Dr. Edgar Choueiri explains BACCH

[Davide]

I think you are right about the clash of paradigms.

It is interesting and odd to me that there is this focus on multi track studio productions and exclusion of recordings of musical performances. I know musical tastes are diverse and I am not an objective standard but I literally have a few thousand records, CDs and other digital media of the later.


This I disagree with. I think JJ pretty much destroyed this idea in his lecture on accuracy in audio. We don’t know what was heard, we can’t access what was as heard as an objective reference and as such we can not objectively measure the accuracy of any home playback to that reference.

And that doesn’t even take into account artist intentions which may not have been achieved

Artist intentions may have been affected by their understanding of the limitations of the technology that existed in the time and place of the recording.

And let’s not forget that control rooms are supposed to be analytic tools to allow artists and engineers to create content that is knowingly going to be used in a wide variety of playback systems.

Nobody is recreating a system that allows them to accurately recreate every control room used in the vast body of commercial recordings over the history of recorded music. So even if we could know what was heard no one is really trying to recreate that

And who really wants to? Would the folks who argue that the BACCH lacks accuracy to what was originally heard in the control room advocate the use of an antique Altec speaker shoved in the ceiling corner of a small bed room as the highest fidelity way of listening to RVG jazz recordings?

In listening to both Edgar and JJ we do have pretty well developed metrics

He does. I think his opinions are as biased as the next guy but I’ll avoid that tangent for now.

Yes. However I will reiterate that home audio is almost always a substantial departure from what was heard in the recording studio and CLEARLY any upmix remix for surround systems is inarguably a departure, massive departure

I agree.

But you raise an interesting underlying paradigm. What is in service of what? Are the core ideas about audio in service of the musical experience or does the musical experience have to conform to one’s core ideals about audio.

I am of the mindset that the core ideals are there in service of the musical experience and act as a road map to serve the musical experience. And when new technology comes along that is both a breakthrough in the musical experience and defies the established core ideals in audio it’s the core ideals in audio that should change in service to the subjectively better musical experience.

It reminds me of years ago when I worked on a pilot for a comedy scifi parody of Star Trek. They hired Jonathan Frakes as the director but the producers completely micro managed him and every other creative decision.

After one take the 1st AD asked Jonathan if he liked the take. He smiled, looked over toward the committee and said “ I’m going go find out if I liked it”

I’m not going to be told what I should like based on someone else’s “core ideals” about what audio should it should not be.

I share a lot of what you say, and I was saying same thing about accuracy and reference.
But you omit a relevant point in BACCH regards: Price (additional)
If you don't consider the price, so building a personal concert hall with musicians who replicate our desired events is even better than resorting to XTC.
This is really breakthrough.
But clearly everything has a practical side... and that of XTC, considering the theoretical LP limitation, dependency to the room, speakers, songs, settings, to me it is reasonable for a lower price, such as that of X-Talk. Obviously that's my opinion, in the face of the lack of objective data.
It does not mean that Bacch in practice cannot reach the level of effectiveness that subjectively justify its cost. It's a personal thing.
But the outrage for a 50k tube amplifier that introduces a pleasant euphonic effect is no different at all. To me. For the reason that there is not always an objective improvement, it depends on the personal paradigm of fidelity (signal Vs real event). At least that's how I see it. But we recognise there is something conceptual about.

EDIT: My epilogue

 

[goat76]

It's not about replicating the sound in the studio, it’s about what they didn't hear in the studio while making all the mixing decisions that is the problem. The Bacch filter alters the way the whole mix sounds, not just the spatiality in the mix. The filter can simply not single out what is spatial information and what is direct sounds of the instruments in a stereo recording, that’s why it will either be a hit or a miss depending on what type of recording it is, how it is mixed, and what it contains.

I have no problem at all if some listeners prefer what they hear with a post-applied filter, everyone should go with what they think sounds the best.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I share a lot of what you say, and I was saying same thing about accuracy and reference.
But you omit a relevant point in BACCH regards: Price.

I did not omit it. I addressed the issue and stated the actual price

If you don't consider the price, so building a personal concert hall with musicians who replicate our desired events is even better than resorting to XTC.

You can build a concert hall but Jimi Hendrix won’t come.

Everyone considers price. I addressed this numerous times, stated the actual price and compared and contrasted it to the prices of other audio components.

Value is personal. It’s a consideration for ANY purchase of audio gear. So the consideration is not unique to the BACCH.

I have expressed my personal opinion on the price to performance ratio. YMMA but you won’t know until you try it

This is really breakthrough.
But clearly everything has a practical side... and that of XTC, considering the obtainable result, the variability related to the room, speakers, songs, settings and the limited area in which it effectively works (smaller than normal stereo), it is justifiable only for a much lower price, such as that of X-Talk.
Obviously that's my opinion.

Yes.

But the outrage for a 50k tube amplifier that introduces a pleasant euphonic effect is no different at all. To me.

I don’t feel outrage over it. But I get better performance IMO for pennies on the dollar with tube simulation DSP.

If someone knows a better XTC DSP with room correction and head tracking for less than $6K that equals the transparency, versatility and other qualities and features of the BACCH please fill us in.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

It's not about replicating the sound in the studio, it’s about what they didn't hear in the studio while making all the mixing decisions that is the problem.

Not buying this moving goal post assertion. Rudy Van Gelder certainly did not hear the dynamics, reduction in distortion, freedom from room modes, detail, or frequency extension…oh and the stereo imaging!!!! that one hears with a Dr. Toole approved stereo system.

So that’s a problem?

Sorry but you moved the goal posts right into a ditch.

The Bacch filter alters the way the whole mix sounds, not just the spatiality in the mix.

That is just plain wrong. Shame on you for trying to spread misinformation. Totally out of place on this forum

The filter can simply not single out what is spatial information and what is direct sounds of the instruments in a stereo recording, that’s why it will either be a hit or a miss depending on what type of recording it is, how it is mixed, and what it contains.

The XTC doesn’t filter out spatial information from direct sounds. It reduces audible cross talk. Cross talk that is not on the recording. Crosstalk that is added by the room/speaker/listener interface.

Our brains perceive the spatial cues on the recordings without the interference and confusion created by the added cross talk.

This has been explained to you several times several different ways. There is no excuse for your misrepresentations or mischaracterizations of what this SP does and the perceptual effect it has and why.

If you don’t LIKE it that is a personal preference you get to have. Please own that for what it really is

I have no problem at all if some listeners prefer what they hear with a post-applied filter, everyone should go with what they think sounds the best.

A point of agreement.

 

[jimbill]

1. Type A Recordings:
   Stereo recordings done with a "Type A microphone" (ORTF, XY, coincident mic techniques) rely on mic capsules with directional pickup patterns (cardioid, hypercardioid, etc.) oriented in such a way to proportionally attenuate the sound of a source located the right (left) side of the microphone as it reaches the left (right) capsule. Therefore, it is mostly capturing the “ILD” (and in the case of a coincident stereo microphone, only the ILD). Although this “ILD” may be a bit different from the actual ILD a dummy head would capture (since the attenuation imposed by the highly directive capsules may not accurately represent the attenuation due head shadowing), it is fully capable of capturing a good part, if not all, of the wide range ( 0-20 dB) of our proverbial walking performer. Again, a stereo system without XTC will only be able to reproduce a small part of that range (up to about 5 dB) and again, the performer will be stuck at the left speakers as soon as she reaches about 30 degree azimuth to the left, and remains there throughout the rest of the recording, while in real life she was walking well past the angle (to 50 degrees) then towards the left side of the microphones. Again, the same stereo system with the BACCH filter whose measured XTC performance is shown in the plot above, can reproduce virtually the entire range of ILD, and thus can give the listener a far more accurate spatial reproduction of the full spatial image.
   The difference between a binaural recording done with a dummy head, and a stereo recording done with Type A stereo microphone, when rendered through the same BACCH filter whose XTC performance is shown in the plot above, is that the one-to-one spatial correspondence between the real image and perceived image is more accurate for the former (since the ILD is coded with the attenuation due to a human head shadowing) than the latter (since the ILD is coded with the particular attenuation due to the directivity pattern of the capsules in the Type A stereo mic). However, they both give a spatial image (through the same BACCH filter) that is far more accurate and realistic than of playback without XTC.
   Type B Recordings:
   Since "Type B" stereo recording techniques (e.g. spaced omnis) use omni-directional microphones, they rely on spacing the two microphone capsules some distance apart to pick up ITD cues (the captured ILD cues being negligible16). At first look one might (wrongly) suspect that stereo recordings done with such a stereo microphone might not benefit from XTC during playback as much as Type A or binaural recordings, since XTC only affects the level of the sound pressure at the ears. But in fact, the delay between the arrival times of a source’s sound at the left and right capsules of the microphone will not be reproduced correctly at the ears of the listener if crosstalk is present, as explained in the next (long) paragraph.
   To understand why this is the case, consider again the performer moving from the center position, where ITD is 0, to 50 degrees azimuth left while clapping her hands. A typical ITD for a source there would be something like 400 microseconds. Now if that recording of the performer clapping at 50 degrees azimuth is played back through a pair of stereo speakers, the level of the clap sound is the same on both channels (because there is little if any ILD captured by the Type B stereo microphone) but the clap on the right channel is delayed by 400 microseconds with respect to the right channel of the recording. Therefore, the sound of the clap will arrive at the left ear from the left channel first, then, after a delay time of t1 microseconds, that same sound wave will reach the right ear (t1 is the ITD that would be caused at the ears of the listener by a source located where the left speaker is located, i.e., at 30 degrees azimuth. It should be clear that t1 would be significantly less than the ITD of a sound source at 50 degrees (400 microseconds)). If, hypothetically, there is no sound from the right speaker, the listener would hear the clap coming from the location of the left speaker (which, at 30 degrees azimuth, is not the correct 50 degree azimuthal location of the real life clap). However, the right speaker will emit the clap recorded on the right channel 400 microseconds after it was first emitted by the left speaker. This same sound will reach the left ear t1 microseconds later (again If, hypothetically, there was no emitted sound from the left speaker the listener would hear the clap coming from the location of the right speaker) causing an ILD of t1, which is wrong in value, and also on the wrong side of the listener! However, due to the Hass precedence effect, the two sounds (emitted from the left and right speakers) are perceived as fused into one, and the ITD caused by the first one (from left speaker) dominates perceptually, as it arrived first, causing the listener to perceive the sound of the performer clapping to be essentially located at the left speaker, which is 30 degrees, and not the correct 50 degrees we seek [see Footnote 17 for a more accurate description of the net effect of the “fusing” of these two sounds].
   In contrast, if the crosstalk is cancelled, the left ear (and only that ear) would hear the clap emitted from the left speaker, then the right ear (and only that ear) would hear the clap from the right speaker delayed by 400 microseconds resulting in the correct ITD at the ears, and thus allowing the listener to perceive the correct real-life location of the performer, irrespective of the location of the speakers (again, assuming that the BACCH filter corresponding to that speakers-listener configuration is used).
   You can easily verify the above claim that XTC improves the spatial accuracy of Type B recordings using BACCH-dSP: First, make a recording of someone walking speaking or clapping around you while you have the BACCH-BM microphones in your ears. This first recording would be the reference binaural recording. Then make a second recording of the same performance, but this time hold each of the two capsules in each hand, spaced about 6 inches apart. Since the BACCH-BM capsules are essentially omnidirectional, this is tantamount to a "Type B recording" (spaced omnis). After the recrordings are done, play the reference binaural recording while toggling the BACCH filter on and off (which is in BACCH-dSP can easily be done by a tap of the mouse) and observe how the spatial accuracy is greatly improved when the BACCH filter is on. Finally, play the Type B recording while toggling on/off tthe BACCH filter, and you will also hear a significant enhancement in the spatial accuracy when the BACCH filter is on, as discussed above.
   In conclusion XTC greatly benefits the spatial accuracy, not only the speakers-based playback of binaural recordings, but also those of Type A and Type B recordings, (and therefore of virtually of all well-made stereo acoustical recordings in real acoustical spaces) as it allows both the ILD and ITD cues to be reproduced more correctly at the ears. If XTC works only for binaural recordings, as some people who have not carefully listened to proper XTC have wrongly surmised, no one would be interested in BACCH, as binaural recordings are a very miniscule fraction of available commercial recordings.
   There remains the important question of whether XTC can benefit the spatial rendering of recordings that are produced “artificially” by mixing audio stems (which is the vast majority of popular music). This question is addressed in the following section (to be added very soon).
2. How does BACCH enhance the spatial imaging of "studio-mixed" recordings without altering the sound intended by the mixing engineer?
   In light of the arguments in FAQ #14 above, we can now address the case of “studio-mixed” recordings, which represent the vast majority of commercially available recordings. In such recordings, the mixing engineer (and sometimes with input from the artist(s) and/or producer(s) and, to a lesser extent the mastering engineer,) concoct an artificial stereo image from stems (most often mono stems) mostly through level panning (and, much less often, time or phase panning) between the left and right channels. Mixing to produce a realistic, pleasing or engaging stereo image is an art involving both technical knowhow and esthetic decisions.
   Many mixing engineers are truly ingenious masters. It goes without saying that their final product deserves the utmost respect and that a good hi-fi reproduction system should not degrade or fundamentally alter their construct. It is also very true that virtually all commercially available mixed recordings were mixed while monitoring on monitors without XTC.
   Depending on the techniques used and esthetic decisions made, these concocted recordings range over a wide spectrum: on one end of the spectrum are recordings aiming to emulate a real acoustic environment (e.g. a jazz club). Let us call this end of the spectrum the “pseudo-realistic end”. On the other end of the spectrum are recordings that have no binding ties to realism, and instead aim to evoke sensations, or project certain esthetic expressions (e.g. the chimes in Pink Floyd’s well-known Time track on their Dark Side of the Moon album). Let us refer to this end of the spectrum as the “artificial end”.
   We will now consider what happens when such recordings are played back through XTC.
   On the pseudo-realistic end of that spectrum, most of the arguments made in FAQ#14 above hold, to some extent, since the mixing engineer is essentially using at least an analog of ILD and ITD to produce a “realistic” stereo image like a stereo mic would, and all that XTC does is remove the artificial cieling on the ILD and ITD limits imposed by the speakers during playback. Most relevant in this context is reverb. During mixing, reverb is added algorithmically or through convolution with a real space impulse response (with the latter technique yielding far more realistic reverb). In both cases XTC unlocks the perceived reverberation from the speakers and project it into 3D space. It does so because the perception of a realistic 3D reverb is caused by late reflections (the diffuse field) arriving at the left and right ears at almost random arrival times (i.e. with low L-R correlation, in the parlance of acoustics) and without XTC the sound at the right and left ears would be highly corelated since the sound from each of the L or R channels reaches both ears. Such highly L-R corelated sound causes the listener to perceive the reverb to be largely restricted spatially a region that is mostly where the speakers are. It is hard to imagine a mixing engineer who would object to his mix reproduced with a reverb that is more 3D and less “stuck to the speakers” (as long as the tonal and level balance between the direct and reverberant sound is not altered. (BACCH is a patented form of advanced XTC that causes no alteration whatsoever to that balance as described in this standard, but highly technical book chapter.) In fact, one of the most noticeable and striking aspects of listening through a BACCH filter for the first time is the immediate sense of being in a real 3D space due to the higher L-R sound decorrelation that reverb is meant to cause at the ears.
   On the “artificial end” of the studio-mixed recordings spectrum defined above, the mixing engineer concocts an image whose panned sources constitute an artificial stereo image that does not aim to be a reflection of a reality, but rather an esthetic or artistic construct. While mixing that image the engineer is choosing to place sources in a space that is largely between the two speakers. However, as is well-known by audiophiles, even a stereo playback system without XTC can image in a 3D, albeit relatively restricted, spatial region around the speaker (often called “the soundstage”). The main reason such imaging occurs without active XTC is because the listener’s head, by shadowing the contralateral ear from the loudspeaker (i.e. the speaker on the opposite side) creates a natural crosstalk cancellation that is highly effective at higher frequencies (i.e. frequencies whose wavelengths are smaller than that of the human head). It should be clear that this natural XTC (which can be seen in the measurement shown in the first plot in FAQ#14) depends on the span between the speakers, the distance between the head and the speakers, the radiation pattern of the speakers, and the extent and relative strength of reflections in the room. A larger speaker span, a shorter distance to the head, a more directive speaker, and a higher ratio of direct-to-reflected sound, all lead to higher values of this natural XTC. This is mainly why different stereo systems in different rooms with different listener-speakers placements, can achieve different levels of “3D imaging”.
   A mixing engineer in a given studio with a certain set of stereo speakers concocts a stereo image while hearing a soundstage the spatial extent of which depends largely on the above listed parameters of the particular monitoring setup in the studio. An audiophile playing back the resulting recording through a good hi-fi stereo system at home has generally no way of knowing what these parameters were when the mix was produced, but still strives to get a good measure of a 3D soundstage. Indeed “3D soundstage” imaging of a playback system is one of the holy grails for audiophiles and audio critics. By choosing and tuning his gear and listening room to enhance such soundstage the audiophile does not betray the intent of the mixing engineer as long as the enhancement of the spatial extent of the soundstage does not come at the expense of a change in the spatial balance or tonal content of the recording during playback. It is very possible that the 3D imaging of an audiophile’s playback system has significantly better 3D imaging capability than that used by the engineer while monitoring the mix. No one would object if this were the case, or accuse the audiophile of betraying the engineer's intent.
   For such recordings (on the “artificial end” of the spectrum,) XTC cannot pretend to enhance realism during playback since the stereo image was artificially concocted in the first place. However, like in the case of natural XTC, adding more XTC actively to enhance the spatial extent of the soundstage, without altering the balance or tonal content of the recording, (which is the essential characteristic of BACCH XTC) does not strictly betray the intent of the mixing engineer since the spatial extent of the artificial soundstage was not prescribed by him. Of course, this argument becomes more tenuous if XTC leads to extreme spatial panning, which can only happen for hard left or right panned sources in the absence of reflections (e.g. in an anechoic chamber, a hard left or right panned sound source played back through a pair speakers with high levels of XTC, without any ILD or spectral cues added to the sound, would lead to the sound being perceived to be very close to the left or right ears of the listener, as if wearing headphones). Such extreme imaging does not occur in real listening rooms with typical levels of direct-to-reflected sound ratio.
   Of course, the level of active XTC during playback can be dialed down (in BACCH-dSP there is an “XTC percentage” slider that allows doing just that) but it should be clear from the above arguments that this is not recommended for acoustic recordings or for recordings on the “pseudo-realistic end” of the “studio-mixed” recordings spectrum. Moving towards the “artificial end” of the spectrum, the question of betraying the original intent of the engineer does indeed become a valid objection, but only to the extent to which XTC alters the tonal character and spatial balance of the recording (which BACCH, by design, does not do at all) and to the extent to which high levels of XTC can result in jarring extremely panned images, which can occur with BACCH but only in near-anechoic environments and with recordings having extremely panned mono images. The latter issue can be addressed by dialing back the XTC level (or in extreme but very rare cases, by bypassing XT

Did you even read my original post? Please read now and it will answer some of your concerns about it filtering or altering the recording.

 

[MattHooper]

At the risk of over-generalizing, it seems to me that a clash of paradigms is in play here:

One paradigm prioritizes recreating what was heard in the recording studio, and the other prioritizes approximating the experience of listening to live music.

On an objectivist-oriented forum, it is much easier to argue for fidelity to what was heard in the recording studio, as we have reliable metrics which can be used in pursuit of that ideal. And it is easy to characterize any departure from what was heard in the studio (deliberate or otherwise) in negative terms, and often rightly so.

I subscribe to the other paradigm, the one which prioritizes approximating the experience of listening to live music: I would like to perceive a convincing (or at least enjoyable) illusion of a live performance; I want it to be spatially convincing, timbrally convincing, and dynamically convincing, all without distracting colorations or aberrations. To the best of my knowledge we have well-developed objective metrics for evaluating timbral and dynamic accuracy, and for evaluating colorations, BUT we do not yet have well-developed objective metrics for evaluating spatial quality.

To my purist objectivist brothers and sisters, the one area where even Floyd Toole apparently sees room for improvement over "what was heard in the recording studio" is spatial quality: He employs "tasteful upmixing" to improve the spatial quality of two-channel recordings.

Crosstalk cancellation is of course not the same thing as "tasteful upmixing", but it is conceptually similar, in that it is a departure from "what was heard in the recording studio" in favor of "more closely approximating the experience of listening to live music".

So in my opinion purist objectivists can legitimately be open-minded toward advancements in the realm of spatial quality (such as crosstalk cancellation) without abandoning their core ideals.

*Clinks beer* !

 

[theREALdotnet]

Every single user of the BACCH here at ASR describes it as night and day or something to that effect. And I am so confident in this that I can say with confidence you very very likely have not auditioned the BACCH SP with head tracking in a properly configured system. Night and day is an understatement.

Yes, but will my wife hear it from the kitchen, too?

Kidding aside, would it kill them to provide a free time-limited trial license (like Dirac for example), so people can dip their toes in, rather than having to pay a thousand bucks upfront? This would likely do more to promote the product than people waving their arms around on audio forums.

 

[Duke]

This I disagree with...

I was using the phrase "what was heard in the recording studio" as shorthand for a paradigm that rejects pretty much anything in the playback that wasn't a part of the recording studio monitoring session(s), without exploring how realistic that paradigm actually is when you get into the specifics.

But you raise an interesting underlying paradigm. What is in service of what? Are the core ideas about audio in service of the musical experience or does the musical experience have to conform to one’s core ideals about audio.

Yes! I didn't go there because it seemed like a potential distraction from the main point I was trying to make, but arguably the recording and all the engineering that goes into it, as well as all the engineering that goes into audio component design, all of these things are in service of approximating the experience of hearing live music.

I am of the mindset that the core ideals are there in service of the musical experience and act as a road map to serve the musical experience. And when new technology comes along that is both a breakthrough in the musical experience and defies the established core ideals in audio it’s the core ideals in audio that should change in service to the subjectively better musical experience.

^^THIS^^. You said it better than I could.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yes, but will my wife hear it from the kitchen, too?

Definitely not ;-)

Kidding aside,

It’s the joke that never stops being funny. I can’t identify it in a simple blind test but my wife heard it from the grocery store

would it kill them to provide a free time-limited trial license (like Dirac for example), so people can dip their toes in, rather than having to pay a thousand bucks upfront?

Fair question. IMO it actually might. One sure way to kill a business is to grow it too fast and fail on customer service as a result.

This would likely do more to promote the product than people waving their arms around on audio forums.

Promotion is the last thing they need. I “wave my arms” for two reasons. I am that amazed by the product. And I feel a need to defend it against misinformation. That’s me and my baggage.

 

[Newman]

…oh and the stereo imaging!!!! that one hears with a Dr. Toole approved stereo system.

There is no such thing. You really haven't read Toole, have you? At least, not with comprehension.

@Davide @goat76 to note that this thread has, apart from the OP, a self-appointed Thread Defender, who will automatically curtly dismiss, then hotly dispute sentence by sentence or even word by word, any valid criticism of his expensive toy filter. And that is understandable to a degree, but you can see it is a bit out of control when he lashes out at esteemed audio researchers with snide backhanders and zero regard or respect, just because such person may have raised a valid issue with his preferred filter, even if it was months or years ago, and in far distant threads. Ah, the true fan holds onto these resentments with deep passion.

cheers

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

There is no such thing. You really haven't read Toole, have you? At least, not with comprehension.

Ad hominem argument completely free of any actual content duly noted.

@Davide @goat76 to note that this thread has, apart from the OP, a self-appointed Thread Defender, who will automatically curtly dismiss, then hotly dispute sentence by sentence or even word by word, any valid criticism of his expensive toy filter. And that is understandable to a degree, but you can see it is a bit out of control when he lashes out at esteemed audio

Dude, you come at me with pure ad hominem and then accuse me of being curt, dismissive and lashing out? Shame on you too. The a forum is supposed to be about science and facts pertaining to audio. If you disagree arguments try making a fact supported valid rebuttal.

And shame on you for labeling a break through audio product totally rooted in science as a toy. And shame on ASR for allowing it.

researchers with snide backhanders and zero regard or respect, just because such person may have raised a valid issue with his preferred filter, even if it was months or years ago, and in far distant threads. Ah, the true fan holds onto these resentments with deep passion.

cheers

It will be interesting to see how the moderators respond (if they do at all) to your post and my response. Will it be in support of science based audio or forum comfort in the status quo.

 

[Keith_W]

Kidding aside, would it kill them to provide a free time-limited trial license (like Dirac for example), so people can dip their toes in, rather than having to pay a thousand bucks upfront? This would likely do more to promote the product than people waving their arms around on audio forums.

They do. There is uBACCH which is available on a 14 day trial.

I read this thread and wonder why the detractors don't download uBACCH and try it. Then they will understand. BACCH does not alter the tonality, does not make it sound "phasey". It improves the definition of the image and widens the soundstage.

I got pretty tired of this debate a long time ago, good on you @Justdafactsmaam for having the energy.

 

[theREALdotnet]

They do. There is uBACCH which is available on a 14 day trial.

Thank you, much obliged!

I read this thread and wonder why the detractors don't download uBACCH and try it.

I tell you why: because it is nowhere to be found on the BACCH4Mac (Theoretica) website. One needs a friendly forum member, such as yourself, to point out the other BACCH website (bacch.com).

Thanks again, I’ll give it a whirl.

 

[goat76]

There is no such thing. You really haven't read Toole, have you? At least, not with comprehension.

@Davide @goat76 to note that this thread has, apart from the OP, a self-appointed Thread Defender, who will automatically curtly dismiss, then hotly dispute sentence by sentence or even word by word, any valid criticism of his expensive toy filter. And that is understandable to a degree, but you can see it is a bit out of control when he lashes out at esteemed audio researchers with snide backhanders and zero regard or respect, just because such person may have raised a valid issue with his preferred filter, even if it was months or years ago, and in far distant threads. Ah, the true fan holds onto these resentments with deep passion.

cheers

You are right, what is this bullshit about moving goalposts? I have pointed out the exact same thing to him over and over the Bacch filter is doing much more than just reducing crosstalk information, and the evidence for that is how hard-panned sounds are affected. Even the creator of the filter acknowledged this in the FAQ, that’s why they have written a long explanation why some types of recordings will work better than others with this filter.

It's all quite simple to understand. If the filter did just reduce or just eliminated the crosstalk, the filter would have worked equally as good no matter what type of recording is played.

 

[Davide]

I read this thread and wonder why the detractors don't download uBACCH and try it.

I wouldn't say detractor. I have explained my point of view. Considering the types of spatial information in common audio tracks plus the theoretical limitations (to one person) and the intrinsic variability/dependence of the result (room, system), associated with the price of almost 1k for the universal version (if I say generic someone is offended it seems) it makes me to think that it's not for me.
But I don't exclude anything regardless. As I said I will try an XTC as soon as I can.
However, even if I add a saturator plugin I get a more pleasant sound in many cases maybe (compared to not using it) but it is difficult for me to justify an additional (relatively high) price for a subjective improvement.
This does not mean that I cannot appreciate and love the result of XTC, on the contrary I hope for a big improvement.
I repeat, well-made stereo systems do the job they were designed for correctly. Increase independence in transmitting sound to the ears reducing crosstalk is an additional benefit not a deficit to be corrected (although it is a subjective concept). But if you mean it, then if I really want spatial audio with head tracking (and single LP) I take some AirPods and get a better result at a much lower price, even where the stereo track is upmixed in Dolby Atmos. (always supposing that the problem is all in the crosstalk).
But here perhaps it is a question of understanding if there are other elements at stake in favoring realistic perception with XTC.

I think there are certainly endless potential improvements to the listening experience with stereo system.
Luckily there are research and progress, luckily there are companies like Theoretica/BACCH Labs that are going in this direction and luckily there are pioneering users who use their money to finance all this.

EDIT: My epilogue

 

[Lion♡]

Sometimes when I look at ASR threads, it seems to me that they often go in a scientific but sometimes emotional direction. (It's an old idea)

 

[Davide]

What is Bacch's latency? Someone knows? I cannot find it in the FAQ.

 

[theREALdotnet]

What is Bacch's latency? Someone knows? I cannot find it in the FAQ.

During installation of uBACCH and reading through the docs I believe I read something like 10ms.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You are right, what is this bullshit about moving goalposts?

I’ll walk you through it. These are all quotes from you

“The problem with a "user-applied" filter is that that will severely alter the sound from what the mixing engineer heard while making all the delicate mixing decisions.”

“What's in the data is not important, what's important is what the audio engineer heard while making all the mixing decisions,”

“It's not about replicating the sound in the studio, it’s about what they didn't hear in the studio while making all the mixing decisions that is the problem.”

And just to be uber clear

Goal post position #1 “what’s important is what the audio engineer heard while making all the mixing decisions”

Goal post position #2 “It’s not about replicating the sound in the studio”

And my example that you never addressed

RVG recorded in stereo but did his mix in mono using an Altec 604B mounted in the left ceiling corner of his control room. A control room with no bass traps, diffusion or absorption.

So given your assertion that “It’s not what’s in the data (the actual recording) that’s important it’s what the audio engineer heard that’s important does it not follow that any playback of an early Blue Note recording that deviates from the original mono mix played back on an Altec 604B stuck in one ceiling corner of a small room with no acoustic treatment is inferior and that listening to a stereo mix of those same recordings on a system such as say…. Amir’s stereo with the Revel Salon Ultima IIs is plainly the wrong way to listen given it will sound nothing like what RVG heard?

I will address your reiterations of other gross misinformation in a second response

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I have pointed out the exact same thing to him over and over the Bacch filter is doing much more than just reducing crosstalk information,

You continue to repeat this gross misinformation. The BACCH is not doing “much more” than just reducing cross talk. That is one of the things that makes the BACCH such a break through. It IS just reducing cross talk and NOT doing anything more such as distorting the tonality of the playback.

You have been told this multiple times. And you continue to repeat this gross misinformation

There is no excuse for it