BACCH4Mac "Absolute Sounds Product of the Year 2024"

[STC]

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

To understand what you are trying to convey, let’s start with the blue and red line. The measurements are for:-

Please state the color of LL and LR. My guess is Blue and orange?

 

[LIΟN]

To understand what you are trying to convey, let’s start with the blue and red line. The measurements are for:-

Please state the color of LL and LR. My guess is Blue and orange?

Yes, that's right. The main and opposite ears have different response shapes.
It appears in different ways depending on the distance and angle.
captures below all show only the left and right ears of the left speaker. (LL/LR. NonXTC original stereo)

I wrote about my thoughts and jokes in a previous post, comparing both measurements and hearing impressions when applying XTC at relatively close range (1-2 meters), as the difference between the two ears decreases with distance.
However, in real life, it's almost impossible to have a listening distance of 7 meters(will need more space to accommodate the increased listening range, not just the distance. ), and even when I talked to other users who recorded at 10 meters or more, they said that the cleanest process and result was to apply XTC at about 4 meters, adjusting the direct sound ratio, and play it back simultaneously with a separate speaker for reflections (to directly adjust the strength of the initial reflection for different distances and spatial perception).

 

[STC]

Yes, that's right. The main and opposite ears have different response shapes.

That is correct and such response corresponds with measurements done by others.
If you can somehow get the perfect response with correct phase to be launched from the right speakers delayed by 291 μs the you should have perfect cancellation if the inverted signal matches it exactly. in real life that’s impossible as we are unable to hold the head steady nor for practical purpose for musical listening you can just inverse the signal and still get good attenuation for the purpose.


Now I will try to understand the other part of your post. Thanks again,

 

[LIΟN]

in real life that’s impossible as we are unable to hold the head steady nor for practical purpose for musical listening you can just inverse the signal and still get good attenuation for the purpose.

A very sharp perspective. Yes, and that's one of the advantages of managing everything manually in myself. In the real world, there's always movement, so
But even this is inefficient and only for some weird (?) users like me who are obsessed with it.
But ironically, I'm craving headtracking.
I do believe that if you put an ear microphone in your ear correctly, calibrate it correctly, and use it correctly, it's almost 98-99% similar to a real speaker.
But since there is no difference in response as the head and body move (it's too perfectly stationary an impulse), I think headtracking could fill in the last 1-2% by recording the body in different positions and then integrating it back together. (Just my think)

Thank you for taking an unbiased look at my workflow.

 

[STC]

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.

Please explain me this graph. The top line violet and gold are after XTC and measured at the ears for left and right source or just from the left speaker’s sound?

Thank you.

 

[LIΟN]

The top line violet and gold are after XTC and measured at the ears for left and right source or just from the left speaker’s sound?

violet and gold are each LL(leftEar from left speaker) , RR(rightear from rightspeaker)
cyan and green are each Equalized(or Extract)LR(right ear from left speaker), RL(left ear from rightspeaker)
Actually, I've used the words LR and RL, but I've removed what LL and LR have in common, leaving only the parts of LR that need to be removed (Real Actual Crosstalk only).
So you can think of LR and RL as just their own Crosstalk.

The violet and gold aren't actually used, they're just some sort of filtering added during impulse processing and equalization to give the appearance of compression, but they're actually zero (DiracPulse).
can think of it as a graph just before XTC is applied.

Cyan and green in the graph above are the common parts of the picture, and can be seen as the appearance of the XTC filter. (The appearance of the signal for canceling rather than the concept of the filter)
It's not new, it's just the way the graph looks because I extracted it in the process.
LL and LR are created when shooting a signal from the left speaker.
And then the right speaker generates an invert signal to cancel it, and the shape of the cancelation response at that repeated invert porality moment is what you see in that graph.
And in the end, the reverse phase cancellation method using signals leaves a kind of trace, so you have to do it again to clear the first reverse phase trace, and then once again...
Based on Step Response and direct sound damage and combined response, when the reverse phase was repeated approximately 4 to 6 times, there was almost no trace of non-biose.
But this was also a story when you only looked at the measurements and judged it, and personally, up to two times was enough.

 

[STC]

Cyan and green in the graph above are the common parts of the picture, and can be seen as the appearance of the XTC filter. (The appearance of the signal for canceling rather than the concept of the filter)
It's not new, it's just the way the graph looks because I extracted it in the process.
LL and LR are created when shooting a signal from the left speaker.
And then the right speaker generates an invert signal to cancel it, and the shape of the cancelation response at that repeated invert porality moment is what you see in that graph.
And in the end, the reverse phase cancellation method using signals leaves a kind of trace, so you have to do it again to clear the first reverse phase trace, and then once again...
Based on Step Response and direct sound damage and combined response, when the reverse phase was repeated approximately 4 to 6 times, there was almost no trace of non-biose.
But this was also a story when you only looked at the measurements and judged it, and personally, up to two times was enough.

LOL! Thanks for stating this! You have just proven XTC is not that complicated.

violet and gold are each LL(leftEar from left speaker) , RR(rightear from rightspeaker)
cyan and green are each Equalized(or Extract)LR(right ear from left speaker), RL(left ear from rightspeaker)
Actually, I've used the words LR and RL, but I've removed what LL and LR have in common, leaving only the parts of LR that need to be removed (Real Actual Crosstalk only).
So you can think of LR and RL as just their own Crosstalk.

Here you are saying that Cyan and blue are response of XT signal at one ear or both? Sorry for being so stupid not quite understanding them.

 

[LIΟN]

Here you are saying that Cyan and blue are response of XT signal at one ear or both? Sorry for being so stupid not quite understanding them.

Thank you for your kind words. I first watched Prof. Edgar's (bacch) Q&A page and videos and thought, "This is simpler than I thought." The principle is very clear in the paper.
But Bacch's advantage was... real-time DSP processing.
It's crazy to do this manually.... =(

I'm going to be a little quiet on this one. Because I can't be sure.(You know why, right?)
My guess is that the shape of that signal is the response of the opposite ear. More precisely, the appearance of the Shadow or shade on my face. (Actual crosstalk excluding ear resonance and room response). (It's one side each, because the left ear of the left speaker and the right ear of the right speaker are not a problem.)
In fact, When i start my process, I was very confused when I first thought about this too. "What's That? What i have to do? What's Actual Crosstalk?"

As you know, I have 4ch impulse. That means, At any time, I can duplicate, edit, or even delete each channel.
So the first thing I tried was to delete LR and RL altogether. Only LL,LR.
This will make it sound binaural. All the information about crosstalk is gone (kind of like Van Gogh, but with one ear missing).
But it didn't sound like a speaker at all, and all clues to ITDs and ILDs were gone. (Like Headphone).
So I thought. What does Crosstalk look like that we're trying to get rid of, that we're trying to improve?
I was asked myself, "What is the actual shape" of a form that is "actually" removed from XTC tasks like bacch or Race.

And that's that graph.
The left ear listens when sound comes from the left speaker. Our right ear listens, too, because it has to.
So what's left when you take away the response from each ear, the response from the room, these commonalities?
That's why the violet and gold appear as straight lines, because you're listening to the left speaker in your left ear.
And my right ear has to go through everything that's going on in my ear and in the room to get there from the left speaker.
And if I equalize the common to zero (delete it), all that's left is the shadow of my face at the end.
My wording and approach may be wrong. But the process was followed by looking at the known papers of RACE and BACCH, and the purpose of reverse phase cancellation was the same, and I started to see significant XTC, both audibly and measurably.
So I still need to improve it further, but it doesn't seem to be completely wrong BACCH-like.
⬈⬈⬈I think my translator is very strange. It's very misleading. My workflow needs improvement, but I don't think I took the completely wrong path because the theory of bacch or race seems to be implemented to some extent.

 

[STC]

But Bacch's advantage was... real-time DSP processing.
It's crazy to do this manually.... =(

Just on this for now because and I will edit additional thoughts later as it getting late.

I will pass you the link and contact person for real time head tracking DIY and extremely cheap. maybe, it will be useful for you.

The rest I will continue here by way of edits…..

 

[LIΟN]

Just on this for now because and I will edit additional thoughts later as it getting late.

I will pass you the link and contact person for real time head tracking DIY and extremely cheap. maybe, it will be useful for you.

The rest I will continue here by way of edits…..

I'm looking forward to it! It will be very useful Info to us.

 

[STC]

I'm looking forward to it! It will be very useful Info to us.

Pls see PM.

 

[goat76]

I'm going to be a little quiet on this one. Because I can't be sure.(You know why, right?)
My guess is that the shape of that signal is the response of the opposite ear. More precisely, the appearance of the Shadow or shade on my face. (Actual crosstalk excluding ear resonance and room response). (It's one side each, because the left ear of the left speaker and the right ear of the right speaker are not a problem.)
In fact, When i start my process, I was very confused when I first thought about this too. "What's That? What i have to do? What's Actual Crosstalk?"

Individual measurements for crosstalk cancellation could be advantageous.

 

[STC]

real-time DSP processing…..

Stereo listening is anti social so I am not keen on head tracking unless for headphones. I am not sure if head tracking can accommodate multiple listeners simultaneously.

I am unable to follow the other part because I am dealing with speakers playback and you are dealing with headphones to sound like speakers. Something like AirPod Pro Spatial or Smyth Realizer which I posted earlier. For headphones to sound natural like real event you need to externalize and use BRIR. This is something I know very little about. Hope you find an expert in this are and I hope the contact I PM could be useful for your purpose.

 

[tree]

Personally, I like the effect of the crossover cancellation of BACCH a lot. It is the most expensive part of my system which I bought without listening first. So, you can take my general positive opinion with a grain of salt, due to the possibility of conformation bias. The sound is more spread out in all planes (Horizontal, Vertical, Depth). The sound also doesn’t seem to emanate from the speakers themselves most of the time (Hard pan one of the exceptions). Some of the effect can be achieved by placement and room layout. I have heard demonstration of systems which achieved to some extent the decoupling of the sound from the speakers. But the most expensive thing in a system isn’t the amplifier, DAC or even the speakers (for most people) It’s the room and I can’t have a dedicated room. Another nice thing about BACCH is that you can disable it with a click of the button. This way you can remember why you bought it in the first place, while other changes to the system fade out in memory.

Not everything is perfect with BACCH. Traveling to hard pan effect is less desired. Less so if the sound is placed in a constant location on the horizontal plane, in which the sound just seems to emanate from the speaker location. More so if the sound is traveling from one side to the other with the destination is a hard pan sound. Since there is an effect that the sound appears to emanate from beyond the speaker horizontal location, when the sound arrives to the hard pan the sound seems to snap back to the speaker. This may be the fault of my non-directional speakers, which I choose before buying BACCH. I think my speakers are even considered relatively wide one. Secondly, difference in inner ear canal construction / Dominant ear / Difference in hearing loss, which comes as difference in perceived cancellation effect more dominant in one direction. The first time I realized my head is so asymmetric was when I fitted a helmet. The second time was when I fitted custom ear plugs. The third was when I setup BACCH.

Regarding the head tracking. I have a cleaning lady which kept moving the camera to clean the room. It took me a couple of times to understand the issue and explain to her not to move the camera. When that issue was over, I moved the camera myself to reach for the back for something. So, I need to re-calibrate again and I hope my beef with the feature is understandable. I think the solution is to take a screenshot of the view from the camera perspective, instead of re-calibrating it again and again….

Regarding the desired result by the “mix master”. I listen across the years (Admittedly not that many) for some interviews, demonstrations and lectures by sound mixer engineers and I can’t recall one that talked about cross talk in the mix. I found that there is/are general plugins to inject a static cancellation to the mix, but I can’t think that will result in a good general solution and beside I couldn’t find any mix engineer saying they are using a plugin like this. You can find a lot of reference material about laying out sound, so it won’t be flat, playing with volume, reverb, ambient, delay etc.., but no reference to cross talk. There were a couple which talked about cross talk in the analog equipment, but I consider this as sound leakage. There were a couple who talked about cross talk with regard of not letting instruments/tracks interfere with one and the other, again not our topic. I remember trying to find any reference for cross talk from mix engineers a little bit before buying the BACCH system and again a little bit after seeing this thread. If anyone can direct me to YouTube (preferred) or an article like that I would be most oblige. I do recall finding multiple mix engineers talking about how they try to test the tracks across multiple gear. How they send their master to the stakeholders (stakeholders because they did mention label and producers not just the artists) and I’m guessing everyone has a different system which may cause different feedback which the mix engineer will have to juggle. In more current music you also hear more about headphones as the most important medium to test the result. I also heard on some mixer engineers which use headphones as their primary working tool. I’m writing the last part because I can’t find any record of a mixing engineer taking that cross talk into account, so I think these are the reasons why I prefer to enable cross talk cancellation. But then again it can be a conformation bias.
To me it sounds that the world of mixing engineers is getting more knowledgeable as time progress regarding issues that plagued old recordings which not everyone new how to solve or why their action solve issues. I get the feeling that due to this, today there are more nice mixing then in the past and why the remastering is so prevalent. Maybe in the future they would also take to notice of the cross talk "issue" (Probably won't happen while the headphones rule), but I don't think it sits on the minds of many of them.

Personally, I think I gave up on trying to be as close to the source as possible when I ended up selecting the Beatles remastered edition over the original ones. Probably it was sooner, but that was my eureka moment.

On a side note regarding true to source. On my to do list is trying to find out in which volume do they usually mix on. Since it is established when you change the volume your perceived perception loudness contour changes. Right now, I bump the bass a little bit, but not the highs to fit my taste. This is just for curiosity purposes and not for adhering to the as close to the source as possible. I have a feeling that this question can’t be answered and so no one can be truly close to source.

 

[tmtomh]

Personally, I like the effect of the crossover cancellation of BACCH a lot. It is the most expensive part of my system which I bought without listening first. So, you can take my general positive opinion with a grain of salt, due to the possibility of conformation bias. The sound is more spread out in all planes (Horizontal, Vertical, Depth). The sound also doesn’t seem to emanate from the speakers themselves most of the time (Hard pan one of the exceptions). Some of the effect can be achieved by placement and room layout. I have heard demonstration of systems which achieved to some extent the decoupling of the sound from the speakers. But the most expensive thing in a system isn’t the amplifier, DAC or even the speakers (for most people) It’s the room and I can’t have a dedicated room. Another nice thing about BACCH is that you can disable it with a click of the button. This way you can remember why you bought it in the first place, while other changes to the system fade out in memory.

Not everything is perfect with BACCH. Traveling to hard pan effect is less desired. Less so if the sound is placed in a constant location on the horizontal plane, in which the sound just seems to emanate from the speaker location. More so if the sound is traveling from one side to the other with the destination is a hard pan sound. Since there is an effect that the sound appears to emanate from beyond the speaker horizontal location, when the sound arrives to the hard pan the sound seems to snap back to the speaker. This may be the fault of my non-directional speakers, which I choose before buying BACCH. I think my speakers are even considered relatively wide one. Secondly, difference in inner ear canal construction / Dominant ear / Difference in hearing loss, which comes as difference in perceived cancellation effect more dominant in one direction. The first time I realized my head is so asymmetric was when I fitted a helmet. The second time was when I fitted custom ear plugs. The third was when I setup BACCH.

Regarding the head tracking. I have a cleaning lady which kept moving the camera to clean the room. It took me a couple of times to understand the issue and explain to her not to move the camera. When that issue was over, I moved the camera myself to reach for the back for something. So, I need to re-calibrate again and I hope my beef with the feature is understandable. I think the solution is to take a screenshot of the view from the camera perspective, instead of re-calibrating it again and again….

Regarding the desired result by the “mix master”. I listen across the years (Admittedly not that many) for some interviews, demonstrations and lectures by sound mixer engineers and I can’t recall one that talked about cross talk in the mix. I found that there is/are general plugins to inject a static cancellation to the mix, but I can’t think that will result in a good general solution and beside I couldn’t find any mix engineer saying they are using a plugin like this. You can find a lot of reference material about laying out sound, so it won’t be flat, playing with volume, reverb, ambient, delay etc.., but no reference to cross talk. There were a couple which talked about cross talk in the analog equipment, but I consider this as sound leakage. There were a couple who talked about cross talk with regard of not letting instruments/tracks interfere with one and the other, again not our topic. I remember trying to find any reference for cross talk from mix engineers a little bit before buying the BACCH system and again a little bit after seeing this thread. If anyone can direct me to YouTube (preferred) or an article like that I would be most oblige. I do recall finding multiple mix engineers talking about how they try to test the tracks across multiple gear. How they send their master to the stakeholders (stakeholders because they did mention label and producers not just the artists) and I’m guessing everyone has a different system which may cause different feedback which the mix engineer will have to juggle. In more current music you also hear more about headphones as the most important medium to test the result. I also heard on some mixer engineers which use headphones as their primary working tool. I’m writing the last part because I can’t find any record of a mixing engineer taking that cross talk into account, so I think these are the reasons why I prefer to enable cross talk cancellation. But then again it can be a conformation bias.
To me it sounds that the world of mixing engineers is getting more knowledgeable as time progress regarding issues that plagued old recordings which not everyone new how to solve or why their action solve issues. I get the feeling that due to this, today there are more nice mixing then in the past and why the remastering is so prevalent. Maybe in the future they would also take to notice of the cross talk "issue" (Probably won't happen while the headphones rule), but I don't think it sits on the minds of many of them.

Personally, I think I gave up on trying to be as close to the source as possible when I ended up selecting the Beatles remastered edition over the original ones. Probably it was sooner, but that was my eureka moment.

On a side note regarding true to source. On my to do list is trying to find out in which volume do they usually mix on. Since it is established when you change the volume your perceived perception loudness contour changes. Right now, I bump the bass a little bit, but not the highs to fit my taste. This is just for curiosity purposes and not for adhering to the as close to the source as possible. I have a feeling that this question can’t be answered and so no one can be truly close to source.

This is a very interesting and informative post - thank you for providing all of that detail about your experience of the system.

 

[jimbill]

Personally, I like the effect of the crossover cancellation of BACCH a lot. It is the most expensive part of my system which I bought without listening first. So, you can take my general positive opinion with a grain of salt, due to the possibility of conformation bias. The sound is more spread out in all planes (Horizontal, Vertical, Depth). The sound also doesn’t seem to emanate from the speakers themselves most of the time (Hard pan one of the exceptions). Some of the effect can be achieved by placement and room layout. I have heard demonstration of systems which achieved to some extent the decoupling of the sound from the speakers. But the most expensive thing in a system isn’t the amplifier, DAC or even the speakers (for most people) It’s the room and I can’t have a dedicated room. Another nice thing about BACCH is that you can disable it with a click of the button. This way you can remember why you bought it in the first place, while other changes to the system fade out in memory.

Not everything is perfect with BACCH. Traveling to hard pan effect is less desired. Less so if the sound is placed in a constant location on the horizontal plane, in which the sound just seems to emanate from the speaker location. More so if the sound is traveling from one side to the other with the destination is a hard pan sound. Since there is an effect that the sound appears to emanate from beyond the speaker horizontal location, when the sound arrives to the hard pan the sound seems to snap back to the speaker. This may be the fault of my non-directional speakers, which I choose before buying BACCH. I think my speakers are even considered relatively wide one. Secondly, difference in inner ear canal construction / Dominant ear / Difference in hearing loss, which comes as difference in perceived cancellation effect more dominant in one direction. The first time I realized my head is so asymmetric was when I fitted a helmet. The second time was when I fitted custom ear plugs. The third was when I setup BACCH.

Regarding the head tracking. I have a cleaning lady which kept moving the camera to clean the room. It took me a couple of times to understand the issue and explain to her not to move the camera. When that issue was over, I moved the camera myself to reach for the back for something. So, I need to re-calibrate again and I hope my beef with the feature is understandable. I think the solution is to take a screenshot of the view from the camera perspective, instead of re-calibrating it again and again….

Regarding the desired result by the “mix master”. I listen across the years (Admittedly not that many) for some interviews, demonstrations and lectures by sound mixer engineers and I can’t recall one that talked about cross talk in the mix. I found that there is/are general plugins to inject a static cancellation to the mix, but I can’t think that will result in a good general solution and beside I couldn’t find any mix engineer saying they are using a plugin like this. You can find a lot of reference material about laying out sound, so it won’t be flat, playing with volume, reverb, ambient, delay etc.., but no reference to cross talk. There were a couple which talked about cross talk in the analog equipment, but I consider this as sound leakage. There were a couple who talked about cross talk with regard of not letting instruments/tracks interfere with one and the other, again not our topic. I remember trying to find any reference for cross talk from mix engineers a little bit before buying the BACCH system and again a little bit after seeing this thread. If anyone can direct me to YouTube (preferred) or an article like that I would be most oblige. I do recall finding multiple mix engineers talking about how they try to test the tracks across multiple gear. How they send their master to the stakeholders (stakeholders because they did mention label and producers not just the artists) and I’m guessing everyone has a different system which may cause different feedback which the mix engineer will have to juggle. In more current music you also hear more about headphones as the most important medium to test the result. I also heard on some mixer engineers which use headphones as their primary working tool. I’m writing the last part because I can’t find any record of a mixing engineer taking that cross talk into account, so I think these are the reasons why I prefer to enable cross talk cancellation. But then again it can be a conformation bias.
To me it sounds that the world of mixing engineers is getting more knowledgeable as time progress regarding issues that plagued old recordings which not everyone new how to solve or why their action solve issues. I get the feeling that due to this, today there are more nice mixing then in the past and why the remastering is so prevalent. Maybe in the future they would also take to notice of the cross talk "issue" (Probably won't happen while the headphones rule), but I don't think it sits on the minds of many of them.

Personally, I think I gave up on trying to be as close to the source as possible when I ended up selecting the Beatles remastered edition over the original ones. Probably it was sooner, but that was my eureka moment.

On a side note regarding true to source. On my to do list is trying to find out in which volume do they usually mix on. Since it is established when you change the volume your perceived perception loudness contour changes. Right now, I bump the bass a little bit, but not the highs to fit my taste. This is just for curiosity purposes and not for adhering to the as close to the source as possible. I have a feeling that this question can’t be answered and so no one can be truly close to source.

What speakers do you have? What kind of XTC numbers are you getting? Do you have ORC?

 

[STC]

Not everything is perfect with BACCH. Traveling to hard pan effect is less desired. Less so if the sound is placed in a constant location on the horizontal plane, in which the sound just seems to emanate from the speaker location. More so if the sound is traveling from one side to the other with the destination is a hard pan sound. Since there is an effect that the sound appears to emanate from beyond the speaker horizontal location, when the sound arrives to the hard pan the sound seems to snap back to the speaker.

If BACCH does that then it is no longer about interaural crosstalk cancellation. Could share me the name of this track where you experience sound snapping back to the speaker?

TIA

 

[tree]

What speakers do you have? What kind of XTC numbers are you getting? Do you have ORC?

I have Sonus Faber Olympica Nova III. Thinking about ORC, but I have Anthem ARC already and it isn't cheep.

Regarding XTC, I'm not sure what you're expecting so:

If BACCH does that then it is no longer about interaural crosstalk cancellation. Could share me the name of this track where you experience sound snapping back to the speaker?

TIA

My problem with finding a track is that usually I'm just playing a shuffled playlist of 2800 tracks. I went through some tracks I know to have the aforementioned behavior. Couldn't hear the issue in Led Zeppelin - Whole lotta love. Maybe I'm imagining to myself that I can hear this a little bit in East17 - Deep (No need to hear the whole song just the first second). Maybe it is just my imagination. Maybe when I have time i'll try to create a test track for this. Anyone knows a nice free app for that?
If we are talking about memory. I was sure I had a noticeable reflection in the Impulse Response.

 

[jimbill]

I have Sonus Faber Olympica Nova III. Thinking about ORC, but I have Anthem ARC already and it isn't cheep.

View attachment 368005

Regarding XTC, I'm not sure what you're expecting so:
View attachment 368006

My problem with finding a track is that usually I'm just playing a shuffled playlist of 2800 tracks. I went through some tracks I know to have the aforementioned behavior. Couldn't hear the issue in Led Zeppelin - Whole lotta love. Maybe I'm imagining to myself that I can hear this a little bit in East17 - Deep (No need to hear the whole song just the first second). Maybe it is just my imagination. Maybe when I have time i'll try to create a test track for this. Anyone knows a nice free app for that?
If we are talking about memory. I was sure I had a noticeable reflection in the Impulse Response.

I wonder if he offers a free trial for the ORC. It doesn't look like it on the site.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I have Sonus Faber Olympica Nova III. Thinking about ORC, but I have Anthem ARC already and it isn't cheep.

View attachment 368005

Regarding XTC, I'm not sure what you're expecting so:
View attachment 368006

My problem with finding a track is that usually I'm just playing a shuffled playlist of 2800 tracks. I went through some tracks I know to have the aforementioned behavior. Couldn't hear the issue in Led Zeppelin - Whole lotta love. Maybe I'm imagining to myself that I can hear this a little bit in East17 - Deep (No need to hear the whole song just the first second). Maybe it is just my imagination. Maybe when I have time i'll try to create a test track for this. Anyone knows a nice free app for that?
If we are talking about memory. I was sure I had a noticeable reflection in the Impulse Response.

Terrific measurements