Dude I have answered your questions over and over. You come here and make blatantly false claims that there is no science behind the BACCH, that it’s just math and theory and there has been no testing.
You are telling lies about the product in order to disparage it. How that flies on this forum I don’t know.
But I am done wasting time on you.
Man, I sincerely believe that you are intelligent and have an uncommon ability to understand and analyze.
I have never meant that a scientific approach in development has not been used. Far be it from me. As I already said, in fact I actually think BACCH is a truly remarkable piece of engineering, with a clear purpose based on established scientific principles about perception and argued by a notable mathematical model. I have no interest in discrediting it, not even moral. Just the opposite.
If that message has passed, I have expressed myself badly or have not been contextualized correctly.
I suppose I am not flawless in expressing myself, as I think anyone, and the translator does not even help. No problem in rephrase my thought as long as it is not deliberately misunderstood.
My point is essentially that on the basis of information available on website (those I've seen, but if something escapes the forum should be used to help in this regard) there doesn't seem to be a way for us potential users to extrapolate the appropriate objective data about the result in order to judge the actual value, both as regards the subjective and objective sphere of the matter, that we recognize to exist. I am clearly not saying that development tests and evidences don't exist, much less that xtc doesn't work. Just that on viewable information, for us ASR members, it shouldn't be appropriate to drawn firmly conclusions about the product and be blind/reckless supporters (nor detractors, for sure, due to the seriousness of the source).
Sure home demo could be a good thing, but it seems not available for free for the head tracking, and however it implies subjectivity problems, so some public scientific proof of result (ABX test, actual measurements...) could be desired for users to make proper evaluation. Especially since the product is not free. But obviously not strictly needed if price isn't a problem (blessed are those).
It is these kinds of reasonings that I think it's useful to do in this place. Not just talk about science, nor about subjective experience.
We all know that ASR was born precisely for this.
Maybe there is a bit of prejudice that has been created due to all the nonsense that afflicts the audiophile world (the unscientific one is meant) and also there is some emotional involvement in debates (which is not "scientific" but alas not fully extrovertable from man).
But I believe that there are more points of meeting than of quarrel in our discussion, so it's stupid to polarize and to accuse, so heavily. It is not in anyone's interest. And I don't exempt me from making a mistake in this sense.
As I have already said (or tried to), I do not believe it possible, but basically I can only hope that XTC will take hold and revolutionize the audio world. There is only to gain for audio enthusiasts. BACCH is definitely in the lead in this, with its unique technology. I respect the work behind it and wish them success.
But I think (just my understanding of things) some practical / conceptual obstacles are not fully minimized, so the actual cost shouldn't be left outside the discussion, from a
MY consumer point of view.
Clearly it would only be positive to see facts and numbers that prove something. And we are here looking for this in fact, because we are passionate and the technology here is truly fascinating.
As soon as I can, however, I will try an XTC in my system, as much as it's worth a subjective proof.
Of course, the thread can be understood as closely linked to technical speeches, but we can't omit wider arguments, as happens in every single thread in the world practically. In the case, however, there are moderators who can / must intervene.
For example, when it comes to electric cars, it makes no sense to just talk about efficiency without talking about proof and sustainability. In the third millennium, global vision and science oriented thinking is needed, to me.
I hope we can agree on this.
EDIT:
My epilogue