BACCH4Mac "Absolute Sounds Product of the Year 2024"

[Justdafactsmaam]

In the beginning of stereo recordings, everything was either hard-panned or positioned right in the middle of the mix as the mixing consoles only had three pan pot positions, L-C-R. Many mixing engineers still mix this way, Andrew Schepps is one of them who mostly mixes this way for stereo productions.

Yeah… tell it to STC.

 

[Edgar Choueiri]

Thank you for the open and lively discussion on BACCH. I thought I could allow myself to add to It by offering an answer to the valid question “How does BACCH enhance the spatial imaging of "studio-mixed" recordings without altering the sound intended by the mixing engineer?” This is a fair question, and an important one given that the majority of commercial recordings are of the “studio-mixed” type, as opposed to stereo recordings done acoustically in real acoustic spaces.

To better appreciate the arguments I make in my answer to that question, I suggest that you first read the answer to the less controversial question “How does BACCH enhance the spatial realism in the reproduction of acoustical recordings made in real acoustical environments?” which is Q&A # 14 on Theoretica’s FAQ webpage. The answer to this question is a bit extensive as it covers the cases of acoustical recordings made with various stereo microphone techniques: binaural (dummy head mic), coincident (ORTF, XY, Blumlein, etc.), time-based (spaced omni or A-B pair, Decca tree, Jecklin disk, etc…). While extensive, the discussion eschews math and too much jargon in favor of intuitive arguments, “thought experiments,” measurements and illustrative plots.

The question regarding “studio-mixed” recording is then addressed in FAQ #15, in light of the previous answer, to argue why playback through BACCH, except in some rare extreme situations, does not betray the intent of the mixing engineer – a fact well appreciated by most of those who have listened carefully to BACCH, but sometimes questioned, fairly, by those who have not.

Instead of cutting and pasting text from the FAQ page, and for the sake of saving space on this ASR discussion page, I hope that those of you interested in these questions could read the detailed answers there.

Regards,

Edgar Choueiri

 

[tmtomh]

Thank you for the open and lively discussion on BACCH. I thought I could allow myself to add to It by offering an answer to the valid question “How does BACCH enhance the spatial imaging of "studio-mixed" recordings without altering the sound intended by the mixing engineer?” This is a fair question, and an important one given that the majority of commercial recordings are of the “studio-mixed” type, as opposed to stereo recordings done acoustically in real acoustic spaces.

To better appreciate the arguments I make in my answer to that question, I suggest that you first read the answer to the less controversial question “How does BACCH enhance the spatial realism in the reproduction of acoustical recordings made in real acoustical environments?” which is Q&A # 14 on Theoretica’s FAQ webpage. The answer to this question is a bit extensive as it covers the cases of acoustical recordings made with various stereo microphone techniques: binaural (dummy head mic), coincident (ORTF, XY, Blumlein, etc.), time-based (spaced omni or A-B pair, Decca tree, Jecklin disk, etc…). While extensive, the discussion eschews math and too much jargon in favor of intuitive arguments, “thought experiments,” measurements and illustrative plots.

The question regarding “studio-mixed” recording is then addressed in FAQ #15, in light of the previous answer, to argue why playback through BACCH, except in some rare extreme situations, does not betray the intent of the mixing engineer – a fact well appreciated by most of those who have listened carefully to BACCH, but sometimes questioned, fairly, by those who have not.

Instead of cutting and pasting text from the FAQ page, and for the sake of saving space on this ASR discussion page, I hope that those of you interested in these questions could read the detailed answers there.

Regards,

Edgar Choueiri

Thank you for stopping by to contribute to this discussion - much appreciated! I have read through FAQs #14 and 15, as you said, they are very clear and quite helpful in understanding not only the principle behind how BACCH works (which is probably familiar to many of us because XTC is a fairly well known technology), but also the philosophy behind it and how that philosophy connects to the functionality.

In particular, I appreciate how you treat different mic'ing and mixing scenarios differently in the discussion: for some there simply is no question that properly designed XTC in the listening room is appropriate and will not alter the original intention or mix; while for others (the "artificial end of the spectrum" of multitrack stereo mixdowns) there is the possibility of the listener perceiving the XTC-processed signal as exaggerated or otherwise strange or "off." I understand you feel this scenario is unlikely in a typical home listening environment; regardless, I think it's great that BACCH has an "XTC percentage" slider for situations where this perception might arise for a listener.

If I might indulge your expertise on a semi-personal matter, I am interested in trying out BACCH on my system, a Mac mini-based music server where I play lossless, locally stored files through Apple's standard Music app, via USB and into my active speakers' digital inputs. I understand this is not ideal from your perspective because the speakers' built-in room correction DSP is coming after BACCH in the signal chain, but it is what it is.

My question is, if I want to insert BACCH into this chain via the uBACCH Mac software components, is it just a matter of installing the VST3 plugin and the component on the Mac, and then installing an appropriate app (like maybe Audio Hijack) that will sit between Apple Music and the mini's audio output to route the signal through the BACCH DSP plugins?

Thanks!

 

[goat76]

The descriptions in FAQ #15 are good and reflect the problems with hard-panned sounds we discussed in this thread. The FAQ may be written with a little bit of delicate choice of wording so as not to shine too much light on how common hard-panning is, and how dominant the amount of audio production is of the type "artificial end of the spectrum of multitrack stereo mixdowns".

However, the problem with hard-panned sounds will not be a big problem for individual listeners who mostly listen to audio productions of the types described in FAQ #14, so for them, crosstalk cancellation may be something that will enhance their listening experience.

 

[krabapple]

Yes, between that and Dr Floyd Toole’s flippant comment about the BACCH almost dooms it on this forum.

So much for science.

Is TAS's award based on science?

If so, it would be a first.

 

[krabapple]

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.

Toole uses and enjoys upmixing. And massive DSP for bass. He is hardly skeptical of 'post recording revisions' tout court.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Is TAS's award based on science?

If so, it would be a first.

Of course not. It was based on non bias controlled listening

 

[kemmler3D]

Toole uses and enjoys upmixing. And massive DSP for bass. He is hardly skeptical of 'post recording revisions' tout court.

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.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

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’m a strong believer in one rule. If you like it then it’s good (for you).

The logical consequence of all these other rules is that at some point other rules will dictate that shit sound in some cases will be “better” because it is more compliant to the given rule and that good sound will be rejected because it somehow failed to comply to those rules.

Count me out of that. I make no apologies for liking what I like. **** the rules.

 

[kemmler3D]

I’m a strong believer in one rule. If you like it then it’s good (for you).

Everybody's got their own rules, I guess.

What's interesting is I'm a strong believer in that rule - on the production side. "If it sounds good, it is good" is a phrase that has stuck with me.

But my road to the "audiophile" world came through the production / performance side. I am an amateur (crappy) musician with only one ASCAP check under my belt, but I've always had a strong focus on sounds and sound quality.

So I think that informs my attitude on this. Once the album is done, I wouldn't want anyone messing with it, or listening to it "wrong". I think the process of creating albums has given me a sense that there is a right and wrong way for a recording to sound.

Of course, the listener may say f*** your rules, and listen to it however they want. And I've come to accept that.

 

[Keith_W]

If I might indulge your expertise on a semi-personal matter, I am interested in trying out BACCH on my system, a Mac mini-based music server where I play lossless, locally stored files through Apple's standard Music app, via USB and into my active speakers' digital inputs. I understand this is not ideal from your perspective because the speakers' built-in room correction DSP is coming after BACCH in the signal chain, but it is what it is.

My question is, if I want to insert BACCH into this chain via the uBACCH Mac software components, is it just a matter of installing the VST3 plugin and the component on the Mac, and then installing an appropriate app (like maybe Audio Hijack) that will sit between Apple Music and the mini's audio output to route the signal through the BACCH DSP plugins?

Thanks!

If he doesn't reply (and I hope he does), I can tell you that this is what I am doing in my Windows system. I use JRiver as my VST host. uBACCH sits in the pipeline as the second last step. The final step is convolution to my 8 channel system. I can tell you that this works well. I understand that the higher versions of BACCH4Mac also implement BACCH processing immediately prior to filter convolution, but the limitation is that the native convolver in BACCH4Mac has 6 channels only.

 

[STC]

Sorta kinda but not convincingly . The crosstalk anchors the image to the speaker at a certain threshold and partially or completely masks the spatial cues that would put the image away from the speaker

From the above to this below. The topic is hard panned. Where hard panned means the 100% signal is delivered to one channel. I was explaining that if the sound is coming from from one speaker then there’s no crosstalk as you claimed and now you are talking about recording lingo. If there is sound n the other speaker than it is not hard panned or there could be channel leaking and that wasn’t what we discussing.

Then there was no such thing as a hard pan in stereo playback until CDs. None of those hard pans people talk about pre-digital recording were actual hard pans.

Which clearly isn’t true.

 

[STC]

Thank you for the open and lively discussion on BACCH. I thought I could allow myself to add to It by offering an answer to the valid question “How does BACCH enhance the spatial imaging of "studio-mixed" recordings without altering the sound intended by the mixing engineer?” This is a fair question, and an important one given that the majority of commercial recordings are of the “studio-mixed” type, as opposed to stereo recordings done acoustically in real acoustic spaces.

To better appreciate the arguments I make in my answer to that question, I suggest that you first read the answer to the less controversial question “How does BACCH enhance the spatial realism in the reproduction of acoustical recordings made in real acoustical environments?” which is Q&A # 14 on Theoretica’s FAQ webpage. The answer to this question is a bit extensive as it covers the cases of acoustical recordings made with various stereo microphone techniques: binaural (dummy head mic), coincident (ORTF, XY, Blumlein, etc.), time-based (spaced omni or A-B pair, Decca tree, Jecklin disk, etc…). While extensive, the discussion eschews math and too much jargon in favor of intuitive arguments, “thought experiments,” measurements and illustrative plots.

The question regarding “studio-mixed” recording is then addressed in FAQ #15, in light of the previous answer, to argue why playback through BACCH, except in some rare extreme situations, does not betray the intent of the mixing engineer – a fact well appreciated by most of those who have listened carefully to BACCH, but sometimes questioned, fairly, by those who have not.

Instead of cutting and pasting text from the FAQ page, and for the sake of saving space on this ASR discussion page, I hope that those of you interested in these questions could read the detailed answers there.

Regards,

Edgar Choueiri

Thank you for the input Prof!

Referring to FAQ, and I quote “ Of course, this argument becomes more tenuous if XTC leads to extreme spatial panning, which can only happen for hard left or right panned sources in the absence of reflections (e.g. in an anechoic chamber, a hard left or right panned sound source played back through a pair speakers with high levels of XTC, without any ILD or spectral cues added to the sound, would lead to the sound being perceived to be very close to the left or right ears of the listener, as if wearing headphones). Such extreme imaging does not occur in real listening rooms with typical levels of direct-to-reflected sound ratio.”

Here you are referring spatial pannng. Spatial panning may have timing, phase and level difference. Typical hard panning involves in level difference only. In such situation, the sound will emit from a single speaker. if that’s the case, could you explain how such sound could appear to be very close to the ear with XTC?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

From the above to this below. The topic is hard panned. Where hard panned means the 100% signal is delivered to one channel.

Clearly not true. There were plenty of stereo mixes with hard pans back in the days of analog tape and vinyl. None of which ever got 100% of any signal delivered only to one channel.

Go ask Yogi. Theory vs. practice

 

[STC]

Clearly not true. There were plenty of stereo mixes with hard pans back in the days of analog tape and vinyl. None of which ever got 100% of any signal delivered only to one channel.

Go ask Yogi. Theory vs. practice

Yogi said stick to the original question in relation to XTC and stop talking about channel bleeding and vinyl inadequency.

 

[STC]

I am referring to hard panning as described in this video for XTC purpose.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yogi said stick to the original question in relation to XTC and stop talking about channel bleeding and vinyl inadequency.

Hard pans. I am sticking with it. Sorry that the practical reality of actual hard pans in real world stereo recordings don’t all fit your personal definition.

Yogi says get over it

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I am referring to hard panning as described in this video for XTC purpose.

So you are excluding a large number of hard pans in general and specifically referring to a dry mono object hard pan in a pure digital domain. Ok that’s what you personally are concerned about. https://www.theoretica.us/faq.html#FAQ15

 

[goat76]

Hard pans. I am sticking with it. Sorry that the practical reality of actual hard pans in real world stereo recordings don’t all fit your personal definition.

Yogi says get over it

In this thread, you have gone from not even knowing what a hard-panned sound is to splitting hair and moving goalposts. Please be serious and stop trolling the forum, everyone except you is discussing this in a good manner.

I suggest that you read FAQ #15 until you start to understand why hard-panned sounds can cause a problem with crosstalk cancellation.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

In this thread, you have gone from not even knowing what a hard-panned sound is to splitting hair and moving goalposts. Please be serious and stop trolling the forum, everyone except you is discussing this in a good manner.

I suggest that you read FAQ #15 until you start to understand why hard-panned sounds can cause a problem with crosstalk cancellation.

Stick with Dr. Toole and stay in the 90s if that’s what you want.

My correcting your BS about what the artists and engineers heard or intended is not trolling. It’s countering a make believe narrative with facts. Something that might help others who are interested in state of the art sound make informed choices.