BACCH-SP: The future of high-end audio? Yes.
- Thread starter soundArgument
- Start date
I do have some cash to invest in my system at this moment and wondering if BACCH4Mac is a good option. Either I get the BACCH with Mac mini OR I just get a high end streamer with built in storage. My main concern is that I have no binaural recordings and I am heavily relying on Tidal. The music that I listen to are as follows:
Movies sound tracks (Hans Zimmer stuff)
Some classical and Chamber
Jazz
I like well recorded live music
Unfortunately I can not audition the BACCH and I don't like to rely on the return policy due to the high re-stocking fees and TAX that it will take for ever to get it back from the great gov customs!
If BACCH does not improve at least 90% of my music, the it is useless for myself.
What do you think?
Movies sound tracks (Hans Zimmer stuff)
Some classical and Chamber
Jazz
I like well recorded live music
Unfortunately I can not audition the BACCH and I don't like to rely on the return policy due to the high re-stocking fees and TAX that it will take for ever to get it back from the great gov customs!
If BACCH does not improve at least 90% of my music, the it is useless for myself.
What do you think?
Then it was. And here we are. Great stuff. Interestingly, there was earlier mention of 'Carver's Sonic Holocaust', and lest we
forget the forgettable (regrettable) attempts by the 'Polk' group back in the 90's (-80's?).
These attempts and controlling inter-channel acoustic cross-talk -via electrical means- and valiant attempts at recreating the original acoustic sound-field; near impossible given the recording techniques/microphone arrays (and vast post-production signal manipulation would sensibly suggest that there is nor practical way to determine/know one recording from the other. With so many variables imposed, results would naturally vary wildly.
BUT, what of pure mechanical/acoustic techniques? Several years back, Steve Dickinson (writing for Hi-Fi + March, 2013) spoke to the impact of 'The Leading Edge' Racks/Room Treatment wares on the acoustic ambiance of he recording/loudspeaker.
One of the TLE's 'system approaches' implemented a smallish floor-standing acoustic panel that Steve (sensibly I believe) determined sounded better when placed on the inside-edge of the loudspeaker -slightly beside/behind the loudspeaker.
Fanciful talk of "Room Pressure zones' )f this/that variety were strewn about in attempt to describe the (technical/acoustic) proceedings.
Straight to the point, it appears that the (semi-porous 4'X2'?) panel/s function was simply to reduce inter-channel cross-talk at lower frequencies - by far the most critical 'passband' when defining L/R, H/D acoustic impressions/phenomena. Quite serendipitous, my recent acquisition of a powered subwoofer (for 2-channel duties) required the temporary placement of the Right-Channel loudspeaker far to the right; -next/adjacent to the right-wall itself, resulting in an obvious "hole-in-the-middle" sound.
UNTIL, I connected the subwoofer -near mid point between, but closer to, the right-channel loudspeaker still positioned at a very close, image-impairing 16" from the sidewall. Pointing straight ahead ! AND yet, now I had an astonishing 'center-fill' (vocal-range) image as clear/precise as day. Some may be mulling: "What's so strange about that?" until we're informed the 24db/Oct. LP/HP
was set to 45 Hz !
Equally of note is that the 'sub' is temporarily positioned about 12" (1-ft.) in front of the L/R loudspeakers lateral plane -angled (toe'd facing/angled slightly) toward the left-channel loudspeaker. As a newcomer to 2-channel (in fact any # of channel) sub's, I find myself on hi-fi forum's seeking listener's preferences for either lower (below 50 Hz./or higher; up to 80-95 Hz x-over as strongly recommended by the subwoofer manufacturer. Something that, if followed, sounds entirely 'disheveled' higher (80 Hz.) x-over point sounds plain BAD. These sentiments of course are shared by many critical listener's as most respected/recognized audio reviewer's (I've read) unanimously/sensibly select a very low 35-50 Hz. LP/HP (higher-order) cross-over frequency to mate with 'main's'.
These recent (personal) discoveries has shed some considerable light unto the role of authentic low-frequency reproduction and the concomitant, vast improvements observed at all (much higher) frequencies that the main's are reproducing. Naturally, adding a powered subwoofer establishes a 'bi-amp' sound system with the known gains of greater clarity, bandwidth, speed/dynamics, lower distortion and much greater 'headroom'. Any yet, how would those attributes explain the startling gains in sound-staging, vocal/instrument clarity/separation and 'dimensionality' as appreciated through the (barely) filtered main loudspeakers ?
Throughout (premium) hi-fi's early days and indeed today, greater/wider more extended high-frequency extension/resolution is often spoken to, yet rarely ever of the exquisite importance at the other end (infrasonic/subsonic range) of the acoustic, music spectrum. And that has (or will be) shown to be a serious oversight when discussing/seeking the highest resolution sound quality possible.
To my mind, much greater focus/attention must be given to a circuits performance in the 1-100 Hz region. There appears to be considerable signal information locked away (hiding) within those first few octaves of the music spectrum.
peter jasz
forget the forgettable (regrettable) attempts by the 'Polk' group back in the 90's (-80's?).
These attempts and controlling inter-channel acoustic cross-talk -via electrical means- and valiant attempts at recreating the original acoustic sound-field; near impossible given the recording techniques/microphone arrays (and vast post-production signal manipulation would sensibly suggest that there is nor practical way to determine/know one recording from the other. With so many variables imposed, results would naturally vary wildly.
BUT, what of pure mechanical/acoustic techniques? Several years back, Steve Dickinson (writing for Hi-Fi + March, 2013) spoke to the impact of 'The Leading Edge' Racks/Room Treatment wares on the acoustic ambiance of he recording/loudspeaker.
One of the TLE's 'system approaches' implemented a smallish floor-standing acoustic panel that Steve (sensibly I believe) determined sounded better when placed on the inside-edge of the loudspeaker -slightly beside/behind the loudspeaker.
Fanciful talk of "Room Pressure zones' )f this/that variety were strewn about in attempt to describe the (technical/acoustic) proceedings.
Straight to the point, it appears that the (semi-porous 4'X2'?) panel/s function was simply to reduce inter-channel cross-talk at lower frequencies - by far the most critical 'passband' when defining L/R, H/D acoustic impressions/phenomena. Quite serendipitous, my recent acquisition of a powered subwoofer (for 2-channel duties) required the temporary placement of the Right-Channel loudspeaker far to the right; -next/adjacent to the right-wall itself, resulting in an obvious "hole-in-the-middle" sound.
UNTIL, I connected the subwoofer -near mid point between, but closer to, the right-channel loudspeaker still positioned at a very close, image-impairing 16" from the sidewall. Pointing straight ahead ! AND yet, now I had an astonishing 'center-fill' (vocal-range) image as clear/precise as day. Some may be mulling: "What's so strange about that?" until we're informed the 24db/Oct. LP/HP
was set to 45 Hz !
Equally of note is that the 'sub' is temporarily positioned about 12" (1-ft.) in front of the L/R loudspeakers lateral plane -angled (toe'd facing/angled slightly) toward the left-channel loudspeaker. As a newcomer to 2-channel (in fact any # of channel) sub's, I find myself on hi-fi forum's seeking listener's preferences for either lower (below 50 Hz./or higher; up to 80-95 Hz x-over as strongly recommended by the subwoofer manufacturer. Something that, if followed, sounds entirely 'disheveled' higher (80 Hz.) x-over point sounds plain BAD. These sentiments of course are shared by many critical listener's as most respected/recognized audio reviewer's (I've read) unanimously/sensibly select a very low 35-50 Hz. LP/HP (higher-order) cross-over frequency to mate with 'main's'.
These recent (personal) discoveries has shed some considerable light unto the role of authentic low-frequency reproduction and the concomitant, vast improvements observed at all (much higher) frequencies that the main's are reproducing. Naturally, adding a powered subwoofer establishes a 'bi-amp' sound system with the known gains of greater clarity, bandwidth, speed/dynamics, lower distortion and much greater 'headroom'. Any yet, how would those attributes explain the startling gains in sound-staging, vocal/instrument clarity/separation and 'dimensionality' as appreciated through the (barely) filtered main loudspeakers ?
Throughout (premium) hi-fi's early days and indeed today, greater/wider more extended high-frequency extension/resolution is often spoken to, yet rarely ever of the exquisite importance at the other end (infrasonic/subsonic range) of the acoustic, music spectrum. And that has (or will be) shown to be a serious oversight when discussing/seeking the highest resolution sound quality possible.
To my mind, much greater focus/attention must be given to a circuits performance in the 1-100 Hz region. There appears to be considerable signal information locked away (hiding) within those first few octaves of the music spectrum.
peter jasz
After having listening to the Theoretica Applied Physics Bacch-SP Adio, over the course of in total 10 hours on three different occasions in my local store with multiple different high end amplifiers and speakers, and up to 100 of tracks I today decided to bring it home with me.
Installation was made in the blink of an eye with the help of my local Theoretica representative and his associate.
I have the feeling I will never part from this machine and the technic it offers. I know, I now have a journey ahead of me to re-discover every piece of music I love and know by heart, and to discover new music with this companion at my side.
To honor the founder of this company and the work that he has achieved so far, and that I feel the deepest respect for I for a time will use the Theoretica logo as "Avatar". I.e. I am not affiliated with this company more then emotional as I am now a very happy customer
.
Wish you all a great day ahead.
Kind regards from Stockholm
Installation was made in the blink of an eye with the help of my local Theoretica representative and his associate.
I have the feeling I will never part from this machine and the technic it offers. I know, I now have a journey ahead of me to re-discover every piece of music I love and know by heart, and to discover new music with this companion at my side.
To honor the founder of this company and the work that he has achieved so far, and that I feel the deepest respect for I for a time will use the Theoretica logo as "Avatar". I.e. I am not affiliated with this company more then emotional as I am now a very happy customer
.Wish you all a great day ahead.
Kind regards from Stockholm
Congrats to your purchase! So what made you decide? How does your rig look like? Just curious
.
Andrew Quint at TAS in a recent review compared the inbuilt DAC to his Ideon reference DAC and found no meaningful differences between the two. The Ideon retails at 49k USD.
I had to know how it sounded and one became available an an attractive price. I couldn't resist!Congrats to your purchase! So what made you decide? How does your rig look like? Just curious
Am I right in saying that much of what BACCH is meant to correct is naturally addressed by using point source omnis? I concur with Ralph that the whole point of Blumlein‘s invention is 3D reproduction and to my ears any electronic manipulation of the recorded signal creates its own problems.
Does the unit you are using include a DAC? And do you still use the MU1 to stream to it (via SPDIF)? And the Ethos feeds the MU1 in case you want to play CDs?
Yes sir! You have it exactly right. I am using the DAC inside it. It seems quite wonderful. I compared it to the DAC in the Ethos, and to my borrowed Ideon Audio Absolute DAC. It stands up well to both. My version of the BACCH-SP does not have AES/EBU inputs so I stream from the Grimm MU1 to the BACCH via SPDIF. The BACCH is a ROON Endpoint so I can stream from the MU1 to the BACCH via Ethernet. I miss out on all the MU1 FPGA processing but it's fun to compare.
I use an AES/EBU cable from the Transport of the Ethos to the MU1. And just for giggles I have unbalanced outputs from the Ethos to the BACCH. Just in case the special magic the Ethos does with silver discs requires both the Transport and the DAC. So far that does not seem to be the case. I also use balanced cables between my Gryphon Legato Phono Preamp and the BACCH. I know I know why would you digitize the pure analog of the turntable. For giggles.
I want to borrow some very expensive unbalanced cables and try the BACCH connected only to the Tape Monitor Loop. That way I can hear my system just as it was pre-BACCH and hit the Tape Monitor button to hear just what the BACCH does.
Edgar wanted me to remove the Gryphon Commander from the system and just hook the Apex directly up to the BACCH. I may try that some day, but not this day.
I switch the BACCH processing in and out and the difference is not startling. It sounded really good Pre-BACCH and it sounds very nice with the BAACH Processing.
Antigrunge, I am just going to say yep, you got it. Good job! The Electronic manipulation would send you out of the room before a note is even played. It's that awful! Gosh!
Good to hear that you are having fun! Interesting that the processing is not startling, but given your beautiful setup it isn't surprising. But the head tracker sounds like it would be interesting to use.
I would assume that the effect is heard most dramatically with headphones.Just read a review of the Commander and it sounds like Gryphon decided to spare no effort to make it a special piece of gear, especially when used with Gryphon amps. Enjoy!
Hello! Has anybody tried the BACCH-SP with headphones?
I am in the market for a new DAC and listen to headphones (almost) only, and I thought I could kill two birds with one stone (DAC + 3D processor) with the BACCH-SP adio with the headphones processing software.
Other than the DSP algorithm, the DAC part is very important to me because I would not like a "trade-off" between the improvements in the spatial rendering and a loss of timbre / tonal realism, which is very important to me as a mainly classical listener and a frequent live concert goer.
Ideally, I'd like to preserve the tonal balance and sound signature of my headphones setup intact, with the added value of a “out-of-your-head” experience which comes as close as possible as not wearing headphones, and being in the presence of the recording venue (quite easy, no? )
My problem is that I cannot audition the system before committing to the purchase. Theoretica does not even has a dealer in Italy...
I am in the market for a new DAC and listen to headphones (almost) only, and I thought I could kill two birds with one stone (DAC + 3D processor) with the BACCH-SP adio with the headphones processing software.
Other than the DSP algorithm, the DAC part is very important to me because I would not like a "trade-off" between the improvements in the spatial rendering and a loss of timbre / tonal realism, which is very important to me as a mainly classical listener and a frequent live concert goer.
Ideally, I'd like to preserve the tonal balance and sound signature of my headphones setup intact, with the added value of a “out-of-your-head” experience which comes as close as possible as not wearing headphones, and being in the presence of the recording venue (quite easy, no?
)My problem is that I cannot audition the system before committing to the purchase. Theoretica does not even has a dealer in Italy...
I’d like to comment on my experience listening to BACCH processing. My friend has the software decoder only, none of the hardware, microphones, headtracking, etc. I listened to the system for about an hour and a half. I realize I didn’t get the complete BACCH-SP experience, so take this for what it’s worth.
For me, the effect of the decoder was pretty program dependent. Depending on the track, I generally had one of three reactions: sounded cool, sounded wrong, drove me crazy. The processing did take a few choice tracks to another level. The dimensionality of the soundstage opened up and I heard a more convincing illusion of musicians performing in space. These tracks tended to be live, acoustic, “capture the mic feed” type recordings.
Other recordings simply sounded wrong. The processing did strange things to instrument location and tonality. It was like someone had taken silly putty to the soundstage, stretching it in odd directions. In a jazz ensemble, half the piano was dead center and the other half was directly outside my right ear. On another jazz recording, a single saxophone was spread out across the entire front stage. Some may find this interesting, but I found it distracting. These tended to be multi-mic’d, multi-track recordings that sound excellent in stereo but got bent out of shape by the processing.
Finally, there were a number of recordings that triggered a negative nervous reaction in me. It felt like a cross between claustrophobia and vertigo. On a few I had to tell my friend to stop the track because the presentation triggered a “flight” reaction that made me want to run out of the room. On the track Money from DSOTM, the cash register and coin sounds were pinned just outside my ears on the left and right side of my head and I couldn’t get away from them. It really creeped me out. Maybe this is just me and the way I’m wired. I’m just passing this on in case others are sensitive to these things.
I’m not sharing this to discredit the product. I’m sharing this because, in over 40 years of playing in the audiophile sandbox, I’ve never had such a strange, and at times, uncomfortable reaction to an audio system.
Russ
For me, the effect of the decoder was pretty program dependent. Depending on the track, I generally had one of three reactions: sounded cool, sounded wrong, drove me crazy. The processing did take a few choice tracks to another level. The dimensionality of the soundstage opened up and I heard a more convincing illusion of musicians performing in space. These tracks tended to be live, acoustic, “capture the mic feed” type recordings.
Other recordings simply sounded wrong. The processing did strange things to instrument location and tonality. It was like someone had taken silly putty to the soundstage, stretching it in odd directions. In a jazz ensemble, half the piano was dead center and the other half was directly outside my right ear. On another jazz recording, a single saxophone was spread out across the entire front stage. Some may find this interesting, but I found it distracting. These tended to be multi-mic’d, multi-track recordings that sound excellent in stereo but got bent out of shape by the processing.
Finally, there were a number of recordings that triggered a negative nervous reaction in me. It felt like a cross between claustrophobia and vertigo. On a few I had to tell my friend to stop the track because the presentation triggered a “flight” reaction that made me want to run out of the room. On the track Money from DSOTM, the cash register and coin sounds were pinned just outside my ears on the left and right side of my head and I couldn’t get away from them. It really creeped me out. Maybe this is just me and the way I’m wired. I’m just passing this on in case others are sensitive to these things.
I’m not sharing this to discredit the product. I’m sharing this because, in over 40 years of playing in the audiophile sandbox, I’ve never had such a strange, and at times, uncomfortable reaction to an audio system.
Russ
I have been listening to my full hardware version for a couple of weeks now with a variety of music. It has never once sounded wrong or strange to me. I am unlikely to get a chance to hear the software only version. I am curious though.
Quite often while listening I switch out of the Bacch processing and listen to the unprocessed signal. It sounds great but it always sounds better with the Bacch processing in. Placebo effect probably. [hides]
Quite often while listening I switch out of the Bacch processing and listen to the unprocessed signal. It sounds great but it always sounds better with the Bacch processing in. Placebo effect probably. [hides]
The Audiophile Junkie has been releasing a lot of content on the Baach SP, especially related to the Baach4Mac software so much so he joined as a in home dealer. Here is latest released episode.
I have been giving it a lot of consideration but have some concerns how it really integrates into systems. It doesn't look like it fits into systems with a streamer. It seems you need to set up the Mac as a Roon Endpoint to feed the DAC and if you want to use it with an analog source it is necessary to use the RMD Babyface which goes out through your DAC as well. Maybe the physical device is a better alternative but I still think everything goes through it similar to the Mac.
Anyone with insight on using it with analog devices and streamers?
I have been giving it a lot of consideration but have some concerns how it really integrates into systems. It doesn't look like it fits into systems with a streamer. It seems you need to set up the Mac as a Roon Endpoint to feed the DAC and if you want to use it with an analog source it is necessary to use the RMD Babyface which goes out through your DAC as well. Maybe the physical device is a better alternative but I still think everything goes through it similar to the Mac.
Anyone with insight on using it with analog devices and streamers?
I do have a lot of videos already on the Bacch. Right now I just have the Bacch4Mac, but it's been upgraded to the full pro status that includes the headphone and many other additions.
I know someone asked about the headphone module and it's impressive. Really freaky in a good way. You theoretically can bring the sound signature of your home system anywhere with headphones. I may bring mine to Axpona where you can get a flavor from headphones of what it's like to be in my room.
The only downside I found with the headphone module is that it replicates the ear pinna impact in both the measurements and then again in playing it through headphones. Thus, I noticed a slight change in tonal balance attributed to that fact, but Edgar already has the fix in the works and embedded in the program. There is a headphone measurement tool you can use with the binaural mics and negate that ear pinna impact... He's just not ready to 100% release it yet as it's still in testing, but it's already in the software/product to try in the "beta" version now.
Obviously, you can't get 100% replication with headphones of being in a room, but it does fool almost everyone into thinking they aren't listening to headphones. For those that don't like headphones imaging inside your head, this will be a module/option to buy... But it's not required.
As for the standard Bacch product that most people rave about, it's better not to describe it and just bake in the cost to come listen for yourself. I'm in Houston, but it will be at Axpona too.
For those that can't do either, I've shared 3rd party comments and have more coming, but it's an easy thing to notice the difference and improvement. Blind testing in ENCOURAGED... You won't strain to hear the difference and nobody has preferred it off as a whole.
One thing it will uncover is certain poor recording techniques... Especially cardioid mics set up improperly. Occasionally an EDM track with wonky panning gimmicks will sound less attractive with those gimmicks revealed more precisely. Bubbles is the only example though I've found to date, and I play a lot of EDM but I'm sure there are more like Bubbles. From my playlists, there's only Bubbles I prefer it off....and that's on over 400 tracks of classical, EDM, rap, pop, Audiophile, etc... Thus the percentage is less than 1%
A few people find the spatial cues so different from their thousands of hours of conditioning listening to a heavily dense center image between speakers that is created by crosstalk. It doesn't take long to realize that eliminating crosstalk is better and that if you always had those spatial cues, you'd never go back to adding crosstalk to get a denser and crammed center image. Nevertheless, I guess it may impact 1% of people that way. Almost nobody has returned the Bacch once installing it despite the money back guarantee.
Ironically, I had an EDM artist to my house with recordings on Tidal so we played them for him. He was blown away and said it made him rethink everything he's heard and done in the past. He and his coworker also work for a home theater and home automation company with 20+years experience and over 2000 clients, so they've heard a lot more than most "reviewers".
Another guy said he got goosebumps for the first time.... Another analog purist placed an order immediately... Those are anecdotal reports you rarely see.
All that being said, words don't replicate the experience of hearing it... Then you can benchmark the improvement to virtually any other piece you've ever bought in the hobby... I doubt there's another piece of electronics or tweak that comes close.
For those that wamnt to get in the weeds, Edgar has content all over the internet from Ted Talks over 10 years ago to recent interviews over an hour long on various channels. I will be visiting his lab in Princeton on Monday and have further content to share.
Those who are members of my site can also get a taste of what it's like by sending me their favorite WAV file and distance between the speakers as well as listening distance to your head. I can create a standard filter based on those dimensions and basic room and gear assumptions that will at least give you a percentage of what you can expect from the full product with binaural in-ear measurements and head tracking. It's basically the same as buying the $900 intro version for a taste.
I'll have the ADIO soon with DAC that is actually multi channel capable for using with active crossovers/speakers and quite a few people have sold their mega dollar DACs in comparison, but you aren't required to buy the version with the DAC if you are married to what you own.
I have an entire video playlist on my channel with more information including two vinyl purists giving their rave review. I'm not going to speak for Fremer who hasn't visited me, but he called JR when JR of WallyTools was in my room. Anybody can ask him about his experience with it too. Stay tuned for Absolute Sound coverage as well soon.
BTW...The video linked above shows you more value added aspects of the measurements irrespective of the spatial cues that wow everyone.
Wow, that is a great offer. I am not a member of your site, but would I be able to get a demo version? If this is possible, please inbox me with your email address and we can continue to chat there.
My BACCH-SP adio is a Roon endpoint and works well with my Grimm MU1 and Pink Faun streamers.
I have been looking at the Baach4Mac and the best method was to replace the Innous Zen with the Mac mini as the Roon endpoint. I was on the phone last evening with Jason and Edgar discussing this.
Similar threads
