BACCH-SP: The future of high-end audio? Yes.

Phelonious Ponk · May 6, 2015

If this gentleman has created a device that can project the spatial impact of binaural out into the room, that is very cool. Unfortunately it's an academic exercise, because there is almost nothing recorded for it. There is very little...almost no...music to listen to on this system, and given that it requires (and doesn't it have to?) a heavily custom-treated room to be effective, it will never create a market big enough to justify making many new recordings for it. It will be, at best, a very small niche product with a very, very small media supply. A tiny subset of audiophiles will listen to and even tinier collection of recordings. No, probably not the future of high end.

Many good points have been made in this discussion, but pro or con, they're pretty moot.

Tim

Whatmore · May 6, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
If this gentleman has created a device that can project the spatial impact of binaural out into the room, that is very cool. Unfortunately it's an academic exercise, because there is almost nothing recorded for it. There is very little...almost no...music to listen to on this system, and given that it requires (and doesn't it have to?) a heavily custom-treated room to be effective, it will never create a market big enough to justify making many new recordings for it. It will be, at best, a very small niche product with a very, very small media supply. A tiny subset of audiophiles will listen to and even tinier collection of recordings. No, probably not the future of high end.

Many good points have been made in this discussion, but pro or con, they're pretty moot.

Tim

A bit like super hi-rez music then (apart from boring audiophile dross, there is virtually nothing available in that format).

I predict it will sell like hot cakes

esldude · May 6, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
If this gentleman has created a device that can project the spatial impact of binaural out into the room, that is very cool. Unfortunately it's an academic exercise, because there is almost nothing recorded for it. There is very little...almost no...music to listen to on this system, and given that it requires (and doesn't it have to?) a heavily custom-treated room to be effective, it will never create a market big enough to justify making many new recordings for it. It will be, at best, a very small niche product with a very, very small media supply. A tiny subset of audiophiles will listen to and even tinier collection of recordings. No, probably not the future of high end.

Many good points have been made in this discussion, but pro or con, they're pretty moot.

Tim

I mostly agree Tim. On the other hand, the old Carver analog version of this, when set up right was quite something. Now it wasn't exactly right I think, but it was a different experience on minimally processed material. Far better than any binaural system I have been able to hear (maybe my personal HRTF is strange). As the Carver system worked on non-binaural material, I would expect this would as well. But I guess hearing a demo is worth lots.

Kal Rubinson · May 6, 2015

Whatmore said:
A bit like super hi-rez music then (apart from boring audiophile dross, there is virtually nothing available in that format).

I take strong exception to that. Such a conclusion depends on one's taste in music.

soundArgument · May 6, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
If this gentleman has created a device that can project the spatial impact of binaural out into the room, that is very cool. Unfortunately it's an academic exercise, because there is almost nothing recorded for it. There is very little...almost no...music to listen to on this system, and given that it requires (and doesn't it have to?) a heavily custom-treated room to be effective, it will never create a market big enough to justify making many new recordings for it. It will be, at best, a very small niche product with a very, very small media supply. A tiny subset of audiophiles will listen to and even tinier collection of recordings. No, probably not the future of high end.

Many good points have been made in this discussion, but pro or con, they're pretty moot.

Tim

Phelonious, thank you for weighing in.

I think that "project[ing] the impact of binaural into the room" does not fully capture what the device does. Its principal function is sophisticated, uncolored crosstalk reduction. Cancellation of crosstalk improves stereo imaging not only on binaural recordings but also on any recording made with a stereo pair of microphones in a real acoustic space.

And it doesn't need to be used in a heavily treated room to be effective. The room with the big white speakers was largely untreated (and in a lovely home), with a wall just a few feet behind the listening position. The sound was still better than any conventional reproduction I've heard.

Indeed, binaural recordings work astonishingly well with this technology. Playback of binaural recordings on the BACCH-SP achieves a real three-dimensional effect and, in this respect, is unlike any binaural recording reproduction that I've heard through headphones.

I acknowledge that there are now few binaural recordings, but this doesn't concern me for two reasons. First, we might soon have a lot more of them. One owner of a very successful audiophile record label reportedly is using the BACCH-SP, and as a believer in the technology, he has started releasing a lot of binaural recordings. I understand also that there has been an effort to persuade the Berlin Philharmonic to use binaural microphones for its already excellent Digital Concert Hall.

The second reason I'm unconcerned about the lack of binaural recordings is that the BACCH-SP works wonderfully with any recording made using a genuine stereo technique. Recordings made with the spaced omni, mid-side, Decca tree, and, yes, Blumlein techniques all seem to benefit enormously from the BACCH-SP's crosstalk reduction.

__

I don't think I've mentioned in any post yet that the crosstalk reduction seems to have other benefits. Almost always a weak point in conventional playback, the reproduction of woodwind instruments on orchestral recordings, which are often in the center of the soundfield, seemed transformed by the BACCH-SP. The overly present, sibilant woodwinds that one hears on many orchestral recordings were replaced by woodwinds with realistic timbres, clearly positioned behind the strings. I don't know why crosstalk cancellation can achieve this effect, but I suspect it has something to do with elimination of the comb filtering or other crosstalk-induced distortion that occurs in the center of the soundfield during conventional playback.

It's an incredible technology. Hope you're able to hear it soon, Phelonious.

soundArgument · May 6, 2015

Kal Rubinson said:
Such a conclusion depends on one's taste in music.

Agreed!

Whatmore · May 7, 2015

Kal Rubinson said:
I take strong exception to that. Such a conclusion depends on one's taste in music.

I take strong exception to you taking strong exception to the fact that I have different taste in music than you

Kal Rubinson · May 7, 2015

Whatmore said:
I take strong exception to you taking strong exception to the fact that I have different taste in music than you

I took strong exception to your generalization, not to your taste. That's an entirely different matter.

Phelonious Ponk · May 7, 2015

Phelonious, thank you for weighing in.

I think that "project[ing] the impact of binaural into the room" does not fully capture what the device does. Its principal function is sophisticated, uncolored crosstalk reduction.

Here's my experience/opinion, FWIW -- Reduction of crosstalk well short of complete cancellation can dramatically improve stereo imaging, even in close-mic'd, multi-track recordings. A great place to start is with digital, which has significantly lower crosstalk than vinyl or tape. A great next step would be active speaker systems, which can reduce crosstalk even further. The result is great stereo imaging, horizontal imaging, in the plane with the speakers. Actives can also help with front-to-back imaging through improved dynamic range and clarity (helping the relative loudness of instruments on a recording create a greater illusion of depth). A vertical image from two channels, without hat tricks built into the recordings, simply requires a very vivid imagination.

Cancellation of crosstalk improves stereo imaging not only on binaural recordings but also on any recording made with a stereo pair of microphones in a real acoustic space.

I didn't think you said this only works with binaural recordings, I thought you said this. Unfortunately, recordings captured by a stereo pair of mics in a real acoustic space are nearly as rare as binaural.

And it doesn't need to be used in a heavily treated room to be effective. The room with the big white speakers was largely untreated (and in a lovely home), with a wall just a few feet behind the listening position. The sound was still better than any conventional reproduction I've heard.

I don't doubt that it sounded very different. Better is, of course, subjective. But with the overwhelming majority of recordings, and particularly in a room not treated for the effect, this is going to be just that...an effect. I suspect the bloom will come off of that rose rather quickly, and I imagine a very, very small subset of audiophiles are going to be interested in a $55k box they have to turn off for 99% of their catalog.

I don't doubt this can be a stunning effect with the right software, in the right room, and I'd love to hear it. The future of high end? That I don't see. I see a very small niche product that will rapidly fade into obscurity for lack of attention. MHO, YMMV...time will tell.

Tim

TBone · May 7, 2015

no dog in this race, only to point out that Pink Floyd's Final Cut (much more a R.Waters production than PF) used Q sound to even better spacial effect ... (and yes, I've heard Amused...)

soundArgument · May 7, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
Here's my experience/opinion, FWIW -- Reduction of crosstalk well short of complete cancellation can dramatically improve stereo imaging, even in close-mic'd, multi-track recordings. A great place to start is with digital, which has significantly lower crosstalk than vinyl or tape. A great next step would be active speaker systems, which can reduce crosstalk even further. The result is great stereo imaging, horizontal imaging, in the plane with the speakers. Actives can also help with front-to-back imaging through improved dynamic range and clarity (helping the relative loudness of instruments on a recording create a greater illusion of depth). A vertical image from two channels, without hat tricks built into the recordings, simply requires a very vivid imagination.

I didn't think you said this only works with binaural recordings, I thought you said this. Unfortunately, recordings captured by a stereo pair of mics in a real acoustic space are nearly as rare as binaural.

With respect to reducing crosstalk with active speakers or digital, sure, these technologies help, as do monoblock amps if you use passive speakers. But these technologies don't address the biggest source of crosstalk: two speakers both in front of you in a room. The BACCH-SP is the only device capable of addressing this source of crosstalk.

On the subject of miking, most mainstream classical recordings are made with a main stereo pair, augmented by spot microphones. These mainstream recordings sounded incredible through the BACCH-SP.

Vertical imaging from two speakers is indeed possible. One can hear vertical cues with two laterally mounted ears, so it stands to reason that one can hear vertical cues with two speakers. I heard vertical cues from the BACCH-SP systems to which I listened.

QSound recordings, which have become a subject of great interest on this thread, can produce some vertical cues on conventional setups. I've heard the famous QSound binaural barber demo both on headphones and on a BACCH-SP system; it's vastly more impressive and realistic through the BACCH-SP.

TBone said:
no dog in this race, only to point out that Pink Floyd's Final Cut (much more a R.Waters production than PF) used Q sound to even better spacial effect ... (and yes, I've heard Amused...)

To my delight, my earlier exposure to QSound (unbeknownst to me at the time) has given me a reprieve from having to subject myself to Waters/Pink Floyd, and I think this also means that my cease-and-desist order from Atmasphere is hereby lifted. It seems I could also have fulfilled my QSound obligation by listening to Paula Abdul's Spellbound.

Atmasphere · May 8, 2015

^^ I put up Amused to Death as an example simply because it contains audible effects that should not be possible if crosstalk were really a troublesome issue.

prerich · May 8, 2015

esldude said:
So Bob Carver's Sonic Holography lives again.

That is basically what his system did. It too, with some recordings, in the central position, with careful tweaking could give effects like you described. Once heard it with some of Carver's pseudo-panel speakers, and it seemed with minimally miked recordings to fill a 30 foot wide space with speakers only 8 feet apart and 8 feet distant.

If you read the old patents from Blumlein, he was aware of the cross-talk with speakers. But despite the crosstalk the speakers create a time delay between channels. It is also why in some sense spaced pair recordings aren't really right for speaker listening (good over headphones). You get too much interchannel delay.

Oh well, an update of that which this system appears to be might well be worked out better than in the past. I would imagine however, based upon the experience of the old Carver version, multi-miked, processed, synthetic recordings are going to be a mixed bag.

I do realize this system does more than Bob Carver's old system. Calibrating for your ears, and adjusting the effect for movements of your head would be a big extra. Still in principle it is the same idea.

Bob Carver Sonic Holography lives again....I was saying the exact same thing! How does it compare to the qØl processor that everyone was in love with about 2.5 years ago? There's also the Reevel that's designed as a portable version - my son loves his. He got mine from me because I could duplicate most of the effect with a vst program.

Fitzcaraldo215 · May 8, 2015

Years ago, I think it was in The Audiophile Society magazine, there was a guy who had constructed a 4-5 ft. high sound absorbing barrier across the middle of his listening room. It was no joke, and it got rave reviews from other Society members for awhile. It extended from midway between the speakers to his listening chair, and he sat right at the thin edge of it, his head almost touching it. He looked forward at the speakers, and its result was, of course, to minimize crosstalk between the two speakers.

Whatever its effects were, and many other listeners reported positive ones, that idea has disappeared. I never heard of anyone else attempting it.

I do not know exactly what this proves. My interpretation is that it produced a noticeable effect, but that effect was not sufficiently deemed to be "better" in sound quality, perceived realism, etc. to catch on, even among other Society members. Yes, it was awkward, but probably not terribly expensive to do, and using typical floor standing acoustic panels, could be taken down or put up without too much effort.

Anyway, an historical footnote.

Kal Rubinson · May 8, 2015

Fitzcaraldo215 said:
Years ago, I think it was in The Audiophile Society magazine, there was a guy who had constructed a 4-5 ft. high sound absorbing barrier across the middle of his listening room. It was no joke, and it got rave reviews from other Society members for awhile. It extended from midway between the speakers to his listening chair, and he sat right at the thin edge of it, his head almost touching it. He looked forward at the speakers, and its result was, of course, to minimize crosstalk between the two speakers.

Whatever its effects were, and many other listeners reported positive ones, that idea has disappeared. I never heard of anyone else attempting it.

I do not know exactly what this proves. My interpretation is that it produced a noticeable effect, but that effect was not sufficiently deemed to be "better" in sound quality, perceived realism, etc. to catch on, even among other Society members. Yes, it was awkward, but probably not terribly expensive to do, and using typical floor standing acoustic panels, could be taken down or put up without too much effort.

Anyway, an historical footnote.

You are referring to the ambiophonics work of Ralph Glascal (http://www.ambiophonics.org/).

esldude · May 8, 2015

prerich said:
Bob Carver Sonic Holography lives again....I was saying the exact same thing! How does it compare to the qØl processor that everyone was in love with about 2.5 years ago? There's also the Reevel that's designed as a portable version - my son loves his. He got mine from me because I could duplicate most of the effect with a vst program.

The qOL processor is a different thing. It was working like mid-side recording. It created a sum and difference signal for the right and left signal. It then would amplify the difference signal and mix it back to stereo. Doing this widens the soundstage and emphasizes ambience. It is something Alan Blumlein actually discussed in his old writings on stereo. Some do this and EQ the differences signal by boosting it slightly below 600-700 hz. This increases the difference heard between your ears from the crosstalk speakers have. Don't know if qOL did the EQ or not. This is sometimes called a stereo shuffler circuit.

http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Stereo_shuffling_A4.pdf

Here is a short paper Micael Gerzon wrote concerning the idea.

And here is another unit doing similar processing. Sells for around 500 British pounds. Plus it has a vacuum tube in it.

http://www.phaedrus-audio.com/shuphler.htm

Phelonious Ponk · May 8, 2015

Vertical imaging from two speakers is indeed possible. One can hear vertical cues with two laterally mounted ears, so it stands to reason that one can hear vertical cues with two speakers. I heard vertical cues from the BACCH-SP systems to which I listened.

Sorry, but that does not stand to reason. When one hears vertical cues from two laterally mounted ears, what you hear is the source of the sound, actually placed in space vertically, filtered through the flesh and hair of you ears and head. When you listen to two speakers, you hear two channels, in a horizontal plane, with all the cues emanating from the same two points. It's not the same thing. It's not even close. We've had this conversation here before, and people imagine that they hear vertical placement of instruments in a conventional stereo mix, but there is no logical/technical explanation for what they hear at all. There is no science behind the illusion. They are simply hearing what the imagine they should hear. The mind is a very powerful thing.

Tim

esldude · May 8, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
Sorry, but that does not stand to reason. When one hears vertical cues from two laterally mounted ears, what you hear is the source of the sound, actually placed in space vertically, filtered through the flesh and hair of you ears and head. When you listen to two speakers, you hear two channels, in a horizontal plane, with all the cues emanating from the same two points. It's not the same thing. It's not even close. We've had this conversation here before, and people imagine that they hear vertical placement of instruments in a conventional stereo mix, but there is no logical/technica explanation for what they hear at all. They are simply hearing what the imagine they should hear. The mind is a very powerful thing.

Tim

I think there is some possibility of accidental, artificial height in some recordings. Your ears hear height by the comb filtering your ear lobe does. Since the lobe can reflect higher frequencies and the opening is offset from the center you get the lobe reflections and direct sound comb filtering what gets to your eardrum. You begin to hear something above horizontal with a notch in the sound spectrum around 6 khz. The higher it goes the higher the comb filtered notch moves. The effect stops somewhere around 12 or 14 khz.

Now if you have coincident microphones on a two mic recording, those are offset vertically quite often to better align the center of the microphone diaphragms. And the offset would just happen to be near the range to cause some comb filtering that can be heard as a vague height difference in some signals near the center of the reproduced soundfield. If something is directly ahead of the mics no sound path difference. If a sound source moves overhead, one mic is closer than the other and some comb filtering will result in roughly the right range to give some sense of height.

dallasjustice · May 9, 2015

Thanks for the paper describing the origin of M/S encoding. I know some mastering engineers use M/S plugins to increase stereo width. This can be a good solution to a recording which may not already have much spatial separation between instruments.

I use a variation in my playback. I use the Acourate Cleaner. It uses M/S encoding in the digital domain and then decodes it in analog. The purpose isn't so much to increase the width of the image. But rather, to act as a channel balance of sorts. It's pretty cool.

esldude said:
The qOL processor is a different thing. It was working like mid-side recording. It created a sum and difference signal for the right and left signal. It then would amplify the difference signal and mix it back to stereo. Doing this widens the soundstage and emphasizes ambience. It is something Alan Blumlein actually discussed in his old writings on stereo. Some do this and EQ the differences signal by boosting it slightly below 600-700 hz. This increases the difference heard between your ears from the crosstalk speakers have. Don't know if qOL did the EQ or not. This is sometimes called a stereo shuffler circuit.

http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Stereo_shuffling_A4.pdf

Here is a short paper Micael Gerzon wrote concerning the idea.

And here is another unit doing similar processing. Sells for around 500 British pounds. Plus it has a vacuum tube in it.
http://www.phaedrus-audio.com/shuphler.htm

Kal Rubinson · May 9, 2015

Phelonious Ponk said:
Sorry, but that does not stand to reason. When one hears vertical cues from two laterally mounted ears, what you hear is the source of the sound, actually placed in space vertically, filtered through the flesh and hair of you ears and head. When you listen to two speakers, you hear two channels, in a horizontal plane, with all the cues emanating from the same two points. It's not the same thing. It's not even close. We've had this conversation here before, and people imagine that they hear vertical placement of instruments in a conventional stereo mix, but there is no logical/technical explanation for what they hear at all. There is no science behind the illusion. They are simply hearing what the imagine they should hear. The mind is a very powerful thing.
Tim

IIRC, the BACCH-SP system includes HRTF processing with which it can encode signals to appear as if coming from above or below. I cannot comment on how or how well it is done.

BACCH-SP: The future of high-end audio? Yes.

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads