comparably good sound and spatial impressions for multiple listeners - I frequently enjoy company, sharing an experience. To date, the most impressive demo I have experienced was Auro3D playing concert and organ performances created for that format by the inventor. One could walk around the playback room and remain in the recorded venue. But even more modest multichannel music recordings can be impressive. I hope I live long enough to experience more of this . It is a pity that we must rely on the film industry to provide us with the playback technologies. The music side of the audio business has dragged its feet all the way. I recall when stereo was introduced that "experts" said it was not necessary. When 5.1 came along it was considered "only for movies" by some. And so it seems to continue . . .
​

 

[jimbill]

This part was IMO pretty flippant

“The key difference between what I have described and what I think you are hearing through the BACCH system is that VMAX simulated loudspeakers at the correct stereo locations. Of course we listened to the "naked" crosstalk canceller, and what we heard parallels some of the descriptions I have read in this thread. When there are no phantom loudspeakers to provide directional anchors, almost anything is possible, and much of it is far from what the artists and recording engineers intended - the "soundstage" is very fluid, and envelopment can be profound. In this mode it is really a sound-effects generator and opinions of like or dislike will predictably vary. Please correct me if I am wrong.”

Calling it a “sound effects generator” when in FACT it is plainly an objectively more accurate rendering of the source material is pretty flippant. So is offering an opinion on how it sounds based on something similar but far from the same IMO for someone who made a career of doing careful controlled listening tests.

I've never cared for people using older science to brush off newer science. You never know how much something can be improved especially if you've never experience it.

And he was offered a tour! I would be on the first plane!

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yeah he is pretty dismissive on that statement and the side conversation where he gives kudos to the poster about their shared enjoyment for multichannel audio was annoying. For someone who is trying to be scientific the “realism” criticisms he makes are pretty weak and not well thought through. The whole issue with the Toole stuff I find is that the conclusion seems to be that wide even dispersion speakers has become the default standard as what a good speaker is. My ESL’s beg to differ.

And I can’t help but wonder if that is the part that is simply going to make the BACCH unacceptable in the eyes of many folks on ASR.

IMO the BACCH drives home the alternative perspective on ideal room and speaker radiation patterns. Emotional investments are powerful.

 

[NTK]

I've never cared for people using older science to brush off newer science. You never know how much something can be improved especially if you've never experience it.

And he was offered a tour! I would be on the first plane!

You really think Choueiri invented crosstalk cancellation? It has been around for a long time.

 

[DWPress]

So, is all the imaging above your head or does the downward tilt completely correct?

As MLP is a good 17' back it images quite good though there is a bit of height to it. I selected my ribbon tweeters because of their vertical directivity and there is a cloud on the ceiling but these things easily achieve 105dB nice and clean at MLP. I do have a Mac, someday I might play with BACCH but I'm quite happy with things at the moment. Always willing to try something new though.

Now you have me intrigued. What's with all the presses? Are you a paper manufacturer?

I get to make beautiful things and listen to beautiful stuff as loud as I want.
Fine press books - foundry, letterpress, custom bindings - deepwoodpress.com

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Why Toole thinks multi-channel is better:

BACCH4Mac Pro Edition: a report

Hi SoundArgument, Just happen to see your post here! Glad you are enjoying BACCH now! Greetings from Hong Kong Arthur @Arthur Cheng, welcome to ASR! I hope you find the discussion informative and/or entertaining, and I hope you're still enjoying BACCH!

www.audiosciencereview.com

Toole doesn’t have a valid opinion to offer sans proper bias controlled listening tests. That has been his MO above all else throughout his career. Anything less given his history and (correct) advocacy of such tests would be a double standard and quite unscientific

​

I think I have a slight. bias because in the early phases of his work, Dr. Chouieiri promoted it as if he had discovered binaural sound and crosstalk cancellation.​

We all have biases. But Edgar never claimed nor implied he had discovered binaural sound or crosstalk cancellation. What he did was fix the previous problems with crosstalk cancelation systems.

There was a "gee whiz" quality to the promotions. That was clearly not the case. ​

Deservedly so and it very much is the case. Successful crosstalk cancelation sans tonal artifacts with head tracking is an entire different ballgame and very much a breakthrough. Huge breakthrough

Since then, he and his aids have obviously gone further, and I have no problems with this. The concepts are valid, and with today's computing power, many things are possible - for a single listener willing to listen in a sweet spot or through headphones....​

In the end, I have long ago decided that multichannel audio is a preferable option for me because it is capable of providing comparably good sound and spatial impressions for multiple listeners - I frequently enjoy company, sharing an experience. To date, the most impressive demo I have experienced was Auro3D playing concert and organ performances created for that format by the inventor. One could walk around the playback room and remain in the recorded venue. But even more modest multichannel music recordings can be impressive. I hope I live long enough to experience more of this . It is a pity that we must rely on the film industry to provide us with the playback technologies. The music side of the audio business has dragged its feet all the way. I recall when stereo was introduced that "experts" said it was not necessary. When 5.1 came along it was considered "only for movies" by some. And so it seems to continue . . .​

​

For sure at this point the BACCH is a single listener system. If that is a deal breaker I get it. You don’t get a Ferrari as a family car. But I strongly disagree that you can get anything comparable performance wise from multichannel. At least not with any existing commercial systems and with the current body of stereo recordings.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You really think Choueiri invented crosstalk cancellation? It has been around for a long time.

You really think anyone is saying that?

 

[jimbill]

You really think Choueiri invented crosstalk cancellation? It has been around for a long time.

No he didn't and he states it all the time in his interviews. But he has improved it!

 

[kemmler3D]

I really don't get why people are so opposed to it, including Toole.

Personally, I think it's interesting as a technology, but I'm not interested in it personally because:

1) Expensive
2) Cumbersome
3) I'm inherently skeptical of any post-recording revisions to the sound, I guess a bit like Toole.

 

[goat76]

Why is it "flippant" when Toole explained it clearly to Choueiri?

BACCH4Mac Pro Edition: a report

Many thanks to Dr. Toole for joining the forum and providing some context on the development of crosstalk cancellation. In my ignorance, I had not known of Cooper-Bauck. Perhaps I need to hear a state-of-the-art multichannel system before I make more statements about the relative merits of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

​

...​

You describe this as: "Therefore what people are reporting about when they listen to an acoustic recording played through a BACCH filter has nothing to do with phantom speakers or location of the actual speakers, but everything to do with the more correct reproduction of the sources whose spatial cues were captured in the recording." Because we are not talking about an encode-decode process, one cannot say that the reproduction is "more correct". It is what it is, and what it is may be very attractive to many listeners, but it cannot be "more correct". Stereo mixing for the bulk of music is multitrack, using isolation booths, or at the very least voices and instruments individually miked. These components are amplitude panned to various locations across the soundstage as the mixer/sound designer chooses. Spatial effects are often electronically generated - artificial - having nothing to do with real acoustical spaces. Classical recordings are a very mixed bag of methods, ranging from a coincident Blumlein pair to a pair of widely spaced omnis, to several mics placed over and within the orchestra, and others farther out in the hall. Again, these are combined in the sound design. All of these are created to sound as desired by the mixer/producer/mastering engineer while listening to a pair of loudspeakers in a small room. So, because the mix did not anticipate crosstalk-cancelled reproduction, what one hears through such a system is not "more correct" but instead the result of spatial post processing of a particular kind.​

​

The fact that stereo is so directionally and spatially deprived means that it is not difficult to generate more entertaining illusions, and as we both have noted, several such efforts have come and gone over the years. Some involved adding more loudspeakers and others were grossly simplified attempts at crosstalk cancellation using the original stereo pair. All of them were found to be attractive to some listeners. As I note in the 3rd edition of my book, evidence suggests that spatial impressions can be comparable with timbral accuracy in overall subjective ratings of sound quality - they go together.​

​

Ideally we want an encode-decode system, so that results are predictable from the creative artists through to the listeners. When VMAx created phantom loudspeakers at +/- 30 deg. it was acknowledging the reality of the mixing situation, but incorporating the advantage of not being able to localize the loudspeakers from which the sound originates. The sense of distance was dramatic, especially in some classical tracks. It was, as I said, probably the best stereo I have ever heard. To me, and many others, it was generally preferable to the "naked" crosstalk cancellation process which was often a bit exaggerated. Obviously that is a matter of personal taste and, inevitably, greatly dependent on the recording.​

...​

​

Wow! I didn't know Toole had already tried to explain this back in 2018, if I had known about this old thread I would have linked to it instead of trying to explain it myself in recent forum threads.

Toole is of course right, most audio productions are not made with crosstalk canceling in mind so in most cases it will only act as an applied "sound effect" that sometimes can sound convincingly impressive, but more often than not, it will just be heard as a pretty obvious post-production sound effect. It's completely okay if some people like what BACCH does to the sound, but it will only be a "more correct" reproduction for audio productions specially made for crosstalk cancellation.



Exactly as Toole explains it in this text:

"You describe this as: "Therefore what people are reporting about when they listen to an acoustic recording played through a BACCH filter has nothing to do with phantom speakers or location of the actual speakers, but everything to do with the more correct reproduction of the sources whose spatial cues were captured in the recording." Because we are not talking about an encode-decode process, one cannot say that the reproduction is "more correct". It is what it is, and what it is may be very attractive to many listeners, but it cannot be "more correct". Stereo mixing for the bulk of music is multitrack, using isolation booths, or at the very least voices and instruments individually miked. These components are amplitude panned to various locations across the soundstage as the mixer/sound designer chooses. Spatial effects are often electronically generated - artificial - having nothing to do with real acoustical spaces. Classical recordings are a very mixed bag of methods, ranging from a coincident Blumlein pair to a pair of widely spaced omnis, to several mics placed over and within the orchestra, and others farther out in the hall. Again, these are combined in the sound design. All of these are created to sound as desired by the mixer/producer/mastering engineer while listening to a pair of loudspeakers in a small room. So, because the mix did not anticipate crosstalk-cancelled reproduction, what one hears through such a system is not "more correct" but instead the result of spatial post processing of a particular kind."

 

[jimbill]

Wow! I didn't know Toole had already tried to explain this back in 2018, if I had known about this old thread I would have linked to it instead of trying to explain it myself in recent forum threads.

Toole is of course right, most audio productions are not made with crosstalk canceling in mind so in most cases it will only act as an applied "sound effect" that sometimes can sound convincingly impressive, but more often than not, it will just be heard as a pretty obvious post-production sound effect. It's completely okay if some people like what BACCH does to the sound, but it will only be a "more correct" reproduction for audio productions specially made for crosstalk cancellation.



Exactly as Toole explains it in this text:

"You describe this as: "Therefore what people are reporting about when they listen to an acoustic recording played through a BACCH filter has nothing to do with phantom speakers or location of the actual speakers, but everything to do with the more correct reproduction of the sources whose spatial cues were captured in the recording." Because we are not talking about an encode-decode process, one cannot say that the reproduction is "more correct". It is what it is, and what it is may be very attractive to many listeners, but it cannot be "more correct". Stereo mixing for the bulk of music is multitrack, using isolation booths, or at the very least voices and instruments individually miked. These components are amplitude panned to various locations across the soundstage as the mixer/sound designer chooses. Spatial effects are often electronically generated - artificial - having nothing to do with real acoustical spaces. Classical recordings are a very mixed bag of methods, ranging from a coincident Blumlein pair to a pair of widely spaced omnis, to several mics placed over and within the orchestra, and others farther out in the hall. Again, these are combined in the sound design. All of these are created to sound as desired by the mixer/producer/mastering engineer while listening to a pair of loudspeakers in a small room. So, because the mix did not anticipate crosstalk-cancelled reproduction, what one hears through such a system is not "more correct" but instead the result of spatial post processing of a particular kind."

There is no sound effect applied or added. Crosstalk is removed or reduced. You could basically achieve the same crosstalk cancellation by placing a mattress between the speakers.

As Edgar explained to me, "You are hearing what the microphones heard".

May I ask if you have heard it? Or are you, like Toole, arguing based on preconceived conclusions?

 

[jimbill]

Personally, I think it's interesting as a technology, but I'm not interested in it personally because:

1) Expensive
2) Cumbersome
3) I'm inherently skeptical of any post-recording revisions to the sound, I guess a bit like Toole.

1) For $1,000 it gave the biggest bang for the buck of anything in my system except for the speakers
2) Yes, I use a MacAir and it and the cables are very noticeable in our den.
3) It reduces crosstalk, it doesn't add anything. Tonally, it doesn't change anything.

 

[PierreV]

There is no sound effect applied or added. Crosstalk is removed or reduced. You could basically achieve the same crosstalk cancellation by placing a mattress between the speakers.

That, at least, looks like a cost-effective solution!

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Wow! I didn't know Toole had already tried to explain this back in 2018, if I had known about this old thread I would have linked to it instead of trying to explain it myself in recent forum threads.

Toole is of course right,

No, he’s flat out wrong and is moving the goal posts all over the field to fit his position.

most audio productions are not made with crosstalk canceling in mind so in most cases it will only act as an applied "sound effect"

Most audio productions were not made with multichannel remixes in mind either. And yet Toole is an advocate. Moving goals post example #1

that sometimes can sound convincingly impressive, but more often than not, it will just be heard as a pretty obvious post-production sound effect.

Everything in a studio multitrack recording is a post production effect. Everything. But it’s an issue just with the BACCH. Moving goal posts #2

It's completely okay if some people like what BACCH does to the sound, but it will only be a "more correct" reproduction for audio productions specially made for crosstalk cancellation.

Who is the arbitrator of “correctness?” The BACCH will make the playback more accurate to what’s on the recording. Unless you can document the actual sound heard in the control room and, importantly, verify that it represents the artist’s and recording engineer’s ideal for that recording then there is no reference for accuracy beyond the recording itself.

So, because the mix did not anticipate crosstalk-cancelled reproduction, what one hears through such a system is not "more correct" but instead the result of spatial post processing of a particular kind."

Unless you have ESP or clear documentation by the artists and recording engineers of what they intended then you have no meaningful reference beyond the recording itself. And this narrative of artists’ intent is truly a fantasy construct devised to adhere to an antiquated belief system. Let’s get real about this. I don’t have ESP either but I have a lot of studio multitrack recordings with hard pans that land on the speakers before I got the BACCH. Now imagine this conversation between recording engineer and artists. "check out this mix! Isn't it awesome how the hard pan lands exactly on the speaker! Thank god conventional stereo doesn't allow me to extend the image beyond the speaker location or bring it closer or further away from the listener. We wouldn't want that to happen...ever." I have hundreds of such recordings and I’m betting that conversation happened NEVER times in making those recordings.

And let’s not forget that Toole advocates multichannel and was intimately involved in designing speakers for a company that was fully invested in multichannel.

He said in no uncertain terms he was advocating a crosstalk cancelation system himself to HK but for commercial reasons they didn’t bite. So AFTER HK said no it became an “effects generator”? Moving goal posts #3

Anything to hang on to dated research and technology.

And to this day Toole has opted not to either audition or test the BACCH systems despite the invitation

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

That, at least, looks like a cost-effective solution!

And so practical too.