Dr. Edgar Choueiri explains BACCH

[Justdafactsmaam]

Exactly. It's called over-defensiveness. It is ultimately self-defeating and doesn't achieve what the over-defender thinks it does. Hence my sense that the username is ironic.

Pure ad hominem. Pathetic

Single-ended BACCH is what it is.

You actually got something right. It is what it is.

And it sure isn't what it could be.

What exactly is that? Love to see you do some armchair quarterbacking

A good example of over-defensiveness (about the simple fact that it is an effects box

Nope not a fact

when used single-ended on the overwhelmingly dominant catalog of commercial recordings that use multi-mic and mixing)

1. Please provide objective stats on your claim
2. It works wonderfully with studio recordings

, is to take the argumentative position that, since perfect-down-to-the-atom sound wave reproduction isn't happening with any current technology, then "everything is an effect, nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah, so there!"

Brilliant argument. I have to say you did raise your game with “nyah-na-nyah-nyah,”

Perceptually, we can get remarkably close in our homes to experiencing what the studio engineers crafted with such care and nuance for us to experience, and heard in their mastering suite, and we can do this without having to replicate physical soundfields down-to-the-atom.

Prove it. I can cite three scientists including your own Dr. Toole whom all call that bullshit. Circular reasoning is most effectively built on false premises. So far your one and only real world example was a comical fail. Do tell us again how the Beatles carefully crafted those early stereo mixes “with such care and nuance for us to experience, and heard in their mastering suite,”

Perceptually, that is a non-effect, that is a reproduction.

Just like Santa Clause is a real dude

That is a goal worth having, if we are interested in art-as-made. A lot of sound reproduction research over the decades has moved us closer and closer to being able to share that experience. Single-ended BACCH moves away from that.

cheers

To quote Dr. Toole again.

“For decades, society has been conditioned to derive pleasure from first single channel sound (mono) and then two channels (stereo). Impressed by the novelty that music was available on demand, society appeared to lower its expectations and adapted to the inadequate formats. A great deal of enjoyment was had by all. So complete is this form of adaptation that significant new technical developments must go through a “break-in” period before there is acceptance.”

"The audio industry has developed and prospered until now without any meaningful standards relating to the sound quality of loudspeakers used by professionals or in homes." "A consequence of this lack of standardization and control is that recordings vary in sound quality, spectral balances, and imaging."

"So listeners are merely the last in a long line of aural architects but with no influence on, or connection with, what has happened before. No matter how meticulously the playback equipment has been chosen and set up, and no matter how much money has been lavished on exotic acoustical treatments, what we hear in our homes and cars is, in spatial terms, a matter of chance. Blesser and Salter conclude that 'spatial accuracy is not a signifi cant criterion for much of our musical experience'”

Read it, learn it, accept it.

 

[LIΟN]

Is there a simple tool to measure XT and XTC at home?
As in , can you do it with REW?

Binaural Measurement in REW

Is anyone doing or heard of anyone doing any binaural measurements with REW pro? If so, does REW pro work, are people using special mics or could 2 Umik’s work? Cc: @Lion @Tim Link @Gwreck

audiosciencereview.com

Yes, it's possible. After measuring both ears, REW's Trace function is available.
Otherwise, You can use Audacity.

Dr. Edgar Choueiri explains BACCH

Please list a couple of acoustical originals that you enjoy. I will listen to them with and without BACCH and give you my honest opinion. Here are three more, that I’ve recently played. It is very time consuming to find good demo material in a large library, especially on a Saturday night when...

audiosciencereview.com

As for the content of XTC, you don't need that deep insertion depth like binaural impulse personalized recordings, so you can buy a 3 or 6mm microphone and measure it by wearing a regular IEM comfortably.

 

[LIΟN]

You consider crosstalk cancelation an effect
I consider crosstalk an effect

A lot of people are split in this thread, and I also read, refer and think about the contents of you and other contributors, but the sentence you said seems to penetrate a lot. I agree.

 

[STC]

If you place two speakers side by side and play them out of phase how much attenuation can you get? Microphone is in the dead centre of the two speakers. Can you get 20 dB attenuation? Just asking.

 

[Davide]

Do you also realize that XTC effectiveness metrics only theoretically related to perception and not experimentally, however reasonably valid, do not represent full scientific confirmation valid to consider the product effective in its purpose?

@Justdafactsmaam
Reviewing the messages I suspect that this question sounded different in English than I intended, which would explain some of your answers.
It was not intended for the validity of the metrics (the eight that Dr. Choueiri indicates in the Optimal Crosstalk Cancellation paper) in quantifying the theoretical effectiveness of the filter in doing what it is designed for, but to the experimental results of those metrics in practice, in our homes so to speak (I edited the original post to make it clear).
Since I have not seen published numbers relating to these metrics resulting from domestic or real measurements, the doubt arises... does the software provide you with the numbers for these metrics?

 

[Gwreck]

Pure ad hominem. Pathetic

You actually got something right. It is what it is.

What exactly is that? Love to see you do some armchair quarterbacking

Nope not a fact

1. Please provide objective stats on your claim
2. It works wonderfully with studio recordings

Brilliant argument. I have to say you did raise your game with “nyah-na-nyah-nyah,”

Prove it. I can cite three scientists including your own Dr. Toole whom all call that bullshit. Circular reasoning is most effectively built on false premises. So far your one and only real world example was a comical fail. Do tell us again how the Beatles carefully crafted those early stereo mixes “with such care and nuance for us to experience, and heard in their mastering suite,”


Just like Santa Clause is a real dude

To quote Dr. Toole again.

“For decades, society has been conditioned to derive pleasure from first single channel sound (mono) and then two channels (stereo). Impressed by the novelty that music was available on demand, society appeared to lower its expectations and adapted to the inadequate formats. A great deal of enjoyment was had by all. So complete is this form of adaptation that significant new technical developments must go through a “break-in” period before there is acceptance.”

"The audio industry has developed and prospered until now without any meaningful standards relating to the sound quality of loudspeakers used by professionals or in homes." "A consequence of this lack of standardization and control is that recordings vary in sound quality, spectral balances, and imaging."

"So listeners are merely the last in a long line of aural architects but with no influence on, or connection with, what has happened before. No matter how meticulously the playback equipment has been chosen and set up, and no matter how much money has been lavished on exotic acoustical treatments, what we hear in our homes and cars is, in spatial terms, a matter of chance. Blesser and Salter conclude that 'spatial accuracy is not a signifi cant criterion for much of our musical experience'”

Read it, learn it, accept it

@Justdafactsmaam
Reviewing the messages (I am a very scientific person and I doubt myself too) I suspect that this question sounded different in English than I intended, which would explain some of your answers.
It was not intended for the validity of the metrics (the eight that Dr. Choueiri indicates in the Optimal Crosstalk Cancellation paper) in quantifying the theoretical effectiveness of the filter in doing what it is designed for, and consequently in representing the spatial rendering effectiveness of binaural contents (this is implicitly valid or undoubtedly validated by them), but to the experimental results of those metrics in practice, in our homes so to speak.
Since I have not seen published numbers relating to these metrics resulting from domestic or real measurements, and since I do not believe that the people who use BACCH here are so reckless as not to think that it is useful/necessary to show them on this discussion when favourable statements about effectiveness are made, it seemed obvious to me to think that they are not provided by the software. And therefore there are no useful numbers ("scientific facts") to provide evidence of the product's effectiveness from a user point of view. And therefore it is wrong to make favourable statements in this regard, given that the theory itself defines margins of variability of results (reason for which the aforementioned metrics exist).
But at this point the doubt arises... does the software provide you with the numbers for these metrics?

Dr. Choueiri is very open about he and his team's research. There many people on these forums p!ssing around with questions when they literally could just go to the source. I am fairly certain one could have questions about BACCH and psychoacoustics answered if one chose to ask them. The emails are [email protected] or [email protected]. Anyone who has BACCH likely has Dr. Choueiri's personal contact info but I would not divulge that information in a public forum. (BTW any answers you do get please share). Hopefully this post did not come across too rude but literally there are so many speculative questions that go round in circles in these forums( some I think are trolls and other are sincere).

 

[jimbill]

Here are three more, that I’ve recently played. It is very time consuming to find good demo material in a large library, especially on a Saturday night when you’ve got lots of things to do…

Wiener Schubert Trio, Mozart K. 542, Andante Grazioso
https://open.qobuz.com/track/1042461

This one has the violin on the left at about 20-25º left (my speakers are 28º left and right) and recessed about a metre behind the speaker. The cello is slightly off-centre to the right and recessed a bit deeper. The piano is at about 25º right and more forward. The strings are very well focused and easy to pinpoint. The piano is also pretty focused, which is not very common.

Hagen Quartett, Mozart K. 546, Fugue
https://open.qobuz.com/track/4254603

Here, the strings are extremely well focused and staged in their customary places both in width and depth. This is from a multi-CD set of all Mozart string quartets and contains recordings made at different times and different venues. The ones done at the Schloss Mondsee Festsaal, including this one, are the best ones in terms of pinpoint imaging. In this fugue the instruments enter one by one, which makes it easy to gauge their locations.

Storioni Trio, Schubert, D.929, Allegro
https://open.qobuz.com/track/10583018

In this recording the piano is less focussed, occupying much of the centre of the soundstage (sadly typical), with the bass register to the right (listener as opposed to player perspective). The strings however are well placed and easy to pinpoint, with good stage depth to them.

In all three of these tracks you should be able to place a golf flag where the string instruments are, so to speak. You’re also listening from an audience perspective, as it should be, not from somewhere on stage in the midst of the players. This is without BACCH. I’d be interested to hear how BACCH improves on this.

I listened to all of them, switching back and forth between BYPASS and BACCH. All are excellent recordings and very intimate.

K. 542 Pretty similar. BACCH added a bit more separation between the violin and cello. There was definitely more lifelike airiness with BACCH. But this might be because or ORC.

K 546 BACCH added more depth. Separation was similar. But the BACCH, again created a more lifelike event.

D 929 BACCH spread the stage a bit more. The instruments weren't as between the speakers. BACCH did seem to spread the piano more. The cello was moved a little further right of the centered piano.

Trying not to be biased, while switching back and forth I found the BACCH more enjoyable. It was more of "they are here" experience.

 

[goat76]

@jimbill

How do you have your speakers set up in your room, the distance to boundaries, the distance between the two speakers, and the distance to the listening position?
Have you optimized the setup, especially for BACCH, or do you have your speakers in the same position as you had them before you invested in BACCH?

What speakers do you have and what are their directional characteristics, wide or narrow? Is your listening room acoustically treated?

Many questions, but according to @STC the speaker setup should be optimized differently for XTC, and if that's true, it should potentially make it difficult for an A/B test.

 

[Gwreck]

I listened to all of them, switching back and forth between BYPASS and BACCH. All are excellent recordings and very intimate.

K. 542 Pretty similar. BACCH added a bit more separation between the violin and cello. There was definitely more lifelike airiness with BACCH. But this might be because or ORC.

K 546 BACCH added more depth. Separation was similar. But the BACCH, again created a more lifelike event.

D 929 BACCH spread the stage a bit more. The instruments weren't as between the speakers. BACCH did seem to spread the piano more. The cello was moved a little further right of the centered piano.

Trying not to be biased, while switching back and forth I found the BACCH more enjoyable. It was more of "they are here" experience.

@jimbill

How do you have your speakers set up in your room, the distance to boundaries, the distance between the two speakers, and the distance to the listening position?
Have you optimized the setup, especially for BACCH, or do you have your speakers in the same position as you had them before you invested in BACCH?

What speakers do you have and what are their directional characteristics, wide or narrow? Is your listening room acoustically treated?

Many questions, but according to @STC the speaker setup should be optimized differently for XTC, and if that's true, it should potentially make it difficult for an A/B test.

BACCH is not technically picky about speaker placement but the more acoustically treated your room is the better your results. But in my experience the same things that improve my standard listening apply to BACCH. The main factor is acoustic treatment to improve impulse response of the system.

 

[jimbill]

@jimbill

How do you have your speakers set up in your room, the distance to boundaries, the distance between the two speakers, and the distance to the listening position?
Have you optimized the setup, especially for BACCH, or do you have your speakers in the same position as you had them before you invested in BACCH?

What speakers do you have and what are their directional characteristics, wide or narrow? Is your listening room acoustically treated?

Many questions, but according to @STC the speaker setup should be optimized differently for XTC, and if that's true, it should potentially make it difficult for an A/B test.

I have my speakers in the same position as before. My system is in the family room, very large space with high ceiling. The speakers are at least eight feet from the side walls. The back of the woofer cabinet is only 14" from the front wall. I would like to have them more out into the room, but it's not possible aesthetically.

I have Martin Logan 13a's. I have them toed-in a bit. Edgar suggested that I have them aimed directly at my ears. He also mentioned that speaker placement doesn't have to be exact because the BACCH Audiophile adjusts for them when making measurement sweeps. I have no room treatment other than upholstered chairs next to the speakers. I'm getting XTC readings of 14 dB to 18dB. The ORC gives a nice flat response curve.

The only thing I can say to the A/B testing is that I can compare with a tap of a button in my listening position, so pretty much instantaneous.

 

[Gwreck]

I have my speakers in the same position as before. My system is in the family room, very large space with high ceiling. The speakers are at least eight feet from the side walls. The back of the woofer cabinet is only 14" from the front wall. I would like to have them more out into the room, but it's not possible aesthetically.

I have Martin Logan 13a's. I have them toed-in a bit. Edgar suggested that I have them aimed directly at my ears. He also mentioned that speaker placement doesn't have to be exact because the BACCH Audiophile adjusts for them when making measurement sweeps. I have no room treatment other than upholstered chairs next to the speakers. I'm getting XTC readings of 14 dB to 18dB. The ORC gives a nice flat response curve.

The only thing I can say to the A/B testing is that I can compare with a tap of a button in my listening position, so pretty much instantaneous.

I use 4 inch acoustic panels behind to catch the rear reflection off my ESL’s which helps BACCh a bit and cleans up the sound even without BACCH

 

[jimbill]

I use 4 inch acoustic panels behind to catch the rear reflection off my ESL’s which helps BACCh a bit and cleans up the sound even without BACCH

WAF is pretty much maxed out. Big speakers and now I have a MacBook with cabling permanently sitting on our coffee table. I probably should have bought the pre-loaded MiniMac from Theoretica.

 

[Gwreck]

WAF is pretty much maxed out. Big speakers and now I have a MacBook with cabling permanently sitting on our coffee table. I probably should have bought the pre-loaded MiniMac from Theoretica.

You can airplay the screen to an Apple TV

 

[jimbill]

You can airplay the screen to an Apple TV

LG TV

 

[chichi]

Dear experts on the forum,

I have noticed that the XTC effect varies when using different speakers. With some speakers, the sound feels very close to my single-sided ear, while with others, it is not as pronounced. Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?

Thank you.

 

[STC]

Dear experts on the forum,

I have noticed that the XTC effect varies when using different speakers. With some speakers, the sound feels very close to my single-sided ear, while with others, it is not as pronounced. Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?

Thank you.

Are you the same person that I answered just now in another forum?

 

[chichi]

Are you the same person that I answered just now in another forum?

Hi STC, yes it's 區區(pronounced chichi) on Archimago's site!

 

[Gwreck]

Dear experts on the forum,

I have noticed that the XTC effect varies when using different speakers. With some speakers, the sound feels very close to my single-sided ear, while with others, it is not as pronounced. Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?

Thank you.

Yes, the more directional the speakers the better the XTC effect.

 

[jimbill]

Dear experts on the forum,

I have noticed that the XTC effect varies when using different speakers. With some speakers, the sound feels very close to my single-sided ear, while with others, it is not as pronounced. Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?

Thank you.

Typically, the more directional the speaker the better. Sanders e-stats are optimal.

 

[Gwreck]

Typically, the more directional the speaker the better. Sanders e-stats are optimal.After

Typically, the more directional the speaker the better. Sanders e-stats are optimal.

“Optimal” is a polite way of saying the Sanders “f’ing rock” lol.