BACCH4Mac "Absolute Sounds Product of the Year 2024"

[Blockader]

In fact, Toole likes acoustic crosstalk cancellation solutions, especially BACCH, he says that he is just biased towards multichannel solutions.

Feel free to read the full conversation at

BACCH4Mac Pro Edition: a report

Hi SoundArgument, Just happen to see your post here! Glad you are enjoying BACCH now! Greetings from Hong Kong Arthur @Arthur Cheng, welcome to ASR! I hope you find the discussion informative and/or entertaining, and I hope you're still enjoying BACCH!

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[goat76]

No, he’s flat out wrong and is moving the goal posts all over the field to fit his position.

No, Toole has an understanding of recording and mixing, and how many different ways even “minimalistic” recordings of classical music can be. Therefore he knows that applying a filter to a regular 2-channel mix that never was intended to be listened to with crosstalk cancelation will either be a hit or a miss when applying a post-production filter.

Most audio productions were not made with multichannel remixes in mind either. And yet Toole is an advocate. Moving goals post example #1

An audio production will in most cases sound the best if the playback system reflects the production, no matter if it was meant for a regular 2-channel reproduction, a multichannel production, or a production made with crosstalk cancelation.

I don't know what you mean by multichannel “remixes”?. A multichannel mix is a completely new mix from scratch, in a similar fashion as the regular 2-channel mix wasn't a mix before it was mixed. Whenever a recording is recorded with enough numbers of microphones with the idea of making a multichannel mix, there is no less “originality” in that type of mix than a mix made for 2 channels.

Everything in a studio multitrack recording is a post production effect. Everything. But it’s an issue just with the BACCH. Moving goal posts #2

Sorry, I see that the choice of words “post-production” can be misunderstood, what I’m talking about here is something applied after the production is done and finished, something out of control for the audio engineer. Maybe we can call it “user-applied post-production”?

Who is the arbitrator of “correctness?” The BACCH will make the playback more accurate to what’s on the recording. Unless you can document the actual sound heard in the control room and, importantly, verify that it represents the artist’s and recording engineer’s ideal for that recording then there is no reference for accuracy beyond the recording itself.

I have already addressed that.
What's in the data is not important, what's important is what the audio engineer heard while making all the mixing decisions, and if he didn't use crosstalk cancelation while doing so the mix will sound as intended in a system without crosstalk cancelation.
The exact same thing can be said if XTC was used while mixing, then the mix will only sound correct if the playback system has XTC. It's as simple as that, otherwise it will just be a hit or miss if you may or may not like the effect.

Unless you have ESP or clear documentation by the artists and recording engineers of what they intended then you have no meaningful reference beyond the recording itself. And this narrative of artists’ intent is truly a fantasy construct devised to adhere to an antiquated belief system. Let’s get real about this. I don’t have ESP either but I have a lot of studio multitrack recordings with hard pans that land on the speakers before I got the BACCH. Now imagine this conversation between recording engineer and artists. "check out this mix! Isn't it awesome how the hard pan lands exactly on the speaker! Thank god conventional stereo doesn't allow me to extend the image beyond the speaker location or bring it closer or further away from the listener. We wouldn't want that to happen...ever." I have hundreds of such recordings and I’m betting that conversation happened NEVER times in making those recordings.

I’m sure I will find the information if the mix is intended for crosstalk cancelation.

And let’s not forget that Toole advocates multichannel and was intimately involved in designing speakers for a company that was fully invested in multichannel.

He said in no uncertain terms he was advocating a crosstalk cancelation system himself to HK but for commercial reasons they didn’t bite. So AFTER HK said no it became an “effects generator”? Moving goal posts #3

Anything to hang on to dated research and technology.

And to this day Toole has opted not to either audition or test the BACCH systems despite the invitation

Toole has an understanding of music production, that is all that is needed to also understand why crosstalk cancelation will give different results depending on how the mix is done. A universally applied filter will simply not work the same way for every type of audio production, otherwise, it would have worked equally well for hard-panner multi-mono mixes as it does for some recordings made with just a stereo pair of microphones. Unfortunately, it will not even be certain that simple 2-mic recordings will work equally well as they are also made differently from each other as Toole pointed out.

 

[goat76]

This is a complete mental construct built on a unicorn reference. You CANT know what the engineer heard much less know what they heard was the goal much less know the goal was worthy of anyone’s attention.

It's not hard at all to KNOW that most audio productions are made without crosstalk cancelation, even when headphones are used during mixing it's common that some kind of room simulation program are used to simulate crosstalk and loudspeakers in a room.

Often the goal is selling product. Often the path is adding obnoxious levels of compression to make a recording that competes with other compressed recordings. So that is sacred? Not buying it.

What I think of loudness war has nothing to do with what we discuss in this thread.

Then you have to match the monitors and control room acoustics. But it won’t and *that* is written off as the circle of confusion. Again these arguments are just rationalizations to hang on to antiquated beliefs.

No, I don't have to match the playback system in the studio to land in the same “ballpark” of how a regular 2-channel will sound, well, unless they say the mix is intended for a crosstalk cancelation system.

And once again I’m betting this conversation happened never times between the artists and engineers "check out this mix! Isn't it awesome how the hard pan lands exactly on the speaker! Thank god conventional stereo doesn't allow me to extend the image beyond the speaker location or bring it closer or further away from the listener. We wouldn't want that to happen...ever."

And once again, if the mix is made especially for crosstalk cancelation playback, it's perfectly possible that some artists will prefer that their music production is made for that. You see, I don't argue that XTC doesn't work, I only argue against that mixes made for regular stereo playback will work with XTC. Unfortunately, that is either a bit or a miss from recording to recording.

And let’s not forget. Dolby Atmos upmixes are exempt from the mythical artists’ intentions

Anything to toe the line.

Dolby Atmos is not an “upmix”, Atmos is an object-based format and Atmos mixes will just be more accurate to the source the more speakers you add to the system as it will increase direct sound and reduce phantom sounds.

What do you mean when you call an Atmos production an “upmix”? Every mix, whatever the end format may be, is most of the time an unique mix from start to finish and doesn't have to have anything to do with the mixes made for other formats.

 

[Blockader]

Recording -> [x] -> mix -> [y] -> playback.

x: What the audio engineer does.

y: What the speaker does.

If the audio engineer mixed with speakers that have acoustic crosstalk in between, and your speakers have no acoustic crosstalk, the presentation won't be accurate anymore, mathematically. It can be more pleasing, and it can give a better 3D image than speakers with acoustic crosstalk, especially if the audio engineer keeps the ILD and ITD cues close to reality. If the audio engineer mixed the recording with a binaural source and you are playing it back with XTC speakers, it will be more accurate than playback with speakers which have acoustic crosstalk.

I hope this is clear enough.

If the audio engineer used artificial, over exaggerated spatial cues, BACCH can make the recording sound even more artificial. That's also a possibility.

 

[kemmler3D]

couldn't most of this system be just as effectively managed with off the shelf equipment readily available from Amazon, and price at hundreds of dollars less?

You just described 95% of Hi-Fi...

 

[kemmler3D]

which is an artifact created by the way in which 2 speakers interact in a room and negatively affect the performance of the other.

This is where I start to disagree ... if crosstalk is an "artifact" then headphones are the definitive way to listen to music, they have no crosstalk. Except... most of the production world doesn't think that and doesn't use headphones for mastering. Even though everyone's well aware that headphones are the more common / popular listening equipment out there in the world.

Crosstalk being an "artifact" when mixing / mastering studios are not known to use crosstalk cancellation doesn't pass the smell test.

I think it's a little far fetched to say that doing this is violating "what the artist (recording engineer?) intended.

I agree with Toole that crosstalk cancellation is (maybe only in a philosophical sense) more like a special effect than a room correction tool, unless you happen to know the album you're listening to was mixed with it.

On the other hand, apparently it can sound awesome. So I don't think there's a really good argument for not using it (aside from $$$$) unless you value "correctness" highly.

 

[jimbill]

But what it does is cancel crosstalk which is an artifact created by the way in which 2 speakers interact in a room and negatively affect the performance of the other. I think it's a little far fetched to say that doing this is violating "what the artist (recording engineer?) intended. All, I think, those guys are trying to do is make their stuff sound acceptable on as wide a range of systems as possible.

Really, this is a form of room correction, and in knowing that, perhaps we know why Toole seems opposed to it--He simply doesn't like any form of room correction. But that position leaves listeners in the lurch. The products of the recording arts are played on a variety of different systems: conventional cone speakers, electrostats, ribbons, headphones, IEMs, in different spaces ranging from untreated rooms with lotsa glass, rooms with wall absorbers and diffusers, in the space between a head cup and your ear pinnae, and actually in your ear canal. Aren't we constantly violating Floyds dictum constantly if we're using anything other than cones with no DSP in a minimally treated room? Obviously, that won't do. We need and use DSP/EQ because it allows us to dial in the sound to our ideal (which in most cases is Floyd's as well). And while too much would clearly be too much, and it can be overdone, that can hardly be considered a justification for NO ROOM TREATMENT, given what the average audiophile has to overcome to create great sound in his own space.

No, I don't have a problem with TAS giving Bacch for Mac product of the year, but which year? I think it's been kicking around since 2016 if not earlier. So great job on finding this tasty acorn at long last, little blind squirrel.

Rather, my problem was and remains with how the whole thing has been marketed and priced. I have UBacch, and I really like it. I think it opens up the sound space, and it is absolutely dynamite with my LS 50 Meta system. Rather my problem is how these guys managed to wait 8 years before getting themselves reviewed by a major slick, and to this date they have not submitted it to either Stereophile or ASR (AFIK) for some kind of objective measurement and analysis of how it works, and if it works without introducing any spurious noise and distortion which could indeed make it a sound effect.

Second problem is pricing. As far as I can see, the only three pieces of hardware are the sound interface (RME Babyface), the binaural mics, and the head tracker which just a webcam. Last time I check all that stuff was priced through the roof on the Bacch4Mac website. And really, couldn't most of this system be just as effectively managed with off the shelf equipment readily available from Amazon, and price at hundreds of dollars less?

That just leaves them with the software to sell. And therein lie my biggest beefs with the entire enterprise: (1) Why the hell isn't there a version of this that sells on Windows? And (2) why the hell does it cost $8000? You can't tell me they could not make a software version with all the features of Audiophile version that works on Mac, Windows, or Linux that sells for less than $1000 and make a huge profit.

They would just have to sell enough of them, that's all. And obviously that's something they don't think they can do. Why? Well such a program would have to have an interface and instruction set, an average (or dedicated Hi End Audiophile) found transparent and lucid enough to get up and running without numerous call backs to the company (which would overburden support staff). And they would have to make an intelligent marketing effort to explain the product to the audiophile world, and get them to take a stab. To me, that's a full software package for $1000 with you buying your own interface/mics/pc cam on Amazon from a recommended list of providers for as low as $400, and a beginner package for $300 (uBacch), coupled an effort to get the product into the audio press which at long last they seem to be doing.

So, I'm glad this project has moved from ground zero with only a literal handful of customers, but I won't be paying $8 grand for it, and I consider myself a dedicated and motivated audiophile. Just not $8k motivated. But, until Dr Chouiri creates a Windows version, makes a set of lucid set up instructions like Dirac and Smyth Research did, I don't want a bespoke $8k system (where I get customized walkthroughs on set up which really is WHY it has to be this expensive), especially when I'd be paying $2k for such mundane things as a webcam, binaural mics, and a $1000 interface which will only need to be used once if employed correctly, and which any $200 Motu could do every bit as well.

So right now with me it's a love-hate, because I love UBacch, but as far as I'm concerned the current top line product from Bacch is so unrealistically priced and so poorly positioned as bespoke processing requiring the kind of support given in Covid intensive care ward, I can't see supporting the enterprise right now.

BACCH4Mac is currently $4,980 on their website. If you already bought the Intro, that is deducted if you upgrade.

An earlier poster stated that if you already have an interface, they will deduct that from the purchase price.

My understanding is that the ear microphones are high-end and are calibrated in their lab.

So, more like a $4,000 investment if you want to use your own interface. I will say, again, that it made a bigger impact on my listening pleasure than anything else that I have done other than upgrading my speakers, which was much more costly.

The upgrade from Intro to Audiophile is very discernible. My electro-stats have a very narrow sweet spot, which can get tiring. The headtracking eliminates this problem.

Last night I listened to a 2023 recording or "Rite of Spring" and Munch's "Harold in Italy". Because of this thread, I made a point of switching back and forth between the BACCH filter and the bypass. I refuse to believe anybody would pick the bypass.

And we all know that companies serving the audiophile crowd never charge more than what they put into their products, plus a small profit.

 

[AudioJester]

BACCH4Mac is currently $4,980 on their website. If you already bought the Intro, that is deducted if you upgrade.

An earlier poster stated that if you already have an interface, they will deduct that from the purchase price.

My understanding is that the ear microphones are high-end and are calibrated in their lab.

So, more like a $4,000 investment if you want to use your own interface. I will say, again, that it made a bigger impact on my listening pleasure than anything else that I have done other than upgrading my speakers, which was much more costly.

The upgrade from Intro to Audiophile is very discernible. My electro-stats have a very narrow sweet spot, which can get tiring. The headtracking eliminates this problem.

Last night I listened to a 2023 recording or "Rite of Spring" and Munch's "Harold in Italy". Because of this thread, I made a point of switching back and forth between the BACCH filter and the bypass. I refuse to believe anybody would pick the bypass.

And we all know that companies serving the audiophile crowd never charge more than what they put into their products, plus a small profit.

Seems to be a trend where electrostat speaker owners are getting great resiults with BACCH. Not doubting there is a audible improvement.
What speakers do you use?

For a wider sweetspot, $5k can get some pretty good speakers. BACCH s an expensive upgrade path.

How do you measure the effect?

 

[jimbill]

I have Martin Logan 13a's. The sweet spot is inches wide. Like I said, it can get tiring trying to stay in it. With the BACCH headtracking you can make it as wide as you want. During the setup the program asks you to put your head in center location, then asks you to lean your head hard right, then hard left, while doing sound sweeps. The sweet spot is now that wide. In my case, about three feet wide.

Yes, the more directional the speaker the better. Theoretica uses Sanders 10e's in their listening room. There is a YouTube poster, "Audiophile Junkie", who has done a few videos on BACCH. He uses cone and dome speakers, as well as most of his followers. He now is a distributor for BACCH.

With the recordings last night, with the bypass the presentation was more between the speakers. With the BACCH filter it was across the entire front wall. Hit the bypass button, everything collapses back to a narrower sound stage. I go to the symphony pretty often. The BACCH get much closer to the scale and width of live.

On some pop/rock recordings, the individual instruments sometimes do get put a bit wide, but that is because of the recording. I assume the engineer did a hard pan, so where that would put it in one speaker, maybe 30 degrees wide of it, BACCH may put it 60+ degrees wide of the speaker.

 

[Gwreck]

N

But what it does is cancel crosstalk which is an artifact created by the way in which 2 speakers interact in a room and negatively affect the performance of the other. I think it's a little far fetched to say that doing this is violating "what the artist (recording engineer?) intended. All, I think, those guys are trying to do is make their stuff sound acceptable on as wide a range of systems as possible.

Really, this is a form of room correction, and in knowing that, perhaps we know why Toole seems opposed to it--He simply doesn't like any form of room correction. But that position leaves listeners in the lurch. The products of the recording arts are played on a variety of different systems: conventional cone speakers, electrostats, ribbons, headphones, IEMs, in different spaces ranging from untreated rooms with lotsa glass, rooms with wall absorbers and diffusers, in the space between a head cup and your ear pinnae, and actually in your ear canal. Aren't we constantly violating Floyds dictum constantly if we're using anything other than cones with no DSP in a minimally treated room? Obviously, that won't do. We need and use DSP/EQ because it allows us to dial in the sound to our ideal (which in most cases is Floyd's as well). And while too much would clearly be too much, and it can be overdone, that can hardly be considered a justification for NO ROOM TREATMENT, given what the average audiophile has to overcome to create great sound in his own space.

No, I don't have a problem with TAS giving Bacch for Mac product of the year, but which year? I think it's been kicking around since 2016 if not earlier. So great job on finding this tasty acorn at long last, little blind squirrel.

Rather, my problem was and remains with how the whole thing has been marketed and priced. I have UBacch, and I really like it. I think it opens up the sound space, and it is absolutely dynamite with my LS 50 Meta system. Rather my problem is how these guys managed to wait 8 years before getting themselves reviewed by a major slick, and to this date they have not submitted it to either Stereophile or ASR (AFIK) for some kind of objective measurement and analysis of how it works, and if it works without introducing any spurious noise and distortion which could indeed make it a sound effect.

Second problem is pricing. As far as I can see, the only three pieces of hardware are the sound interface (RME Babyface), the binaural mics, and the head tracker which just a webcam. Last time I check all that stuff was priced through the roof on the Bacch4Mac website. And really, couldn't most of this system be just as effectively managed with off the shelf equipment readily available from Amazon, and price at hundreds of dollars less?

That just leaves them with the software to sell. And therein lie my biggest beefs with the entire enterprise: (1) Why the hell isn't there a version of this that sells on Windows? And (2) why the hell does it cost $8000? You can't tell me they could not make a software version with all the features of Audiophile version that works on Mac, Windows, or Linux that sells for less than $1000 and make a huge profit.

They would just have to sell enough of them, that's all. And obviously that's something they don't think they can do. Why? Well such a program would have to have an interface and instruction set, an average (or dedicated Hi End Audiophile) found transparent and lucid enough to get up and running without numerous call backs to the company (which would overburden support staff). And they would have to make an intelligent marketing effort to explain the product to the audiophile world, and get them to take a stab. To me, that's a full software package for $1000 with you buying your own interface/mics/pc cam on Amazon from a recommended list of providers for as low as $400, and a beginner package for $300 (uBacch), coupled an effort to get the product into the audio press which at long last they seem to be doing.

So, I'm glad this project has moved from ground zero with only a literal handful of customers, but I won't be paying $8 grand for it, and I consider myself a dedicated and motivated audiophile. Just not $8k motivated. But, until Dr Chouiri creates a Windows version, makes a set of lucid set up instructions like Dirac and Smyth Research did, I don't want a bespoke $8k system (where I get customized walkthroughs on set up which really is WHY it has to be this expensive), especially when I'd be paying $2k for such mundane things as a webcam, binaural mics, and a $1000 interface which will only need to be used once if employed correctly, and which any $200 Motu could do every bit as well.

So right now with me it's a love-hate, because I love UBacch, but as far as I'm concerned the current top line product from Bacch is so unrealistically priced and so poorly positioned as bespoke processing requiring the kind of support given in Covid intensive care ward, I can't see supporting the enterprise right now.

Just remember this the Grand BACCH-SP is the original unit and is currently $54k and I think was more expensive when 1st out. The ADIO has become the status symbol for the well-heeled audiophiles that follow the YouTuber audiophile that promotes BACCH. They are a small company and I asked Dr. Choueiri about the possibility of Windows and he said they do not have the staff to program it. The cost is clearly economies of scale. Funny thing is the 1st BACCH I heard was on the Jambox by jawbone it was called PureAudio(I think)

 

[kemmler3D]

N

Just remember this the Grand BACCH-SP is the original unit and is currently $54k and I think was more expensive when 1st out. The ADIO has become the status symbol for the well-heeled audiophiles that follow the YouTuber audiophile that promotes BACCH. They are a small company and I asked Dr. Choueiri about the possibility of Windows and he said they do not have the staff to program it. The cost is clearly economies of scale. Funny thing is the 1st BACCH I heard was on the Jambox by jawbone it was called PureAudio(I think)

Sounds about right. I think it would get wide adoption if they could get MSRP to $100 if you supply your own camera and $150 with a camera. I honestly think that should be feasible, DSP is not exactly a rare commodity these days. But their business model is not adapted to that, which is ok.

At $5K you're talking fractions of fractions of a percent of the total music-listening audience that will even think about it.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

N

Just remember this the Grand BACCH-SP is the original unit and is currently $54k and I think was more expensive when 1st out. The ADIO has become the status symbol for the well-heeled audiophiles that follow the YouTuber audiophile that promotes BACCH. They are a small company and I asked Dr. Choueiri about the possibility of Windows and he said they do not have the staff to program it. The cost is clearly economies of scale. Funny thing is the 1st BACCH I heard was on the Jambox by jawbone it was called PureAudio(I think)

Well maybe he needs to go get a small business loan or see a venture and/or angel capitalist and hire more people. It's not like this is rocket science, and he is a rocket scientist for (%#*^)#!

Somehow Dirac, JRiver, Roon, and a whole host of other audio businesses figured this out. Guess he wants to be like the little granny who makes the best spaghetti in NY and runs a five table restaurant out of her walk down basement in Brooklyn. If he doesn't want to do that expansion himself, well, he is on the Princeton Campus, and last I heard they run a pretty good MBA program over there. I'm sure he could get all the help he needs to make this into a mainstream product, if he just has the desire to do it. So that's why I'm kind of ranting here. Sorry if I've come across too strong, but I know this could be a very important program if Dr C. could just get off the dime.

 

[Keith_W]

Somehow Dirac, JRiver, Roon, and a whole host of other audio businesses figured this out. Guess he wants to be like the little granny who makes the best spaghetti in NY and runs a five table restaurant out of her walk down basement in Brooklyn. If he doesn't want to do that expansion himself, well, he is on the Princeton Campus, and last I heard they run a pretty good MBA program over there. I'm sure he could get all the help he needs to make this into a mainstream product, if he just has the desire to do it. So that's why I'm kind of ranting here. Sorry if I've come across too strong, but I know this could be a very important program if Dr C. could just get off the dime.

I agree with your rant. No Windows support = not going there.

 

[kemmler3D]

Well maybe he needs to go get a small business loan or see a venture and/or angel capitalist and hire more people. It's not like this is rocket science, and he is a rocket scientist for (%#*^)#!

Somehow Dirac, JRiver, Roon, and a whole host of other audio businesses figured this out. Guess he wants to be like the little granny who makes the best spaghetti in NY and runs a five table restaurant out of her walk down basement in Brooklyn. If he doesn't want to do that expansion himself, well, he is on the Princeton Campus, and last I heard they run a pretty good MBA program over there. I'm sure he could get all the help he needs to make this into a mainstream product, if he just has the desire to do it. So that's why I'm kind of ranting here. Sorry if I've come across too strong, but I know this could be a very important program if Dr C. could just get off the dime.

Devil's advocate - maybe the cost is not down to economies of scale. Maybe they are trying to milk the "audiophile nonsense"-level pricing before going down to mainstream prices.

I mean, who among us hasn't looked at a $5000 cable and thought "gosh, I could sell literally anything to these people for thousands..." ? Perhaps that's the basis for their pricing model, for now. It sure as hell doesn't take $1000 to produce a copy of software, economies of scale don't apply there.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Devil's advocate - maybe the cost is not down to economies of scale. Maybe they are trying to milk the "audiophile nonsense"-level pricing before going down to mainstream prices.

I mean, who among us hasn't looked at a $5000 cable and thought "gosh, I could sell literally anything to these people for thousands..." ? Perhaps that's the basis for their pricing model, for now. It sure as hell doesn't take $1000 to produce a copy of software, economies of scale don't apply there.

It cost nothing virtually. The argument is he has to hold your little hand and walk you through the entire process, which is bullshit IMHO. Large software companies including Dirac, JRiver have long ago figured out how to distribute extremely complex programs which do a wide variety of extremely complex tasks without needing to do that at all or at least to a minimal extent. So either he has insufficiently automated his process, or his instruction set/user interface. And if the argument is they need to run it on Apple silicon because they want to be sure they're getting something powerful enough, that speaks to the lack of an efficient coding on their part. If he's created a loose, baggy monster piece of software that's an absolute resource hog, and only he can figure out how to make it work and only on the most powerful consumer systems, why should I or any potential customer have to pay the premium for that? And, since it's mostly a one man company, what if he gets run over by a truck, or has a heart attack. Good luck.

 

[Mrpinortiner]

8K ?!!

I'm out.

BBE 482 Sonic Maximzers run about $150 on the 'Bay. One could cover the logo with a custom made "YECCH" sticker. Could probably make a tidy profit pushing them on A' gon with a $4k asking price. How about just using the "stereo wide" circuit from an old eighties boom box?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Well if Dr Toole doesn’t bless it then it’s not ASR worthy anyway. The 90s was a great decade. By all means, every excuse and rationalization please, y’all stay there. Nothing beats a pair of Revel Salon Ultimate 2s and a pair of reflective side walls. That’s some forever truth…..

Boy did I nail this one with my first post.

 

[DWPress]

BBE 482 Sonic Maximzers run about $150 on the 'Bay. One could cover the logo with a custom made "YECCH" sticker. Could probably make a tidy profit pushing them on A' gon with a $4k asking price. How about just using the "stereo wide" circuit from an old eighties boom box?

Back in the 90's I was an ardent fan of Carver's "Sonic Holography"

 

[goat76]

What I find quite interesting is that he actually did do blind preference tests when they were perusing a type of cross talk cancellation system designed to simulate multichannel and the crosstalk cancelation system beat the actual multichannel system at it’s own game.

“At a trade show we mounted a demonstration of real vs. phantom 5.1 home theater. Long lines of people waited to hear it, and we collected reactions when they left. About half of the listeners said that they had no preference, but of the half that expressed a preference the phantom system won. When asked why, the popular answer could be interpreted as "distance" - the sounds came from much farther away than the real loudspeakers and the images were "softer"

I have expressed this before but I’ll say it again. It would be quite interesting to do some careful double blind preference tests between a BACCH based system and a Dolby Atmos system.

So far IME the BACCH simply crushes anything from Dolby Atmos when it comes to depth range and depth specificity. But my impressions are all from non bias controlled auditions.

Just a small comment on this.

I don't doubt that a crosstalk cancelation system can beat a multichannel system, but just as it is for the multichannel system, the audio content must be specially made for the crosstalk cancelation system to fully work as intended. The audio content Toole and his team used for the phantom 5.1 system where likely specially mixed for the purpose as the idea was to simulate a real 5.1 system.

BACCH can sound very good for some regular 2-channel recordings when it happens to work, and probably even amazingly convincingly good for audio content specially made for crosstalk cancelation playback. The main problem is that there are very few recordings made with crosstalk cancelation in mind, and unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Just a small comment on this.

I don't doubt that a crosstalk cancelation system can beat a multichannel system, but just as it is for the multichannel system, the audio content must be specially made for the crosstalk cancelation system to fully work as intended.

Based on what? Are there some published listening tests using a wide variety of stereo recordings that demonstrate this?

Have you done your own listening tests with a wide variety of stereo recordings?

Or is it based on Dr Floyd Toole said so?

The audio content Toole and his team used for the phantom 5.1 system were likely specially mixed for the purpose as the idea was to simulate a real 5.1 system.

Dr. Toole’s tests are barely relevant to actual use of the BACCH SP. The BACCH SP is designed to work with any and all two channel stereo recordings and has been thoroughly tested with a wide array of commercial stereo recordings that very well represent what one will commonly find being listened to by audiophiles and music lovers across many demographics

BACCH can sound very good for some regular 2-channel recordings when it happens to work, and probably even amazingly convincingly good for audio content specially made for crosstalk cancelation playback. The main problem is that there are very few recordings made with crosstalk cancelation in mind, and unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.

You have data to support this assertion? Studies or personal listening tests that represent a wide variety of stereo recordings?

Or is this based on Dr. Floyd Toole said so?