Justdafactsmaam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,282
- Likes
- 998
Great. Let’s put that behind us.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 advantage in discrediting it, not even moral. The opposite.
As an owner of the BACCH4Mac I can tell you that part of the custom filter building process objective measurements are taken of the crosstalk of the system with the in ear microphones. After the filter is built you can get measurements of the actual XTC achieved by the filter. So those measurements are plentiful.My point is essentially that on the basis of publicly available information (those I've seen, but anyone is free to link more where I missed some) there doesn't seem to be a way for us potential users to extrapolate the appropriate scientific certainties 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 not saying that development tests don't exist, much less that it doesn't work. Just that on viewable information it shouldn't be appropriate to drawn conclusions about the product (both of objective and subjective sphere) and be blind/reckless supporters (nor detractors, for sure, due to the credibility of the source).
100% perceptual XTC happens at about -25 db.
I’m not sure what an ABX test would achieve. ABX is the gold standard for detecting audible differences. I don’t think there is any meaningful debate about whether or not it makes an audible difference. I think even blind preference tests would have to be uniquely blind in that the subjects would have to be completely uninformed about what is being tested.Sure home demo could be a good thing, but it seems not available 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).
Amongst people who are in the know the effect is so unmistakable that tests couldn’t really be blind.
It won’t revolutionize the audio world. Audiophilia is a niche market in the audio world. Nothing that happens in our niche will revolutionize audio.I really 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.
What the BACCH does offer is a massive leap forward in our ability to listen to 70+ years of stereo recordings. That is my opinion. It’s an audiophile product. Already niche in nature. Whether or not it becomes a “revolution” in the audiophile world is yet to be determined. It’s a diverse group of enthusiasts to say the least with an extremely wide gamut of beliefs.
IMO it’s market share is less of an issue. It’s actual impact in one’s system is a much bigger point of contemplation. No other single element in high end audio has the degree of impact as does the BACCH. Again, my opinion.
That gap between BACCH based systems and non BACCH based systems is going to be a hot topic in high end audio moving forward
Of course not. But it is important to separate what the product actually does and individual consumers’ determination of value for the moneyBut I think (but nobody believe me) there is still a long way to go and the technical, practical and conceptual obstacles seems partly hard to overcome, so the actual product value shouldn't be left outside the discussion, from a MY consumer point of view.