BACCH4MAC Short Review / first impressions

[STC]

You are right that we don't exactly know, how the recording situation was. I assume that the intend was close to the BACCH demo with sound at 09:00.

I looked at the left ID file and using Audacity I guess it could have been from 9 o clock. But there is another software for that I am unable to recall the name to be absolutely sure. OTOH, the level difference is mere 2.5dB between left and right which is disturbing as I expect it to be more.

Furthermore, if I use track 19 , the vocal is never in the centre. Despite, what the notes say. Even with headphones it is always slightly towards the right. Today I measured the level and I can confirm that the left channel is louder by 1.1dB. It looks like they never calibrated the mics when doing this recording.

As you described some Qsound (Roger Waters) on some speakers (Cube Nenophar) did that. Not sure if it was intended or more 10 o'clock as I hear it in many systems.

Anybody's brain is capable to clearly hear sounds from behind. I guess it is very hard to artificially position them in studio mixing.
The only thing I can state is that in the vocal recording some voices came from behind.

There is a BACCH 3DM module which makes this claim, but I have no experiences.

QSound is capable of giving a lateral 180 degree sound. listen to the track with horse carriage.

The original question was, if there are ways to measure the effect. I offered the left ID recording with positioning the sound as a reference.

No worries, I am just suggesting to use a better reference. The recording may sound wonderful with so call d 3D effect but to set up your system you need your own reference. The funny thing with our brain is all we need is someone to suggest something and we start to hear them.

Binaural recording of music is not without its own problem. Chesky dropped the binaural + a couple of years ago. I think someone should experiment with pinnaless dummy head to capture the correct ILD and ITD. Whatever it is XTC brings out the best of any recording provided it is setup correctly and many give up before reaching the perfection. Otherwise, one day you are going to wake up and say “ hey…. The drum is weak and the vocal is not as alluring as it was before”. I have not heard BACCH and I am not sure if I could incorporate that in my system.

Enjoy your BACCH, I am still not not sure how the demo managed to produce the 90 degree effect with the ID test track…..unless…… they are using a corrected version? maybe…….

 

[STC]

There is a BACCH 3DM module

There are other programs like this but it is not making the claim that you could produce 360 degrees with two speakers. the program is capable of making a binaural mix with your own HRTF so you get great 3D sound with headphones with externalizes sound but for loudspeakers playback they downsample it to multi channel mix.

True 360 degrees with XTC needs 4 channel recording. Even then height information can’t be reproduced via the front speakers. So basically 360 degrees of lateral sound field. All the research papers now disappeared with the closure of Ambiophonics website. I have taken the screenshots of the website and saved the papers, if you are interested you can check out there. But with BACCH, you don’t have too as everything is measured by the system. just plug n play.

 

[STC]

@sweetsounds I asked someone to listen to it but the person says it is coming almost from 9 o’clock.

Anyway, here is the recording made with DPA 4560 binaural mics. So this is basically what I hear with the left ID track. I also snapped my fingers exactly at 9 o’clock and 3 clock. You be the judge. Please use headphones for binaural recordings to judge and maybe with BACCH the snapping fingers sound should be exactly from left and right.

Microsoft OneDrive

1drv.ms

ST

 

[Dialectic]

Are any other BACCH4Mac users noticing that the 'import/export settings' option in the drop down menu of version 13.01 (I'm using the Pro edition) is grayed out?

 

[Dialectic]

Anyone using the ELP IR camera in a low light environment with BACCH4Mac?

 

[Gwreck]

Anyone using the ELP IR camera in a low light environment with BACCH4Mac?

I used the intel IR cam before the update and it worked well. The ELP camera doesn’t even work for me in full light. I have been busy and not able to troubleshoot since

 

[Keith_W]

I am trying to decide between BACCH4Mac Intro and uBACCH for Windows. I suppose I know the answer already, but I would like some confirmation.

uBACCH for Windows: USD$399 with 15% off currently. The biggest advantage for me is that no additional purchases are required. However, the disadvantages are: limited adjustments (can only adjust speaker angle), and no upgradability to BACCH4Mac versions which are measurements based with head tracking.

BACCH4Mac Intro: USD$980 + Mac Mini + software licenses for JRiver and Hang Loose Convolver + other hardware including switches (about $2000 all up). Many disadvantages, with the biggest one having to buy a Mac (I hate Macs!) and all the extra software licenses and hardware to get it to work. It will wind up costing more than 5x the price of uBACCH for Windows for me. Not to mention the increase in complexity, possible issues with latency, having to set up the Mac to receive audio from a Windows PC, and I still haven't figured out how I am going to do measurements with Acourate (which is Windows only). The ONLY advantage I am aware of is that it can potentially be upgraded to higher versions of BACCH4Mac.

If there are any other reasons why I should buy BACCH4Mac Intro over uBACCH for Windows, I would love to know.

 

[Bjorn]

I think the answer is clear. The company needs to develop a better solution for PC

 

[Gwreck]

I am trying to decide between BACCH4Mac Intro and uBACCH for Windows. I suppose I know the answer already, but I would like some confirmation.

uBACCH for Windows: USD$399 with 15% off currently. The biggest advantage for me is that no additional purchases are required. However, the disadvantages are: limited adjustments (can only adjust speaker angle), and no upgradability to BACCH4Mac versions which are measurements based with head tracking.

BACCH4Mac Intro: USD$980 + Mac Mini + software licenses for JRiver and Hang Loose Convolver + other hardware including switches (about $2000 all up). Many disadvantages, with the biggest one having to buy a Mac (I hate Macs!) and all the extra software licenses and hardware to get it to work. It will wind up costing more than 5x the price of uBACCH for Windows for me. Not to mention the increase in complexity, possible issues with latency, having to set up the Mac to receive audio from a Windows PC, and I still haven't figured out how I am going to do measurements with Acourate (which is Windows only). The ONLY advantage I am aware of is that it can potentially be upgraded to higher versions of BACCH4Mac.

If there are any other reasons why I should buy BACCH4Mac Intro over uBACCH for Windows, I would love to know.

I think you have answered your own question. I would get the windows version to get a taste. If you really get the BACCH bug then maybe it would be worth it to get the audiophile(head tracking) version with the added expense and complexity. Dr Choueiri has said that Theoretica is a very small company and does not have the ability to work on 2 software platforms.

 

[Tim Link]

From what I can gather, it seems that all these crosstalk cancelation methods produce similar results. If you are curious, you could get something simple like SoundPimp to get a taste of what the effect can do. BACCH might be the best of the best, but from everything I've read the results are similar. In all cases, they work best in an anechoic space, they produce more interesting results on the same kinds of recordings. They widen the sound stage, provide better separation, and can improve tonality, although opinions may vary on whether or not it sounds better overall in that respect.
I just did a comparison of a Soundpimp enhanced file, my 3 speaker crosstalk reduction method playing the same music un-pimpified, and then combining my 3 speaker system with the pimp effect. I also just listened to it in straight stereo. I have to give SoundPimp the win in terms of stereo width and separation, which is a full 180 degrees in my room, with images completely off to my left still seeming very solid and precisely located. My 3 speaker setup gives me about 120 degrees (unless out of phase material is in the recording), and images far off to the side are a bit ethereal. I think I'm going to have to install Soundpimp on my main rig and try living with it for a while. I already have it on my laptop, and it was a bit of a pain to get set up.

 

[holdingpants01]

Is there some good subtle demo of how it works for speakers at 60 degrees?

 

[Tim Link]

Is there some good subtle demo of how it works for speakers at 60 degrees?

You can listen to pre-treated Soundpimp files here: https://soundpimp.com/computer-audio-enhancer-demo/ I don't think these are optimized to sound best for speakers set at 60 degrees, but you could give it a try. These work well with my speakers at more like 10 degrees from my listening position. Having them closer generally makes the crosstalk reduction work better while simultaneously reducing the severity of sidewall reflections.

 

[holdingpants01]

You can listen to pre-treated Soundpimp files here: https://soundpimp.com/computer-audio-enhancer-demo/ I don't think these are optimized to sound best for speakers set at 60 degrees, but you could give it a try. These work well with my speakers at more like 10 degrees from my listening position. Having them closer generally makes the crosstalk reduction work better while simultaneously reducing the severity of sidewall reflections.

I tried to listen to it but it was really unpleasant here, phasey and hollow. Like the side signal from MS turned up way too much. I'm rather close to speakers in a 2m equilateral triangle in a 200ms decay room, so maybe it's headphoney enough without it

 

[Dialectic]

There was an extensive discussion of the practical difficulties with BACCH and the comparative merits of the BACCH and Harman conventional wisdom ("HCV") approaches to spatial audio beginning approximately here -

BACCH4Mac Pro Edition: a report

As I think about this, one basic challenge with incorporating additional convolution into BACCH might be head tracking. Simply adding post-BACCH FIR convolution in the form of VST plugin or similar would add unknown delays to the signal processing chain, and thereby delay reaction to head...

www.audiosciencereview.com

- and continuing on for several pages.

Floyd Toole and Edgar Choueiri, along with some other very informed and experienced members of ASR, participated.

From my perspective, what makes BACCH worth the trouble and the cost is how it causes ILD and ITD cues that generate no discernible spatial effect in conventional systems (in stereo or multichannel, or with headphones) to place precise images around the listener. Subjectively, on recordings made in natural acoustic spaces, BACCH with head tracking causes the listener to feel like he is listening in the performance venue and not in his listening room. For studio recordings of popular music, BACCH can be more like a special effect (with sounds often seeming to emanate from behind the listener) but is no less spectacular.

 

[Tim Link]

I tried to listen to it but it was really unpleasant here, phasey and hollow. Like the side signal from MS turned up way too much. I'm rather close to speakers in a 2m equilateral triangle in a 200ms decay room, so maybe it's headphoney enough without it

That's interesting. I've heard it sound like that too. I was surprised that his demo tracks actually sounded very dry and clean on my setup, almost too dry. No phasey or hollow effects, but very widely spaced and separated instruments around the room. The headtracking seems almost necessary since if everything isn't setup right the artifacts of the processing come out. I managed to get SoundPimp to work on my system tonight, but for whatever reason it did not sound as good as the pre-processed demo files. After a while it just stopped working.

 

[sweetsounds]

I am trying to decide between BACCH4Mac Intro and uBACCH for Windows. I suppose I know the answer already, but I would like some confirmation.

uBACCH for Windows: USD$399 with 15% off currently.

BACCH4Mac Intro: USD$980 + Mac Mini + software [...]
Many disadvantages, with the biggest one having to buy a Mac (I hate Macs!) and all the extra software licenses and [...]

If there are any other reasons why I should buy BACCH4Mac Intro over uBACCH for Windows, I would love to know.

Let me approach your decision with easy questions:
What, if "uBACCH for Windows" makes you crave for more? Then worst case you have lost $399. i am sure you have spent way more in audio products which you changed later and you won't go broke.
What if you don't like it after a while? You can switch it off in an instant and are back to today.
What is the minimal invasive change for your situation and what are the risks really? $399.

So for me the path is clear for your situation.


When I had to decide last year, uBACCH for Windows didn't exist. I changed my signal path from a headless Linux based Raspberry, which was painful to set up, but is a clearly behaving, predictable component.

I don't like the Mac Desktop but it has a solid Unix kernel below with predictable behavior and I use the shell terminal.
I don't trust Windows in the audio path from experiences long time ago (I know, ASIO supposedly changed all of it and timing/driver interferences are much better nowadays).
Not everything humans do is rational.

 

[Keith_W]

Thank you @sweetsounds. We put different weighting on different answers. I put a very high weighting on "need to get a Mac" as a serious negative. It's not necessary, it adds expense and complexity, more points of failure, and I do not want to support developers who won't bring out a Windows version. I am a person who has "f*** Apple" stickers on my car and a box outside the house for people to leave their Apple products in before I let them enter my house. Getting a Mac is only slightly less distasteful than eating excrement.

I have also been thinking about whether I really want the BACCH4Mac Audiophile version, which is the ONLY reason I would choose BACCH4Mac Intro. There are two advantages of the Audiophile version as I see it:

1. Head tracking. I have tried uBACCH for Windows, and the sweet spot is not as narrow as they say it is ... at least in my system. Also, I wonder about whether head tracking would get confused if there are more listeners. To be honest I am perfectly happy with how well uBACCH for Windows works in my system. So I think I could do without this feature.

2. Measurements-based BACCH. For me this is the headline feature and what would get me most interested in the Audiophile version. However, I have not heard or read any reports as to how much of a real world improvement this brings. I suspect that all versions of BACCH, or any crosstalk cancellation really, is speaker/room dependent and having a measurement-based approach should lessen the impact of the speaker/room interface on crosstalk cancellation. However, I don't know by how much.

So for me, it's good-bye BACCH4Mac.

 

[Purité Audio]

I don’t know how the version in the 8Cs is implemented but I like it.
Keith

 

[sweetsounds]

2. Measurements-based BACCH. For me this is the headline feature and what would get me most interested in the Audiophile version. However, I have not heard or read any reports as to how much of a real world improvement this brings. I suspect that all versions of BACCH, or any crosstalk cancellation really, is speaker/room dependent and having a measurement-based approach should lessen the impact of the speaker/room interface on crosstalk cancellation. However, I don't know by how much.

So for me, it's good-bye BACCH4Mac. Not interested.

See my experience Here
It added another 20% to 30% to the accuracy and soundstage width, but is no fundamental change.

Notice: for more directional or non-symmetrical speaker setups, head-tracking and individual measurements might improve more.

Let's be happy, that there are now more and more good options available (stand-alone SP processor, Mac software suite, Windows VST, D&D speaker built-in) with different price points and ease of use.

 

[Tim Link]

This has been an interesting discussion, making me think hard about what's possible with enough processing and equipment compared to what I think I want my system to do. The fact that you can get 2 speakers in a room to give the illusion of someone whispering right into your ear is quite spectacular. I like the idea of my system being able to do that, but most of the time I just want it to portray all the sounds at a suitable distance, and mostly within about a 90 degree stage width, with a little sense of envelopment creeping in from some reflections or apparent effects perhaps a little wider. As a visual analogy I can imagine a OmniMax type bubble screen with 3d stereoscopic capability and head tracking to correct parallax effects as I make head motions. That would be highly immersive, but would also require specialized viewing content. VR goggles can do that sort of thing. Most of the time I prefer to just see a nice, clear flat screen with accurate color and contrast that's big enough to let me see the content clearly. Sometimes I want something more. VR goggles may be in my future, but I think they need more work. I loved the stereoscopic effect on the Nintendo 3DS handheld unit. That had head tracking that kept the 3D effect properly lined up with your eyes so you didn't have to hold the unit at an exact position in front of your face. I'd like to see a newer hand held unit bring that feature back, maybe with some added head tracking features like parallax effects, and allowing you to look around the scene more by moving your head relative to the screen. Somebody did that years ago with a Nintendo Wii. The hardware was all there to make that work.

As has been brought up repeatedly, the interesting thing about BACCH is that it works with the huge amount of 2 channel material we already have, and you can turn it on and off at will. I don't have the money to splurge on it at the moment. If I had a bunch of cash I think I'd just jump in on the whole package. I like Macs well enough so that part is not a problem for me.