These days I finally managed to get my system back online.
As I said initially, as an audio enthusiast I am quite curious to hear the effect of an XTC on my system.
So I was about to download HAF X-Talk, which I think is still reasonably priced. However, I realized that the uBACCH demo does not require any more effort to set it up, I felt that it could actually be a better test for experimenting with an XTC, being an algorithm theoretically without tonal/dynamic penalties.
So I put it into the system, which fortunately in my case is already set up to insert VST plugins, and therefore I don't have to purposely introduce further complication to the system (which is relevant for many).
According to what the manufacturer says, my DALI speakers have wide dispersion and my listening environment is very reflective (RT60 which reaches 700ms on 3kHz), furthermore it is asymmetrical. I necessarily use a DRC (Dirac or Audiolense) to correct problems below Schroeder, while above I have to limit it because the correction reduces its effectiveness (in area) and reduces the soundstage, which in fact normally benefits from early reflections.
By inserting uBACCH in this configuration, adjusted with the actual angle of the speakers, at first glance I noticed a slightly different spatial effect that depended from song to song. I couldn't say exactly in what terms, but it wasn't particularly better.
At some point I reasoned that room reflections are taking place in the XTC band, so I decided to toe-in the speakers and try using Audiolense to correct up to 6kHz with a rather wide FDW, in order to improve direct/indirect sound ratio in the listening position.
Then I adjusted uBACCH with a limited pink noise signal on the band affected by XTC, in order to obtain the most lateral sound possible by ear (as suggested on their site).
The effect obtained in this way was decidedly different. I experienced a much more defined and "3D" soundstage. Really nicer than the system without XTC, at least in that point.
This confirmed to me the dependence on the impulse response for XTC to be effective.
Unfortunately I don't have a binaural microphone so I can't see what's happening...
There is a further consideration: The fact that the soundstage obtained with only DRC up to Schroeder is narrower than that with XTC and DRC beyond Schroeder, and at the same time wider than that with only DRC beyond Schroeder, could mean that the reflections normally present compensate for the negative effect of crosstalk in recreating the soundstage.
By virtue of this, to compare the results with a more significant criterion, I created two projects in Reaper (which allows you to switch them on the fly). One with DRC up to Schroeder and the other with DRC up to 6kHz plus XTC.
From this comparison I can confirm that XTC and extended DRC gave me the best impression of spatiality.
Now, there is no point in thinking again about what is more correct because we agreed there is no single answer to the question. It's more a matter of personal paradigm.
The fact remains that I had not previously considered the possibility of using XTC in a complementary way to a DRC beyond Schroeder. From this perspective, I recognize that the variability of the result is lower than that theoretically expected with XTC alone, and that in any case the result is subjectively better.
Almost to the point of reconsidering my opinion on the cost, in view of the fact that for this amount it is difficult to obtain a better subjective improvement.
It would be nice to have more concrete objective elements to support this consideration, especially to understand the coexistence relationship between xtc and reflection with wide dispersion speakers and highly reflective room.
Being passionate about audio at heart, I think I will continue to investigate.
UPDATE:
After days of subjective test I have the idea that uBACCH can be, in my specific case, an appropriate complement to the correction of the speakers in terms of spatiality. With DRC I have never been able to improve in this sense, probably for the benefit of the reflections, in fact I limit it to Schroeder and planned to treat room. uBACCH improves the soundstage in a clear and broad way in practically all cases (I listen mainstream music, presumably with artificial spatial cue), although it does not provide that 360-degree audio effect of headphones with binaural coding and it works on about 20 cm per side in my case (the biggest disadvantage for the price to me).
I also checked with measurement outside the sweet spot and there is no FR alteration with it, so no additional penalties.
As a correct spatial reference/target cannot be conceived in most cases, for that relatively limited point where the IR is more optimized by the DRC and uBACCH is effective, it seems to me the latter could represent an advantageous investment for the mid band compared to the treatment of the room (which is relatively uncertain and unsightly).
I would be curious to understand if the flat directivity index to have a spectrum of reflections consistent with direct sound is still an important thing or not, and if the presence of reflections mitigates the extreme panning where present in the audio track.
Unfortunately, with other XTC I just tried I couldn't get the same good soundstage... I suppose that this is due to the peculiar technology that avoid tonal penalties and works at more traditional speaker angles, plus the feature to adjust the center channel gain.
With these criterion I talked a bit with my wife and after a practical reflection we agreed that this could be a better and cheaper compromise than the treatment of the room I was thinking about (for her immense joy). Especially because we are renting and in my house I am the only one who cares about the audio at the moment, so saving money for a single sweet spot makes sense.
So, fresh from this epiphany, not denying substantial subjective improvements and seeing the current discount I decided, a little impulsively, to pull the trigger, contravening the most objectivist part of me.
Objectively I was skeptical for the price due to the various reasons said (IR dependence, artificial audio tracks, single person limitation), but this convenience and subjectively good result unexpectedly prevail, in fact this makes me feel comfortable enough.
I believe this experience shows that the value of the technology cannot be found entirely on a theoretical and general level. It can be practical and user specific, as well as requesting proper setup. And also it is not very immediate to realize, especially for people adapted to the most canonical audio science.
Therefore, debating at theoretical/general level, however correct and argued, it is not particularly useful, as already mentioned. But overcoming the objective barrier is not immediate when something has an additional relatively high cost. I'm a little sorry but I suppose the usefulness of this discussion is in this regard.
However, this makes me curious to experience the Audiophile version to understand for the price how far can it improve in the dynamic sweet spot, and to remain ok outside and/or for others.
ASR should be useful in this investigation, but given the results so far, I took someone's suggestion and I tried to ask the company a few questions about.
As an audio enthusiast and basically fascinated by this refined technology, I would be curious to try it on my system, especially given this experience with Ubacch.
I will try to understand if I can risk losing those $200 for the trial.
In the meantime, I want to try experimenting with narrower directivity speakers (Klipsch) to see what subjectively you can get from something cheap, supported by BACCH technology.
As I said initially, as an audio enthusiast I am quite curious to hear the effect of an XTC on my system.
So I was about to download HAF X-Talk, which I think is still reasonably priced. However, I realized that the uBACCH demo does not require any more effort to set it up, I felt that it could actually be a better test for experimenting with an XTC, being an algorithm theoretically without tonal/dynamic penalties.
So I put it into the system, which fortunately in my case is already set up to insert VST plugins, and therefore I don't have to purposely introduce further complication to the system (which is relevant for many).
According to what the manufacturer says, my DALI speakers have wide dispersion and my listening environment is very reflective (RT60 which reaches 700ms on 3kHz), furthermore it is asymmetrical. I necessarily use a DRC (Dirac or Audiolense) to correct problems below Schroeder, while above I have to limit it because the correction reduces its effectiveness (in area) and reduces the soundstage, which in fact normally benefits from early reflections.
By inserting uBACCH in this configuration, adjusted with the actual angle of the speakers, at first glance I noticed a slightly different spatial effect that depended from song to song. I couldn't say exactly in what terms, but it wasn't particularly better.
At some point I reasoned that room reflections are taking place in the XTC band, so I decided to toe-in the speakers and try using Audiolense to correct up to 6kHz with a rather wide FDW, in order to improve direct/indirect sound ratio in the listening position.
Then I adjusted uBACCH with a limited pink noise signal on the band affected by XTC, in order to obtain the most lateral sound possible by ear (as suggested on their site).
The effect obtained in this way was decidedly different. I experienced a much more defined and "3D" soundstage. Really nicer than the system without XTC, at least in that point.
This confirmed to me the dependence on the impulse response for XTC to be effective.
Unfortunately I don't have a binaural microphone so I can't see what's happening...
There is a further consideration: The fact that the soundstage obtained with only DRC up to Schroeder is narrower than that with XTC and DRC beyond Schroeder, and at the same time wider than that with only DRC beyond Schroeder, could mean that the reflections normally present compensate for the negative effect of crosstalk in recreating the soundstage.
By virtue of this, to compare the results with a more significant criterion, I created two projects in Reaper (which allows you to switch them on the fly). One with DRC up to Schroeder and the other with DRC up to 6kHz plus XTC.
From this comparison I can confirm that XTC and extended DRC gave me the best impression of spatiality.
Now, there is no point in thinking again about what is more correct because we agreed there is no single answer to the question. It's more a matter of personal paradigm.
The fact remains that I had not previously considered the possibility of using XTC in a complementary way to a DRC beyond Schroeder. From this perspective, I recognize that the variability of the result is lower than that theoretically expected with XTC alone, and that in any case the result is subjectively better.
Almost to the point of reconsidering my opinion on the cost, in view of the fact that for this amount it is difficult to obtain a better subjective improvement.
It would be nice to have more concrete objective elements to support this consideration, especially to understand the coexistence relationship between xtc and reflection with wide dispersion speakers and highly reflective room.
Being passionate about audio at heart, I think I will continue to investigate.
UPDATE:
After days of subjective test I have the idea that uBACCH can be, in my specific case, an appropriate complement to the correction of the speakers in terms of spatiality. With DRC I have never been able to improve in this sense, probably for the benefit of the reflections, in fact I limit it to Schroeder and planned to treat room. uBACCH improves the soundstage in a clear and broad way in practically all cases (I listen mainstream music, presumably with artificial spatial cue), although it does not provide that 360-degree audio effect of headphones with binaural coding and it works on about 20 cm per side in my case (the biggest disadvantage for the price to me).
I also checked with measurement outside the sweet spot and there is no FR alteration with it, so no additional penalties.
As a correct spatial reference/target cannot be conceived in most cases, for that relatively limited point where the IR is more optimized by the DRC and uBACCH is effective, it seems to me the latter could represent an advantageous investment for the mid band compared to the treatment of the room (which is relatively uncertain and unsightly).
I would be curious to understand if the flat directivity index to have a spectrum of reflections consistent with direct sound is still an important thing or not, and if the presence of reflections mitigates the extreme panning where present in the audio track.
Unfortunately, with other XTC I just tried I couldn't get the same good soundstage... I suppose that this is due to the peculiar technology that avoid tonal penalties and works at more traditional speaker angles, plus the feature to adjust the center channel gain.
With these criterion I talked a bit with my wife and after a practical reflection we agreed that this could be a better and cheaper compromise than the treatment of the room I was thinking about (for her immense joy). Especially because we are renting and in my house I am the only one who cares about the audio at the moment, so saving money for a single sweet spot makes sense.
So, fresh from this epiphany, not denying substantial subjective improvements and seeing the current discount I decided, a little impulsively, to pull the trigger, contravening the most objectivist part of me.
Objectively I was skeptical for the price due to the various reasons said (IR dependence, artificial audio tracks, single person limitation), but this convenience and subjectively good result unexpectedly prevail, in fact this makes me feel comfortable enough.
I believe this experience shows that the value of the technology cannot be found entirely on a theoretical and general level. It can be practical and user specific, as well as requesting proper setup. And also it is not very immediate to realize, especially for people adapted to the most canonical audio science.
Therefore, debating at theoretical/general level, however correct and argued, it is not particularly useful, as already mentioned. But overcoming the objective barrier is not immediate when something has an additional relatively high cost. I'm a little sorry but I suppose the usefulness of this discussion is in this regard.
However, this makes me curious to experience the Audiophile version to understand for the price how far can it improve in the dynamic sweet spot, and to remain ok outside and/or for others.
ASR should be useful in this investigation, but given the results so far, I took someone's suggestion and I tried to ask the company a few questions about.
As an audio enthusiast and basically fascinated by this refined technology, I would be curious to try it on my system, especially given this experience with Ubacch.
I will try to understand if I can risk losing those $200 for the trial.
In the meantime, I want to try experimenting with narrower directivity speakers (Klipsch) to see what subjectively you can get from something cheap, supported by BACCH technology.
Last edited:
