BACCH4Mac "Absolute Sounds Product of the Year 2024"

[jimbill]

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.

Where are you getting the idea that the recordings have to be made for BACCH for it to work?

I've listened to hundreds of stereo recordings through it and every one of them benefits from BACCH. Orchestral recordings from the "Living Stereo" era are phenomenal. CSN&Y albums are a new experience. Live recordings are like the show is right in front of you.

Have you ever really heard it? Or are you like Toole, just taking shots without evidence or experience?

 

[tmtomh]

I am persuaded by the idea that a crosstalk cancellation filter in the playback chain could change or widen the perceived stereo image beyond what the mixing engineer intended (and the producer and artist signed off on), if the the recording was not made and mixed on a binaural setup.

However, can't we say that for recordings made on non-binaural setups and mixed and mastered using studio monitors and not headphones, this same problem would be true if you just listened on your headphones instead of with speakers?

And furthermore, given the variable sizes of mixing rooms and listening rooms, and the often unrealistic mixing/panning choices made in mixing and production, don't we have to say that perceived stereo soundstage is not a matter of a single objectively correct size or width?

For those reasons it seems to me that BAACH basically offers a hybrid listening experience between that of headphones on the one hand, and conventional non-CTC speakers on the other. Since we are not prepared to say that headphone listening is less correct or less hi-fi than speaker listening, then doesn't that mean we can't simply declare BAACH to be a special effect?

Of course if you apply BAACH and suddenly most of your music is full of sounds that seem to come from beyond the side walls of your room or otherwise sounds bizarre or "whiz-bang," then I would agree it's a special effect and not a hi-fi enhancement. But I've never heard it in action so I don't know.

Finally, I would guess that for many stereo speaker listeners, BAACH might not be preferred (at least in the long term), because many of us prefer speakers to headphones and it's possible that we are accustomed to and enjoy the crosstalk one gets with speakers in a room. But again, I don't know.

 

[jimbill]

I am persuaded by the idea that a crosstalk cancellation filter in the playback chain could change or widen the perceived stereo image beyond what the mixing engineer intended (and the producer and artist signed off on), if the the recording was not made and mixed on a binaural setup.

However, can't we say that for recordings made on non-binaural setups and mixed and mastered using studio monitors and not headphones, this same problem would be true if you just listened on your headphones instead of with speakers?

And furthermore, given the variable sizes of mixing rooms and listening rooms, and the often unrealistic mixing/panning choices made in mixing and production, don't we have to say that perceived stereo soundstage is not a matter of a single objectively correct size or width?

For those reasons it seems to me that BAACH basically offers a hybrid listening experience between that of headphones on the one hand, and conventional non-CTC speakers on the other. Since we are not prepared to say that headphone listening is less correct or less hi-fi than speaker listening, then doesn't that mean we can't simply declare BAACH to be a special effect?

Of course if you apply BAACH and suddenly most of your music is full of sounds that seem to come from beyond the side walls of your room or otherwise sounds bizarre or "whiz-bang," then I would agree it's a special effect and not a hi-fi enhancement. But I've never heard it in action so I don't know.

Finally, I would guess that for many stereo speaker listeners, BAACH might not be preferred (at least in the long term), because many of us prefer speakers to headphones and it's possible that we are accustomed to and enjoy the crosstalk one gets with speakers in a room. But again, I don't know.

BACCH has an application for headphones. I've never heard it.

With headphones, the music is positioned in and around your head, not a true listening environment. Supposedly with the BACCHhp this problem is solved. People have reported that they thought they were listening to their speakers until they took the headphones off.

 

[tmtomh]

BACCH has an application for headphones. I've never heard it.

With headphones, the music is positioned in and around your head, not a true listening environment. Supposedly with the BACCHhp this problem is solved. People have reported that they thought they were listening to their speakers until they took the headphones off.

Interesting - thanks!

 

[MattHooper]

Since we are not prepared to say that headphone listening is less correct or less hi-fi than speaker listening, then doesn't that mean we can't simply declare BAACH to be a special effect?

Good point.

BACCH has an application for headphones. I've never heard it.

With headphones, the music is positioned in and around your head, not a true listening environment. Supposedly with the BACCHhp this problem is solved. People have reported that they thought they were listening to their speakers until they took the headphones off.

But then this would seem to play in to the side that argues BACCH as being an effect generator or less accurate in terms of the way the engineers and artists heard their music when creating it. If we took headphones to be a sort of BAACH-like experience in having no cross talk, but this is acceptable in terms of accuracy, that might give substance to the argument BAACH isn't necessarily departing from accuracy. But if BAACH changes BOTH the sounds from loudspeakers AND in headphones, then it would depart from the sound heard by mixers whether they happened to use headphones or speakers.

I'd like to hear BAACH some day, but I've seen plenty of descriptions of the differences it can make to mixes. The accuracy and "what is the end game" issue is always a rabbit hole, but I'm not convinced as of yet that BAACH is the more accurate route. If the sonic differences between regular stereo and BAACH corrected stereo are as transformative as many BAACH fans keep claiming, then that suggests to me a significant general departure from the character of the sound the original engineers would have heard and mixed for. It may not be "adding" a different effect, but it certainly seems to be creating a different effect, relative to usual stereo reproduction. To that point, it would seem that you pretty much know that you are hearing sonic characteristics with the BAACH that studio engineers didn't experience, and who knows if they may have mixed differently if they'd use a BAACH?

 

[Thomas_A]

I've been discussing this already in another thread, and there were two things discussed. One is the crosstalk problems of stereo, which are real and problematic, and then there are reflections from the listening room, which also are real but may not impose a problem. Given that there are models to choose from; "they being here or I being there", it boils down to choices. If there is a true live uptake with ambience from all directions of the hall in the recording, one could say being there is one option (so here multichannel to reproduce the venue, or a dead room/directional speakers with BACCH). I gave an example of Marcus King band, being in a van playing, and then the mixer did an excellent job of creating a good recording to listen over speakers in a normal room. It was certainly not the ambience of the van that was the goal - so "me being there in the van" would be quite irrelevant. I could choose any location - including my own room with the front wall being an opening to the event. So reflections from my room would be added, naturally, while the mixer did his work to get a "ambient space" in the front direction. This scenario would be the case for many studio recordings.

 

[dshreter]

It doesn't make sense to swear by blind studies and how to design a speaker for preference, then reject a certain approach without regard for whether people like the way it sounds. Assuming we are talking about listening for enjoyment, it doesn't really matter if the sound is more accurate, correct, or any other adjective like that.

 

[goat76]

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

Based on the same blind preference test made by Toole that you quoted yourself, but maybe you have exclusive rights to take his words on it?
Why are you even questioning this, I thought you were already convinced that crosstalk-canceling recordings can compete with surround systems.

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

I have tested BACCH in my system with a wide variety of stereo recordings. You should know this already as we have discussed BACCH in another thread where I even posted an example of a song by The Beatles.

Or is it based on Dr Floyd Toole said so?

You are the one who’s quoting him.

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

I don't doubt that the team behind BACCH has refined crosstalk cancelation from the time Toole made the test, but recordings mixed with sound systems without crosstalk cancelation will end up as either a hit or a miss because the mixing engineer must be able to hear what he's doing. You have no idea of how many tracks even a single instrument can contain in a mix, and the complexity of how all those tracks are panned over the stereo field with delays and stereo tricks that sometimes are highly dependent on the crosstalk to still be perceived as a single instrument. The problem with a "user-applied" filter is that that will severely alter the sound from what the mixing engineer heard while making all the delicate mixing decisions.

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?

I tested BACCH in my sound system and listened to a lot of different types of recordings from different types of genres, everything from modern hard-panned multi-mono recordings to minimalistic 2-mic classical recordings. The effect works best for minimalistic recording, and right there you have the proof that the mixing engineers must hear the crosstalk cancelation while mixing to be able to make the right decisions for the mix. The same problems will of course occur even with minimalistic recordings but they are just not as obvious, you will mostly hear the widening effect that will likely give some listeners a subjective "enhancement" for such recording.

Where are you getting the idea that the recordings have to be made for BACCH for it to work?

I wouldn't call it an "idea", I know as I'm mixing my recordings and have tested BACCH with those mixes as well, and I would have panned things differently if I had heard them with crosstalk cancelation.

I've listened to hundreds of stereo recordings through it and every one of them benefits from BACCH. Orchestral recordings from the "Living Stereo" era are phenomenal. CSN&Y albums are a new experience. Live recordings are like the show is right in front of you.

Have you ever really heard it? Or are you like Toole, just taking shots without evidence or experience?

Good for you, I'm glad to hear that you are completely happy with BACCH! The only problem I have is that some people here seem to think they will hear the mixes more accurately with the BACCH filter, but it's completely okay that someone like you prefers the effect subjectively. I think you should keep on using it as it enhances your listening experience.

I have also listened to many records with BACCH, and exactly as you say, it can with some recordings sound great. I had the uBACCH plugin in my DAW for the 2 week test period. I even rendered some songs with the filter applied to be able to hear them after the test period ended.

 

[AudioJester]

Based on the same blind preference test made by Toole that you quoted yourself, but maybe you have exclusive rights to take his words on it?
Why are you even questioning this, I thought you were already convinced that crosstalk-canceling recordings can compete with surround systems.



I have tested BACCH in my system with a wide variety of stereo recordings. You should know this already as we have discussed BACCH in another thread where I even posted an example of a song by The Beatles.



You are the one who’s quoting him.



I don't doubt that the team behind BACCH has refined crosstalk cancelation from the time Toole made the test, but recordings mixed with sound systems without crosstalk cancelation will end up as either a hit or a miss because the mixing engineer must be able to hear what he's doing. You have no idea of how many tracks even a single instrument can contain in a mix, and the complexity of how all those tracks are panned over the stereo field with delays and stereo tricks that sometimes are highly dependent on the crosstalk to still be perceived as a single instrument. The problem with a "user-applied" filter is that that will severely alter the sound from what the mixing engineer heard while making all the delicate mixing decisions.



I tested BACCH in my sound system and listened to a lot of different types of recordings from different types of genres, everything from modern hard-panned multi-mono recordings to minimalistic 2-mic classical recordings. The effect works best for minimalistic recording, and right there you have the proof that the mixing engineers must hear the crosstalk cancelation while mixing to be able to make the right decisions for the mix. The same problems will of course occur even with minimalistic recordings but they are just not as obvious, you will mostly hear the widening effect that will likely give some listeners a subjective "enhancement" for such recording.








I wouldn't call it an "idea", I know as I'm mixing my recordings and have tested BACCH with those mixes as well, and I would have panned things differently if I had heard them with crosstalk cancelation.



Good for you, I'm glad to hear that you are completely happy with BACCH! The only problem I have is that some people here seem to think they will hear the mixes more accurately with the BACCH filter, but it's completely okay that someone like you prefers the effect subjectively. I think you should keep on using it as it enhances your listening experience.

I have also listened to many records with BACCH, and exactly as you say, it can with some recordings sound great. I had the uBACCH plugin in my DAW for the 2 week test period. I even rendered some songs with the filter applied to be able to hear them after the test period ended.

Thankyou, real experience, non biased feedback.

Otherwise it follows a coomon path for uber expensive audiophile products- where those who have invested in it want to rave on and on about it ( i have been there myself in the past).

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I am persuaded by the idea that a crosstalk cancellation filter in the playback chain could change or widen the perceived stereo image beyond what the mixing engineer intended (and the producer and artist signed off on), if the the recording was not made and mixed on a binaural setup.

However, can't we say that for recordings made on non-binaural setups and mixed and mastered using studio monitors and not headphones, this same problem would be true if you just listened on your headphones instead of with speakers?

And furthermore, given the variable sizes of mixing rooms and listening rooms, and the often unrealistic mixing/panning choices made in mixing and production, don't we have to say that perceived stereo soundstage is not a matter of a single objectively correct size or width?

For those reasons it seems to me that BAACH basically offers a hybrid listening experience between that of headphones on the one hand, and conventional non-CTC speakers on the other. Since we are not prepared to say that headphone listening is less correct or less hi-fi than speaker listening, then doesn't that mean we can't simply declare BAACH to be a special effect?

Of course if you apply BAACH and suddenly most of your music is full of sounds that seem to come from beyond the side walls of your room or otherwise sounds bizarre or "whiz-bang," then I would agree it's a special effect and not a hi-fi enhancement. But I've never heard it in action so I don't know.

Finally, I would guess that for many stereo speaker listeners, BAACH might not be preferred (at least in the long term), because many of us prefer speakers to headphones and it's possible that we are accustomed to and enjoy the crosstalk one gets with speakers in a room. But again, I don't know.

When I first auditioned the BACCH I was both blown away and at the same time concerned about the very issues you and others raise. There was no debate with acoustic recordings but would this massive expansion of the sound stage with studio recordings impress in the short term but wear badly in the long term.

The long term has proven to be quite interesting. Not only do I continue to enjoy the results but I find going back to be somewhat unlistenable. There is a reason.

Removing the conflicting spatial cues of the cross talk just makes it easier to listen. Conventional stereo just sounds wrong to me. It sounds like “a stereo.”

 

[jimbill]

I agree completely.

I was listening to The Beatles (White Album) remaster last night and was blown away. The spacing was fantastic and I heard details I'd never noticed before.

Hit the bypass and it sounded so much less.

 

[jimbill]

Thankyou, real experience, non biased feedback.

Otherwise it follows a coomon path for uber expensive audiophile products- where those who have invested in it want to rave on and on about it ( i have been there myself in the past).

Why is his experience any more real than mine?

Is his feedback non-biased because it is negative?

And I'm not into expensive products just for the cache. I came upon this by pure accident. I got the Intro, enjoyed it, and finally upgraded to the Audiophile because it made an even bigger impact.

I don't know what speakers he is using. Speakers with high directivity do benefit more from BACCH.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

But then this would seem to play in to the side that argues BACCH as being an effect generator or less accurate in terms of the way the engineers and artists heard their music when creating it.

Sadly the fact that there are “sides” speaks to the lack of scientific thinking that some folks are applying to this product.

It’s an inarguable fact clearly explained in JJ’s lecture on “accuracy in audio” that this notion of artist’s’ intentions or “the sound heard by the artists” are unobtainium as any kind of meaningful or usable reference. We have a massive body of stereo recordings dating back to the mid 50s through now. Recorded using a wide array of stereo recording techniques, all mixed in their own unique way by a multitude of individuals through a multitude of monitoring techniques and systems with the full understanding of the diversity of playback systems that would be used by the consumers.

That’s the reality of things and it ain’t gonna change.

There is zero substance to any argument predicated on this mythical notion of artists’ intent or “what the artists heard”

I'd like to hear BAACH some day, but I've seen plenty of descriptions of the differences it can make to mixes. The accuracy and "what is the end game" issue is always a rabbit hole, but I'm not convinced as of yet that BAACH is the more accurate route. If the sonic differences between regular stereo and BAACH corrected stereo are as transformative as many BAACH fans keep claiming, then that suggests to me a significant general departure from the character of the sound the original engineers would have heard and mixed for. It may not be "adding" a different effect, but it certainly seems to be creating a different effect, relative to usual stereo reproduction. To that point, it would seem that you pretty much know that you are hearing sonic characteristics with the BAACH that studio engineers didn't experience, and who knows if they may have mixed differently if they'd use a BAACH?

Exactly, who knows? I say who cares? If you are listening to a classic Blue Note jazz recording from the 50s or 60s do you want to hear what Rudy Van Gelder heard in mono on his crappy monitor in his home studio or do you want to hear an amazingly convincing portrayal of live jazz legends playing in a quasi realistic space with life like imaging, dynamics, tonality and clarity?

IMO it’s a no brainer. I can make a list of recordings a mile long where this question completely applies.

And allow me to point out a few things that are being ignored and maybe accidentally missed.
1. A two channel system using the Revel Salon Ultimate 2s or the JBL M2s in some “average domestic room with reflective side walls ain’t gonna magically cure all the issues that some folks think are arguments against the BACCH
2. There’s a bypass switch for the BACCH (duh)
3. There is also a slider that allows the listener to tailor the amount of cross talk cancellation (oh?! It’s adjustable? I can go from zero to full effect and even get the same level of added spaciousness from side wall reflections as per the Dr. Toole belief system without all the added conflicting spatial cues that comes with those reflections? Oh)

 

[MattHooper]

When I first auditioned the BACCH I was both blown away and at the same time concerned about the very issues you and others raise. There was no debate with acoustic recordings but would this massive expansion of the sound stage with studio recordings impress in the short term but wear badly in the long term.

The long term has proven to be quite interesting. Not only do I continue to enjoy the results but I find going back to be somewhat unlistenable. There is a reason.

Removing the conflicting spatial cues of the cross talk just makes it easier to listen. Conventional stereo just sounds wrong to me. It sounds like “a stereo.”

I was listening to The Beatles (White Album) remaster last night and was blown away. The spacing was fantastic and I heard details I'd never noticed before.

This is what I mean when it comes to the "accuracy" conversation. The more the BAACH listener suggests there is a profound difference in the presentation from regular stereo, the more it must be departing from how it sounded in the mixing theater where it was mixed for regular stereo.

That’s the reality of things and it ain’t gonna change.

There is zero substance to any argument predicated on this mythical notion of artists’ intent or “what the artists heard”

I don't quite agree.

First of all, I'm on record as not personally chasing the rabbit of "accuracy" for accuracy sake, whether it's just to "reproduce precisely what's on the recording" or "to get closer to what they may have heard when making the recording." I say that the musically relevant information translates very well through a huge variety of sound systems, certainly including one using the BAACH device. It's a preference. So in no way am I arguing that BAACH is a "wrong" way to listen. If you like the effect, totally great. I like the slight coloration from vinyl or my tube amps.

However...that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for someone to care about those first two goals I mentioned. So if you may just have the goal of wanting to hear what's on the recording itself, and want to reproduce just the recorded signal with fidelity. And the more accurately you do that, the more you will hear the individual character of each recording and all the artistic choices that make it that way. And once you have that goal, we know there are ways of moving further away from or towards that goal, in terms of signal integrity and measurable accuracy, in our components. Now here one may raise an objection that, while we can get truly accurate linearity in our amplification and sources, we haven't reached that in loudspeakers and all will be departing from linearity/accuracy to one degree or another. So then, who cares about accuracy when it comes to loudspeakers? No. That would be letting the Perfect become the enemy of The Good. You can still move closer or farther from the goal of accuracy for loudspeakers, so it still makes sense to move closer to accuracy for this goal.

But then we can also ask why bother with this in the first place? Why care about exactly how the recordings sound? It's reasonable to also say the recording represents the art/intent of the artist, and the more accurately I reproduce the signal, the more information I get about the choices made in producing the music and the intent of those who were laying that music down.

But then you can push this idea a bit further, and if you care about the artists intent, their music as they intended it to sound, that would IDEALLY include being able to hear what it sounded like in their studio. There of course we enter the circle of confusion. HOWEVER...just as in the previous case, why let the Perfect be the enemy of The Good? In the vast majority of the cases, no we won't match exactly the room and playback gear used when making the recording. But we can also know what will move us further or closer to that goal. If we choose to play all stereo recordings on a single mono speaker, we KNOW we have moved further from what they heard doing a stereo mix. If we put our loudspeakers in a reflective bathroom we KNOW we are moving away from the sound many likely heard in a recording studio, where for the most part they tend to be listening closer to nearfield, and often in a room somewhat treated for less reflection.

Similarly in using a BAACH one would know we are moving away from what they would have heard in the studio. So it wouldn't seem to fit with the goal being expressed.

So, while yes reproducing what they heard in the studio is ultimately impossible in many cases, like the north star that you never reach but which is a direction in which you travel, it may be possible and reasonable to move further toward the goal instead of away. Just like, I have argued, for sonic realism: we never or rarely reach it, so some discard it, but it's still a goal one can move closer to or further from as a criteria, and moving closer can be satisfying in of itself.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

This is what I mean when it comes to the "accuracy" conversation. The more the BAACH listener suggests there is a profound difference in the presentation from regular stereo, the more it must be departing from how it sounded in the mixing theater where it was mixed for regular stereo.



I don't quite agree.

First of all, I'm on record as not personally chasing the rabbit of "accuracy" for accuracy sake, whether it's just to "reproduce precisely what's on the recording" or "to get closer to what they may have heard when making the recording." I say that the musically relevant information translates very well through a huge variety of sound systems, certainly including one using the BAACH device. It's a preference. So in no way am I arguing that BAACH is a "wrong" way to listen. If you like the effect, totally great. I like the slight coloration from vinyl or my tube amps.

However...that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for someone to care about those first two goals I mentioned.

It’s not unreasonable to care about them. It is unreasonable to think they represent meaningful references. It is also unreasonable to think such personal opinions are universal.

So if you may just have the goal of wanting to hear what's on the recording itself, and want to reproduce just the recorded signal with fidelity. And the more accurately you do that, the more you will hear the individual character of each recording and all the artistic choices that make it that way. And once you have that goal, we know there are ways of moving further away from or towards that goal, in terms of signal integrity and measurable accuracy, in our components. Now here one may raise an objection that, while we can get truly accurate linearity in our amplification and sources, we haven't reached that in loudspeakers and all will be departing from linearity/accuracy to one degree or another. So then, who cares about accuracy when it comes to loudspeakers? No. That would be letting the Perfect become the enemy of The Good. You can still move closer or farther from the goal of accuracy for loudspeakers, so it still makes sense to move closer to accuracy for this goal.

But then we can also ask why bother with this in the first place? Why care about exactly how the recordings sound? It's reasonable to also say the recording represents the art/intent of the artist, and the more accurately I reproduce the signal, the more information I get about the choices made in producing the music and the intent of those who were laying that music down.

But then you can push this idea a bit further, and if you care about the artists intent, their music as they intended it to sound, that would IDEALLY include being able to hear what it sounded like in their studio. There of course we enter the circle of confusion. HOWEVER...just as in the previous case, why let the Perfect be the enemy of The Good? In the vast majority of the cases, no we won't match exactly the room and playback gear used when making the recording. But we can also know what will move us further or closer to that goal. If we choose to play all stereo recordings on a single mono speaker, we KNOW we have moved further from what they heard doing a stereo mix. If we put our loudspeakers in a reflective bathroom we KNOW we are moving away from the sound many likely heard in a recording studio, where for the most part they tend to be listening closer to nearfield, and often in a room somewhat treated for less reflection.

Similarly in using a BAACH one would know we are moving away from what they would have heard in the studio. So it wouldn't seem to fit with the goal being expressed.

So, while yes reproducing what they heard in the studio is ultimately impossible in many cases, like the north star that you never reach but which is a direction in which you travel, it may be possible and reasonable to move further toward the goal instead of away. Just like, I have argued, for sonic realism: we never or rarely reach it, so some discard it, but it's still a goal one can move closer to or further from as a criteria, and moving closer can be satisfying in of itself.

I just want the music to sound as good as it can. If any philosophy of audio leads one to accept subjectively inferior sound based on some principle of accuracy or any other idea, I reject that for myself.

Others can do whatever they want. Even chase dragons and unicorns.

 

[tmtomh]

It’s not unreasonable to care about them. It is unreasonable to think they represent meaningful references. It is also unreasonable to think such personal opinions are universal.

I just want the music to sound as good as it can. If any philosophy of audio leads one to accept subjectively inferior sound based on some principle of accuracy or any other idea, I reject that for myself.

Others can do whatever they want. Even chase dragons and unicorns.

As you know from my prior comment above, I generally agree with you insofar as I don't think BAACH can be dismissed as a "special effect," and I take seriously the perspective that it can increase perceived fidelity though cancellation of crosstalk in the listening space.

That said, I have to part ways with your claim - which you have repeated over and over by now, with increasing stridency - that fidelity to the recording itself is a unicorn or unobtainium. The fact that we can never know exactly what the mixing and mastering engineers, producer, and artist heard in the studio (and that we can never have their ears or be in their brains), does not mean that we can't gain significant insight into the sonic qualities of the recording. Recordings can be measured in many ways, including their noise levels, the frequency content of the music, and the differences between the L and R channels, and so on. We also gain insight into the sound of recordings when we listen to multiple recordings on multiple playback systems, especially speakers.

Now, I think one can make a slightly different and more specific argument, along the lines that the perception of the stereo image width and/or precision in particular is pretty subjective and variable. On that basis one could say that there's really no basis upon which we can prove that BAACH either enhances or reduces fidelity aka whether it takes us closer or further from maximally faithful reproduction of the recording.

But if the argument is that fidelity itself doesn't matter because we don't know exactly what the people in the mixing room heard and it's just about what "sounds good," then I have to part ways with your position, and so do a lot of other folks at ASR.

You can argue as you wish of course.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

As you know from my prior comment above, I generally agree with you insofar as I don't think BAACH can be dismissed as a "special effect," and I take seriously the perspective that it can increase perceived fidelity though cancellation of crosstalk in the listening space.

That said, I have to part ways with your claim - which you have repeated over and over by now, with increasing stridency - that fidelity to the recording itself is a unicorn or unobtainium.

But I never said that. I said artists’ intentions and what the artists’ heard are unobtainium ….as a meaningful and useful reference. Big difference

The fact that we can never know exactly what the mixing and mastering engineers, producer, and artist heard in the studio (and that we can never have their ears or be in their brains), does not mean that we can't gain significant insight into the sonic qualities of the recording.

The recordings themselves sure. We have them. They can serve as an objective reference for the audio signal. After that it gets dicey

Recordings can be measured in many ways, including their noise levels, the frequency content of the music, and the differences between the L and R channels, and so on. We also gain insight into the sound of recordings when we listen to multiple recordings on multiple playback systems, especially speakers.

The recordings are objective. The insight not so much. I will give you one example.

Years ago a friend of mine did a recording for Deutsche Grammaphone of a couple piano concertos down in Venezuela. The piano was in bad shape and sounded like crap. So much so that the whole project was nearly scrapped. The concert hall sounded like shit. The audiences were loud and disruptive and the woodwinds didn’t seem to grasp the idea of moderation. Brilliant performances that just sounded like crap in person.

The recording engineer was and still is a hard core audiophile. He did some extensive multimiking. The recording was monitored over head phones. I couldn’t tell you what was used to monitor the mix but I can tell you that the conductor used his “high end” foo foo system that would be scorned by most ASR members. My friend used her iPhone and ear buds to judge the final mix. They had notes and eventually signed off on the recording.

When I played it he CD it sounded great and it sounded nothing like the original live sound. Totally different in character. Piano sounded amazing. Orchestra sounded balance. Not a hint of the crap hall signature sound.

How would anyone, by listening to this CD gain that insight or any other insight into this recording?

Artists’ intentions? Do tell?

So when someone who wasn’t there plays this same recording using the BACCH and the sound stage goes from typical two channel stereo miniature with all the typical trappings to sounding amazingly life like in scale and specificity should they question the results based on insight that…that…..that we can find in the recording without knowing the back story?

The idea of “fidelity” is simple. Real life is messy and complicated. Of the tens of thousands of stereo recordings made since the mid 50s we mostly don’t even know what we don’t know.

Yes, we have the recordings. But we never have the whole story behind them and rarely much at all of their back stories. Each was a part of a unique journey

But if the argument is that fidelity itself doesn't matter because we don't know exactly what the people in the mixing room heard and it's just about what "sounds good," then I have to part ways with your position, and so do a lot of other folks at ASR.

What matters is a personal choice. Objective facts are not. The recordings are objective. The artist’s’ intentions are unobtainium. Our ability to look at recordings and decipher their journeys based on the recordings themselves is vague and highly speculative.

What matters to each audiophile in their approach to their hobby is up to them.

But take my one example. If ASR members think they are getting any closer to what was heard in the concert hall or on the headphones by adhering to the Dr. Toole approach to stereo playback as opposed to a BACCH based system they are operating from somewhere in Wonderland.

 

[NTK]

But take my one example. If ASR members think they are getting any closer to what was heard in the concert hall or on the headphones by adhering to the Dr. Toole approach to stereo playback as opposed to a BACCH based system they are operating from somewhere in Wonderland.

Stick with facts, ma'am. Stop misrepresenting Toole. He didn't say upmixing is "more correct".

BACCH4Mac Pro Edition: a report

Many thanks to Dr. Toole for joining the forum and providing some context on the development of crosstalk cancellation. In my ignorance, I had not known of Cooper-Bauck. Perhaps I need to hear a state-of-the-art multichannel system before I make more statements about the relative merits of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Quote:

...
I think I can end by quoting myself from the earlier post:" Ideally we want an encode-decode system, so that results are predictable from the creative artists through to the listeners." This necessarily includes neutral loudspeakers throughout, and that too is a huge problem. Binaurally post processing existing recordings mixed and mastered for loudspeaker reproduction is not that. Neither is upmixing stereo to a multichannel system. Both can enhance a basic stereo playback, which is why both of us have found our ways to do it. We need a different approach, but from where I sit, I cannot imagine the global audio industry changing from its pathetically obsolete two-channel habits. One can only hope.

Good luck
​

 

[Gwreck]

I think these arguments against BACCH often lead to a false dichotomy between BACCH/ Dr Choueiri vs Dr Toole. They are both researching various aspects of audio reproduction and psychoacoustics and both of their work serves to increase our knowledge about sound reproduction. They are both looking at different aspects of the same problem and both of their efforts serve to improve audio for everyone. The BACCH device as far as I understand was basically not the end game for his research but was part of the research.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Stick with facts, ma'am. Stop misrepresenting Toole. He didn't say upmixing is "more correct".

BACCH4Mac Pro Edition: a report

Many thanks to Dr. Toole for joining the forum and providing some context on the development of crosstalk cancellation. In my ignorance, I had not known of Cooper-Bauck. Perhaps I need to hear a state-of-the-art multichannel system before I make more statements about the relative merits of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Quote:

​

...​

I think I can end by quoting myself from the earlier post:" Ideally we want an encode-decode system, so that results are predictable from the creative artists through to the listeners." This necessarily includes neutral loudspeakers throughout, and that too is a huge problem. Binaurally post processing existing recordings mixed and mastered for loudspeaker reproduction is not that. Neither is upmixing stereo to a multichannel system. Both can enhance a basic stereo playback, which is why both of us have found our ways to do it. We need a different approach, but from where I sit, I cannot imagine the global audio industry changing from its pathetically obsolete two-channel habits. One can only hope.​

​

Good luck ​

​

Where is there any mention of up mixing in my post? I am sticking to the facts. I am not responsible for your vivid imagination regarding upmixing.

Now look at your quote and do tell us how Dr. Toole’s “ideal” of an encode/decode system actually applies in any ANY meaningful way to the one example of a recording that I personally sat in on. For that matter how does it apply to the vast majority of stereo recordings made from the mid 50s to now?

His “ideal” just doesn’t apply to reality.