BACCH4Mac Pro Edition - For those considering BACCH

[Gwreck]

Even if you don't understand what it does, it can easily be established with a preference blind test which one is superior. GWreck, since you have the pro version, you could prepare two versions of a file (one with BACCH, one without), and make a thread asking people to vote which is preferred and asking people NOT to look at the files with a spectrum analyzer. The effect is so strong that I can hear it even with laptop speakers (though admittedly I have a very good laptop!). It is quite spooky to hear a 3D image jump out in front of you from your laptop.

Agreed,I have a shared folder with files for uBACCH at certain specific speaker angles. I can can share the drive of anyone is interested. Kieth_W I may have already shared with you.

 

[goat76]

Agreed,I have a shared folder with files for uBACCH at certain specific speaker angles. I can can share the drive of anyone is interested. Kieth_W I may have already shared with you.

Yes please, share your files. Do you have the files both without and with the uBACCH filter applied, preferably with a 30-degree angle?

 

[Keith_W]

Agreed,I have a shared folder with files for uBACCH at certain specific speaker angles. I can can share the drive of anyone is interested. Kieth_W I may have already shared with you.

You did share them with me. But the only files I received had BACCH processing baked in. There were no originals to compare them with. I suggest you do not label which files have been processed with BACCH, only call it 1 and 2.

 

[goat76]

You did share them with me. But the only files I received had BACCH processing baked in. There were no originals to compare them with. I suggest you do not label which files have been processed with BACCH, only call it 1 and 2.

I don't think that will be necessary, most of the time it's quite easy to hear which one of the files has the BACCH filter applied. What is more important is that the files are level-matched to the same integrated LUFS.

 

[Gwreck]

I don't think that will be necessary, most of the time it's quite easy to hear which one of the files has the BACCH filter applied. What is more important is that the files are level-matched to the same integrated L

I don't think that will be necessary, most of the time it's quite easy to hear which one of the files has the BACCH filter applied. What is more important is that the files are level-matched to the same integrated LUFS.

If you name some songs I can process them and also have a non processed version. If 30 degrees is a good angle I will process at that angle. Name a few songs and I can do the processing. If it’s “chef’s choice” that fine also.

 

[goat76]

Name a few songs and I can do the processing. If it’s “chef’s choice” that fine also.

I have already compared a lot of music of my choice with and without uBACCH as I had it for the 14-day test period. So it would be more interesting to hear a variety of music you like. Preferably from different genres and share them so that more people can download the files. 30-second clips are considered fair use.

 

[onion]

Am I missing something? If you playback the music on a system without XTC, it won’t demonstrate what BACCH does.

 

[goat76]

While we are waiting for @Gwreck's files I upload a comparison of the song All I've Got To Do by The Beatles.

It's one of those old and odd stereo recordings where everything in the mix is hard-panned to the left or the right, but thanks to that, this mix has no distractions and we can put all our focus on what the crosstalk cancelation does to those hard-panned sounds (which are also common in modern multi-mono mixes).

The following files are meant to be listened to with the loudspeakers placed in a 30-degree equilateral triangle.

30 seconds of the original file: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jbcp...RMAL.wav?rlkey=l45f4r62n8vxd69vll0h5qse4&dl=0

30 seconds with uBACCH filter applied: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3tgi...ACCH.wav?rlkey=svn52iq0o422pvuj0l219h2up&dl=0

 

[goat76]

Am I missing something? If you playback the music on a system without XTC, it won’t demonstrate what BACCH does.

Yes, you are missing that the uBACCH filter can be applied to a file in a DAW and rendered to a new file with the filter "baked-in". The only setback is that it will only work in systems with the same listening window, so if you are going to listen to the uBACCH file I posted above, you must position your speakers in a 30-degree equilateral listening triangle.

 

[kthulhutu]

I'm glad this website actually shows you how to get the most out of the system within your budget. I think the real genius of this isn't the sound at all. It's that a guy has found a way not only to charge a hefty fee for the software, (a product not a service) but then turn it into a reoccurring revenue stream like an alarm contract...to listen to your stereo.

You can just... not upgrade. My BACCH is 3 major versions out of date and I only recently paid the maintenance fee so I can get ORC as an early adopter. I won't bother upgrading again after this until something else major happens.

And while I agree that the BACCH software is expensive, you have to understand that this comes with a very high level of support. Edgar and the few others at Theoretica will be your on-call support for a year, including odd hours of the day. I've never had that level of customer service from anywhere else.

 

[STC]

I personally have always enjoyed XTC even with worse versions such as q sound, RACE and sonic holography.

In what way you are saying RACE is inferior to BACCH? Perhaps, RACE should have been sold for $50K so that the technician or Ralph himself could go and set it up correctly.

The only aspect that I say that BACCH is superior is due to its 20dB XTC attenuation it is capable to deliver close proximity sound up to the ears. That is something you can enjoy with binaural recordings only. There are hardly any binaural recordings for music. It is not a coincidence that BACCH before becoming commercially available Chesky was persuaded to do binaural recordings.

 

[Dialectic]

I have already compared a lot of music of my choice with and without uBACCH as I had it for the 14-day test period. So it would be more interesting to hear a variety of music you like. Preferably from different genres and share them so that more people can download the files. 30-second clips are considered fair use.

I am availing myself of the 'ignore' button.

In what way you are saying RACE is inferior to BACCH? Perhaps, RACE should have been sold for $50K so that the technician or Ralph himself could go and set it up correctly.

The only aspect that I say that BACCH is superior is due to its 20dB XTC attenuation it is capable to deliver close proximity sound up to the ears. That is something you can enjoy with binaural recordings only. There are hardly any binaural recordings for music. It is not a coincidence that BACCH before becoming commercially available Chesky was persuaded to do binaural recordings.

This is incorrect. Numerous studio recordings achieve close-to-the ears effects with BACCH.

 

[STC]

This is incorrect. Numerous studio recordings achieve close-to-the ears effects with BACCH.

So too RACE.

 

[Dialectic]

So too RACE.

You said it's something you can do with binaural recordings only. There are non-binaural recordings that achieve the effect.

 

[Gwreck]

In what way you are saying RACE is inferior to BACCH? Perhaps, RACE should have been sold for $50K so that the technician or Ralph himself could go and set it up correctly.

The only aspect that I say that BACCH is superior is due to its 20dB XTC attenuation it is capable to deliver close proximity sound up to the ears. That is something you can enjoy with binaural recordings only. There are hardly any binaural recordings for music. It is not a coincidence that BACCH before becoming commercially available Chesky was persuaded to do binaural recordings.

I have heard various form of RACE and depending on the version the quality of XTC varied. The mini-ambio from mini DSP did decent job of XTC but was much fussier about speaker location and had more sonic coloration. Other versions I have heard had so much frequency response changes they were unlistenable. If you are a die hard RACE fan I can mail you the mini ambio if you message me.

 

[goat76]

I am availing myself of the 'ignore' button.

Why, what is the reason for that?

I'm baffled by how fast some people choose that road.

 

[STC]

You said it's something you can do with binaural recordings only. There are non-binaural recordings that achieve the effect.

RACE could only do 10dB attenuation so to get the best out of binaural BACCH is the answer as it is above 20dB and the cancellation supposedly matching you ears. How much you perceive close to ears is subjective. For an example, the channel ID test where he will walk up to the mic and whisper, I feel it about a foot away to my ears while other listeners listening to my system with XTC values based on my HRTF perceives them to be at the ears.

See Knellers subjective opinion of RACE in the Soundstageglobal website where he also said the sound was at his ears.

I have also done my own binaural recordings of bee circling my head but to me I don’t really hear them going behind or even so much above but some listeners perceived that the bee is actually in the room and circling their head. One person started to cover his head and duck. I believe that is not the actual sound he heard but more to the fact that he was indeed stung by a bee in such a situation of bee was circling around him. It is probably his survival mechanism kicking in rather than actual sound localization.

If you are a die hard RACE fan I can mail you the mini ambio if you message me.

I thought this was a discussion not about being die hard fan of BACCH or RACE. if someone is going argue that RACE is superior than I am also going to point out the weakness.

Anyway, I have two Miniambios. RACE relying with attenuation and delay will not sound good. It will be too colored.

 

[Gwreck]

RACE could only do 10dB attenuation so to get the best out of binaural BACCH is the answer as it is above 20dB and the cancellation supposedly matching you ears. How much you perceive close to ears is subjective. For an example, the channel ID test where he will walk up to the mic and whisper, I feel it about a foot away to my ears while other listeners listening to my system with XTC values based on my HRTF perceives them to be at the ears.

See Knellers subjective opinion of RACE in the Soundstageglobal website where he also said the sound was at his ears.

I have also done my own binaural recordings of bee circling my head but to me I don’t really hear them going behind or even so much above but some listeners perceived that the bee is actually in the room and circling their head. One person started to cover his head and duck. I believe that is not the actual sound he heard but more to the fact that he was indeed stung by a bee in such a situation of bee was circling around him. It is probably his survival mechanism kicking in rather than actual sound localization.


I thought this was a discussion not about being die hard fan of BACCH or RACE. if someone is going argue that RACE is superior than I am also going to point out the weakness.

Anyway, I have two Miniambios. RACE relying with attenuation and delay will not sound good. It will be too colored.

As far as I understand there is a large minority of people who do not hear the cues of the generic binaural head. With specific recordings even without BACCH and my ESL’s certain sounds will be at my ear.

 

[Dialectic]

Why, what is the reason for that?

I'm baffled by how fast some people choose that road.

Because your posts are not contributive, and you're content to take others' time with silly questions and endless demos. I'm not sure how you were unable to reach your own conclusions after a 14-day trial.

And incorrect statements like this: "About 99.9% of all recordings out there are panned multi-mono productions." That is true of popular music, but, if you don't listen to music recorded in natural acoustic spaces (which, I'm guessing, you don't), you're probably not in the target market for BACCH. Not that it makes studio recordings worse, but the desideratum of BACCH is realistic spatial cues. Realism is impossible when you're listening to something as fake as a Taylor Swift album. The "special effects" on Pink Floyd albums are fun, though.

More generally, this thread attracts a certain type of poster, eager to debunk any claims made regarding BACCH because he doesn't like the price tag or media coverage in audiophile rags, but unable to contribute much beyond chestnuts about the Harman curve, measurements, multichannel audio, or the uselessness of expensive speaker wire (there's nothing wrong with any of those things; they're just not of interest to me).

Ignored.

 

[onion]

While we are waiting for @Gwreck's files I upload a comparison of the song All I've Got To Do by The Beatles.

It's one of those old and odd stereo recordings where everything in the mix is hard-panned to the left or the right, but thanks to that, this mix has no distractions and we can put all our focus on what the crosstalk cancelation does to those hard-panned sounds (which are also common in modern multi-mono mixes).

The following files are meant to be listened to with the loudspeakers placed in a 30-degree equilateral triangle.

30 seconds of the original file: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jbcp...RMAL.wav?rlkey=l45f4r62n8vxd69vll0h5qse4&dl=0

30 seconds with uBACCH filter applied: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3tgi...ACCH.wav?rlkey=svn52iq0o422pvuj0l219h2up&dl=0

I had a listen to this song last night with the XTC filter toggled between on and off (unblinded) in BACCH - I preferred the XTC version. It did not do anything crazy to the placement of the anchored hard-panned sounds but did add a sense of spaciousness to where they emanated from.