BACCH4 Mac ORC recommended recordinings?

[Dialectic]

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).
View attachment 377012

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 believe the bass player from that recording is on ASR. Perhaps he can shed light on how it was recorded.

 

[mieswall]

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.

Yes, absolutely. But even so, most of that should be reflected in the xtc numbers, and to be honest in my case they are not spectacular (as seen in the graph posted before). So, such an impressive performance must not be explained solely by these numbers. My speculation is that impulse response must be a key aspect, and that’s something the maggies shine. The graph at the bottom of the screen capture shows something of that: it is striking the difference of these impulse graphs when you compare them with those captured of other very good loudspeakers (3x the price) and /or more lively rooms..

Btw, demo material for B4M: Matthew Herbert, The Horse (2023)

 

[Gwreck]

Yes, absolutely. But even so, most of that should be reflected in the xtc numbers, and to be honest in my case they are not spectacular (as seen in the graph posted before). So, such an impressive performance must not be explained solely by these numbers. My speculation is that impulse response must be a key aspect, and that’s something the maggies shine. The graph at the bottom of the screen capture shows something of that: it is striking the difference of these impulse graphs when you compare them with those captured of other very good loudspeakers (3x the price) and /or more lively rooms..

Btw, demo material for B4M: Matthew Herbert, The Horse (2023)
View attachment 378135

I have Sanders ESL’s and they have almost perfect impulse response in my mildly treated room. They sound great with BACCH so I suspect similar with the Maggie’s.

 

[richard12511]

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.

Then there are those like me. I'm in the camp that says it's almost certainly taking you farther away from the what the artist/engineer heard, but if it makes the majority of tracks sound better, I'm gonna use it anyway. Unless the engineer was mixing with BACCH, I'm almost certainly moving further away from his intention by turning it on, but who's to say the engineer wouldn't also like what I'm hearing better?

I could imagine it possible that there are technologies which simply "improve" the sound of the vast majority of systems. Take a song that was mixed 100% on Auratone cubes; playing that song back another Aurotone cube may get you closest to the sound of what the engineer intended, but perhaps the majority of listeners might still prefer the sound played back on a D&D 8C, due to the extended bass and more even dispersion.

 

[Gwreck]

Then there are those like me. I'm in the camp that says it's almost certainly taking you farther away from the what the artist/engineer heard, but if it makes the majority of tracks sound better, I'm gonna use it anyway. Unless the engineer was mixing with BACCH, I'm almost certainly moving further away from his intention by turning it on, but who's to say the engineer wouldn't also like what I'm hearing better?

I could imagine it possible that there are technologies which simply "improve" the sound of the vast majority of systems. Take a song that was mixed 100% on Auratone cubes; playing that song back another Aurotone cube may get you closest to the sound of what the engineer intended, but perhaps the majority of listeners might still prefer the sound played back on a D&D 8C, due to the extended bass and more even dispersion.

The question about realism in various recordings as relates to BACCH is well discussed on the BACCH product page. The developers clearly understand that the recording type affects the level of realism. It seems most arguments against BACCH are in reference to studio recordings and BACCH not reproducing what the recording engineer heard at the mixing console.

Theoretica Applied Physics

Bringing 3D audio from the laboratory to the real world.

www.theoretica.us

 

[Gwreck]

The question about realism in various recordings as relates to BACCH is well discussed on the BACCH product page. The developers clearly understand that the recording type affects the level of realism. It seems most arguments against BACCH are in reference to studio recordings and BACCH not reproducing what the recording engineer heard at the mixing console.

Theoretica Applied Physics

Bringing 3D audio from the laboratory to the real world.

www.theoretica.us

I also think ORC is a great update and is much easier to get good results for stereo listening than DIRAC. So even if you don’t use BACCH the ORC is a benefit.

 

[mieswall]

It seems most arguments against BACCH are in reference to studio recordings and BACCH not reproducing what the recording engineer heard at the mixing console

Correction: What they think xtc sounds and the engineer likes… without ever having listened the dammed thing. In most cases, given the unmistakable spatial purpose of the song recovered with xtc, It would be surprising to find a mixing engineer opting for the multiple random reflections of a typical home enviroment instead of the pure, open, detailed, corporeal, colour-free xtc reproduction, which i’m sure is much closer to what he heard in the mixing console with high quality monitors at a meter from him in a controlled acoustics room.
Case in point: The Doors, “the end”, Apocalypsis Now mix (available in a greatest hits compilation of 1996)… yesterday a friend listening this xtc for the first time just couldn’t believe what he was hearing from a single pair of loudspeakers, choppers flying over his head, Morrison almost reborn in front of him… he made me repeat the track 5 times!

 

[Gwreck]

Correction: What they think xtc sounds and the engineer likes… without ever having listened the dammed thing. In most cases, given the unmistakable spatial purpose of the song recovered with xtc, It would be surprising to find a mixing engineer opting for the multiple random reflections of a typical home enviroment instead of the pure, open, detailed, corporeal, colour-free xtc reproduction, which i’m sure is much closer to what he heard in the mixing console with high quality monitors at a meter from him in a controlled acoustics room.
Case in point: The Doors, “the end”, Apocalypsis Now mix (available in a greatest hits compilation of 1996)… yesterday a friend listening this xtc for the first time just couldn’t believe what he was hearing from a single pair of loudspeakers, choppers flying over his head, Morrison almost reborn in front of him… he made me repeat the track 5 times!

I definitely enjoy XTC in these older recordings like the Doors. I’m just saying is the critics of BACCh say that the recordings were never meant to sound like they do with BACCH. I definitely would argue that Jimi Hendrix recordings are amazing with BACCH and I can imagine that having the guitar swirl around the room is probably what he wanted.

 

[mieswall]

BLOCK4: 'Beneath the Pale Moon'. Stunning music and stunning results with B4M. This is by Netherland's TRTPK records, saying in their website "Our goal is to create immersive experiences through sound. By creating an acoustic hologram, our recordings give you the illusion of being at the world’s most beautiful concert halls and churches – all this, while never leaving your listening room.".
For that they use minimalist miking techniques... exactly what BACCH loves!. Of course those are not thought for B4M but for any good audiophile system; but the results with XTC are amazingly realistic: you can pick exactly where in depth and span each wind instrument is, as well as the acoustics of the venue where you are simply transported with this software. Turn off B4M and everything collapses, sound coming just from speakers (instead of you being there), very difficult to distinguish each flute individually. Still way better than ordinary recordings, but without the XTC magic...
I became aware of this record in an article in October's The Absolute Sound, praising its recording quality. Music is just terrific too: a combo of 16th century music transcripts for 4 recorders, combined with fabulous modern compositions.

I've been exploring other material of TRTPK and all of them sound incredible.

By the way, the mixing studio where these albums are made, full of Blades:

 

[mieswall]

Has any owner of B4M tried its x-over module to control one or more subwoofers?
I think that may require a second DAC, in some way linked to a second output of the babyface mixer (adding that second ADC to the group of BFP&DAC in the Mac?), then feeding the active SW's from that second DAC. But for that to work it may require you to fix the volume of main amplifier/speakers, and have the master volume control done by the software (possible, but a bit cumbersome), in order not to break the balance of channels?

 

[Dialectic]

Has any owner of B4M tried its x-over module to control one or more subwoofers?
I think that may require a second DAC, in some way linked to a second output of the babyface mixer (adding that second ADC to the group of BFP&DAC in the Mac?), then feeding the active SW's from that second DAC. But for that to work it may require you to fix the volume of main amplifier/speakers, and have the master volume control done by the software (possible, but a bit cumbersome), in order not to break the balance of channels?

Yes it will require using additional outputs on the Babyface.

I considered adding a pair of large subs to my D&D 8Cs and would have used B4M to control them. I ultimately decided that the subs would be overkill for my use case.

 

[Pxpeterson1]

Thomas Ades: Dante, LA phil directed by Dudamel at the Walt Disney of LA.. DG I think. Just amazing…each and every instrument perfectly delineated in its own space…. You are there…

Dahl - Martinu, works for clarinets & strings; sonolumina ensemble. Although a dsd that bacch processes only as regular pcm, the recording techniques are so remarkable, and bacch extract all the juice in it. I heard this in what’s one of the best systems I have ever encountered (Halcro monoblocks, ps audio mk 2 dsd, Genesis loudspeakers), and yet, with bacch/orc in my modest system (costing 1/20 of that) this sounds order of magnitudes better …. They are here…

Mies:

Thank you for the Ades recommendation. I was unaware of this composer. This is fabulous music.

I await arrival of my BACCH DIO magic box, and as we seem to share musical taste, I would be most grateful if you would send me a couple more recordings that are especially suited to BACCH processing.

Until now, most of my favorite recordings are SACDs, particularly those on the BIS label.

Many thanks,

Paul

 

[mieswall]

Something completely different, but really amazing with b4m:
John hopkins, music for psychedelic therapy

 

[Pxpeterson1]

Something completely different, but really amazing with b4m:
John hopkins, music for psychedelic therapy
View attachment 400404

Thanks MW:

I will investigate and reply when I receive my magic box, with recommendations.

 

[mieswall]

Btw, some room treatment improvement i’ve done recently (nothing esoteric, some heavy curtains avoiding side reflections from full height windows), enhanced xtc to 15 / 18 db with the maggies 1.7i (look at their beautiful impulse response), in 45 m2 room -480 ft2-, with a fairly low concrete ceiling. I think it may be even better with some additional treatment… i.e., I do have heavy room modes with the proportions of this space.
A fairly low cost system performing -with b4m- in a way I have seldom heard before in decades of audiophilia, regardless the price. Pure pleasure.

 

[mieswall]

 

[doorofnight]

Hi everyone,

I’m currently using BACCH4Mac intro with two large dipole Analysis Audio Omega speakers in an acoustically treated room, paired with two JL Audio E112 subwoofers. I use ROON to apply some DSP (PEQs calculated using REW based on room measurements).

Previously, I used BACCH4Mac with “regular” speakers, which was already a great experience. However, with this setup, it’s on a whole new level.

Now, I have a little extra budget to spend (you know how it is at the end of the year!). I’m considering upgrading to BACCH4Mac Audiophile with ORC, but I’ve read and heard people say it might only bring around a 5% improvement? Is that true?

Would you say it’s worth the investment? I’d love to hear your thoughts or experiences.

 

[Gwreck]

Hi everyone,

I’m currently using BACCH4Mac intro with two large dipole Analysis Audio Omega speakers in an acoustically treated room, paired with two JL Audio E112 subwoofers. I use ROON to apply some DSP (PEQs calculated using REW based on room measurements).

Previously, I used BACCH4Mac with “regular” speakers, which was already a great experience. However, with this setup, it’s on a whole new level.

Now, I have a little extra budget to spend (you know how it is at the end of the year!). I’m considering upgrading to BACCH4Mac Audiophile with ORC, but I’ve read and heard people say it might only bring around a 5% improvement? Is that true?

Would you say it’s worth the investment? I’d love to hear your thoughts or experiences.

I have Sanders ESL’s and a room with a fair amount of acoustic treatments and minimal rear and side wall reflection. With intro BACCH is can get very close to the same XTC and 360 sound field as the full version with ORC. The head tracking is very nice and ORC is nice. But if you don’t mind a small sweet spot and are happy with the tonality of your speakers there is no problem with the intro version. As there is no fussing with cameras or measuring i sometimes prefer the intro module as my system is in a non dedicated room. BACCh requires remastering every time I listen. I have ownBACCH4mac since 2020. As there is an annual support fee of $300(I think) I just used that as an excuse to upgrade BACCH one level every year u til I had the pro version as buying the upgrade counts as the annual renewal.

 

[doorofnight]

Thank you for your reply! I also have minimal rear and side wall reflections and I do not mind a small sweetspot. Honestly, it’s a bit silly—I’m perfectly happy with the sound as it is, yet I always find myself looking for ways to make it even better.

As there is an annual support fee of $300(I think) I just used that as an excuse to upgrade BACCH one level every year u til I had the pro version as buying the upgrade counts as the annual renewal.

I like that excuse

 

[jimbill]

Hi everyone,

I’m currently using BACCH4Mac intro with two large dipole Analysis Audio Omega speakers in an acoustically treated room, paired with two JL Audio E112 subwoofers. I use ROON to apply some DSP (PEQs calculated using REW based on room measurements).

Previously, I used BACCH4Mac with “regular” speakers, which was already a great experience. However, with this setup, it’s on a whole new level.

Now, I have a little extra budget to spend (you know how it is at the end of the year!). I’m considering upgrading to BACCH4Mac Audiophile with ORC, but I’ve read and heard people say it might only bring around a 5% improvement? Is that true?

Would you say it’s worth the investment? I’d love to hear your thoughts or experiences.

You should definitely try it. The headtracking makes a big difference, and I would say it's at least a 20% improvement in sound. The ORC is also excellent, but I got it for free, so there is that.
If you don't like it, all you'll be out is the restocking fee.