uBACCH now available for Windows

[STC]

Bach Cantata BWV 91, Rudolf Lutz, J.S. Bach-Stiftung. Gelobut seist du, Jesu Christ

I am grateful for the description of the sound. This is important to know if the setting are correct. Here is what I observed using a non BACCH XTC.

Speakers angle is about 21 degrees ( recently moved to accommodate rear Ambio). Speakers are 236cm from head. Mid point of the two speakers measurement.

Only the main speakers used. Source Apple Music via DAW to Motu 8A DAC.

With crosstalk cancellation - the width is about 60 degrees only which should be the same as stereo speakers placed at the conventional 60 degree triangle. Orchestra size sound with depth and separation. Female slightly towards the left, Male choir about 20 to 30 degrees to the right. Excellent separation of instruments. I am not hearing wide mouthed lady.

WITHOUT XTC- all sound jumbled in the 21 degree stage. Shallow depth typical of stereo playback.

Conclusion easily distinguishable.

Schubert Lieder - Ian Bostridge, track 3 "Auf der Donau" Op. 21 D.553 - minimal difference

With XTC - Voice is in the centre. AT 21 second he probably towards the right as the sound moved towards left of the speaker. Otherwise, it is in the centre. Piano sound is about 40 degrees width.

Without XTC - The vocal is slightly fat/full. When you AB the vocal with XTC is more natural and correct. The vocal is more forward with stereo. Probably, typical stereo setup would give a bigger stage.

Beethoven Symphony No. 3 - Niklaus Harnoncourt

Not sure which track you used. I listened to Allegro com brio

With XTC - 60 degrees stage and depth. you get the usual separation and clarity with XTC.

Plain stereo playback - congested but with typical 60 degrees the stage should be somewhat similar except that the lack of depth and spatial feel.

Binaural - Physical Dreams:

With XTC - This is rich. Like listening to binaural, strangely the low rumble feels like coming from the rear. You feel it as if enveloping you.

Without XTC - still got good stage but I suspect this is not binaural made naturally but with effect.

Maybe a good recording to demo BACCH but I don’t think this is a true binaural recording.

Hans Zimmer - Blade Runner 204

Wow…. Thanks for the track. Love the rumble. looks like a 120 stage and the low bass is bigger compared to stereo. Like all of the above the difference is separation, more details and depth compared to stereo playback.

Rereading your observation of the tracks, I suspect you could be over cancelling. The proper way to do AB is to have 4 speakers. 2 for stereo playback and 2 for XTC. Only then you can easily tell the correct location.

Just a note for those interested in 3D sound. crosstalk cancellation should render the sound more natural. Correct setting supposed to sound always better than stereo except for some heavy centre rock music. The the SPL role matters more than soundstage.

As I have previously mentioned, make you own recordings if you are serious about getting it right. For first few years, I almost gave as the timbre was not correct because I was over cancelling thinking the stage should be 180 degrees for all recordings.

Best reference to know if you have done your setting correct or not is to compare Time (Pink Floyd) ,Hotel California, Black Magic Woman ( Patrica Barber). If you think Hotel California or BMW is better without XTC then you have not set it correctly.

 

[Keith_W]

Hey @STC, I don't think it's fair that you get everyone worked up in excitement with your description of the sound Your system is NOT a typical 2 channel system, from what I understand from your blog, it is fully optimized for XTC including surround speakers. My domestic situation precludes addition of surround speakers, nor am I allowed to place my speakers next to each other as you have done, even if I wanted to. After mulling over my options I am starting to think I should swallow the cost and inconvenience of moving to Mac and get BACCH4Mac. I will have to do a lot of investigating before I make the move because I don't know anything about Macs.

 

[STC]

@Keith_W I am just pointing out that you may not having the settings correct. And I mentioned in my earlier reply the subjective perception was only with the two main speakers. Improper setting was a common problem even with AmbiophonicsDSP. What I described is even possible with the cheap Sharp speakers that I use to demo. It is not easy to determine the correct level and delay. My system is no different from yours as I was just using the two speakers. And in any case, BACCH is superior to RACE. And technically, my cheap Motu and CrownXLS are inferior to yours.

Sadly, RACE didn’t catch up mostly due to users incorrect setting but in the end they painted negative feedback. I have lost count of people who tried XTC but giving up without achieving what it supposed to do. I hope BACCH to be more successful but I am not getting why the implementation is still tricky to some.

 

[Zoomer]

I've sent BACCHLabs a link to this thread.

I was told support intends to join the discussion here, but they're quite busy. That was almost 2 weeks ago, so I'll lift my self-imposed embargo and share the info I got from them. No news, but a confirmation of what we learned already.

"...realistically we do not plan at this time to release a full BACCH4windows, as it infringes on our deal with theoretica, and also isn’t exactly in the plans for our business model as a company. We do plan to release additional plugins with filters for specific devices, but not with the ability to measure with microphones and create bespoke BACCH filters.

Rather, our plugins will focus more so on 3D mixing, monitoring, and rendering, aiming to stay in pro spatial audio, gaming, and music and film production rather than the audiophile sphere. That of course doesn’t stop these plugins from being used by audiophiles as they are in many ways the same quality and technology as Theoretica.

I do agree there should be a BACCH4Windows application, and hopefully this comes sometime in the future either from Theoretica or from BACCH if our deal structure changes. But no, I definitely would not bank on the ability to upgrade from BACCH Labs uBACCH to a full application."

 

[BACCH Labs]

Hello everyone!

First of all, we want to apologize for the (large) delay on getting back to everyone on the forum here, and any confusion with installation and the product map! As it turns out, our "soft" launch was a bit less soft than anticipated, and we've been working through a lot of system-specific bugs while trying to provide support, optimize the plugin, and build easier installers for Mac and Windows.

RE: Path to Full BACCH4Windows?
u-BACCH is a standalone plugin that will not be upgradable for any BACCH4Windows application (or Theoretica application), as far as our current plans are concerned. As of right now, I don't see a BACCH4Windows application like BACCH4Mac coming to market from Theoretica or BACCH Labs, but if that changes I'll be sure to let you all know!

Additional plug-ins for specific devices are sure to come, and BACCH implementations within high end speakers are on the way, but the process of measuring your own speakers with your ears is currently reserved for Theoretica's BACCH4Mac (and products).

So, in short, if you'd like to experience BACCH Crosstalk Cancellation on Windows, the only option is u-BACCH from BACCH Labs. If you'd like to measure your own space and head to create a perfect, custom filter, then you'd have to switch to Mac and pick up Theoretica's BACCH4Mac.

In my own extensive experience with u-BACCH and c-BACCH (or measured BACCH filters), the more symmetrical and treated your space is, the closer u-BACCH comes to c-BACCH, and in some cases it can be preferable. I use u-BACCH more often than not when I want a quick setup and lovely image from any symmetrical stereo device, including (decent sounding) laptops and smaller, desktop speakers.

Could there be a discount code for cross-grading between Theoretica and BACCH? Potentially, but this is yet to be established as they are different companies, and would not be for the full value of the u-BACCH plugin. TBD.
___________________

Future plug-ins from BACCH Labs will be, as mentioned above, more focused on mixing and production of 3D audio. However, we will continue to optimize u-BACCH and similar plugins: for example, low-latency u-BACCH and asymmetrical u-BACCH, allowing two different angles for L and R speakers. These will most likely be released as updates to the u-BACCH plugin and differentiate us from Theoretica's BACCH4Mac Intro.

It seems most other questions were answered by the lovely members of this community, but please feel free to re-post any that have not been! Additional support pages, installation videos, and guides are on the way.

Cheers,
-Cole

 

[Sal1950]

I don't mean to be sarcastic but for all the time, effort, and perhaps money some of you put into these
phasey attempts at creating an immersive audio experience, Maybe it's time to start thinking about a real multich
surround system? Todays 4, 5.1, and Atmos/Auro can supply an incredible immersive true discrete soundspace.
JMHO

 

[Keith_W]

Thank you @BACCH Labs for your reply. I have a question - Theoretica's BACCH license gives you one year of upgrades and support. How many years of updates can we expect from u-BACCH, and what is the renewal fee?

I am quite disappointed that there is no version of c-BACCH planned for Windows.

@Sal1950, there are a few good reasons to consider BACCH over a multichannel system. The main one is lack of availability of music available in multichannel format, whereas BACCH processing can improve the immersive experience of any music you throw at it, except mono. Then, some room configurations do not support multichannel rear speakers, like mine. And for me, I have an active system controlled by DSP and an 8 channel DAC just to drive the front two speakers. Adding another 3 speakers would mean purchase of a 16 channel DAC, and those are not cheap. It would mean a massive increase in system complexity, which I am not prepared to deal with for so little benefit (see lack of music).

 

[Gwreck]

Thank you @BACCH Labs for your reply. I have a question - Theoretica's BACCH license gives you one year of upgrades and support. How many years of updates can we expect from u-BACCH, and what is the renewal fee?

I am quite disappointed that there is no version of c-BACCH planned for Windows.

@Sal1950, there are a few good reasons to consider BACCH over a multichannel system. The main one is lack of availability of music available in multichannel format, whereas BACCH processing can improve the immersive experience of any music you throw at it, except mono. Then, some room configurations do not support multichannel rear speakers, like mine. And for me, I have an active system controlled by DSP and an 8 channel DAC just to drive the front two speakers. Adding another 3 speakers would mean purchase of a 16 channel DAC, and those are not cheap. It would mean a massive increase in system complexity, which I am not prepared to deal with for so little benefit (see lack of music).

I find the spatial effect of BACCH much more natural and cohesive for music than a surround system.

 

[dasdoing]

I suspect it does something similar to http://dallashodgson.info/articles/OpenAmbienceProject/

 

[JLGF1]

I am quite disappointed that there is no version of c-BACCH planned for Windows.

From post #31 (by Theoretica)

"BACCH Labs offers u-BACCH plugins for Mac and Windows, and is not licensed to offer c-BACCH."

Not clear who you are disappointed with, but it sounds like there is money involved (ie licensing costs). The Piper must be paid.

 

[Sal1950]

The main one is lack of availability of music available in multichannel format,

I hear this all the time and all it tells me is the speaker really has no idea whats available in multich, it's just not true.
This isn't the 1970s or 80s, there are tens of thousands of titles in all genre available in 4, 5.1, Atmos, Auro, more.
With more coming every day in bluray and streaming formats.
It's entirely possible that your personal logistics or finances makes a home system difficult but you can't use the lack of material dodge any more.
All modern AVR's have at least a few ways of upsampling 2ch to surround sound, but BACCH will never give you the
sound quality of discreet lossless 7.x.4 channel audio.

I find the spatial effect of BACCH much more natural and cohesive for music than a surround system.

Then you've been listening to crap.
I find it almost comical you can tell me a phasey, upsampled, 2ch source can sound better than a fully discreet source.
How is that possible?

 

[Keith_W]

From post #31 (by Theoretica)

"BACCH Labs offers u-BACCH plugins for Mac and Windows, and is not licensed to offer c-BACCH."

Not clear who you are disappointed with, but it sounds like there is money involved (ie licensing costs). The Piper must be paid.

To be clear, I am disappointed with Theoretica. From the information available in this thread, it appears as if they are the only ones who can bring out BACCH4Windows, but they are refusing to do so. Reconfiguring my system to have a Mac in the signal chain is not going to be a trivial exercise and I am still thinking what is the best way to do it. The PC MUST remain in the signal chain because that is where Acourate lives, and without Acourate I am unable to take measurements and generate filters. I know it is theoretically possible to send audio to the Mac, but I have been stung enough times in audio with things which are "theoretically possible" to be wary. The other option is to leave the PC out of the chain and only connect it when I want to measure, but that involves futzing around at the back of my equipment rack with cables and increases the inconvenience factor by a lot. I have been putting together a shopping list in anticipation of buying a Mac, and so far it includes Mac licenses for software I have already purchased for the PC, an iPad, a router, a KVM, more cables ... all this because Theoretica won't bring out a Windows version of BACCH.

It's entirely possible that your personal logistics or finances makes a home system difficult but you can't use the lack of material dodge any more.

This is nonsense. Think about other genres outside what you normally listen to, and then realize that classical music listeners are specific about exactly which performances we are interested in. For example, there might be a multichannel recording of a Beethoven Symphony, but most classical listeners I know would rather listen to a good performance rather than a good recording. BACCH provides a way to enhance the performances which I love without having to wait for a multichannel recording, most likely a second rate performance, to come out. I have no idea about other genres of music, since I don't listen to them. So I don't know if multichannel recordings of Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, The Beach Boys, Queen, Pink Floyd, etc. exist. I am guessing they may exist because quadrophonic recordings existed in the 70's, but if we are talking classical I do not know of any famous recordings available on multichannel.

 

[Bjorn]

Thanks for sharing this Keith_W.

Just installed in on my PC computer initially with some Behringer Truth B2030A waveguide monitors and near field listening. Running it with Jriver 30 and it works fine. The test tones with pink noise didn't work here either, so I simply measured the angle and divided it by half as recommended.

Added Lovesong by Adele and Money by Pink Floyd (have several versions) that Baach mentioned to test in the userguide.

I will later test it on some large horn speakers where there directivity is constant between 200 Hz and 20 kHz and also quite narrow. But first impression with the PC Behringer monitors is that level migh be different with it enabled. Especially the bass was less prominent. When it's not enabled, the vocal is strongly centered. When uBach is enabled the vocal is more stretched out and there's less localization and pin pointing with a more spatial presentation, and there seems to be more depth. It reminds me of th effect of diffusers, but I feel I loose more clarity and intelligbility compared to late diffuse energy. Everything is a bit more washed out, but the more immersive and spatial sound seems also pleasing with some recordings.

That's just a first impression and not with great speakers.

BTW: With multichannel speakers we add a more specular energy and there's also serious lobing between the spaced sources. I have had a separate multichannel setup for many years (dedicaded home theater) and I have never preferred listening to concerts/music in multichannel. I much prefer the more accurate 2 channel combined with late arriving diffuse energy to create immersiveness and spaciousness.

 

[tifune]

. The test tones with pink noise didn't work here either, so I simply measured the angle and divided it by half as recommended.

I just tried this with jRiver for first time yesterday - you have to be playing audio for the test tones to work. Also, the plugin order may interfere. I have to run uBACCH before my convolution, presumably because my convolution changes the channel count from 2 to 3 (2.1).

Failing that, the uBACCH guys were kind enough to generate FLACs of the test tones for me which I then looped in foobar to get the angles down. If not available on their site yet, I can post here later today

 

[Sal1950]

I am guessing they may exist because quadrophonic recordings existed in the 70's, but if we are talking classical I do not know of any famous recordings available on multichannel.

I'm not a fan of classical music so I can't comment in a knowledgeable manner.
You might ask (In The Round) @Kal Rubinson of Stereophile. Classical music is his thing.

I much prefer the more accurate 2 channel combined with late arriving diffuse energy to create immersiveness and spaciousness.

I won't bother listing the ways in which that comment is technically wrong.
I'm not going to get into it here.
But you might try reading some of the feelings on the subject by Floyd Toole.

This has all been tried before, spatial enhancement routines have been around forever.
From encoded Q-Sound to todays Dolby, DTS, and Auro 2D
Personally I'd rather listen to lossless 24/48+ multich recordings from todays leading recording engineers, they're staggering in not only their sound quality but also the immersive listening experience.
But have fun in any case.

 

[Bjorn]

I just tried this with jRiver for first time yesterday - you have to be playing audio for the test tones to work. Also, the plugin order may interfere. I have to run uBACCH before my convolution, presumably because my convolution changes the channel count from 2 to 3 (2.1).

Failing that, the uBACCH guys were kind enough to generate FLACs of the test tones for me which I then looped in foobar to get the angles down. If not available on their site yet, I can post here later today

Thanks, that worked! Based on the tuning, I increased it from 21 to 30.

 

[Bjorn]

I'm not a fan of classical music so I can't comment in a knowledgeable manner.
You might ask (In The Round) @Kal Rubinson of Stereophile. Classical music is his thing.


I won't bother listing the ways in which that comment is technically wrong.
I'm not going to get into it here.
But you might try reading some of the feelings on the subject by Floyd Toole.

This has all been tried before, spatial enhancement routines have been around forever.
From encoded Q-Sound to todays Dolby, DTS, and Auro 2D
Personally I'd rather listen to lossless 24/48+ multich recordings from todays leading recording engineers, they're staggering in not only their sound quality but also the immersive listening experience.
But have fun in any case.

It's tiring with people who think they know everything based on limited studies and knowledge and what they presume gives all the answers. Toole has never studied the effect of late arrvial diffusion, but others have FIY. And no, it's not technical wrong with what I said regarding specular energy and polar lobing. Those are simply facts and basic knowledge. I would advice you to thread with more humility.

 

[sweetsounds]

I don't mean to be sarcastic but for all the time, effort, and perhaps money some of you put into these
phasey attempts at creating an immersive audio experience, Maybe it's time to start thinking about a real multich
surround system? Todays 4, 5.1, and Atmos/Auro can supply an incredible immersive true discrete soundspace.
JMHO

This I don't understand. Why go multichannel?

1. all these speakers and amplifiers in the room. I tried to match full range speakers with bookshelfs of same manufacturer and found the sound unbalanced when not having identical speakers. My speakers are 10k+.

2. Recordings available in multi-channel. Yes, there are some, but the catalogue is small. Are you using a channel upscaler and which one? Don't you run in even more issues with upscaling stereo, it creates fake surround?

I approached the huge expense for BACCH in the following manner:
- do I prefer the sound with BACCH? Yes.
- is BACCH an enhancer/exciter or restorer? Same as my DRC it doesn't fatigue me, it corrects for a distortion (here cross-talk) which happens after the emission. Different from channel upscaling it doesn't guess. A recording without spatial clues continues to sound flat. So it is a restorer.
- how much would I be ready to spend for better speakers for that sound improvement? Given that I like soundstage the sum is easily above the cost for BACCH.

As a plus, I can switch it on and off, what is not possible with a higher end speaker.

If your speakers are 1k$ each, you might come to a different conclusion.

Still I agree that BACCH4Mac is too expensive. I never paid so much for a piece of SW.

 

[Gwreck]

I hear this all the time and all it tells me is the speaker really has no idea whats available in multich, it's just not true.
This isn't the 1970s or 80s, there are tens of thousands of titles in all genre available in 4, 5.1, Atmos, Auro, more.
With more coming every day in bluray and streaming formats.
It's entirely possible that your personal logistics or finances makes a home system difficult but you can't use the lack of material dodge any more.
All modern AVR's have at least a few ways of upsampling 2ch to surround sound, but BACCH will never give you the
sound quality of discreet lossless 7.x.4 channel audio.


Then you've been listening to crap.
I find it almost comical you can tell me a phasey, upsampled, 2ch source can sound better than a fully discreet source.
How is that possible?

I hear this all the time and all it tells me is the speaker really has no idea whats available in multich, it's just not true.
This isn't the 1970s or 80s, there are tens of thousands of titles in all genre available in 4, 5.1, Atmos, Auro, more.
With more coming every day in bluray and streaming formats.
It's entirely possible that your personal logistics or finances makes a home system difficult but you can't use the lack of material dodge any more.
All modern AVR's have at least a few ways of upsampling 2ch to surround sound, but BACCH will never give you the
sound quality of discreet lossless 7.x.4 channel audio.


Then you've been listening to crap.
I find it almost comical you can tell me a phasey, upsampled, 2ch source can sound better than a fully discreet source.
How is that possible?

From your comment I assume you have no idea how BACCH works if you think it is “phasey” and “upsampled.” Also your tone is somewhat rude and insulting and I was just expressing my opinion on what I prefer based on my experience.

 

[maverickronin]

I hear this all the time and all it tells me is the speaker really has no idea whats available in multich, it's just not true.
This isn't the 1970s or 80s, there are tens of thousands of titles in all genre available in 4, 5.1, Atmos, Auro, more.

Some of this is just market segmentation, but I've never seen a mch version on sale along side something I was already going to buy in plain stereo.

It probably works out a lot better if you have mainstream tastes in music.