Does the quality of the taiko server matter i.e. I currently use the extreme although the new latest and greatest OLYMPUS will be out soon. Do you think it makes a difference which is used?
BACCH-SP: The future of high-end audio? Yes.
- Thread starter soundArgument
- Start date
I don’t know yet. When my unit comes in I will test different units I have here. I don’t have Taiko, so I will test with my Antipodes Oladra, Ethernet direct and via the clocked outputs on it, will use an Innuos Pulsar and Roon Nucleus. When I do that I will report back results.
Republicoftexas69
Well-Known Member
I suppose you could use the Taiko to feed a BACCH DIO or BACCH ADIO given that the BACCH has USB and SPDIF digital audio inputs.
But with the Olympus, and it’s new XDMI interface (replacing usb and aes/ebu) you could not use the Bach DIO or ADIO unless they were to be adapted to work with XDMI.
And from what I understand, it would be a mistake to use the Olympus without taking advantage of XDMI.
But with the Olympus, and it’s new XDMI interface (replacing usb and aes/ebu) you could not use the Bach DIO or ADIO unless they were to be adapted to work with XDMI.
And from what I understand, it would be a mistake to use the Olympus without taking advantage of XDMI.
Last edited:
Olympus can do usb and AES digital out but needs an adapted dac (as Lampi, Areis Cerat, MSB, Totaldac are doing) for XDMI digital out.
May be I am wrong, my understanding is that an adapted DAC make use of XDMI propriety digital out. If you use XDMI usb/spdif/ aes out via a daughter board , you can use a standard DAC. But Emile can confirm that.
T
The point with regards to XDMI and BACCH is that unless the BACCH dac is adapted to native use of XDMI, one loses the significant sonic upgrade native XDMI offers in order to use BACCH.
For me, that’s a trade off I’d likely be unwilling to make.
That’s my understanding as well.
The point with regards to XDMI and BACCH is that unless the BACCH dac is adapted to native use of XDMI, one loses the significant sonic upgrade native XDMI offers in order to use BACCH.
For me, that’s a trade off I’d likely be unwilling to make.
Wil, I will use the Olympus XDMI AES digital output to my Totaldac Sublime dac. It is supossed to be much better than the Taiko Extreme USB, so one could use the Olympus XDMI spdif output to feed the Bacch dio or adio. Or one could use the Olympus USB output (which is supposed to be better than the Taiko Extreme USB) to feed the Bacch DIO or Adio. It would be a matter of comparing to hear which option sounds better.
Edgar doesn't believe special Roon Servers / Streamers make a difference with BACCH. He has made me a believer. If you are running a Taiko congrats! I wonder how much of a difference it will make over say, a simple $10K streamer. It won't hurt.
If I understand correctly, the folks at Taiko are not keen on the idea of Baach or any dsp in the signal path between their server/software and the dac.
They believe with their new Olympus server and XDMI interface that they have created such a low noise floor that the increased cpu processing along with changes in quantization associated with dsp will create a noticeable and objectionable electronic noise signature.
They believe with their new Olympus server and XDMI interface that they have created such a low noise floor that the increased cpu processing along with changes in quantization associated with dsp will create a noticeable and objectionable electronic noise signature.
Wil, I believe I have read all that Taiko has written in public, and I have never read Taiko state they are against using Bacch. Unless you have read a posting by Taiko that I missed, you are making a speculation, that in my view is incorrect. They are in favor of experimentation and respect people have different tastes, so I would assume Taiko would be in favor of clients trying Bacch to see if they like it or not. I, for one, ordered an Olympus XDMI and plan to try a Bacch dio at some point. Cheers
Please check with Ed and Christian. It’s possible I misunderstood something, but what I believe I was told was pretty clear. It was also stated on the XDMS Dischord site.
Emile told me a couple of years ago that some Extreme owners were using convolution filters like Audiolens and Accorate. But I’m getting the message now that the cost benefit relationship is changed with the Olympus and XDMI. Hopefully I’m not spreading misinformation!
i’ve been interested for sometime in trying DSP just to see what it brings. But I am aware of the cost of mucking up the signal. I just tried the Schiit Audio Loki Max analog EQ and decided to take it out.
We’ll know soon enough if dsp is a good idea with XDMI.
Do you see it as optimal use XDMI analog out > AD converter > BACCH processor (DIO? ADIO?) > DAC
Rather than XDMI analog out > BACCH ADIO (DIO with DAC)
or XDMI analog out > BACCH DIO > DAC
or XDMI digital out > BACCH DIO
It seems to me the ideal way to configure BACCH with XDMI would be with native XDMI > ADIO (if it were to be modified to accept native XDMI)
I did ask Emile the same question before. He is confident that the analog out of XDMI will be better than non native XDMI out. But then if one choose the 1st approach, the bottle neck will be at the AD converter.
Btw, I am using Merging Hapi as the AD converter and I have my whole digital chain running Ravenna network. I use Bach4Mac instead of ADIO or DIO.
Btw, I am using Merging Hapi as the AD converter and I have my whole digital chain running Ravenna network. I use Bach4Mac instead of ADIO or DIO.
Ordered a BACCH4Mac Audiophile edition for my MacBook Air M2. I figure a laptop would be easier than using a MacMin which will require a separate monitor, keyboard and mouse to operate. Although not stated in the website, Edgar confirms this laptop is fine for the job.
From what I gather, we need the included RME Babyface Pro with mics only for calibration. Thereafter after the macbook can operate alone connecting directly to the DAC via USB and itself being an endpoint receiving data from a network player.
This means the BACCH is pretty much portable if one has a few hifi systems in play. Just need to calibrate once per system.
On the matter of the BACCH4Mac adding its own signature to the sound, surely the changes it is making to the music file is so great it will be almost unrecognisable after the BACCH filter process? Especially so with the room correction ORC filter too. The music file is totally changed (for the better), we are not talking about bit perfect incremental sonic changes like changing streamers, DACs, cables or connection types like USB or XDMI. Think minced meat from a steak difference! I expect it to be like moving from mono to stereo difference.
Edgar claims his filters are totally transparent and won't affect the sound character of the system one bit. But on his FAQ he states:
Aren't aberrations part of the flavour and character of the system? Once gone, the character of the old system will be substantially different - more real, accurate and room independent.
It's one of the reasons why I'm starting with the BACCH4Mac. The use of the BACCH-SP device might not make a difference for the same reasons. :-D
I think going BACCH, one has to be prepared for a totally new experience. To enjoy it fully, one has to accept the old school thoughts and worries might not be valid anymore. Old beloved equipment may not matter anymore. And this big jump is scary for most audiophiles like me. But exciting too, to live in an era where such technology is available to try.
From what I gather, we need the included RME Babyface Pro with mics only for calibration. Thereafter after the macbook can operate alone connecting directly to the DAC via USB and itself being an endpoint receiving data from a network player.
This means the BACCH is pretty much portable if one has a few hifi systems in play. Just need to calibrate once per system.
On the matter of the BACCH4Mac adding its own signature to the sound, surely the changes it is making to the music file is so great it will be almost unrecognisable after the BACCH filter process? Especially so with the room correction ORC filter too. The music file is totally changed (for the better), we are not talking about bit perfect incremental sonic changes like changing streamers, DACs, cables or connection types like USB or XDMI. Think minced meat from a steak difference! I expect it to be like moving from mono to stereo difference.
Edgar claims his filters are totally transparent and won't affect the sound character of the system one bit. But on his FAQ he states:
" Not only do BACCH filters purify the sound from crosstalk, but they also purify it from aberrations by the playback hardware in both the frequency and time domains. "
Aren't aberrations part of the flavour and character of the system? Once gone, the character of the old system will be substantially different - more real, accurate and room independent.
It's one of the reasons why I'm starting with the BACCH4Mac. The use of the BACCH-SP device might not make a difference for the same reasons. :-D
I think going BACCH, one has to be prepared for a totally new experience. To enjoy it fully, one has to accept the old school thoughts and worries might not be valid anymore. Old beloved equipment may not matter anymore. And this big jump is scary for most audiophiles like me. But exciting too, to live in an era where such technology is available to try.
Similar threads
