I just returned from the website an I'm wondering if you are aware that the output can be to an external source allowing you to tweak those HxWxD parameters, while Spatially moving around a 360' arc, place a sound object anywhere, only limits will be your system itself .
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
BACCH4 Mac ORC recommended recordinings?
- Thread starter jimbill
- Start date
Justdafactsmaam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,282
- Likes
- 1,011
Not really sure what you are saying. External source? Turntable? CD player etc?
- Thread Starter
- #23
So, Boom sounded the same or better than BACCH? Or are you saying B&O 90 speakers accomplish the same thing? Boom at $20 is a deal, B&O 90's at $120,000, not so much.
Toeing in does not cancel crosstalk. I have Martin Logan speakers. Toeing in makes a big difference with them because they are very directional. BACCH eliminates the need for toeing in or out. Also, the speakers don't need to be the exact distance from center. And the sweet spot is wide enough that it no longer is a concern.
And no, I don't want my room to sound like headphones, where the sound stage is in my head. I want the sound stage to be in front of me, as wide and precise as the original recording allows.
Last edited:
Your speakers
I saying B3D sounds better than BACCH in my B&O Balanced pairs because the B&O people eliminated cancelling crosstalk and such. I don’t expect anybody would, I was referring to the clarity and depth of details but mostly the weight of the scores.
You can toe those ML ‘s, but moment you move from a certain position?
My sweet spot is the entire room
It’s amazing how much people feel entitled to lecture about a product they haven’t even listened. If they do (the b4m audiophile edition, don’t know about the intro) they wouldn’t be posting all this silliness.
I have just read in Stereophile about some 80k speakers and the amazing dissapearing act they achieve; the depth of soundstage, the physical presence and corporeity of singers and instruments, the amazing stable imaging, the pin point accuracy in locating each instrument in space, etc. That’s exactly the things that enourmously improved in my system… with 3k speakers (maggies 1.7i) and a mere 8 and 10db of xtc possible in my room. In fact, i would bet that better (in those aspects) than what that gear for millionaires can.
B4M at $5k expensive? It’s the biggest bargain i have ever known in decades of passionate audiophilia.
Preparing a demo i’ve tried yesterday some soft music i really don’t listen very much: joao gilberto, carpenters, simon&garfunkel, jim croce, etc. Just shocking… they were all alive in my room, you can almost touch them.
Then some soft classic rock: lucky man, from the beginning of ELP; inmates lullaby of gentle giant, fifth of firth of Genesis… OMG…
Most of that, music recorded 40+ yrs ago, listened hundred of times before… all of the sudden, brand new. This is priceless.
I have just read in Stereophile about some 80k speakers and the amazing dissapearing act they achieve; the depth of soundstage, the physical presence and corporeity of singers and instruments, the amazing stable imaging, the pin point accuracy in locating each instrument in space, etc. That’s exactly the things that enourmously improved in my system… with 3k speakers (maggies 1.7i) and a mere 8 and 10db of xtc possible in my room. In fact, i would bet that better (in those aspects) than what that gear for millionaires can.
B4M at $5k expensive? It’s the biggest bargain i have ever known in decades of passionate audiophilia.
Preparing a demo i’ve tried yesterday some soft music i really don’t listen very much: joao gilberto, carpenters, simon&garfunkel, jim croce, etc. Just shocking… they were all alive in my room, you can almost touch them.
Then some soft classic rock: lucky man, from the beginning of ELP; inmates lullaby of gentle giant, fifth of firth of Genesis… OMG…
Most of that, music recorded 40+ yrs ago, listened hundred of times before… all of the sudden, brand new. This is priceless.
- Thread Starter
- #28
I agree.
So many times, people who haven't heard it write it off as a gimmick or that the same thing can be achieved with room treatment. And then there are the ones who say it artificially changes the music and the artists' intent.
And lastly, there are the ones who say they have heard it but then describe it as something else. I have my doubts that they ever heard it. I have demonstrated it many times and have yet to have a person not amazed by it.
I have not seen people writing it off without hearing it, who are they and in what thread did you read that?
- Thread Starter
- #30
Please go to my post about it being TAS Product of the Year. Page two has a couple of examples.
I skimmed through that page but can’t find any comments like that, maybe you can be more specific on what posts you mean?
- Thread Starter
- #32
An audiophile "type 2 recording" classic: Patricia Barber, 'Café Blue'. If anyone hearing this with B4M doesn't like much more than without it ... well, we must be in a different hobby. It's just spectacular. Utterly realistic ... other than the percussion spread in 150 degrees, each component of the drum kit identifiable in a different point in space, but that's intended this way in this recording imho.
I guess the better the recording, the better B4M behaves. Perhaps the same could be true with the quality of the hifi gear used.
I may post dozens of other examples, but in fact almost everything I play here sounds from better to radically better with B4M. Some early stereos that are almost dual mono recordings need taming the XTC slide a bit; in other of poor stereo quality the "effect" is very subtle. Worse, to the point of disabling XTC? I can't remember a single one.
And that is comparing with a pair of speakers (the maggies, 1.7i in my case) that even in standard stereo I'm convinced are significantly better than the average (or anything near their price) in the recovery of the spatial information that's on the recording. Also in a room that, although fairly large, it's acoustically asymmetric, which is not good for XTC (that's why I only get less than 8 and 11 db per channel).
On the other hand, the almost massless diaphragm of the maggies is extremely fast, and I suspect good transient response must help XTC. I think Choueri sometimes uses KEF LS50´s in his demos and lab, that are also good in this subject (I also have them, but B4M performed much better with the maggies in the single comparison I did of this time ago).
I guess the better the recording, the better B4M behaves. Perhaps the same could be true with the quality of the hifi gear used.
I may post dozens of other examples, but in fact almost everything I play here sounds from better to radically better with B4M. Some early stereos that are almost dual mono recordings need taming the XTC slide a bit; in other of poor stereo quality the "effect" is very subtle. Worse, to the point of disabling XTC? I can't remember a single one.
And that is comparing with a pair of speakers (the maggies, 1.7i in my case) that even in standard stereo I'm convinced are significantly better than the average (or anything near their price) in the recovery of the spatial information that's on the recording. Also in a room that, although fairly large, it's acoustically asymmetric, which is not good for XTC (that's why I only get less than 8 and 11 db per channel).
On the other hand, the almost massless diaphragm of the maggies is extremely fast, and I suspect good transient response must help XTC. I think Choueri sometimes uses KEF LS50´s in his demos and lab, that are also good in this subject (I also have them, but B4M performed much better with the maggies in the single comparison I did of this time ago).
Gwreck
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
- Messages
- 405
- Likes
- 414
I suspect that the reason Maggie’s would do well with BACCH is they are flat panel dipole with narrow directivity which helps to increase the XTC. I’ll have to listen to the recording you suggested.
It's not uncommon in mixing to use the full stereo width for the drums, but I doubt the mixing engineer would do it the same way if he had heard that some of the drums ended up at 150 degrees. It's a great example of how strange the result can be with XTC and hard-panned sound objects.
- Thread Starter
- #36
As much as I love BACCH4MAC, occasionally a recording doesn't benefit. I put on The Mamas and the Papas "California Dreaming". The group was way left of the left speaker and the solo was way right of the right speaker. There was nothing between the speakers, weird.
Then I put on Steely Dan "Can't Buy a Thrill", the magic was back.
Then I put on Steely Dan "Can't Buy a Thrill", the magic was back.
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,754
- Likes
- 3,151
What would the side effects of poor room treatment in conjunction with BACCH be? I’m getting poor results (in my view anyway) with the uBACCH plugin, perhaps my room is to blame. I don’t think it is, because it is treated quite extensively, carefully and symmetrically, but this is something I’d like to know more about.
In my present situation, uBACCH behaves similar to any spatialiser plugin – it widens the soundstage but kills pinpoint imaging.
theREALdotnet
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,754
- Likes
- 3,151
Hell no!
Justdafactsmaam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,282
- Likes
- 1,011
Hard to say with the uBACCH. With the BACCH4Mac you can see these issues in the measurements. I’m not a fan of the uBACCH. I think head tracking is essential and custom filters are substantially better
- Thread Starter
- #40
Agreed. I don't think my system sounds anything like my headphones. I want the stage in front of me, not in the middle of my head. I definitely don't feel like my BACCH4Mac sounds like headphones, just a better sounding stage.
Similar threads
