BACCH4Mac Pro Edition - For those considering BACCH

[Dialectic]

Here's a question. I'm refurbishing a room which will be used for music listening with BACCH. What would be the best way to treat the walls, ceiling and floor? Current speakers are Devialet Phantom Golds.

The most important thing is absorption at first reflection points. I tend to think this is always the most important element of room treatment, but it is especially important--and differences especially obvious--with BACCH. I thus would place absorbers on the side walls and the ceiling if possible. A thick shag rug, perhaps with a pad underneath it, or a sheepskin rug would help with the floor reflection.

 

[onion]

Thanks - I'm looking into a sound-absorbing acoustic plaster for walls and ceiling. Some of these are rated at 90% or so for frequencies above 200-300Hz.
Does the from wall reflection matter much with these speaker? I will have a piano in the room and that may against the front wall in which case no acoustic plaster or absorbers would apply.

 

[Restless Audiophile]

@GoosbumpsRbacch
@onion
@Theoretica Appl. Physics

1. If I get the BACCH4MAC how I will be able to play DSD files. I still don't understand if BACCH will be supplied with a player. OR it is just a filter that comes after the player?
2. Can someone provide an example with all involved software and equipment on ow to use BACCH4MAC with ROON and Audrivana to play DSD files.
3. Is it recommended to save the DSD files on the MacMini that is supplied with the BACCH4MAC or save them somewhere else?
4. I always thought USB connection from Mac to DAC is dirty with lots of noise and Jitter issues. So how come BACCH relies on direct USB connection between the Mac mini and the external DAC?

 

[ReaderZ]

If I have that kind of money and want to play with DSP, I would get D&D 8C, I am far more interested in DSP inside these as they control the parts that is simply not accessible to outside dsp, plus for the money I also get awesome pair of speakers.

 

[Restless Audiophile]

If I have that kind of money and want to play with DSP, I would get D&D 8C, I am far more interested in DSP inside these as they control the parts that is simply not accessible to outside dsp, plus for the money I also get awesome pair of speakers.

D&D 8C is a monitor that serves a specific purpose. I am in a totally different league with a dedicated listening room and equipments worth around 80k. I am chasing the last 5% of perfection.

 

[Theoretica Appl. Physics]

@GoosbumpsRbacch
@onion
@Theoretica Appl. Physics

1. If I get the BACCH4MAC how I will be able to play DSD files. I still don't understand if BACCH will be supplied with a player. OR it is just a filter that comes after the player?
2. Can someone provide an example with all involved software and equipment on ow to use BACCH4MAC with ROON and Audrivana to play DSD files.
3. Is it recommended to save the DSD files on the MacMini that is supplied with the BACCH4MAC or save them somewhere else?
4. I always thought USB connection from Mac to DAC is dirty with lots of noise and Jitter issues. So how come BACCH relies on direct USB connection between the Mac mini and the external DAC?

Hi,

BACCH4Mac is not a file player. Its software part (called BACCH-dSP) is a standalone Mac application that processes audio from another source, e.g. a file player. Most of our customers use Roon as their audio source, either as a Roon core on the same Mac running BACCH4Mac, or as a Roon core on another computer on the LAN, with the Mac as a Roon endpoint. It can easily be configured either way. BACCH-dSP therefore does not play any files, DSD or otherwise. It processes audio that is routed to the Mac’s Core Audio.

While most of our customers use Roon as the audio source (with Tidal and.or Qobuz running from within Roon) BACCH4Mac can process audio from many other file players on the Mac. Audirvana had recently made it difficult to access its output audio stream however we have found a solution that allows using BACCH4Mac with Audirvana, but since that solution relies on a third-party piece of software (Loopback by Rogue Amoeba) we recommend Roon instead.

While we do supply a pre-configured late-2012 Mac mini as an option for $985 (price was recently dropped), you can use any Mac with BACCH4Mac as long as it satisfies the requirements stated on the BACCH4Mac webpage. Any of the recent Mac mini (2019 and 2020) will work fine as long as they have a minimum of 16 GB of RAM.

Wile you could have your audio files on the same Mac running BACCH most of our customers who use audio files as the source have their files stored on a NAS located anywhere on the same LAN as the computer running the file player (which may or may not be the Mac running BACCH4Mac).

Practically all high-end computer audiophile systems (many costing more than $100K) use an asynchronous USB connection to the DAC. Most if not all of modern high-end DACs (e.g. MSB, dCS, Totaldac, etc,) have synchronous USB inputs. With asynchronous USB, any good DAC uses its own clock to clock the audio and do the DA conversion. The jitter performance and audio quality are controlled by the DAC. To understand more how asynchronous USB audio form a computer works pristinely with DACs see https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/usa/en/blog/our-guide-usb-audio-why-should-i-use-it.

Regards,
Theoretica

 

[onion]

If I get the BACCH4MAC how I will be able to play DSD files. I still don't understand if BACCH will be supplied with a player. OR it is just a filter that comes after the player?

I have BACCH4Mac which includes:

Bacch-dSP - the software that runs on the Mac
Binaural microphone
RME Babyface pro (BFP) (used during the calibration process)

The Mac mini is also the Core Roon server (audio files are on a separate NAS).
Audio routes from source to Roon to Bacch-SP to audio-out.

There are standalone versions of BACCH that contain the BACCH-dSP software integrated into a box - I do not have any experience of these. More on them here

I always thought USB connection from Mac to DAC is dirty with lots of noise and Jitter issues. So how come BACCH relies on direct USB connection between the Mac mini and the external DAC?

Maybe. But prior to using BACCH4Mac, I had a 'high-end' DAC with i2s and multiple other connections connected by i2s to a streamer. Once I set up BACCH4Mac, I discovered that this 'cleaner' connection had no perceptible impact on audio quality, whereas the improvements using BACCH4Mac with USB-out were immediate and obvious.

 

[Restless Audiophile]

@onion
@Dialectic
@Theoretica Appl. Physics

Thank you so much for clarifying the points that I raised in my previous post. I really appreciate it.

I am relatively new to digital and computer based audio and feel overwhelmed with all theories related to jitter, noise, digital brightness...etc. Sometimes I feel that music is unbearable when listening to basic digital sources (macbook USB to DAC), my friends claim that this is the noise from the MacBook that is making the music tight and edgy. When I disconnect the MacBook and use pure analogue, things get more enjoyable and relaxed. I DONT KNOW WHY!

Before considering BACCH my plan was to get a clean digital source like the Auralic G2 with its galvanic shielding and jitter elimination techniques...etc. And simply use it as a clean non-noisy source.
But BACCH caught my attention and now I have the urge to try it, but I feel hesitant that I will rely on Mac mini to feed my DAC.

Maybe you can tell me something that will enlighten me

 

[Zoomer]

Do some double blind tests to verify that you really hear what you think you're hearing when listening to "basic" digital sources. Have your friends come over to share the experience

 

[Ilkless]

@onion
@Dialectic
@Theoretica Appl. Physics

Thank you so much for clarifying the points that I raised in my previous post. I really appreciate it.

I am relatively new to digital and computer based audio and feel overwhelmed with all theories related to jitter, noise, digital brightness...etc. Sometimes I feel that music is unbearable when listening to basic digital sources (macbook USB to DAC), my friends claim that this is the noise from the MacBook that is making the music tight and edgy. When I disconnect the MacBook and use pure analogue, things get more enjoyable and relaxed. I DONT KNOW WHY!

Your friend's claims has no basis in auditory science. There is no known mechanism that would cause the significant change his claims with the Macbook. He is trying to pass feelings off as facts, and your perception was changed through the power of suggestion.

BACCH, on the other hand, processes the signal in a way that is known to be significantly perceptible based on our knowledge of auditory science. It may retrieve more spatial cues embedded in the recording, through known mechanisms of human hearing.

 

[onion]

Sometimes I feel that music is unbearable when listening to basic digital sources (macbook USB to DAC), my friends claim that this is the noise from the MacBook that is making the music tight and edgy.

For me, one of the main benefits of using BACCH is that listening to music does not induce fatigue.

Prof Choueiri gives a lecture on binaural audio at a spatial audio seminar seminar in 2018:

 

[Restless Audiophile]

Thanks everyone for the help and support.

I think that I will order the BACCH but I will get my own brand new Macmini.
Do you recommend getting a Mac mini with 1T SSD to store music on it and use it for BACCH as well. OR I am better with 256 SSD just for BACCH and get myself a NAS for music?
Please make your recommendation based on sound quality

 

[A800]

To me it just sounds like another glorified toy to enlarge the stereo basis.

 

[Restless Audiophile]

To me it just sounds like another glorified toy to enlarge the stereo basis.

Toy! Ok so what?

Stereo system is not an essential thing that we need to stay alive like food. This is why I consider stereo as a toy.
BACCH is a toy too, but might be an expensive component just like any other stereo system components. There are 1000 USD speakers and 50000 USD speakers but can we say that the 50000 USD speakers is a glorified toy compared to the 1000USD speakers?

I find it odd that the "toy" comment came from a guy has this phrase "Addicted to Fun and Learning" on his account.

 

[A800]

Toy! Ok so what?

Stereo system is not an essential thing that we need to stay alive like food. This is why I consider stereo as a toy.
BACCH is a toy too, but might be expensive just like any other stereo system components. There are 1000 USD speakers and 50000 USD speakers but can we say that the 50000 USD speakers is a glorified toy compared to the 1000USD speakers?

I find it odd that the "toy" comment came from a guy has this phrase "Addicted to Fun and Learning" on his account.

Fun Toys?
Toys are Fun?
Learning with Toys?
...
I think it fits rather nicely.

 

[Dialectic]

Thanks everyone for the help and support.

I think that I will order the BACCH but I will get my own brand new Macmini.
Do you recommend getting a Mac mini with 1T SSD to store music on it and use it for BACCH as well. OR I am better with 256 SSD just for BACCH and get myself a NAS for music?
Please make your recommendation based on sound quality

From a sound quality perspective, it doesn't matter whether you use a NAS or the internal SSD of the MAC or an external hard drive connected via Firewire or Thunderbolt. You'll only hear a (real) difference if you have a spinning hard drive so close to the listening position that its whirs and clicks are audible.

If you get a NAS, you may want to make sure to get one that is Mac-friendly. Support for shared drives in Mac OS is hit-or-miss in my experience.

The notion that the type of drive in, or attached to, a computer affects sound quality has no basis in reality. The output of any reasonably well-engineered DAC connected to any reasonably fast computer will not be affected by the type of drive from which the music is being played back. If it makes you feel better, the vast majority of big recording studios use hard drives, not SSDs, when they make multitrack recordings.

If you buy a new Mac Mini, you will want to confirm with Theoretica that BACCH works under the newest version of Mac OS. The big Mac OS upgrades tend to wreck audio driver support for a period of a few months after they come out. I'm using an older version of Mac OS on my BACCH computer: because I just use my Mac Mini only for BACCH, the Mac OS upgrades have no benefit.

The most important thing from a sound quality perspective is to confirm that the first-reflection points in your room either are treated with absorbers or are distant from the listening position. A room with significant early reflections will limit the 3D effect of BACCH.

 

[Chansig]

Hi everybody, my name is Hans.Living in the Netherlands en proud owner of the Dutch & Dutch 8m speakers (little brother/sister of the 8c). A Rythmick F12 subwoofe. Aand from tommorow, owner of the BACCH software dsp software. I'm cant't wait to have the software running.

I have a small listning room on the attic (3 by 4 meters) with a loth of absorbing materials (rockwool panels on the side of the speakers, sealing, behind the speakers and behind the ml positioning. I've heard the effect of the BACCH software once on a small JBL BT speaker. And with fysic panels between mine speakers. Practical not oke, because you must put your nose against the panel for the best result. No comfort but an extreme good sound.



For now....have a nice day and excuses for my poorly english writing.

Gr. Hans

 

[phoenixdogfan]

The fact that there is a lot of valid research and benefit in DSP is not ignored. That software could be excellent, that is not the point.

It is just that the tone of the initial post of this thread (which also happens to be the first post of that person) is so full of senseless audiophools tropes that either you roll on the floor laughing or you roll your eyes in disbelief.

I have to agree here. This software has been out there for around 5 years, and I see precious few reviews, and even fewer examinations by evidence based audio analysis forums, like ASR, or Archimago, or even John Atkinson of Stereophile.

Unlike Dirac Live, I have no idea what this does, whether what it's doing comports with the bleeding edge of psychoaccoustic research, and how it might be possible to measure how well it's doing it. And it costs upwards of $6000 USD, requires you to go to a MAC as your server. The only other hardware you buy is an RME Babyface FS Porable Interface, a pair of binaurial in ear mics, and a webcam. In short, some pretty pedestrian hardware.
The rest is a software program which in essence costs a cool $5 grand. It supposedly makes BOTH speakers AND headphones better. How? I for one dunno, and I doubt there's any independent scientific research corroborating whatever is being attempted here.

So no reviews, no known science. What we're left with really are testimonials. Given that, I'd say this has as much evidentiary weight behind it as your average $9k for 2 meter pair of speaker cables.

 

[Ilkless]

I have to agree here. This software has been out there for around 5 years, and I see precious few reviews, and even fewer examinations by evidence based audio analysis forums, like ASR, or Archimago, or even John Atkinson of Stereophile.

Unlike Dirac Live, I have no idea what this does, whether what it's doing comports with the bleeding edge of psychoaccoustic research, and how it might be possible to measure how well it's doing it. And it costs upwards of $6000 USD, requires you to go to a MAC as your server. The only other hardware you buy is an RME Babyface FS Porable Interface, a pair of binaurial in ear mics, and a webcam. In short, some pretty pedestrian hardware.
The rest is a software program which in essence costs a cool $5 grand. It supposedly makes BOTH speakers AND headphones better. How? I for one dunno, and I doubt there's any independent scientific research corroborating whatever is being attempted here.

So no reviews, no known science. What we're left with really are testimonials. Given that, I'd say this has as much evidentiary weight behind it as your average $9k for 2 meter pair of speaker cables.

https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Papers.html

Except there are multiple papers that have been released on the topic.

 

[onion]

There's loads of information on this forum of what it does including links to papers regarding interaural crosstalk cancellation and spatial imaging. The software itself measures the level of crosstalk cancellation. Quite ridiculous to lump this in with overpriced speaker cables.