BACCH4Mac Pro Edition - For those considering BACCH

[onion]

Haha seems like a pro Harmon vs pro Princeton theoretica faction war in the works.

Just kidding.

It’s pretty simple. If 95% or even even 70% of my listening were of free space recordings I’d pretty much have to pay up. In this endeavor you have to utilize the highest known science for your playback pleasure.

If your listening pattern is more like mine then it’s understandable why that price is hard to justify.

I also think that you cannot call your system “end game” if you don’t have the ability to maximally “decode” all microphone arrangements available in our recordings.

I hope both factions can co exist. Hehe

Most of my listening is of stereo studio-recorded music. I still use Bacch4Mac for this music and strongly prefer it. I suspect there is a somewhat subtle psychoacoustic effect whereby music emerging from sound bound by a plane connected to two speakers is not a natural state of affairs and ends up being fatiguing. Our natural state is to hear sounds emanating in 3d-space rather than that 2d-plane. The long and the short of it is that Bacch4Mac presents sound in 3d-space and listening becomes less fatiguing as a result.

I have Genelec Ones now - even without Bacch4Mac, these present music with significant depth of soundstage from front to back. So I think there is more to 3d-sound than just elimination of XTC.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

I have Genelec Ones now - even without Bacch4Mac, these present music with significant depth of soundstage from front to back. So I think there is more to 3d-sound than just elimination of XTC.

In an interview Dr. Choueiri gave with Steve Guttenberg, at the end of the interview he mentioned BACCH-hp, so they have at least to some extent employed HRTFs and external head tracking for that implementation to improve imaging. I suspect they may have additional processing in the speaker based systems as well.

I use passive XTC in my own desk setup, and I can say that just eliminating the XTC alone (at least passively) doesn't do a whole lot. You do get this to at least an extent with head shadowing when you are in the direct sound field of the speakers. It sounds better, but not to the point that you can't tell you are still listening to speakers. Properly set up the soundstage on my setup is completely independent of the speakers and provides good immersion, at least out to the extremes of the listening position on the sides. That required use of an RFZ via a LEDE setup in my listening space, as well as applying EQ corrections to emulate my own HRTFs. Its not perfect, but it works for 99% of everything you might see on things like YouTube, all music, and nukes headphones from orbit in terms of imaging. That is one reason I am interested in the BACCH system. Conventional stereo is boring. But I'm not a mac user, and the stand-alone processors are so e x p e n s i v e. I think they start at like $20k or something, at least back when Stereophile covered them. I'm sure they are even more, now.

 

[kthulhutu]

The XTC filters should be pretty neutral, but one thing I have not seen discussed (or maybe I missed it?) is how sensitive it is to room reflections. Yes the XTC filters will eliminate crosstalk, but the reflections, if they are closely spaced to the direct sound and not sufficiently attenuated, can have a similar effect of interfering with the spatial cues. I’d imagine at least some form of mitigation for the first 10-15 ms of reflections from the side walls and such would be advisable.

The filter response is flat. Reflections in the first 15ms will affect the amount of XTC you can achieve therefore attenuating them is advised.

It is sensitive to room reflections. With apologies to advocates of diffusion, absorbers are advised.

Good quality diffusion is fine, Increasing the path length of reflections is as effective as removing them and is more desirable psychoacoustically. Most diffusers are also doing absorption themselves. Regardless, it breaks up high-gain specular reflections which are the primary concern in standard and BACCHed setups.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

The filter response is flat. Reflections in the first 15ms will affect the amount of XTC you can achieve therefore attenuating them is advised.

I would imagine that they are by definition since essentially its the direct sound and it needs to be flat. I did read Dr. Choueiri's description of the filters themselves, and one thing it will obviously be doing is adding corrections to ensure that is the case. In that same vein of reflections, it does bring up the additional potential issue of directivity in that reflections that arrive after that first 15ms (or during if they are present in substantial quantities), but before the fusion window ends will sum with the direct sound, and thus can color the tonality if their spectra is not neutral, as would be the case with speakers that have substantial directivity error. The system takes care of the XTC, but the rest seems to be left up to the user. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean if you just slap it together it will probably not be that great. But, I would assume the XTC can be defeated so conventional in-room measurements can be made to straighten everything else room-related out.

 

[srrxr71]

Most of my listening is of stereo studio-recorded music. I still use Bacch4Mac for this music and strongly prefer it. I suspect there is a somewhat subtle psychoacoustic effect whereby music emerging from sound bound by a plane connected to two speakers is not a natural state of affairs and ends up being fatiguing. Our natural state is to hear sounds emanating in 3d-space rather than that 2d-plane. The long and the short of it is that Bacch4Mac presents sound in 3d-space and listening becomes less fatiguing as a result.

I have Genelec Ones now - even without Bacch4Mac, these present music with significant depth of soundstage from front to back. So I think there is more to 3d-sound than just elimination of XTC.

Yes your last paragraph resonates with me.

Really I don’t see the problem. No fatigue. Soundstage great. Thank you for confirming.

Speakers seem like decorative objects in the room. Of course I have the room well treated.

Early reflections <20ms attenuated -10dB or more.

Next upgrade is w371 pair.

 

[onion]

The null-steering mode of the W371 pair seems like it should complement Bacch4Mac perfectly. I've been mulling over getting a pair of these too

 

[srrxr71]

The null-steering mode of the W371 pair seems like it should complement Bacch4Mac perfectly. I've been mulling over getting a pair of these too

I guess. I feel like it complements my actual listening with or without Princeton theoretica

 

[Theoretica Appl. Physics]

This detailed review of BACCH just came out in the December issue of The Absolute Sound.

 

[Dialectic]

This detailed review of BACCH just came out in the December issue of The Absolute Sound.

Interesting comparison between BACCH and multichannel (subjective).

 

[Gwreck]

Interesting comparison between BACCH and multichannel (subjective).

BACCH is like VR and multi channel is like having multiple screens surrounding you. Ideally everyone has their own HRTF and object based multichannel formats could translate that to HRTF for headphones or 2 channel BACCH. Listening to atmos headphone demos with BACCH have given me a taste of that and some objects will seamlessly swirl around the room. I have a Dolby pHRTF made and once it’s all connected I will try my Xbox series X output of atmos headphone. Unfortunately my BACCH is setup now so using it with my home theater stuff will not work.

 

[SonofJura]

Thinking of getting BACCH? My strongest advice is to JUST DO IT AND DO IT NOW!!

This is for those considering using BACCH dsp (BACCH) in their system but are unsure if it will work for them. I primarily wanted to give you an overview of my experience using BAACH4Mac...

Never, in any audio forum that I've ever read has there ever been such an enthusiastic, thorough, and enlightening post epitomizing the very best example of sharing unselfishly their insight and advice that (If heeded) will help propel fellow audiophile peers to achieve jaw-dropping next-level 3D sonic holography that IMHO, has propelled my system to a level of realism that has left me speechless.

On every point you have stated I unequivocally concur. How fortuitous I should accidentally see your thread/post while I was just finishing up reading a dac review when I noticed your thread purely by accident. I was stoked to find a person who (like myself although only recently) has found the holy grail of goosebump inducing spookiness that Bacch-dsp software has brought to my reference system.

You made my evening and thank you for sharing. I couldn't have put it better myself and you saved my carpal tunnel syndrome quite a bit of typing! Hats off to you buddy!

I will reiterate your advice also regarding adequate room treatment and picking an appropriate speaker (point source, panel, or open-baffle) that excels at reducing first reflections and possesses a controlled directivity vs wide dispersion.

My treated room ($2k investment yielded more sonic improvement than any other single upgrade; I only wish I had done it two decades ago, but I'm hard headed) along with my Legacy WhispersXDS/Wavelet II open baffle speaker system are very well suited for Bacch-DSP.

I can finally meet my maker with no regrets!
"I'm Ready My Lord" - You Want it Darker - Leonard Cohen; comes to mind!

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Never, in any audio forum I've ever read has there ever been such an enthusiastic, thorough, and enlightening post epitomizing the very best example of sharing unselfishly their insight and advice that (If heeded) will help propel fellow audiophile peers to achieve jaw-dropping next-level 3D sonic holography that IMHO, has propelled my system to a level of realism that has left me speechless.

On every point you have stated I unequivocally concur. How fortuitous I should accidentally see your thread/post while I was just finishing up reading about an unrelated dac review. I was stoked to find a person who (like myself although only recently) has found the holy grail of goosebump inducing spookiness that Bacch-dsp software has brought to my reference system.

You made my evening and thank you for sharing. I couldn't hace change one word! Hats off to you buddy!

Sincerely,

Jonathan

Wasn't the referenced quoted guy the one Pierre cut off at the knees at the beginning of this thread? And this new guy? First post? Huh?

 

[SonofJura]

Wasn't the referenced quoted guy the one Pierre cut off at the knees at the beginning of this thread? And this new guy? First post? Huh?

Actually, I simply created a new login because my old email address was leaked to the dark web (I deleted it abruptly) and it was easier than trying resurrect my old account. I'm actually a paid contributing member.

However, your cynical shitpost is appreciated, I too suffer from being jaded and skeptical. In this particular case though your paranoia is unfounded. I hope we both learn to love and trust again.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Carcopo formerly WhispersXDS (if my memory serves me correctly as its been 18 months since I posted last, Rippy can confirm I'm not the OP)

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Never, in any audio forum that I've ever read has there ever been such an enthusiastic, thorough, and enlightening post epitomizing the very best example of sharing unselfishly their insight and advice that (If heeded) will help propel fellow audiophile peers to achieve jaw-dropping next-level 3D sonic holography that IMHO, has propelled my system to a level of realism that has left me speechless.

Out of curiosity, which BACCH system do you have? And I will agree that spatial tow-channel audio is the only way I have found that makes speakers provide true sound reproduction thats both transparent with respect to tonality and imaging. It’s like they and the room aren’t even there.

 

[SonofJura]

The first post reads like a testimonial from an employee or family member of same.

Not giving me goosebumps. More like cramps. Not BACCH cramps, mind you, but abdominal ones

LOL, Oh, I see your point about it coming across as astroturf. I just tried Bacch-DSP in the last 2 weeks. This guy isn't wrong. He's spot on.

Wasn't the referenced quoted guy the one Pierre cut off at the knees at the beginning of this thread? And this new guy? First post? Huh?

I contacted them. The Babyface is around $600-650. They will take that much off. Me, I have a Motu M4, so if I bite, I'll just use that. I would start with the Basic, and work up to the Audiophile which is about another $3500. I already have a Smyth A16, so I would not go for the headphone unit. The top of the line upgrade is more for recordists and other content creators, I think. I will first have to see if I can get the Mac 1 Mini to assume the role of my regular HTPC from one of my Window's boxes. Primarily, I think the Mac will run JRiver and Dirac just fine, so all I need is PEQ (which I think is readily available) and a software based crossover which is, I think, a much harder nut to crack.

Also, I need to be sold a little further. Not completely sure of what it's doing, and whether it's really recovering information on the recording lost in the playback chain, or whether it's just creating a sound effect which dazzles initially by being different from what listeners are accustomed to hearing. Obviously, if it's the latter, it won't wear well for the long term. So yeah, I need further information.

Certainly would be helpful if it could be reviewed by ASR. Also why is a custom HRTF needed for this application? I can see why it's needed for the Smyth, but I'm not certain why it's needed for crosstalk cancellation, as well as the degree of benefit it confers, considering it's eye watering premium.

Out of curiosity, which BACCH system do you have? And I will agree that spatial tow-channel audio is the only way I have found that makes speakers provide true sound reproduction thats both transparent with respect to tonality and imaging. It’s like they and the room aren’t even there.

I have only used the $980 intro software for about two weeks in a well-treated room using Legacy WhispersXDS open baffle speakers just using the generic measurement based U-BACCH. I'm selling some recording gear to upgrade to the BACCH-DSP Pro so I can do custom filters for my ears and do Bacch-HP filters. I'm also interested in making personal recordings too. I almost went with atmos immersive audio for music, but buying 11.2 of Genelec powered speakers plus associated setup and install costs would have set me back $50k. Bacch-DSP was exactly what I was looking for. It was the most practical and my current system's realism without colorization is beyond reproach!

 

[GTinOZ]

As an owner of the BACCH4mac I can definitely say that there is a significant difference between the intro and the audiophile version of BACCH. The audiophile version of BACCH include a babyface pro and the measurement microphones which is a fair bit of the cost. Additionally the customer service from Theoretica is the best I have ever had from any product I have ever bought. The more stereo and less mono a studio recording is the more dramatic as to the results with BACCH. The quality of the crosstalk cancellation is also influenced by speaker choice and room acoustics. I have a fair amount of acoustic panel and very direction electrostatic speakers in my listening room. This results in close to 20db of crosstalk cancellation. I have used less directional speakers in less treated rooms and the crosstalk cancellation is less but still noticeable.

Hi Gwreck, I have just purchased the intro version to try it out with my system before deciding how far down the rabbit hole to go - am currently waiting my 'setup phone call', and have a couple of 'probably thinking too far in advance' questions.

I presume that you also started at intro and then moved to audiophile version - so I also assume that you were happy to start with, and then became happier.

With the intro version I am planning to recode all my existing files (currently on a NAS) and save them to an inbuilt SSD in the fanless Windows Server based PC I put together as the controller/source, and when I am the only person listening (90% of the time), simply choose those files rather than the originals (and vice versa). I reckon I can replicate my sweet spot within a couple of cms at worst, and am hoping to thereby avoid moving over to Mac - which I don't really understand, and don't think I can build and modify myself (hardware and software) as I can PC; and also avoid inserting real-time processing into the playback process and avoid having a webcam tracking my head and mucking up the visual aesthetics of my room.

I know that it's not the normal implementation - do you reckon it would be feasible to go to the audiophile version while maintaining my 'recode offline, play back from stored recoded files' process?

The second questions is about the Babyface -- which seems overkill for something I would ideally only use once in this scenario - to take the initial measurements and create the original filters. HOWEVER, I currently use a ten year old AYRE QA-9 ADC to digitise my very large LP collection for portability reasons, and I wondered whether the Babyface would make a reasonable replacement (if not an upgrade -- after all digital has progressed a fair way in a decade).

Thanks in advance for your response (and anybody else who has a useful comment to make).

 

[Gwreck]

Hi Gwreck, I have just purchased the intro version to try it out with my system before deciding how far down the rabbit hole to go - am currently waiting my 'setup phone call', and have a couple of 'probably thinking too far in advance' questions.

I presume that you also started at intro and then moved to audiophile version - so I also assume that you were happy to start with, and then became happier.

With the intro version I am planning to recode all my existing files (currently on a NAS) and save them to an inbuilt SSD in the fanless Windows Server based PC I put together as the controller/source, and when I am the only person listening (90% of the time), simply choose those files rather than the originals (and vice versa). I reckon I can replicate my sweet spot within a couple of cms at worst, and am hoping to thereby avoid moving over to Mac - which I don't really understand, and don't think I can build and modify myself (hardware and software) as I can PC; and also avoid inserting real-time processing into the playback process and avoid having a webcam tracking my head and mucking up the visual aesthetics of my room.

I know that it's not the normal implementation - do you reckon it would be feasible to go to the audiophile version while maintaining my 'recode offline, play back from stored recoded files' process?

The second questions is about the Babyface -- which seems overkill for something I would ideally only use once in this scenario - to take the initial measurements and create the original filters. HOWEVER, I currently use a ten year old AYRE QA-9 ADC to digitise my very large LP collection for portability reasons, and I wondered whether the Babyface would make a reasonable replacement (if not an upgrade -- after all digital has progressed a fair way in a decade).

Thanks in advance for your response (and anybody else who has a useful comment to make).

Hello,
Revising the files after the intro BACCH processing would work just fine but would require the same speaker angles for the intro version.for the audiophile version a static file would work if you don’t want head tracking and do not change any aspects of the speaker configuration. The Babyface is basically just for the audiophile and above levels for in in ear measurement microphones. Once your measurements are completed the babyface is no longer required. I have heard rumors that some people use Mac OS virtualized in windows. Also an M1 Mac mini may be a good option just to use for BACCH only. I use my m1 MacBook Pro.
In my opinion the audiophile version is distinctly better than the intro version as far as the 3D effect. The head tracking is also a nice feature. I purchased Sanders electrostatics as I love ESL’s and the are a speaker Dr Choueri recommends. With the audiophile version and my system I’m able to get 20db of crosstalk cancellation.

 

[Theoretica Appl. Physics]

Glad to report that the Absolute Sound magazine, in its January 2023 issue, which just came out, selected Theoretica’s BACCH-SP for its Product of the Year (2022) award in the category of “Technology Breakthrough.” We are grateful that our work is getting some recognition in the mainstream hi-fi press, which is still far behind many people on the ASR forum who have been discussing BACCH for more than 3 years.

 

[Zoomer]

Congrats. Good to hear you're happy to go mainstream!
I hope this will be a further incentive to push for more affordable product offerings.

 

[Keith_W]

There are two ways to recoup R&D costs.

1. Sell many units for cheap.
2. Sell few units for a lot of money.

Now of course I do not presume to speak for Theoretica App. Phys. here but I do note from reading many customer testimonials that this product is not like anything else in hifi, i.e. you plug it in and it works as you would expect. Some measurement and setup is required and there may be a learning curve (though I would expect that the learning curve would be less than say, implementing Dirac or running Acourate or even building your own PC). Therefore some level of customer support is required. From testimonials, and from my own correspondence with them, I know that their customer support is excellent. If this product hits the mainstream and they start selling many units, this brings with it its own problems with sourcing parts, assembly, scale, hiring support staff, and so on. They MAY decide to remain a boutique operation with high prices and providing high level of customer support to fewer customers than to sell it cheap and deal with a deluge of customers.

Speaking as a soon-to-be customer, of course I would love to pay less, but not if paying less is unsustainable for this company. Theoretica are not like a DAC manufacturer where there are hundreds of companies to choose from and it doesn't matter if a few dozen of them go under. These guys are the only ones with this product.