BACCH4Mac Pro Edition - For those considering BACCH

[srrxr71]

I see. it was all very convincing until we got to the part with the studio recordings.

I get the concept for jazz and classical recordings in a real space. It does seem like for whatever reason - now understood to be crosstalk - robs us from getting those accurately.

I think this is a far better solution than people saying don’t treat your sidewalls so it can sound more “spacious”

I’m sort of wary of the word “purify” in audio because it brings up bad memories of some PS audio product I bought. However I see why you chose specifically that word.

We lose a lot of those cues which would have been retained with an actual mono system.

I’ve done my best to get a center mono image as close to a real mono image as possible. Just a round ball of center mono. Treated my room enough to get that.

However for studio recordings what’s cues are there are all that’s there. Injected by an engineer who was using this flawed system of stereo. So my argument is that is already baked into the mix and on some level compensated by the mixing engineer.

I do appreciate how you said it’s an artificially constructed image which is also again artificially expanded by cutting out crosstalk.

So for those artificial recordings specifically it’s like an additional layer of artificial depth I suppose.

Whether someone would want that or not is personal choice at that point.

The audio critic stuff to me is meaningless in that obviously chosen tracks are selected for the demos. They begin with “as the orchestra”. Or “I heard flies around my head”.

I knew right then people were given a demo. It will shock anyone. Even regular binaural will. Binaural in free space is even better.

Now what does this do for Rock music? Did anyone get that in the demo? It seems like they didn’t. On that stuff it could be any effect that just sounds different. You could play a Q-sound track and get that response if you didn’t tell them it’s Q-sound.

I guess i would just have to try it myself and see what it does for studio recordings.

I will admit though that you have me convinced for recordings made in a space like classical and jazz. It might be what I will want after I listen through all my guilty pleasures through my new setup and get sick of them enough to go listen to some jazz.

There’s no point having a nice system which doesn’t play good jazz.

The intro edition seems fine but 5x jump to the next level is something else. If indeed we can now use our own interface then I suppose things are moving in a positive direction. But still $4000 + 15% restocking fee to just try the acoustic measurement version is a losing proposition. The restocking fee should only apply to the cost of the microphone.

If I find that there is minimal difference between the intro software and the measurement software (which in my treated room would likely be the case) then I don’t want to be out $600 in restocking fees. Especially over a microphone.

 

[Gwreck]

I see. it was all very convincing until we got to the part with the studio recordings.

I get the concept for jazz and classical recordings in a real space. It does seem like for whatever reason - now understood to be crosstalk - robs us from getting those accurately.

I think this is a far better solution than people saying don’t treat your sidewalls so it can sound more “spacious”

I’m sort of wary of the word “purify” in audio because it brings up bad memories of some PS audio product I bought. However I see why you chose specifically that word.

We lose a lot of those cues which would have been retained with an actual mono system.

I’ve done my best to get a center mono image as close to a real mono image as possible. Just a round ball of center mono. Treated my room enough to get that.

However for studio recordings what’s cues are there are all that’s there. Injected by an engineer who was using this flawed system of stereo. So my argument is that is already baked into the mix and on some level compensated by the mixing engineer.

I do appreciate how you said it’s an artificially constructed image which is also again artificially expanded by cutting out crosstalk.

So for those artificial recordings specifically it’s like an additional layer of artificial depth I suppose.

Whether someone would want that or not is personal choice at that point.

The audio critic stuff to me is meaningless in that obviously chosen tracks are selected for the demos. They begin with “as the orchestra”. Or “I heard flies around my head”.

I knew right then people were given a demo. It will shock anyone. Even regular binaural will. Binaural in free space is even better.

Now what does this do for Rock music? Did anyone get that in the demo? It seems like they didn’t. On that stuff it could be any effect that just sounds different. You could play a Q-sound track and get that response if you didn’t tell them it’s Q-sound.

I guess i would just have to try it myself and see what it does for studio recordings.

I will admit though that you have me convinced for recordings made in a space like classical and jazz. It might be what I will want after I listen through all my guilty pleasures through my new setup and get sick of them enough to go listen to some jazz.

There’s no point having a nice system which doesn’t play good jazz.

The intro edition seems fine but 5x jump to the next level is something else. If indeed we can now use our own interface then I suppose things are moving in a positive direction. But still $4000 + 15% restocking fee to just try the acoustic measurement version is a losing proposition. The restocking fee should only apply to the cost of the microphone.

If I find that there is minimal difference between the intro software and the measurement software (which in my treated room would likely be the case) then I don’t want to be out $600 in restocking fees. Especially over a microphone.

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.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I have a fair amount of acoustic panel and very direction electrostatic speakers in my listening room.

Sanders electrostats?

 

[Gwreck]

Sanders electrostats?

 

[Gwreck]

Definitely the Sanders. The work well for BACCH but also happen to be the best speakers I have ever heard. Definitely a one person speaker though.

 

[srrxr71]

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.

Just as I had suspected. I have treated my room well yet due to its asymmetrical nature I cannot guarantee equal frequency response. I cannot even begin to imagine equal phase response. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know how and if that is possible.

Given that less than 5% of my listening is in jazz or classical music this product is not for me.

It might be very pleasurable. Maybe I’ll even like it on studio music.

At $5k I’d rather not know. I know objectively on studio recorded music, which makes up 95% of my listening, that I have a setup that replicates that.

I’m happy with that and I’d rather not bark up this tree.

Even worse would be to get this intro product which is making assumptions I cannot guarantee are applicable to my case. So basically it is guessing at what it’s producing at that point. No microphone to verify anything.

This product needs to gain some acceptance by the commercial audio folks who apparently are too ignorant to understand these things. Well then whose job is it to educate them?

I’ll wait until that acceptance has come to even 25% of the commercial music community. In the meantime yeah better to go after audiophiles. They are always ripe for the picking.

 

[Gwreck]

Just as I had suspected. I have treated my room well yet due to its asymmetrical nature I cannot guarantee equal frequency response. I cannot even begin to imagine equal phase response. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know how and if that is possible.

Given that less than 5% of my listening is in jazz or classical music this product is not for me.

It might be very pleasurable. Maybe I’ll even like it on studio music.

At $5k I’d rather not know. I know objectively on studio recorded music, which makes up 95% of my listening, that I have a setup that replicates that.

I’m happy with that and I’d rather not bark up this tree.

Even worse would be to get this intro product which is making assumptions I cannot guarantee are applicable to my case. So basically it is guessing at what it’s producing at that point. No microphone to verify anything.

This product needs to gain some acceptance by the commercial audio folks who apparently are too ignorant to understand these things. Well then whose job is it to educate them?

I’ll wait until that acceptance has come to even 25% of the commercial music community. In the meantime yeah better to go after audiophiles. They are always ripe for the picking.

I’m glad to see you deleted the part of this post where you seemingly referred to me as “Audiofools are just are.”

Also you had asked about why BACCH has not been targeted towards professionals or commercial audio. One of the things to know about the BACCH software as it has many functions and the audiophile music is one function. On the pro version of the software there is a multichannel 3D mixer among other functions. BACCH is primarily a research tool that has been adapted for music listening. Dr. Choueri and his team are actively involved in psychoacoustic research. Theoretic is a company started by Dr. Choueri to sell BACCH related products.

Live and binaural recordings provide and more natural reproduction of space and studio recordings provide an unnatural reproduction of space. This is not any different than listening in stereo.

I am getting a hint of trolling with your posts and it’s unfortunate. Certainly if a person is not interested in a product they are not required to buy it. Also unfortunate is that more people are not able to experience this product as explaining it and providing information about it does not at all reproduce the experience of hearing it.

 

[Dialectic]

I am getting a hint of trolling with your posts and it’s unfortunate. Certainly if a person is not interested in a product they are not required to buy it. Also unfortunate is that more people are not able to experience this product as explaining it and providing information about it does not at all reproduce the experience of hearing it.

I have availed myself of the ignore button for some posters who want to ask endless questions that are addressed in the abundant literature about BACCH on the 3D3A Lab site and elsewhere. Some of these posters have been asking basic questions about BACCH for years.

 

[Gwreck]

I have availed myself of the ignore button for some posters who want to ask endless questions that are addressed in the abundant literature about BACCH on the 3D3A Lab site and elsewhere. Some of these posters have been asking basic questions about BACCH for years.

It’s strange as the technology and research behind BACCH is basically an open book and the credentials of the creators are impeccable. Ignore is a good option which is what my wife does to me when I start talking about going to Princeton to get my HRTF measured.

 

[kthulhutu]

It’s strange as the technology and research behind BACCH is basically an open book and the credentials of the creators are impeccable. Ignore is a good option which is what my wife does to me when I start talking about going to Princeton to get my HRTF measured.

I had good results getting my HRTF measured with Genelec Aural ID, but you'll need to shell out an annual subscription to get access to the .SOFA file.

 

[kthulhutu]

It’s strange as the technology and research behind BACCH is basically an open book and the credentials of the creators are impeccable. Ignore is a good option which is what my wife does to me when I start talking about going to Princeton to get my HRTF measured.

'nuff said http://alfven.princeton.edu/publications/choueiri/

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Definitely the Sanders. The work well for BACCH but also happen to be the best speakers I have ever heard. Definitely a one person speaker though.

I agree completely being a Sanders owner myself!
I have the intro version of BACCH4mac. To me, the intro version makes such a massive difference that it’s well worth the price of entry. I really struggle to see how the next level up could be worth the huge leap in price (even more for me with the AUD so weak against the US$).
Does it really make that much difference?

 

[srrxr71]

I’m glad to see you deleted the part of this post where you seemingly referred to me as “Audiofools are just are.”

Also you had asked about why BACCH has not been targeted towards professionals or commercial audio. One of the things to know about the BACCH software as it has many functions and the audiophile music is one function. On the pro version of the software there is a multichannel 3D mixer among other functions. BACCH is primarily a research tool that has been adapted for music listening. Dr. Choueri and his team are actively involved in psychoacoustic research. Theoretic is a company started by Dr. Choueri to sell BACCH related products.

Live and binaural recordings provide and more natural reproduction of space and studio recordings provide an unnatural reproduction of space. This is not any different than listening in stereo.

I am getting a hint of trolling with your posts and it’s unfortunate. Certainly if a person is not interested in a product they are not required to buy it. Also unfortunate is that more people are not able to experience this product as explaining it and providing information about it does not at all reproduce the experience of hearing it.

I’m sorry you saw that. It wasn’t even up for 60 seconds as I deleted it as soon as I saw it posted. Unfortunately this reply system saves rough drafts and posts them without me being able to see them first. Maybe i’m not using it correctly.

I suppose you got a whiff of my actual thoughts before I was able to tone it down for civil discourse. Also audiofool was more aimed at me and not you. I’m not here to judge anyone’s listening preferences in music or delivery.

For me it’s just this. If the product were aimed at people who listen to mostly real live space recordings then fine just disclose that.

Actually i appreciate how Adam answered my question. He was very honest about what it can do for studio recordings. Which seems to be an enhancement.

Once we use ASR to get to a suitable objective measure of performance it’s everyone’s business where they take it from there.

That $5-7k price is actually great for professionals and researchers. I’ve already expressed my respect for the research they’ve done.

However when it comes to users, consumers, there is only class of consumers that will pay $5k for a consumptive software and that is - audiophiles.

Everyone here has taken a different journey and have different listening tastes both in music and how they enjoy their music.

My intent is not to troll but rather since I have audiofool blood in me I can waver from wanting to drop a credit card number on their site when I read some things to thinking some more and then questioning more within minutes. It’s the inner audiobool in me.

If the purpose of the thread is to sell product I guess it’s offense that people question. But really this is a discussion site not a sales site.

At $980 I guess fine. I’ve been in this hobby for a while so you would understand what that amounts to.

However, when I see that level can actually do more harm with potential inaccurate corrections and I need the $4980 level of which the hardware cost is $500 for an old interface and a $40 microphone at best. Let’s not pretend it’s worth any more than that. If they cared to sell the software then maybe let us use an ambeo headset mic and our existing interface and then just keep it a software at $2k or something like that for a consuming user. We are not creating with the product nor selling anything created using the product.

Also my gripe is with the product positioning and pricing not the research. The research is public and someone else will develop a product using its principles.

I would really like to play with the top level version to make my binaural versions of HOA materials - perhaps just sample files - and just play around with it. I would never use it to sell anything. Really there should be an educational version for people who just want to mess around with it.

The research is public. Other companies can develop products around the research and I will wait. You like their service and it’s worth $5k to you more power to you. But you can’t judge people for whom that is enough money to question for a few weeks even and I only questioned for 2-3 days.

 

[srrxr71]

I had good results getting my HRTF measured with Genelec Aural ID, but you'll need to shell out an annual subscription to get access to the .SOFA file.

I’m getting a year free with my 8361 purchase. I’ll be playing with that.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

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.

The speaker also becomes a question. I seen the polar plots on the Sanders Electrostatics, and the horizontal dispersion looks like a very narrow laser beam. I don't plan on ever buying the Sanders. Ever.

Which raises the question of how well the effect works on something like my LS 50 Metas which have a wider directivity pattern, as well as how it will work with multi-microphone studio recordings. I understand that the software is supposed to cancel the crosstalk between the speakers, and only that while leaving the IATDs in order to enhance whatever spacial information is on the recording.

But yeah, would be nice to see this product treated by some more serious people in formal reviews. I see Atkinson and Butterworth there and then a lot of stuff from guys like Guttenberg and Lavorgna and the WSJ. Also, how many professionals keep this in their audio chain and use it regularly for all recorded music? If it's so revolutionary, does Atkinson, Guttenberg, Harley, Chris Connaker use this as their daily driver? If so, why isn't it shown in their reference set ups? This system has been around for years, and I keep asking these questions because I don't see real reviews. I see testimonials from a handful of the same audiophiles, and casual off the cuff comments from guys who hear this at a show, but not serious, in depth with measurements treatment by serious people I respect. So yeah, I'll keep asking the questions.

 

[Gwreck]

I agree completely being a Sanders owner myself!
I have the intro version of BACCH4mac. To me, the intro version makes such a massive difference that it’s well worth the price of entry. I really struggle to see how the next level up could be worth the huge leap in price (even more for me with the AUD so weak against the US$).
Does it really make that much difference?

Price is definitely one of the biggest drawbacks even in the states. The intro by itself is better than any other processor I have ever heard.

 

[Gwreck]

The speaker also becomes a question. I seen the polar plots on the Sanders Electrostatics, and the horizontal dispersion looks like a very narrow laser beam. I don't plan on ever buying the Sanders. Ever.

Which raises the question of how well the effect works on something like my LS 50 Metas which have a wider directivity pattern, as well as how it will work with multi-microphone studio recordings. I understand that the software is supposed to cancel the crosstalk between the speakers, and only that while leaving the IATDs in order to enhance whatever spacial information is on the recording.

But yeah, would be nice to see this product treated by some more serious people in formal reviews. I see Atkinson and Butterworth there and then a lot of stuff from guys like Guttenberg and Lavorgna and the WSJ. Also, how many professionals keep this in their audio chain and use it regularly for all recorded music? If it's so revolutionary, does Atkinson, Guttenberg, Harley, Chris Connaker use this as their daily driver? If so, why isn't it shown in their reference set ups? This system has been around for years, and I keep asking these questions because I don't see real reviews. I see testimonials from a handful of the same audiophiles, and casual off the cuff comments from guys who hear this at a show, but not serious, in depth with measurements treatment by serious people I respect. So yeah, I'll keep asking the questions.

I suspect professionals on mixing consoles don’t use it as they have suit their mixes to regular stereo. Any professional reviewer who has heard it has only said good things about BACCH in all of the press about I have read. Also it is pretty clear that much of the traditional press and influencer audio community exist pretty much to server their sponsors. Theoretica is not don’t that type of promotion. Also Dr Choueri does plenty of interviews about BACCH online.
As for the Sanders the narrow dispersion actually is a benefit to get the best possible performance from BACCH. The cleaner the impulse response of the speaker the better the crosstalk cancellation. But any speakers it will work with but I suspect Bose 901’s and Ohm’s would be poor performers.

 

[Dialectic]

I suspect professionals on mixing consoles don’t use it as they have suit their mixes to regular stereo. Any professional reviewer who has heard it has only said good things about BACCH in all of the press about I have read. Also it is pretty clear that much of the traditional press and influencer audio community exist pretty much to server their sponsors. Theoretica is not don’t that type of promotion. Also Dr Choueri does plenty of interviews about BACCH online.
As for the Sanders the narrow dispersion actually is a benefit to get the best possible performance from BACCH. The cleaner the impulse response of the speaker the better the crosstalk cancellation. But any speakers it will work with but I suspect Bose 901’s and Ohm’s would be poor performers.

It is important to understand that the Toole/Harman conventional wisdom about speaker directivity in stereo/multichannel goes out the window with BACCH. Rather than constant directivity or smoothly changing directivity, maximum directivity is desirable with BACCH, and the best BACCH system I've heard was a system with Sanders electrostatic speakers in a highly absorptive room.

I use Dutch & Dutch 8Cs, which work very well with BACCH but have the advantage of working better than the Sanders speakers in conventional stereo--both in my opinion and per the Harman conventional wisdom.

 

[Gwreck]

I’m sorry you saw that. It wasn’t even up for 60 seconds as I deleted it as soon as I saw it posted. Unfortunately this reply system saves rough drafts and posts them without me being able to see them first. Maybe i’m not using it correctly.

I suppose you got a whiff of my actual thoughts before I was able to tone it down for civil discourse. Also audiofool was more aimed at me and not you. I’m not here to judge anyone’s listening preferences in music or delivery.

For me it’s just this. If the product were aimed at people who listen to mostly real live space recordings then fine just disclose that.

Actually i appreciate how Adam answered my question. He was very honest about what it can do for studio recordings. Which seems to be an enhancement.

Once we use ASR to get to a suitable objective measure of performance it’s everyone’s business where they take it from there.

That $5-7k price is actually great for professionals and researchers. I’ve already expressed my respect for the research they’ve done.

However when it comes to users, consumers, there is only class of consumers that will pay $5k for a consumptive software and that is - audiophiles.

Everyone here has taken a different journey and have different listening tastes both in music and how they enjoy their music.

My intent is not to troll but rather since I have audiofool blood in me I can waver from wanting to drop a credit card number on their site when I read some things to thinking some more and then questioning more within minutes. It’s the inner audiobool in me.

If the purpose of the thread is to sell product I guess it’s offense that people question. But really this is a discussion site not a sales site.

At $980 I guess fine. I’ve been in this hobby for a while so you would understand what that amounts to.

However, when I see that level can actually do more harm with potential inaccurate corrections and I need the $4980 level of which the hardware cost is $500 for an old interface and a $40 microphone at best. Let’s not pretend it’s worth any more than that. If they cared to sell the software then maybe let us use an ambeo headset mic and our existing interface and then just keep it a software at $2k or something like that for a consuming user. We are not creating with the product nor selling anything created using the product.

Also my gripe is with the product positioning and pricing not the research. The research is public and someone else will develop a product using its principles.

I would really like to play with the top level version to make my binaural versions of HOA materials - perhaps just sample files - and just play around with it. I would never use it to sell anything. Really there should be an educational version for people who just want to mess around with it.

The research is public. Other companies can develop products around the research and I will wait. You like their service and it’s worth $5k to you more power to you. But you can’t judge people for whom that is enough money to question for a few weeks even and I only questioned for 2-3

The speaker also becomes a question. I seen the polar plots on the Sanders Electrostatics, and the horizontal dispersion looks like a very narrow laser beam. I don't plan on ever buying the Sanders. Ever.

Which raises the question of how well the effect works on something like my LS 50 Metas which have a wider directivity pattern, as well as how it will work with multi-microphone studio recordings. I understand that the software is supposed to cancel the crosstalk between the speakers, and only that while leaving the IATDs in order to enhance whatever spacial information is on the recording.

But yeah, would be nice to see this product treated by some more serious people in formal reviews. I see Atkinson and Butterworth there and then a lot of stuff from guys like Guttenberg and Lavorgna and the WSJ. Also, how many professionals keep this in their audio chain and use it regularly for all recorded music? If it's so revolutionary, does Atkinson, Guttenberg, Harley, Chris Connaker use this as their daily driver? If so, why isn't it shown in their reference set ups? This system has been around for years, and I keep asking these questions because I don't see real reviews. I see testimonials from a handful of the same audiophiles, and casual off the cuff comments from guys who hear this at a show, but not serious, in depth with measurements treatment by serious people I respect. So yeah, I'll keep asking the ”

It is important to understand that the Toole/Harman conventional wisdom about speaker directivity in stereo/multichannel goes out the window with BACCH. Rather than constant directivity or smoothly changing directivity, maximum directivity is desirable with BACCH, and the best BACCH system I've heard was a system with Sanders electrostatic speakers in a highly absorptive room.

I use Dutch & Dutch 8Cs, which work very well with BACCH but have the advantage of working better than the Sanders speakers in conventional stereo--both in my opinion and per the Harman conventional wisdom.

I have read good things about those speakers and certainly there are other controlled directivity designs that probably work well also.

 

[Dialectic]

I have read good things about those speakers and certainly there are other controlled directivity designs that probably work well also.

Would love to hear Linkwitz dipoles with BACCH.