Andrew Quint Reviews the Unique BACCH-SP Stereo Purifier

[Gwreck]

Thank you for your reply and explanation.

I think my question was not very clear. You hear a big improvement now that you use ORC. But compared to what situation? A situation where you used a DSP like DIRAC or something?

I use uBacch also, but not ORC and I use DIRAC for bass controll. Without DIRAC I can imagine that ORC is a *huge* improvement. But coming from DIRAC to ORC?

I have not directly compared BACCH ORC to Dirac. I have used Dirac on my system though with the same speakers. Although I cannot A/B them I can tell you that ORC improved clarity, tonal balance and imaging much more than Dirac. With Dirac, in my experience, one is just as likely to get a clearly awful result as they are to get a nice sound result. ORC only takes moment to calibrate but Dirac is time consuming. I see Dirac more for home theater use and ORC for 2 channel.

I have used Dirac with multiple different systems and it is awful for ESL’s due to directivity but ORC works well with my ESL’s.

 

[Gwreck]

Thank you for your reply and explanation.

I think my question was not very clear. You hear a big improvement now that you use ORC. But compared to what situation? A situation where you used a DSP like DIRAC or something?

I use uBacch also, but not ORC and I use DIRAC for bass controll. Without DIRAC I can imagine that ORC is a *huge* improvement. But coming from DIRAC to ORC?

ORC is better compared to:
-Dirac
-No processing
-BACCH ( head tracked and uBACCH)w/o ORC
-Sanders ESL’s with DBX Venue 360 room correction

 

[onion]

I have ORC for the music room stereo listening. I have DIRAC for the movie room. I would love if Theoretica came out with a home cinema ORC application that could work with AVRs. I don't know if anyone has compared them that way.
The stereo setup uses GLM (it's a Genelec system). I can say that GLM alone is worse than GLM. + ORC

 

[Gwreck]

The only way I can see this working for multi user home theater is ORC combined with The BACCH-X.

 

[Keith_W]

ORC is better compared to:
-Dirac
-No processing
-BACCH ( head tracked and uBACCH)w/o ORC
-Sanders ESL’s with DBX Venue 360 room correction

Better in what sense? Subjectively sounds better, or measures better? I have yet to see any objective reviews of BACCH, including measurements, workflow, what it corrects, etc. I would love to see one. Would you like to start a thread?

 

[Gwreck]

Better in what sense? Subjectively sounds better, or measures better? I have yet to see any objective reviews of BACCH, including measurements, workflow, what it corrects, etc. I would love to see one. Would you like to start a thread?

It sounds and measures better( I don’t have any interest in posting my measurements). You are welcome to come to my home and hear my system for yourself. There are plenty of videos and written information available if you look online. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually interested in knowing more about BACCH despite that your tone in yours questions is that of a basic troll.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Better in what sense? Subjectively sounds better, or measures better? I have yet to see any objective reviews of BACCH, including measurements, workflow, what it corrects, etc. I would love to see one. Would you like to start a thread?

Here are some measurements in your he video. I’d call it a night and day objective difference. Can you think of any other means of achieving that level of accuracy?

 

[Keith_W]

?????

I have been on ASR long enough for you to know I am not a troll! This is the first time I have ever been called that. I am sorry you feel that way.

As you know, I own a BACCH VST plugin. I am interested in BACCH ORC, given that it's the only head tracking binaural room correction product I am aware of. I am also up to my neck in DSP, and I am more aware than most of how DSP works. I can already guess at what ORC will be able to do and won't, which is why I am interested in seeing a review of it. For example, the head tracking requirement means low latency filters are required, and that means IIR. IIR vs. FIR is another topic, both have advantages and disadvantages (in a nutshell, FIR is better but at the expense of latency; IIR has lower latency, less processing requirements, but can not create steep filters without becoming unstable). The disadvantages of IIR can be partially compensated for, and that is a whole topic in itself. And I wonder how it acquires timing and phase information, given that you need a static fixture for that. Then there are all the other usual caveats of DSP, e.g. how many channels will it process, how easy it is to use, etc.

Above all, I am wondering how it would work in my setup. I am not willing to give up the quality of my FIR filters, and I convolve 8 channels. My BACCH VST works upstream of my convolver, so it works just fine. However, placing BACCH ORC upstream of the convolver is a no-go because the convolver will introduce latency from FIR filters, which will ruin the head tracking feature. So it needs to be downstream of the convolver, which means that it has to process 8 channels.

THIS is why I am skeptical if it is better than other types of DSP. I would love to see a breakdown of the filters it uses and how it does the correction, whether there are manual over-rides, e.g. I can choose my own windowing, whether it can remove excess phase and produce a min phase result for correction (and if so, I wonder how it does that given that the mics are binaural and not a static fixture), and whether I can choose my own target curve. However, I can see the advantage in that it is (1) binaural (2) accounts for the HRTF and (3) provides head tracking. THOSE IMO are the killer features of ORC, provided they have been implemented correctly. In short, there are probably things it can do and can't do, like all DSP products.

I think you need to understand that other ASR members are not just trolls. The DSP market is nuanced, and every product will suit a certain type of user with a certain type of system. I am very curious about BACCH ORC for the reasons mentioned, and first I want to understand if the product is for me.

@Justdafactsmaam you posted that video while I was typing this. I will watch it, thank you.

 

[Gwreck]

Here are some measurements in your he video. I’d call it a night and day objective difference. Can you think of any other means of achieving that level of accuracy?

Thanks for posting that. The AJ videoa

Here are some measurements in your he video. I’d call it a night and day objective difference. Can you think of any other means of achieving that level of accuracy?

Thanks for posting. Audiophile Junkie’s videos on BACCH with Dr Choueiri have been very informative. The Audioholics videos were interesting also. I subscribed to his channel so hopefully I could join the next chat with Dr Choueiri.

 

[Gwreck]

?????

I have been on ASR long enough for you to know I am not a troll! This is the first time I have ever been called that. I am sorry you feel that way.

As you know, I own a BACCH VST plugin. I am interested in BACCH ORC, given that it's the only head tracking binaural room correction product I am aware of. I am also up to my neck in DSP, and I am more aware than most of how DSP works. I can already guess at what ORC will be able to do and won't, which is why I am interested in seeing a review of it. For example, the head tracking requirement means low latency filters are required, and that means IIR. IIR vs. FIR is another topic, both have advantages and disadvantages (in a nutshell, FIR is better but at the expense of latency; IIR has lower latency, less processing requirements, but can not create steep filters without becoming unstable). The disadvantages of IIR can be partially compensated for, and that is a whole topic in itself. And I wonder how it acquires timing and phase information, given that you need a static fixture for that. Then there are all the other usual caveats of DSP, e.g. how many channels will it process, how easy it is to use, etc.

Above all, I am wondering how it would work in my setup. I am not willing to give up the quality of my FIR filters, and I convolve 8 channels. My BACCH VST works upstream of my convolver, so it works just fine. However, placing BACCH ORC upstream of the convolver is a no-go because the convolver will introduce latency from FIR filters, which will ruin the head tracking feature. So it needs to be downstream of the convolver, which means that it has to process 8 channels.

THIS is why I am skeptical if it is better than other types of DSP. I would love to see a breakdown of the filters it uses and how it does the correction, whether there are manual over-rides, e.g. I can choose my own windowing, whether it can remove excess phase and produce a min phase result for correction (and if so, I wonder how it does that given that the mics are binaural and not a static fixture), and whether I can choose my own target curve. However, I can see the advantage in that it is (1) binaural (2) accounts for the HRTF and (3) provides head tracking. THOSE IMO are the killer features of ORC, provided they have been implemented correctly. In short, there are probably things it can do and can't do, like all DSP products.

I think you need to understand that other ASR members are not just trolls. The DSP market is nuanced, and every product will suit a certain type of user with a certain type of system. I am very curious about BACCH ORC for the reasons mentioned, and first I want to understand if the product is for me.

@Justdafactsmaam you posted that video while I was typing this. I will watch it, thank you.

I actually don’t think that you are a troll if that’s the case. I’m 100% sure you are a more active ASR member than I am. I can give a description of my subjective experience to answer some of these questions but I’d prefer to defer to original sources such as the Dr. Choueiri videos and written information.

The crazy thing about BACCH4mac is that it’s more clear about the before and after of the signal than most room correction software. So once a person has the program it’s clear what is happening to the signal.

I do wish the there was some forum where the Theoretica people would be signed on to answer the questions directly vs end users answering. The basic idea of BACCH is simple but the mathematics and psychoacoustics is not.

BACCH(4mac) sounds great but if you want my one actual critique of it is that the internal working on ones computer are so convoluted that it require direct hands on tech support for anything beyond basic configurations. I have asked Dr. Choueiri directly what it would take to understand how the audio routing works and his answer was that BACCH4mac has excellent tech support. I am frustrated enough by this that I have the urge to buy the BACCH-sp which is about $25k more expensive but much less hassle. Anyway I am not wealthy like all of the internet audiophiles that seemingly clog the internet so no BACCH-sp for me.

 

[Keith_W]

Here are some measurements in your he video. I’d call it a night and day objective difference. Can you think of any other means of achieving that level of accuracy?

I just watched the video. I don't think that presenter has a full understanding of what he is talking about and he has made a few mistakes. I have ignored all his overblown claims and focused specifically on his technical claims. Here are a few errors:

- "no other room correction software on the planet can achieve a flat bass response in your ears". Patently untrue. All of them do that, some more effectively than others. And as he points out, bass frequencies are in the "quasi-free field response" and not influenced by HRTF/pinna shape, but it may be influenced by your body and the sofa you are sitting on. Existing room correction software already does account for this if you use a MMM measurement.
- "only want to use DSP on the bass and not the highs". That is true, but people want to correct to Schroder, or at most 4x Schroder. This is typically around 400Hz. His screen shows BACCH ORC correcting up to 1kHz. This is likely because a 1kHz wavelength is 34.3cm, which is the lower limit for the HRTF. Rather than making the division at Schroder + everything else, ORC is doing HRTF + everything else. This is a reasonable decision by Theoretica, but the presenter misrepresents this point as something else entirely.
- "sometimes high frequencies can be absent in large rooms". Hmmmmmmm. Maybe if you have a tiny inefficient speaker in a concert hall sized room, it would lose enough treble energy that everything from 15kHz up disappears. But not in most normal "large" rooms.
- "I only want DSP in the bass but not in the highs, so you can cut-off DSP for the highs". Maybe, but then you lose the benefit of the HRTF correction and head tracking feature. I doubt if he presented that feature accurately.

All the above are criticism of the presenter, and not of BACCH ORC. Just because the presenter does not understand DSP and makes an error filled video does not mean that ORC is not a good product.

The video does tell me that ORC is a type of DSP that I call "black box". Measurement goes into the black box, result comes out. You don't know what the black box has done. I was looking carefully to see how many settings you can change with the "black box", and it appears as if ORC has not made them user adjustable. Only a few coarse settings like adjusting which bands you want to correct, choosing a target curve (does it have a target curve designer? Or do you have to use the pre-programmed target curves?). "Black box DSP's" are both good and bad - good in that it makes software easier to use, especially who don't understand DSP. Bad in that advanced users can not over-ride software correction settings. In this case you are wholly reliant on the DSP algorithm being correctly implemented because you have no way to over-ride it.

I don't want to sound overly negative. I am excited about the binaural measurement, and taking into account HRTF and pinna transfer function, and the head tracking. However, you can buy in-ear microphones and make your own corrections with other software, and do it with FIR filters. Acourate (and probably also REW/RePhase) is able to do this since it is not a "black box" DSP, but probably not Audiolense, Dirac, Focus Fidelity, or anything else. You only need to figure out the workflow/invent one for Acourate, and I am already thinking about how I would do it. The only thing missing is head tracking. To me this is the most unique feature of ORC and what I find the most exciting.

So to answer your question, "can I think of any other means of achieving that level of accuracy?", the answer is yes. In fact, probably superior accuracy since I am making the decisions and not a software algorithm. But not with head tracking.

@Gwreck, can you tell me how many channels ORC is able to process? I may be able to feed it 8 channels if I insert it downstream of the convolver.

 

[Gwreck]

I just watched the video. I don't think that presenter has a full understanding of what he is talking about and he has made a few mistakes. I have ignored all his overblown claims and focused specifically on his technical claims. Here are a few errors:

- "no other room correction software on the planet can achieve a flat bass response in your ears". Patently untrue. All of them do that, some more effectively than others. And as he points out, bass frequencies are in the "quasi-free field response" and not influenced by HRTF/pinna shape, but it may be influenced by your body and the sofa you are sitting on. Existing room correction software already does account for this if you use a MMM measurement.
- "only want to use DSP on the bass and not the highs". That is true, but people want to correct to Schroder, or at most 4x Schroder. This is typically around 400Hz. His screen shows BACCH ORC correcting up to 1kHz. This is likely because a 1kHz wavelength is 34.3cm, which is the lower limit for the HRTF. Rather than making the division at Schroder + everything else, ORC is doing HRTF + everything else. This is a reasonable decision by Theoretica, but the presenter misrepresents this point as something else entirely.
- "sometimes high frequencies can be absent in large rooms". Hmmmmmmm. Maybe if you have a tiny inefficient speaker in a concert hall sized room, it would lose enough treble energy that everything from 15kHz up disappears. But not in most normal "large" rooms.
- "I only want DSP in the bass but not in the highs, so you can cut-off DSP for the highs". Maybe, but then you lose the benefit of the HRTF correction and head tracking feature. I doubt if he presented that feature accurately.

All the above are criticism of the presenter, and not of BACCH ORC. Just because the presenter does not understand DSP and makes an error filled video does not mean that ORC is not a good product.

The video does tell me that ORC is a type of DSP that I call "black box". Measurement goes into the black box, result comes out. You don't know what the black box has done. I was looking carefully to see how many settings you can change with the "black box", and it appears as if ORC has not made them user adjustable. Only a few coarse settings like adjusting which bands you want to correct, choosing a target curve (does it have a target curve designer? Or do you have to use the pre-programmed target curves?). "Black box DSP's" are both good and bad - good in that it makes software easier to use, especially who don't understand DSP. Bad in that advanced users can not over-ride software correction settings. In this case you are wholly reliant on the DSP algorithm being correctly implemented because you have no way to over-ride it.

I don't want to sound overly negative. I am excited about the binaural measurement, and taking into account HRTF and pinna transfer function, and the head tracking. However, you can buy in-ear microphones and make your own corrections with other software, and do it with FIR filters. Acourate (and probably also REW/RePhase) is able to do this since it is not a "black box" DSP, but probably not Audiolense, Dirac, Focus Fidelity, or anything else. You only need to figure out the workflow/invent one for Acourate, and I am already thinking about how I would do it. The only thing missing is head tracking. To me this is the most unique feature of ORC and what I find the most exciting.

So to answer your question, "can I think of any other means of achieving that level of accuracy?", the answer is yes. In fact, probably superior accuracy since I am making the decisions and not a software algorithm. But not with head tracking.

@Gwreck, can you tell me how many channels ORC is ableprocess? I may be able to feed it 8 channels if I insert it downstream of the convolver.

2 channels for orc only. BACCH 3D mixer can accept multiple channels and mix them spatially down to 2 channels with an HRTF( yours if you have a sofa file). The multi channel works well but it it had tonal distortion using someone else’s HRTF as I don’t have my own measurements . I like the Audiophile Junkie’s enthusiasm about BACCH but his audience doesn’t seem very technical and is mainly just wealthy guys flaunting their systems. It’s unfortunate that he seemingly has become the most visible proponent of BACCH as his Q&A’s with Dr. Choueiri are locked behind a paywall. The Q&A I saw was sad. None of the participants could come up with any questions beyond the most basic.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I just watched the video. I don't think that presenter has a full understanding of what he is talking about and he has made a few mistakes. I have ignored all his overblown claims and focused specifically on his technical claims. Here are a few errors:

- "no other room correction software on the planet can achieve a flat bass response in your ears". Patently untrue. All of them do that, some more effectively than others.

I’m in no position to judge. But this seems to be a point of contention. Jason has used Dirac and other room correction DSPs. So he’s not speaking from a vacuum. The BACCH does give you an actual measured result.

I can’t say that I have ever seen measured results as good. But I would be interested in seeing the measured results of the competition.

And as he points out, bass frequencies are in the "quasi-free field response" and not influenced by HRTF/pinna shape, but it may be influenced by your body and the sofa you are sitting on. Existing room correction software already does account for this if you use a MMM measurement.
- "only want to use DSP on the bass and not the highs". That is true, but people want to correct to Schroder, or at most 4x Schroder.

The BACCH ORC is full frequency. It corrects beyond 1khz but does not give you a flat in ear response because in ear the response should not be flat past 1 kHz it’s making proprietary corrections based on speaker/ear interactions.

This is typically around 400Hz. His screen shows BACCH ORC correcting up to 1kHz. This is likely because a 1kHz wavelength is 34.3cm, which is the lower limit for the HRTF. Rather than making the division at Schroder + everything else, ORC is doing HRTF + everything else. This is a reasonable decision by Theoretica, but the presenter misrepresents this point as something else entirely.

He may not be expressing it very well but O don’t think he is getting it wrong.

- "sometimes high frequencies can be absent in large rooms". Hmmmmmmm. Maybe if you have a tiny inefficient speaker in a concert hall sized room, it would lose enough treble energy that everything from 15kHz up disappears. But not in most normal "large" rooms.
- "I only want DSP in the bass but not in the highs, so you can cut-off DSP for the highs".

Maybe give the BACCH ORC an audition and see if you really don’t want the correction it does. But it s full frequency correction.

Maybe, but then you lose the benefit of the HRTF correction and head tracking feature. I doubt if he presented that feature accurately.

All the above are criticism of the presenter, and not of BACCH ORC. Just because the presenter does not understand DSP and makes an error filled video does not mean that ORC is not a good product.

The video does tell me that ORC is a type of DSP that I call "black box". Measurement goes into the black box, result comes out. You don't know what the black box has done. I was looking carefully to see how many settings you can change with the "black box", and it appears as if ORC has not made them user adjustable.

There are multiple preset room target curves and you can make your own custom curve. It actually has a lot of user adjustment options.

Only a few coarse settings like adjusting which bands you want to correct, choosing a target curve (does it have a target curve designer? Or do you have to use the pre-programmed target curves?). "Black box DSP's" are both good and bad - good in that it makes software easier to use, especially who don't understand DSP. Bad in that advanced users can not over-ride software correction settings. In this case you are wholly reliant on the DSP algorithm being correctly implemented because you have no way to over-ride it.

I don't want to sound overly negative. I am excited about the binaural measurement, and taking into account HRTF and pinna transfer function, and the head tracking. However, you can buy in-ear microphones and make your own corrections with other software, and do it with FIR filters. Acourate (and probably also REW/RePhase) is able to do this since it is not a "black box" DSP, but probably not Audiolense, Dirac, Focus Fidelity, or anything else.

I am skeptical that one can do the same thing the BACCH ORC does with alternative in ear microphones and other software. But I would certainly be open to blind shootouts to see what’s what

You only need to figure out the workflow/invent one for Acourate, and I am already thinking about how I would do it. The only thing missing is head tracking. To me this is the most unique feature of ORC and what I find the most exciting.

And not a trivial feature
But I doubt there are other programs that will write filters the same way.

So to answer your question, "can I think of any other means of achieving that level of accuracy?", the answer is yes. In fact, probably superior accuracy since I am making the decisions and not a software algorithm. But not with head tracking.

Maybe we can test that once my room renovations are done.

 

[STC]

I am skeptical that one can do the same thing the BACCH ORC does with alternative in ear microphones and other software. But I would certainly be open to blind shootouts to see what’s what

You can. But before we go there, can someone tell me since when frequencies measured inside the ear is flat up to 1 kHz? Maybe up to 600 or 700Hz is acceptable but for flat up to 700Hz then you need to have the speakers directly infront of you Even if you somehow get the correct measurements which is dependent on the speakers position you still cannot measure the listeners preference. the difference we are talking here is just about 3dB so it doesn’t matter if you make in ear or free field measurement, you will still get it flat with EQ. Frankly, I don’t what’s so special about BACCH in ear measurements for frequencies up to 1 kHz.

I think Toole Sean Oliver published a paper comparing different RC and without them.

 

[Keith_W]

You can. But before we go there, can someone tell me since when frequencies measured inside the ear is flat up to 1 kHz? Maybe up to 600 or 700Hz is acceptable but for flat up to 700Hz then you need to have the speakers directly infront of you Even if you somehow get the correct measurements which is dependent on the speakers position you still cannot measure the listeners preference. the difference we are talking here is just about 3dB so it doesn’t matter if you make in ear or free field measurement, you will still get it flat with EQ. Frankly, I don’t what’s so special about BACCH in ear measurements for frequencies up to 1 kHz.

I think Toole published a paper comparing different RC and without them.

This is what a typical HRTF looks like. I simply did an image search on Google. This particular image shows 3 individuals.

Lower frequencies means the influence of the head is minimal because the head is small compared to the wavelength. As wavelengths get shorter, we start seeing the influence of the head and pinna. This is why BACCH ORC does not do any HRTF correction below 1kHz.

So yeah, I agree with you. Anything up to 1kHz can be done with any DSP software. Literally all of them aim to flatten bass response.

Now it may be quite different if BACCH ORC's head tracking software was aware of your x, y position and adjusted bass EQ dynamically, because bass can vary just by moving 10cm.

 

[STC]

Not sure bass can vary too much by moving the head mere 10cm given the wavelength of the shortest bass frequency is about 1.3 meter long. So a quarter will be about 330cm, I doubt someone is that sensitive to hear what could be less than 1 db difference.

The measurements only measures the frequncies hit the mic. Our ears are so complex that the sensitivity changes with loudness and time of the day or environment where the natural ear amplification adjust the perceived level.

 

[Keith_W]

Not sure bass can vary too much by moving the head mere 10cm given the wavelength of the shortest bass frequency is about 1.3 meter long. So a quarter will be about 330cm, I doubt someone is that sensitive to hear what could be less than 1 db difference.

I took these measurements when I was finding the best place for the MLP. A measuring tape was laid on the floor, and the sweeps from 10Hz - 400Hz were taken at the distances indicated. You're right that it doesn't vary by much, my memory of my measurement was faulty.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You can. But before we go there, can someone tell me since when frequencies measured inside the ear is flat up to 1 kHz? Maybe up to 600 or 700Hz is acceptable but for flat up to 700Hz then you need to have the speakers directly infront of you Even if you somehow get the correct measurements which is dependent on the speakers position you still cannot measure the listeners preference. the difference we are talking here is just about 3dB so it doesn’t matter if you make in ear or free field measurement, you will still get it flat with EQ. Frankly, I don’t what’s so special about BACCH in ear measurements for frequencies up to 1 kHz.

I think Toole Sean Oliver published a paper comparing different RC and without them.

Because of the microphone position. Measurements that use room averages are never accurate from the actual pov of your ears. The BACCH measurements are and with head tracking they always are

 

[STC]

Because of the microphone position. Measurements that use room averages are never accurate from the actual pov of your ears. The BACCH measurements are and with head tracking they always are

The only difference between free field mics and in BACCH in ear mics is the frequencies change due to HRTF. In both, you still get the same frequencies of the room and source.

 

[tjcinnamon]

BACCH other than the XTC BACCH does not color the sound. I have tried various other XTC methods such as multiple versions of RACE and Sonic Holography and the only one that was acceptable was the Miniambio by Mini-DSP. I am still waiting for a person with Polk L800’s to volunteer for a comparison of BACCH vs SDA on their L800 speakers. There is a guy in the local home theater group with L800’s that I asked if he would be interested in a comparison and I assume he thought I was a nut job(not that he would be wrong). I own a Yarra 3dx which was a beam forming computer soundbar that was a kickstarter. It does the 3D head in a vice thing well but the hike and audio quality are mediocre. I also have the Razer computer sound bar with head tracked XTC with a phased array that works well and has fair sound quality for a computer sound bar. It is strictly near field and has limited audio inputs.

I have a pair of Polk L800's and just Demo'd the BACCH-SP Appliance at Axpona 2024. I spent most of my time in that room. The L800's had a wider sound stage which is likely because they are projecting sound outward AND because I have to toe-in the L800's a bit because I have them farther apart (7'). The BACCH-SP was more immersive and had head tracking.

However, The BACCH-SP set up was

• speakers were closer together than my L800's 5' vs 7'
• speakers were closer to the listening position 4' vs 8'
• I'm sure he was using very directional speakers where as I'm unsure of the directionality of the L800's
• His room was untreated and small, my room is treated fairly well
  • he very modestly "treated" the hotel room side walls (like 2" absorbers or less) vs I do not treat my side walls;
  • However, I have 16 2'x2' 4" absorbers on my back wall
  • His seats had space behind them vs I'm close to the wall
  • His seats had no headrest, mine have a head rest

XTC is fickle and worth every inconvenience but requires a lot of experimentation which I've found very rewarding for this hobby.

I tried the uBACCH VST version and was not able to make it sound better or even very effective but perhaps I was listening for the wrong things. I also had someone convolve a track and gave him dimensions and it did not work well. I'm left to assume that the VST is simply not as good as BACCH4MAC/BACCH-SP or my room is not as good for BACCH4MAC/BACCH-SP.

Problem with experimenting is that I'd have to buy and set up a Mac Mini plus buy $1000 in software OR if I really do need the upgrade for measurements (which I like the idea of measuring XTC, I haven't figured out how to do that in REW) then I'm looking at a $740 restock fee if it doesn't work as well.

I'm a home theater guy and fitting that into a home theater chain would be difficult. The BACCH-SP (despite being out of my budget) has estimated 30ms of latency (per Edgars guess) which would be after my AVR meaning it would tear up the distances and perhaps not work at all for video syncing...

So again, I loved the BACCH set up at Axpona and I think I liked it better than my L800's but I like the L800's better in my room and they fit within the home theater set up vs the one uBACCH VST that I've tried.

I plan on giving BACCH another go because the immersion was better.

Does anyone know those whisper and counting tracks he uses for demo's? I can't find them and I want to test them out. Yosi Horikawa's songs "Fluid" and "Timbres" were a revelation on his set up.