BACCH4Mac Pro Edition - For those considering BACCH

[GoosbumpsRbacch]

I wonder if this is an accurate depiction of "most of us."

My apologies, I should have said : "like many of my friends". I'm not a man of wealth, I have a mortgage, have a regular job, I'm old and will never be able to retire. My house is rundown and my car is 16 years old. My only vice is that like my friends in hi fi we are so hopelessly addicted, we prefer to spend all we can on our stereo's. I know it doesn't make sense and isn't financially rational, but this BACCH thing brings me great enjoyment.

 

[GoosbumpsRbacch]

You should pop your review up on SNA as well. I’m sure there would be some interest

This is an interesting suggestion you have made. A lot of friends of mine stopped posting on SNA because they got tired of dealing with the pages of pointless negativity, dis-belief, conspiracy theories, personal put-downs etc, mostly from those who have never listened to or experienced the the topic posted. It's a terrible shame because there are so many talented people out there with valuable knowledge to offer. The reason I (reluctantly) posted on this forum was that I presumed it attracted people interested in Audio Science. In my daily work as Government employee I have to deal with a lot of unjustified public abuse. These people like to bait you so they can start an argument. I prefer to ignore them.

 

[GrimSurfer]

The following is the most important point I’d like to make when considering BACCH.

Like most of us, I’ve spent significant money on everything hifi from power re-generators, fuses, cables, Schumann generators, dacs, isolators, Ethernet switches etc. We all chase the equipment that if correctly coupled and integrated into our systems may give us that extra 5% or 10% that we didn’t have before…be it at a huge financial cost. My friends have set their uber expensive gear up in my room because they tell me “It sounds better than anywhere else.” I believe that the main reason for this is because most people are not addressing the very things that erode the holographic sound-stage most of us are after… cross talk from speakers to our ears and reflections from untreated rooms.
This is what BACCH addresses (see heading below, Speaker choice and room). I’m not saying that all those other components don’t matter but what I am saying is that bang for buck, the BACCH system will give you what you always dreamed of (hence my username over a system without it….. no matter how much you spend on your exotic system!
What I have come to realise is that despite a friend owning a $140k (AUD) DAC, another $60k (at least) in cables and more $$…. for other gear, in my room, although sounding superb, for me, doesn’t compare favourably to having the BACCH4Mac doing its magic with the same mix of components. Even my “budget” system with the BACCH has way more holography, realism and emotional connection than without it. Knowing what I know now, I would recommend buying a BACCH system, not spend outrageous money on expensive cables 3 etc. walk away with bucket loads of $$ saved and have a system that is far superior in sound quality then one costing many times more.
uses the very latest computing components……. My dream is to one day own a BACCH DIO and I’m saving hard for one!

I know a place where you can buy some nice cables for your system or for your friends with the $140K system, go here:

https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/det...-articulation-control-console-speaker-cables/

A few things require clarification here.

1. Most of "us" have not spent significant money on power-regenerators, fuses, cables or Schumann generators. Those who have aren't the types who frequent ASR. As a group, we reject these as snake-oil bullshit unless science can be used to show clear benefit.

2. There is no such thing as "crosstalk between speakers". Crosstalk occurs in the source and amplification stages. Some might assert that the output of one speaker could induce the other to go "mircophonic", the impedances involved (air, wiring, circuitry) reduce the effect to inaudible, and likely immeasurable within the limits of technology, levels.

3. ASR members in good standing don't spend "outrageous money on expensive cables". Twisted copper of sufficient gauge with a reasonable dielectric does just fine.

A lot of friends of mine stopped posting on SNA because they got tired of dealing with the pages of pointless negativity, dis-belief, conspiracy theories, personal put-downs etc, mostly from those who have never listened to or experienced the the topic posted. It's a terrible shame because there are so many talented people out there with valuable knowledge to offer. The reason I (reluctantly) posted on this forum was that I presumed it attracted people interested in Audio Science. In my daily work as Government employee I have to deal with a lot of unjustified public abuse. These people like to bait you so they can start an argument. I prefer to ignore them.

Perhaps you and your friends have not framed your position in scientific terms. People here like SCIENCE. If your response is framed in clear, accurate, and relevant scientific terms, I'm quite certain that you'll generate a fair amount of curiosity among the membership. A warning though: There are several people here whose level of technical and scientific knowledge is extremely high. So government-esque bullshit won't survive their scrutiny for very long.

 

[Dialectic]

2. There is no such thing as "crosstalk between speakers". Crosstalk occurs in the source and amplification stages. Some might assert that the output of one speaker could induce the other to go "mircophonic", the impedances involved (air, wiring, circuitry) reduce the effect to inaudible, and likely immeasurable within the limits of technology, levels.

@GrimSurfer, the only substantive point in your post--number 2 above--is completely wrong. You evidently did not read the very enlightening discussion among Dr. Toole, Professor Choueiri and member Scott Borduin regarding crosstalk cancellation on another BACCH thread; their discussion begins here.

 

[GrimSurfer]

@GrimSurfer, the only substantive point in your post--number 2 above--is completely wrong. You evidently did not read the very enlightening discussion among Dr. Toole, Professor Choueiri and member Scott Borduin regarding crosstalk cancellation on another BACCH thread; their discussion begins here.

This is a misuse of the term crosstalk, which is an EE term used to describe an unwanted transfer of signals between communication channels (i.e. circuitry).

Hence the addition of the qualifier "trans-aural" used to describe what's going on between the listener's ears as opposed to the ludicrous statement posted by @Peter Leyenaar about "cross talk between speakers".

 

[Dialectic]

This is a misuse of the term crosstalk, which is an EE term used to describe an unwanted transfer of signals between communication channels (i.e. circuitry).

I guess that you--having appointed yourself the resident ASR enforcer after having been here for all of a month--can continue using the term as you wish, but the rest of us will use it in the sense in which it has been used in the literature, some of which is available here.

 

[GrimSurfer]

It's not an enforcement issue. Think of it more like a reading comprehension test.

The way in which Toole qualified crosstalk changed its meaning. This may have been subsequently misinterpreted you and Peter, who equated "aural crosstalk" (Toole's term) with "crosstalk between speakers" (Peter's term).

I simply challenged the aburdity of crosstalk between speakers. Anything to add?

 

[Dialectic]

It's not an enforcement issue. Think of it more like a reading comprehension test.

The way in which Toole qualified crosstalk changed its meaning. This may have been subsequently misinterpreted you and Peter, who equated "aural crosstalk" (Toole's term) with "crosstalk between speakers" (Peter's term).

I simply challenged the aburdity of crosstalk between speakers. Anything to add?

I don't think it's absurd or confusing to discuss crosstalk between speakers.

You probably should do some reading on this subject (perhaps beginning with the discussion among Toole, Borduin, and Choueiri, which you still have not read) before you persist in criticizing BACCH or other members.

More generally, I don't think the tone of your frequent and substance-light posts will persuade many audio enthusiasts to adopt a more science- and measurement-oriented approach to the hobby.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I don't think it's absurd or confusing to discuss crosstalk between speakers.

Why do you think that it isn't absurd or confusing? How much sound energy do you think must one speaker transmit to induce a microphonic response in another speaker? Then, how much energy must that second speaker generate through its motor/voice coil to send an electrical signal back the speaker cable through the amplifier stage given the impedance mismatch?

In practical terms, crosstalk between speakers is quite absurd and opens the door to all kinds of nonsense like the value of cable capacitance.

When you mix terms like "aural crosstalk" and "speaker crosstalk", it's difficult to discern the subject. Is it ears or speakers? Psycho acoustics or electronics? This is where confusion is introduced into the discussion.

You probably should do some reading on this subject (perhaps beginning with the discussion among Toole, Borduin, and Choueiri, which you still have not read) before you persist in criticizing BACCH or other members.

I haven't criticized BACCH as much as I have the underhanded way it appears to be marketed here. I haven't criticized members beyond expressing concern with astro turfing, which is what another member raised too.

I HAVE been critical of what some people have written. But that's hardly a personal attack. Criticism is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

 

[amirm]

Let's be polite everyone. This is not how we discuss things here.

 

[PierreV]

Maybe it is the time to point out that no one has criticized BACCH at this point. Many people here are aware of the benefits of DSP and advances in soundfield processing. But the initial message was essentially pure subjective marketing. After reading it, I know very little about what BACCH does or claims to do. Contrast that with some of the amplifiers discussions here where the designer discussed its choices.

Some feedback maybe?

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

Sounds like marketing.

My motivation for writing this is to share my experience of BACCH with other serious Hifi enthusiasts using stereo systems and to encourage them to adopt this unique technology [1].

Subjective. Still sounds like marketing.

If you only want the “Executive summary” of this, please go straight to “Listening impressions” below.

Archetypal subjective.

BACCH (Band Assembled Crosstalk Cancellation Hierarchy) uses proprietary digital sound processing to achieve a true high-quality reference grade playback signal.

Buzzwords. No informational content.

I had been following Edgar’s developments of BACCH (as well as other peoples’ approaches) to achieve realistic real-life sounding holography, but realised that Edgar had the deep technical understanding of psycho-acoustics and mathematical ability necessary to write the algorithms required to develop such a system. A system that was suitable and acceptable to the very high expectations of serious Hi fi enthusiasts – oka “people hopelessly addicted to sound reproduction” Although Edgar’s professional career involves Quantum Theory, Astrophysics and interstellar plasma propulsion systems etc. at heart he is an audiophile just like us.

Biographical, suitably hagiographic, bad stereophile's style.

Like most of us, I’ve spent significant money on everything hifi from power re-generators, fuses, cables, Schumann generators, dacs, isolators, Ethernet switches etc.

Already commented on that, but... anyone who spends significant money on ethernet switches automatically loses credibility afaic.

I believe that the main reason for this is because most people are not addressing the very things that erode the holographic sound-stage most of us are after… cross talk from speakers to our ears and reflections from untreated rooms.

Opinion, ok everyone is entitled to one. Still not much content. Not sure what a "holographic" soundstage is, not sure it is what I am after but usually can't complain about imaging, at least when I have a visual reference to compare it with. I am subjectively happy about a few of my systems, but would not write longish posts about my subjective experience.

what I am saying is that bang for buck, the BACCH system will give you what you always dreamed of (hence my username over a system without it….. no matter how much you spend on your exotic system!

Opinion, still OK, but just opinion.
Should be noted that many tests on this site have conclusively demonstrated that one doesn't need to spend big bucks on exotic systems in many areas.

What I have come to realise is that despite a friend owning a $140k (AUD) DAC, another $60k (at least) in cables and more $$…. for other gear, in my room, although sounding superb, for me, doesn’t compare favourably to having the BACCH4Mac doing its magic with the same mix of components. Even my “budget” system with the BACCH has way more holography, realism and emotional connection than without it. Knowing what I know now, I would recommend buying a BACCH system, not spend outrageous money on expensive cables 3 etc. walk away with bucket loads of $$ saved and have a system that is far superior in sound quality then one costing many times more.

Subjective comparisons. The argument here seems to be that all systems could benefit - fair enough. In my opinion, and what seems to be the consensus of experts on this board, spending a lot of money on a DAC and on cable can't be rationally justified.

From that it follows that, even if the DSP has an impact, the level of trust we can put in the ears of people who buy expensive cables is low. Relying on such subjective testers undermines the argument (even if the argument is valid in the absolute sense).

I took the plunge a couple of years ago and ordered the BACCH4Mac and I can categorically say this has been the most significant inclusion and upgrade to my system to date. If you can’t yet afford to buy a BACCH SP (Sound Purifier), do what I did, buy the Bacch4Mac, use your existing good quality speakers, cables etc. and DAC (however the B4Mac system has its own dac) and be the envy of your friends that just spent many times more on exotic components than what it cost for the B4Mac system with sensibly priced cables etc2

Again, subjective and marketing. Zero useful information.

Even after I purchased my BACCH, friends urged me to sell my expensive server and use the Mac’s internal player (via Roon/Tidal) ….I have to say, I had major doubts about this however I confess they were right.

Same as above, "expensive server"...

The latest BACCH4Mac version 8.1 (Mid-June 2019) installed on the Mac Mini is a dream. It’s stable, reliable full of features and easy to use. The team at Theoretica have done a wonderful job of improving what was already a magnificent product!!

More marketing without substance.

Given the cost/benefit analysis discussed previously I highly recommend buying the complete B4Mac Audiophile, Plus or the Pro package like I did.

Analysis???

Listening impressions (“Sensory perceptions with B4M” would be a better heading!)

Sigh...

When you listen to a stereo system with BACCH the sensation is almost overwhelming. The realism, the clarity (even compared to what you think is uber hi-fidelity) is extraordinary! When set up correctly you’ll have sounds jumping out of the walls and everywhere at you (at the same SPL). Your speakers really disappear. Forget ghost images…this stuff is really spooky in a good way The sounds seem to be “heard” by your brain directly. I mean it’s like your ears have been bypassed. Listening becomes even more addictive than before. It’s very exciting even after years of listening , I find myself still shaking my head in amazement. Am I really hearing this?
This is not a gimmick, it’s not a fly by night fad or some snake oil con. This IS the real thing; I believe it’s the future of digital stereo hi fi. I waited patiently for many years for this to be released and I can’t believe more people don’t know about it? It’s not creating anything that isn’t in the original recording, its purifying the sound quality by cancelling cross-talk contamination. By doing that, not only is it so much less fatiguing to listen to (ears to brain not confused by direction and magnitude of incoming sounds) but you get this magical 3-dimensional immersive sound field all around you ( something you can never achieve with surround sound and something you never completely achieve with the best hifi gear). When you go back to what you remember as your hi definition uber hi-resolution holographic hifi without BACCH (that you used to think was king) it sounds flatter, boring, and basically un-engaging compared to having BACCH in the system. There is no other way I could describe it.

Extraordinary claims require....

correction software. It doesn’t modify signals to better suit your room or cancel bass nodes etc. None of that. I would say forget pre-formed notions of numbers/bit rates etc and let your ears be the judge!

Yeah, let's drop numbers and trust our ears... Not exactly the mantra of this site.

If you are a serious hi-fier, I highly recommend BACCH. This is patented and tightly protected technology.

Is that an argument?

Stop procrastinating and start enjoying your hi fi more than you ever have before! My only warning to you is there is no coming back. Once you hear it you WILL be addicted, no question about it, you just won’t want to go bacch to traditional stereo.

More marketing. This isn't merely a foot tapping inducer, but an addictive experience.

I think Theorectica uses Apple OS for security reasons because they don’t want anyone hacking the system and stealing the software

ROTFL...

Examples of some of the dacs I have used in my room with and without BACCH (without listing every amp, component etc) just to demonstrate the calibre of gear I’m familiar with; PS Audio DS, Chord Dave, MSB Select DAC 2 with top optional upgrades (clock & dual power bases). The two R2R ladder dacs I own at present are; Denafrips Terminator (NOS mode) & Rockna WD Signature (Hybrid mode).

Some would argue it mostly demonstrates the profile of the customer and the type of marketing he is vulnerable to...

2 I’m not a cable denier quite the opposite, in fact the speaker cables (& other loom) made by a company starting with “S” in their S range are by FAR the best I have ever heard!.............. in a system without BACCH.

Ah, cables...

4 The word filter has a negative connotation as if something is being removed from the whole (sound quality). This is not the case in fact BACCH is a sound purifying system, a bi-product of its crosstalk cancellation process.

Depends. The word filter might evoke an audibly transparent process for others. Some even understand filtering is mandatory. But let's not digress...

Again, let me be clear, what BACCH is doing might be equivalent to the second coming of Christ, I have no opinion. But that post tells me next to nothing on what it does, how it does it and doesn't offer an ounce of what we call "evidence"...

And to anyone who feels the urge to be rude to me, help yourself. I don't mind and won't retaliate.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

A lot of words here but Chouieri is a smart guy and one should read what he writes about BACCH rather than the words of a proselyte.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I agree, though Toole, in his post suggested that Chouieri isn't above a bit of hyperbole.

I think I have a slight. bias because in the early phases of his work, Dr. Chouieiri promoted it as if he had discovered binaural sound and crosstalk cancellation. There was a "gee whiz" quality to the promotions. That was clearly not the case. Since then, he and his aids have obviously gone further, and I have no problems with this. The concepts are valid, and with today's computing power, many things are possible - for a single listener willing to listen in a sweet spot or through headphones...

What Dr. Toole called a "gee whiz quality to the promotions" seems to carry on today in the words of his employees/acolytes. While this isn't a critique of the product, this sort of Astro Turfing can cheapen it in some peoples' minds... and justifiably so.

He also raised the very germane issue of "the sweet spot", which is characteristic of all room correction solutions. All of the calculations are oriented around a single point so, while the sound is better in THAT location, we're generally not looking at the second coming of Christ.

A lot of words here but Chouieri is a smart guy and one should read what he writes about BACCH rather than the words of a proselyte.

I'm sure he is a very bright man.

Perhaps he should tell the proselytes to stop the nonsense and let his product sell itself... or join ASR and speak for his product personally (in terms that will hopefully contain a shred of technical content).

 

[Dialectic]

I'm sure he is a very bright man.

Perhaps he should tell the proselytes to stop the nonsense and let his product sell itself... or join ASR and speak for his product personally (in terms that will hopefully contain a shred of technical content).

Professor Choueiri did join ASR. I linked his discussion with Dr. Toole above. You still haven't read it, but you keep posting.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Professor Choueiri did join ASR. I linked his discussion with Dr. Toole above. You still haven't read it, but you keep posting.

I've obviously read it, as you will see my "likes" next to several of Dr. Toole's posts in the thread, which I quoted.

So I guess I meant to say that Dr. C can join in on this discussion. Whatever he says has got to be more interesting than the breathless boilerplate posted by minions thus far (see @PierreV's excellent critique).

 

[Dialectic]

I've obviously read it, as you will see my "likes" next to several of Dr. Toole's posts in the thread.

I guess you missed the posts of Choueiri and Scott Borduin, a very technically inclined BACCH user whose reactions to the system undercut your content-free, churlish criticisms.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I guess you missed the posts of Choueiri and Scott Borduin, a very technically inclined BACCH user whose reactions to the system undercut your content-free, churlish criticisms.

I read those. LOL. Bourduin sure was trying to get Toole to say things he wasn't prepared to say.

I wasn't terribly impressed with his "leading" commentary. Toole is a sharp man though, and didn't get hoodwinked into a cheap endorsement.

BTW, I also liked a certain person salivating at the chance for Toole to review BACCH. The naked salesmanship was palpable. I can just see the ad copy... "As reviewed by Dr. Toole", whether he liked it or not.

 

[Dialectic]

I read those. LOL. Bourduin sure was trying to get Toole to say things he wasn't prepared to say.

Ok, I suppose you missed that Choueiri joined ASR because, above, you said he didn't before using the eye roll emoji toward me for pointing out your oversight.

Rather than continue to engage with someone who doesn't know very much, has a bitter attitude, and hasn't had much to do in the month since he joined ASR, I will avail myself of the ignore button.

 

[GrimSurfer]

As for attitude, I do get a little tired with cheap promotional stunts (like the one that started this thread).

 

[Liberal Democracy]

Well with the tone of this thread I would not expect Choueiri to chime in.

@GrimSurfer your not doing anybody any favours with your tone here and indeed elsewhere. We are all here for friendly and informative chat. It's not for you to be lecturing anybody on forum requirements, you have zero authority here to aggressively chastise folks in the way you have.

You need to perform a about turn.