Professor Choueiri perfected SPATIAL (3D) AUDIO!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2022
- Professor Edgar Choueiri is Director of Princeton's Electric Propulsion and Plasma Dynamics Laboratory and the 3D Audio and Applied Acoustics.
Info on BACCH www.theoretica.us
Twitter: @AudiophiliacMan
Instagram: / steve.guttenberg
#BACCH #spatialaudio #audiophile 
Наука
Hey everybody, beware there is a fake Steve Guttenberg offering free gifts! DON’T fall for it!!!
Dear Edgar, buying your BACCH-system was the best investment in my audio gear. Enjoy it every day! I truly recommend it to every audiophile.
Yep
Inderdaad, ik ben er ook voor gevallen. Geweldig.
I see he has a Garrard 401 record deck,an essential 3D imager..I love it.
Yes. Indeed.
I will comment as an audiophile of 37 years who recently bought the BACCH4Mac DSP audiophile version. IMO it is the single most significant break through since the introduction of commercial stereo recording and playback. What did it cost? About 6K. What is it worth? You could have a million dollar 2 channel system and be nowhere near state of the art because you don’t have this DSP. It is IMO the most essential component in any current attempt at state of the art 2 channel playback.
The above reply is a fake. Do not respond to it.
Scott I agree with you 1000%!! Two weeks with the intro software. I'm selling some recording gear to upgrade to the Pro version.
Even with just a U-BACCH filter I’m amazed.
Wow. The Professor is riveting. Fascinating gentleman
What an amazing interview Steve. Thanks for introducing us. I will agree that reverb does really help emulate the live feeling. When I would listen to my father and his band play live, I now know that it was the reverb of live instruments that made the music sound so warm and natural. The sound I continue to chase with my home system.
I own the BACCH4mac system and the Sanders ESL’s that were shown in the video. I have owned ambiophonic processors, sonic holography, various software “3D” programs and have heard Polk SDA speakers and although many allegedly have the same goals for 3D audio the BACCH is on a completely different level for fidelity and spatial reproduction. Dollar per dollar I have never have heard anything improve my system more. Some people pay the same as the BACCH system as cables. I read comments about SDA and sonic holography being “the same” which is definitely not the conclusion anyone who has heard BACCH would make. The full software package is a whole 3d audio multi channel mixer which is beyond what any run of the mill audiophile would use. The Absolute Sound RUclips channel has a detailed review from a month ago.
I fully agree with you! And on top of that, Edgar is a very nice and friendly person!
how much is the hardware unit?
20K. The software version that requires a Mac Mini RME Babyface is 6K with all the hardware
@@scottwheeler2679 the software is 6k + mac mini ? 🤯
6K includes the Mac Mini with the DSP loaded in it
Very cool to hear from a great influence on spatial sound. In 72 the first system I bought with my first wage was a Dynatron Quadrophonic record player, tuner and 4 speakers. The sound they reproduced even with stereo 2 channel recordings has influenced my listening experiences ever since. I was thrilled when you mentioned Fox Talbot who makes an appearance in my family tree. To this day I still seek out spatial, dispersed sound. Here's to the future success of 3D reproduced sound.
Very interesting chat and tech. Thanks for doing this video Steve !
There is no doubt Spatial Audio is about to take off in the next 5 years or so. DSPs have become so powerful the the real world can now live up to the theory. Smyth Realizer A16 was a very good example of this type of work for headphones from a very small company. When the big multi national corporations get on board it’s going to be very interesting indeed.
Yep
Once the big multi nationals perfect the monetizing of multi-directional sound reproduction it will be a game changer as big as anything we have seen and heard thus far. It will then only be a matter of time before everyone will have access to spatial audio without financial confines to worry about. As it is right now good spatial audio is more or less the reserve of the wealthy. Like any good product there will be some growing pains that will need to be ironed out and once they are spatial audio will become as commonplace as sliced bread is to a bakery.
I would sign up for his class. What knowledge and vision.
I remember when the first Digital Time Delay came out, back then it was impressive
I’ve played with just the U-BACCH filter in the last two weeks and this is the holy grail I’ve been looking for! Upgrading to the BACCH-4-Mac Pro !!
Excellent Gentlemen!
I visited his lab for work about 10 years ago and was able to see some of the things they were working on like nano crystals that can be embedded in materials which react to a specific laser/wave form. This tech would go on to be used in authenticating money and garments. The particles were so small that they can pass through human skin! very neat stuff.
Kudos to you sir. A software version that doesn't colour the signal is ground breaking. Can't wait to hear this through my headphones.
Extremely interesting gentleman. You can tell that he has put many years of experience into his theories. I was fascinated from start to finish! Thanks for another great one, Steve!
These "theories" have been known for decades.
Yea. What a line up lately.
Cross-talk cancellation has been around for over 40 years. I am using the Carver C-9 to achieve 3D sound. Because i am the only person who listens to my system, i sit in the "sweet spot" and when sound images are floating to the left and right opposite my chair, i can turn my head and "look" at them and they will stay where they are.
He said so himself
Indeed, at tine mark 4:15 of the video interview Prof. Choueiri stresses (as he does often) that he did not invent crosstalk cancelation and that it has been around since the 1960s. The main innovation (which is now patented worldwide) is to produce optimized crosstalk cancellation (at levels exceeding 15 dB) **without tonal coloration (spectral distortion)**. Another innovation is the use of head tracking via a webcam or IR camera to adjust the DSP in real time so that the listener can move his/her head freely and still perceive a 3D image. As I mentioned in a another reply here, Prof. Choueiri's basic theory behind BACCH is published and can be seen in detail in Chapter 5 of a standard textbook “Immersive Sound” (Edited by Agnieszka Roginska and Paul Geluso (Editor).
so have speakers and record players and electronics. It's the execution that matters. And this is whole different level of execution
I have had & used my Carver C9 for over 35 years and love it. As you well know the setup is critical, but take the time and the reward is spectacular. Whenever I sit someone down in my listening position, they are blown away at what they hear.
@@magikoflove I wish the back of the C9 had better RCA connecting plugs . They are not very deep and it is hard to make a firm connection. Do you have this problem ?
Fascinating interview! Wonderful personality. Dangerously close to getting me back into the binaural rabbit hole...
Just fascinating....Thanks Steve!
Delightful interview. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
This guy is so type cast perfect, I thought Steve was putting us on, for the first 2-3 minutes.
Lol
A fascinating video, thanks Steve.
Fascinating interview.... Thanks!!!
A fascinating interview!
Great, Great explanation. Thanks Steve
This is facinating Steve!
Would you say this is a blend of Q-Sound (from 1970's) and today's home theater Atmos, but using only two speakers?
Q-Sound was amazing (Madonna) but never really caught on - I think it was ahead of its time.
We live in a 3D world now. - Cheers!
Very interesting video, thanks!
What a cool guy and brilliant. Can wait to get mine
Awesome!
Subject Matter Expert ... doesn't even come close!
Fantastic ... albeit too brief, interview...
Fascinating take on our evolutionary predilection for a Goldilocks zone of preference;
not excessively open and exposed, and not stuck in a corner.
Nice work Steve
I've had the pleasure of talking to him for several hours after becoming a customer, top-notch customer service.
@@bathynomusgiganteus2916
Good to hear.
very cool
Acoustics is often an unrecognized reason certain spaces (rooms, houses and buildings) feel so “right”.
YES .......and also some very good systems ( no room correction processing ) help the room to dissappear............pushing the walls further out .
How optics move into the audio space, or maybe the other way around, I love this!
It's vibrant!
I had, literally, the pleasure of hearing the Bacch system at High End 22 in Munich....absolutely and by far the most realistic musically reproduction I ever heard...really amazing. I could also talk to Dr. Choueiri, who was very kind of explaining the technology and concepts behind the Bacch, allowing me to record our conversation. An audiophile friend from Brazil reached Dr. Choueiri based on my report of the show, and acquired the Bacch processor ! Needless to say He is very satisfied with the amazing performance...certainly is in my wish list...
Had something on my old Yamaha receiver that was a Spatial Expander always had it on to a medium setting it did make it sound slightly more 3D but I'm sure this is miles ahead.
"So you are an audiophile right?"
"Yes, since I was a child."
Now, we are talking: welcome brother.
On the subject of old or original technologies look into stonehenge not only was it an astronomical and calendar monument it was an audio event supposedly creating a reverb drenched (can’t think of the word )oh transcendental experience-great interview steve food for thought
amazing
Very interesting video, thanks Steve! As with Polk SDA technology I suspect listener position is fairly critical.
No. One of the main features of BACCH is head tracking. Using either a webcam or infrared sensor BACCH systems track the position of the listener's with a 1 mm resolution and adjust the BACCH filter in real time so that the sweet spot moves with the listener, i.e. the listener always perceives a 3D image as long as his head is in the camera's view.
Arian Jansen, SonoruS audio, (a Dutchman) has been doing surround sound - all analog - playback via phase coherent 2 channel speakers for the last 2+ decades. I have many of his "remasters" as do many others who can purchase titles from him. He has been studying psycho-acoustics for decades and achieves all this without digital trickery, simply using information that's present in either stereo or multi-channel music / movies.
Don’t forget ViewMaster when discussing stereoscopic photography!
It’s been said that adding 2 speakers in series as rear speakers gives good spatial effects. I believe that the arrangement is named after its creator- David Hafler.
Originally discovered by Dr. Helmut Haas, Hafler took the "Haas Effect" and created the "DynaQuad" decoder. I hooked up a simple version with a third speaker and first listened to Led Zeppelin 2 with it (Whole Lotta Love) and it sounded like it circled the room! There are hookup instructions available on the web if anyone wants to try it with a third speaker (just use a speaker with a similar tonal balance - otherwise it stands out too much).
Yes I did that in the eighties............the speakers are wired in series on the difference signal of the stereo..........namely the two POS outputs........
And than the tanks rolled over you trought the room on the movie The batlle of the Ardennes..hahaha. it was real fun !
I’ve always wanted to setup a 2ch, 4 speaker system, all speakers in front as per regular hifi setup. 2 regularly to narrow-ish spaced apart, 2 very wide apart. Wide pair either playing louder to match the same level as the narrow pair at the listening position, or equal/quieter to dissapear behind the louder closer pair and offer only a controlled sense of spatial width.
@@jimcoope7194 Yeah I used speaker with same kind of units....
@@jimcoope7194 I stand corrected.
That thoughtful man is there at Princeton for a reason while I am not. That explains why I did not understand everything of what he said.
Great interview Steve ! Thanks! 😊
At your suggestion I recently bought a Casey Abrams ( Chesky) lp that was recorded with binaural head and all I can say is WOW !!
Wow, very interesting .
Interesting information. If software is used it must only be useful for streaming. Is this correct? The hardware must be after the DAC or can it be in the analog path?
You can use any source. I uses turntable and a universal optical disc player
Nice that you can get this 3d effect from just 2 stereo speakers as opposed to atmos where you need fronts, rears and upwards facing or ceiling speakers.
You can hear the 3d effects of binaural recordings without using headphones.
Atmos does not give you 3D sound. It gives you surround and some wierd sense of height but no real sense of depth.
@@scottwheeler2679 I'm no expert but I wouldn't be surprised if that sense of depth that is missing is already theoretically possible to reproduce. There have been many innovations that were thought to be impossible right up until the product finally came to the mass market.
@@richardwestmoreland4796 it may be possible. But it isn't there now.
Sweet Basil was a nice jazz club
Would be nice to see the price come down on this so he can better penetrate the market with this software product. In would think it would reach a lot more audiophiles if it were price at $2-3 K. Would probably make more money as well. As it stands now it's a niche of a niche product. It has not been reviewed in any formal sense to see exactly what it's doing. Just some testimonials from a handful of folks, and a $6k price tag.
I've been an audiophile for over 45 years and bought a lot of things, but given where this product stands (been on the market for 5 years now and almost no one has it, and it's been thinly reviewed by puff piece reviewers) I would definitely hesitate to bite on this, though it's promise is indeed seductive.
I'm persuadable, but I definitely would need a lot more to go on than something like this interview.
Where are all the marketing Guru's when you need them?....lol.
This is a welcome development. I can understand how this technology will work with new recordings that make use of it but I can't grasp how it will work with all previous recordings with 2 to more than a dozen mics used. How can the software sift which mic is which?
I look forward to more reviews of this system but it conceptually makes sense. The last bit I'd like to put out is a lot of old recordings in the 50s and 60s remain unbeatable in terms of presence and natural tonality. This is because studios were using all tube gear including the mic! And they weren't even catering to audiophiles back then, just sound engineering.
There's more to the physics of sound than we understand.
Wow I'm one of the lucky to be in the first few hours
Very informative
Fascinating interview. My simple mind however wonders how this tech can assemble a 3D image from recordings that preceded and didn’t use a similar tech during recording. Wouldn’t you need the recording and playback to utilize the tech for the desired result?
I was rather ignorant of the sound of depth in 2 channel sound due to the limitations of most systems. One day I was playing around with a Fisher tube integrated and some smaller speakers and was amazed that these seemed to extract space and depth from discs I was listening to. Could hear stuff in a space deeper than the normal stereo image and also sort of beyond the speakers. But I also found that this speaker amp combo was not ideal for stuff like most rock music. But I still have that amp and need a place to reassemble this second system so I can experiment more. Why it is spacially better than my solid state stuff I don't know. Tube magic?
I have a saying. Magic is just science you don’t yet understand. Remember, audio systems don’t have imaging or soundstage, and your ears can’t do anything apart from vibrate along with the air inside them. Your brain does all of that fancy stuff. Your brains job is to take information from your sensory inputs and create a comprehensible map of reality that your conscious mind can use to make sense of your environment. Too much information, it will filter some out. Not enough information, it will make some up to fill the gaps. With stereo imaging and soundstage, all you are doing is feeding your brain information that leads it to falsely assume that there must be people playing musical instruments in various locations around the room. The visual cortex is used to help “see” where the sound is coming from. If you distort or change this information in any way, your brain will come to a slightly different conclusion about what is happening around you. I can only assume that tube amplifiers distort the audio information by adding artifacts that just so happen to be interpreted by our brain as natural acoustic effects we are already familiar with and find innoffensive or even comforting, while at the same time, avoiding the addition of any distortions that we might interpret as being un-natural, ie, not making sense to our brains, or causing our brains to work hard to make sense of what we are hearing.
Heard a fisher tube integrated at the jass record mart in chicago- incredible looked like something you’d buy at a garage sale
Until mankind has a better understanding of how the human brain works a complete knowledge base of spatial audio will be very hard to achieve except for perhaps the brightest of the bright minds. An "Einstein" in spatial audio is probably out there somewhere that has already come up with the theoretical answers but big business hasn't yet figured out how to apply that theory in combination with sound marketing practices. Thus us lesser Einsteins have to wait for the full package.
wow
Was wondering what all this wonderful tech costs in the real world! Why not even mentioned?
You'd be spending from few thousands to tens of thousands for sure, no less.
Didn't Smyth Research already build something like this for the A8 Realiser? It also measured the HRTF of your head/ears. I crowdfunded the A16 16 channel version.. still waiting for it :(
Realizer is ultimately just speaker virtualization for headphones, albeit a very good one. BACCH is designed firstly for speakers and Choeuri and myself would agree that a pair of properly setup high-performance loudspeakers in a good room with BACCH is the definitive way to listen to stereo. BACCH's headphone module I haven't tried but I believe Theoretica will claim it is better as it is simulating BACCHed loudspeakers rather than ones with crosstalk.
How is this different from Qsound? Can this be used on CDs/vinyl that already exists? Qsound is utilized during the mixing and mastering process. BTW, the patents on Qsound have expired.
So Steve, what do you really think? Is something like BACCH the future of audiophile recordings and listening? How does it compare to some of the other attempts people mention in the comments?
What do I think? I am a stereo person, but many viewers are interested in surround for music. That’s why I did this interview, and Edgar is so passionate about his work.
How does this technology work
with someone with industrial hearing loss
Is it possible to program the frequencies that you are unable to hear into this hardware?
What are the ESLs that were briefly shown - DIY?
Sanders
As a counterpoint, a segment on mono would be interesting. This is great. I wish the interview was longer and more detailed.
I have listened to mono recordings through the BACCH4Mac. Can't say it made much of a difference. but one thing the BACCH4Mac does that has nothing to do with spacial perception is it also reduces comb filtering. So you get the same sound even when you move your head. I think that is even noticable on mono recordings
Not much to say, BACCH won't have any positive effect on mono, best to press the bypass button if it sounds weird to you.
Interesting. And it works in that echoey room?? I wouldn't feel comfortable in a room that reverberant let alone for music production...
🎶🤔🎶
The room it is used in definitely needs to control reflections
OMG this was basically a desert island disc situation and the kid had only the meanest hard-bop, the ensemble was led by an addict, & the session was recorded by Rudy van Gelder - correct?
Where can I here some samples?
Steve.
Streaming and Recording question.
Why hasn't some streaming company put this 3D effect in series with its streaming signal output to give customers a $6000 improvement for "free."?
Would that not always sound better to the end users out there?
Is there a fold-down problem going to mono or something?
I haven't used it so I'm curious.
Why NOT apply the process during streaming instead of over at the user's house?
Why does this even NEED to be applied by the end user?
Why not use it on the program material before sending it out to the end user?
actually he mentioned it does head transfer positioning.
Which HAS to be customized to the individual head.
Which makes this idea a lot like binaural headphones.
Limited at this point.
Q Sound?
Hey Steve, I watched this back when you posted it and was truly amazed and super curious. At some point I’ll see if I can acquire some of the Professor’s gizmos. Meanwhile, I’ve been lamenting the sound of all my Surround discs through our AVR amps. Since starting my Audiophile upgrade journey a year ago, the AVR gear has been showing its true mediocracy. I’ve rewatched your SACD/DVD/Surround video from 5 months ago a couple time, and while stereo Hi-Res stuff sounds great (at least the discs I have do) I’m really wanting hi quality surround sound maybe it’s time to revisit the whole topic and review the current crop of multi-channel amps and receivers?
I think that's the technology that Polk Audio uses in their Legend 800 series speakers.
Polk Audio uses passive crosstalk cancellation. It can achieve moderate levels (5-10 dB max) of crosstalk cancellation. BACCH is a very different animal. It is 64-bit DSP that uses custom FIR filters (obtained on acoustic measurements of the transfer function between the loudspeakers and the individual listener's head) to yield maximum crosstalk cancelation levels (10-20 dB). It also uses head tracking via a webcam or IR camera to adjust the DSP in real time so that the listener can move his/her head freely and still perceive a 3D image. The basic theory behind BACCH is published and can be seen in detail in Chapter 5 of a standard textbook “Immersive Sound” (Edited by Agnieszka Roginska and Paul Geluso. Published by the Audio Engineering Society)
It's the same idea. Not the same technology
We have Spatial 3d audio and Spatial audio speakers ?
Isn't that pretty much what Matt Polk did with his SDA speakers and ideas? And was he not one of the only ones doing that decades ago? Now being revisited by top tier Polk speakers and soundbars?
Uhh not exactly. Cross cancellation is only one of many things addressed here. Like Mathew Polk, Bob Carver also addressed cross cancellation back in the day, albeit electronically. I recall in the 70s someone setup a room divider that went from between the speakers up to the face of the seated listener to address the same thing. A dedicated Audiophile to be sure! Lol
The SDA is performing crosstalk cancellation acoustically with multiple drivers. This results in a very small sweetspot and there is no HRTF compensation for binaural recordings.
Hilarious! Of course the university encourages commercialization because they own the patents.
This is in essence the same concept as Bob Carver's Sonic Holography. cancelling out crosstalk signals to each ear using a signal generator (called Sonic Holography generator.) I'm sure Bob Carver's patent has expired otherwise this product could not be released with Bob's ok. This product is of course more flexible as it is in the digital domain, wheras Bob's solution I believe was all done in the analogue domain. Sonic Holography produced the same results, ir better image specificity, more dimensional soundstage etc. Eliminating the crosstalk distortion is the key. I think most people did not get to hear the full benefit, because to work to full effect required the left and right speakers to be placed much closer together, about 4-6 ft If memory serves. What this man has done is to take Bob's concept and develop it as a primarily digital control product. 6k for this software is pretty barmy unless you have oodles of didposable income.
what speaker is he using? is that an electrostat?
Sanders
Just ONE album. This poor guy…
My Bose 301 IIs achieve 3D sound on their own.
Listening to earphones and thinking neighbours will show up? Or I misheard something
Hey Edgar do you remember me Sami Debs we grew up together back home!
Yes I want to be able to distinguish the spaciousness of each instrument and player exactly the same as it was in the recordings down to the inch.. idk this just seems kinda silly like when is enough enough of when does it go to far. I’m just being rude don’t pay any attention to me. I bet it’s cool to be able to notice appreciate afford and have the experience and want to strive for something like
This.
I just want to enjoy my music, man. If you want 100% realism, go to a bloody concert I say. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper! Haha
Where is Hendrix playing?
So, just to get this straight, those that swear by the superiority of analog, are going to employ a digital filter to improve their listening experience?
That would be me. And yes
@@scottwheeler2679 Thanks for responding to my tongue in cheek, question. But transforming Peter Goldmark's, electro-mechanical, medium, the LP, which was never meant for the, "Hi Fi", community, but for a mass market, lo fi, end user, with its inherent restricted dynamic range, surface noise, high distortion, short lifespan, into digital, defeats the assertion that analog is superior; does it not? But have fun, with your system, cause that is what this hobby is all about. BTW, my own experience and disappointment with the record, is the terrible performance of the aforementioned medium. As a kid, my Father would receive prerecorded open reel tapes though the mail, to be played back on a tube based, Ferrograph Reel Deck, and we were relegated to records. The difference in quality was readily apparent. My own TT is a Revox B 790, where I archived my albums onto RR tape. My experience with the Canadian, Audio Note Kit Dac's has altered my opinion on digital over the years, in favor of the least compromised reconstruction of bits into notes. Peace.
@@scottwolf8633 actually using a digital based playback system does not defeat the assertion of "analog" superiority. Digital is more accurate but IMO vinyl is superior. Superiority is a subjective quality. Even when measured objectively it still requires the subjective choice of the standard by which things are measured. IMO vinyl is "superior" based on subjective listening evaluations. It is superior because I like the sound better. It'snot more accurate. Equating accuracy with superiority is still a subjective choice of reference. Now beyond that I think your characterization of vinyl as a medium is inaccurate. Short life span? There has been a real crisis in lost digital data over the years. That has been a real "life span" issue. Digital has been the medium with a questionable life span. I have records from the early 50s that play beautifully. It does not have a short life span at all. My record collection will long out live me. "High distortion?" nah. High distortion would be loudspeakers and listening rooms. Vinyl playback, when designed to be as accurate as possible is remarkably accurate. As accurate as digital? No. Of course not. but still remarkably accurate. In fact, more accurate than I actually want! My favorite vinyl playback gear is not the most accurate there is. Limited dynamic range? Yeah...but not really. Not for practical purposes. Very very few commercial recordings exceed the dynamic range of vinyl. And the very very few that do? Well, we have digital for them. Surface noise? yeah, it's there. IMO one has to have a bug up their ass about vinyl for that to be a deal breaker. it's inaudible when the music is playing with the rare exceptions of when the music is very low level. You get a lot more noise at a live concert. And isn't that supposed to be the audiophile gold standard? So yes, some of us who subjectively prefer the sound of vinyl playback can also employ this digital filter as well as other digital technology. I even use tube simulation DSP to further flavor the sound. It works really well. I can assure you, as low fi as vinyl is, you might be quite surprised which one you like better in a side by side blind comparison against an audibly undistorted digital flat transfer from the original master tape. And until you have done the comparisons blind you don't really know. Some of us vinylphiles do know what is what.
@@scottwheeler2679 You have brought up many points, which I will attempt to address, from my own experience and learning process.
First, Our hearing system is extremely fallible and easily fooled, and certainly not an analog method of translating external Sound into perception. I grew up with a Steinway, Baby Grand and valve based home sound system. Took and aced a year of music theory at University, to improve my GPA in a Math/CS program. Still play a left handed Strat. Been to numerous concerts, both amplified and unamplified. Been to numerous CES shows, also, when they were relevant, too. I have never heard a commercial, home, system reproduce an event where I believed I was at a live event.
The vestibular system and auditory system share the same mechanoreceptors and pathway into the Brain, via Cranial Nerve 8. Learned how fallible the vestibular system is at NAS Whiting while in Primary, Flight School and flying," Under the bag", to train for IFR conditions. Where, under an opaque covering, all cockpit external, visual stimuli, are prevented and Instruments, mostly, attitude gyro, compass, and altimeter are life. Can't even remember how many Times I would swear I was straight and level when the gyro would yield input, completely different, from perception. So much for accuracy/subjectivity. The same fallibility is built into the auditory system. But, does that mean our home systems can't get Us rockin. Nope, just that the source, amplification, transducers have not yet presented a true facsimile of the original event. We are fooled, really well fooled, and I for one, dig it.
As a teenager I wore out many records, playing them over and over, using a Dual 1228 with an AT 14S Shibata stylus. Trying to learn the notes of Ritchie Blackmore, Frank Zappa, and Jimmy Paige. That is what I consider a short lifespan compared to reading the pits and lands of a CD with a LASER.
The distortion I mention, inner groove distortion, and to some extent the euphonic, tape saturation, which Nelson Pass has a kit to replicate said tape saturation distortion, should one feel the need, not to mention the issues of cutting an acetate and the amplification used in doing so.
My albums, and I love the music on them, date from the late 60's to early 80's. The last album I bought, Frank Zappa's, Shut up and play yer guitar, triple album.
"Practical"? So who is the arbiter of," Practical"? We were lucky to obtain a dynamic range of 55 db, due to the limitations of the recording media, and aforementioned cutting the microgrooves into the acetate/stamping process. I remember the record executives bragging, 30 seconds was the amount of Time to press the molten PVC, to maximize profits. It was never long enough. Not to mention how many Times I had to return an album because the stamper had worn out and the record company kept on pressing out records for maximized profits. Tales from Topographical Oceans, by Yes, 7 Times returned it, until I said F it and kept the terribly poor pressing. Same for the Kinks albums I needed to get through life in the 70's.
Listen to music at ,"Low level", ? That is a deal breaker. So surface noise, especially on brand new albums I transcribed onto RR tape is annoying as hades. I've seen many, many, Bands and Orchestras, and if One is attempting to employ the ,"Gold standard", then crank it up! I don't have any arthropods up my backside, but the loud THWACK on the ELP album, the reverse side of Luckyman, really bums me out. And the CD version, edited out the incredible Bass energy, so I'm stuck with that amplifier stressing, non-musical, information, overload.
I listen through Valve, OTL amplifiers, and I sincerely and humbly state NO simulator, digital or otherwise can replicate their truly different," Sound". Cathode to speaker connected, 60 watts into 16 ohms, with a THD of .25% and power bandwidth of 5Hz to 60Khz, sans the limitations of the output transformer is a revelatory experience. If you can, audition a pair of monobloc OTL's. But that is just mine and many others' ,"Subjective", perception. Add to that R2R DAC Topology operating on what was actually recorded VS. Delta-Sigma algorithms, guessing at was recorded, Resistor/Transformer/Resistor, I/V conversion, NO active op amp filtering and Class A valve, output, is quite a different approach than any other manufacturer I have found.
To mask bias, a listening experience should be double blind. You know, the kind of test the cable manufacturers never perform. Thanks for the exchange of ideas, and discussion. Each Individual's pathway to musical joy, makes our hobby, the best.
@@scottwolf8633 "Practical"? So who is the arbiter of," Practical"? We are all our own arbitrators. "We were lucky to obtain a dynamic range of 55 db, due to the limitations of the recording media, and aforementioned cutting the microgrooves into the acetate/stamping process." Actually when measured the SNR of vinyl comes in around 73 db and this is a very deceptive number since it is an average which includes the very low SNR of the narrow band where groove noise resides. Throughout the rest of frequency spectrum the SNR is in the mid 80s. And our ability to hear through that noise floor is very strong because of the narrow spectrum of the noise and how that affects masking. You will be pretty hard pressed to find many commercial recordings that exceed that dynamic range.
"Listen to music at ,"Low level", ? That is a deal breaker." That is a personal preference. Preferences are inarguable. "So surface noise, especially on brand new albums I transcribed onto RR tape is annoying as hades. I've seen many, many, Bands and Orchestras, and if One is attempting to employ the ,"Gold standard", then crank it up!" If we are talking orchestras/live acoustic music then the ambient noise of the live event is more substantial than a well made vinyl record. "I don't have any arthropods up my backside, but the loud THWACK on the ELP album, the reverse side of Luckyman, really bums me out." Loud thwacks are not inherent groove noise. that's a pop or a tick and easily removed with DSP. "And the CD version, edited out the incredible Bass energy, so I'm stuck with that amplifier stressing, non-musical, information, overload." And there in lies one of the many the values of the current state of the art of digital. You can EQ that CD and you can de-click that LP.
"I listen through Valve, OTL amplifiers, and I sincerely and humbly state NO simulator, digital or otherwise can replicate their truly different," Sound". Cathode to speaker connected, 60 watts into 16 ohms, with a THD of .25% and power bandwidth of 5Hz to 60Khz, sans the limitations of the output transformer is a revelatory experience." You state this based on experience with tube DSP? Side by side blind comparisons? Or is it just a hunch? I have been assured by one of the worlds formost experts on the subject that it is really easy to write an algorithem for the transfer function of any tube component. That's way over my head so I am taking his word for it. I will say though that my tube DSPs are no joke and unlike a real tube amp or preamp the DSP is fully adjustable. "If you can, audition a pair of monobloc OTL's." Oh I have, numerous times.
"To mask bias, a listening experience should be double blind. You know, the kind of test the cable manufacturers never perform. Thanks for the exchange of ideas, and discussion. Each Individual's pathway to musical joy, makes our hobby, the best." Double blind is the gold standard. As hobbyists we can usually get away with single blind if care is taken. But yes.Bias controls are essential. either way it does seem we both have some taste for euphonic colorations and an understanding of their nature and aesthetic value.
So Steve, what do you really feel? ...
Now tell him that you have only two ears!
My Bose auto stereo has an AMBIENCE option or feature that really adds dimension and space .
I heard the processor demonstrated by the Professor at AXPONA in April via the Janszen Active speakers, which I once owned and used in my present listening room. I sat in several spots, including the optimum one. The effect is VERY strong on Chesky CDs recorded binaurally. It was disastrous on Reference Recordings Rutter Requiem, detrimental on three-omni-mike recordings like Telarc, so-so on other discs. The professor refused to demo it with other Chesky discs which he did not have a part in recording. Generally, I'd say that on programs the professor says benefit most from the proccess--the Chesky binaural series he was involved in--the subjective result is more surreal/funhouse than real. One NEVER hears the kind of spatial effects live that this system extracts from Chesky Binaural recordings.
The speakers shown in the video are probably Sanders hybrid electrostatics, but they look very odd. The woofer grill covers are off and turned backwards/inside out. The panel has something right behind it besides the curtains. I have these speakers in my room with the back wave heavily damped. Believe me, in my room, as I have them set up and heard from the nearfield, these speakers don't need any help in the staging/imaging department.
While the "box" hardware is very expensive, if you already have a Mac computer, the BACCH$mac software for Mac computers is "only" $6,000 or so.
I've used several crosstalk cancellation systems in the past and always eventually abandoned them due to (1) the tonal colorations they necessarily introduced and (2) the "phasey" tugging at your ears effect they also produced. Where BACCH excels is providing the spatial effects of crosstalk cancellation totally without these problems. However, BACCH's downsides are $$$ and the quite variable results from recording to recording, where the recordings the designer deems "best" produce such strong effects that no one could honestly say the effects are realistic.
Dear Mr. Wolf, Apologies for addressing you, by mistake, as "Mr. Gordon".
My experience has been the polar opposite of yours. With my RR recordings the effect is a remarkably accurate simulation of a live classical concert with a life like sound stage and concert hall sound. I also have the Sanders 10 Es and IMO they are a match made in heaven and the Sanders benefit enormously from the BACCH4Mac. Not going to say my experience is any more valid than yours. But quite different to be sure
@@scottwheeler2679 I've listened to all manner of concocted stereo recordings and all of them sound more pleasing and accurate to my ears with BACCH. Expecting lifelike realism from stereo is silly to begin with when a stereo mix is more akin to an exaggerated collage than a capture of an acoustic space.
My experience as well with all kinds of different stereo mixes. But I found the minimalist recordings to be far more life like than I ever thought possible with stereo playback.
How could you say the results are inconsistent if the dsp is timing the signals to your left and right ears…? I would imagine it’s the source and recordings that are inconsistent, because there are infinite ways that a recording engineer can do their job for the final product.
get a bob carver c9 makes some recordings amazing. also destroys others.
Interaural crosstalk cancellation was the basis for Carvers Sonic Holography preamp. You can pick one up for a few hundred bucks on eBay. Nothing new here.
Indeed, Crosstalk cancellation (XTC) has been around since the early 1960's. Prof. Choueiri clearly acknowledges that in the video. Carver is an old and rudimentary implementation of XTC using simple the "invert and add" signal mixing in the analog domain. It can achieve moderate XTC level of no more than about 7 dB. BACCH is very different in many respects. It is 64-bit DSP that relies on a powerful CPU convolving custom FIR filters (obtained on acoustic measurements of the transfer function between the loudspeakers and the individual listener's head) to yield maximum crosstalk cancelation levels as high as 20 dB (which is more than humans need to locate sound accurately in 3D space). A very important difference between BACCH and all previous XTC implementation is that BACCH has zero tonal coloration (spectral distortion), That aspect of BACCH is patented worldwide by Princeton University. It also uses head tracking via a webcam or IR camera to adjust the DSP in real time so that the listener can move his/her head freely and still perceive a 3D image. The basic theory behind BACCH is published and can be seen in detail in Chapter 5 of a standard textbook “Immersive Sound” (Edited by Agnieszka Roginska and Paul Geluso. Published by the Audio Engineering Society). While the Carver C9, despite its well-known tonal coloration, low XTC level, and tight sweet spot, was indeed a wonderful innovation for its time, BACCH is the DSP-powered, coloration-free, head-tracked, and high-XTC-level 3D audio processor for today's audiophiles. Apologies for the long reply but I hope that it makes the difference clear.
I will amend my response slightly. There is nothing fundamentally new here.
Dear Sir, While you may wish not to count solving the problem of tonal distortion in crosstalk cancellation (XTC) -- a problem that had remained unsolved since the invention of XTC circa 1964 -- “fundamentally new”, the patent offices of the US, EU, Japan, China and Taiwan did (e.g. Google patents for “Spectrally Uncolored Optimal Crosstalk Cancellation” ), so did the many research universities that use the textbook (which I referenced in my previous reply) in their spatial audio courses, where the BACCH solution for spectrally uncolored XTC is expounded in all its mathematical details. (Presumably, you had not had the chance to examine the published fundamental solution to XTC spectral coloration, and we will be happy to send you the material of that book chapter if you contact us directly). Without that fundamental mathematical solution it is very doubtful that XTC, with its pronounced tonal and phase distortion issues would be accepted by audiophiles, lauded by audio critics, and given audio industry awards.
3D ….riiight…..
Most people haven’t set the speakers to the correct positioning to get current decent soundstage and imaging..ffs 🤦♂️
Steve are you now convinced to advice to use DSP as a possible solution for roommodes.
No
@SteveGuttenberg you got a scammer on the channel
Yes, I know! I’m trying to get rid of this guy for the year. Any suggestions?
If his sound was always just trapped between 2 speakers, he ha never set up his speakers properly. No depth, height, sound that extends beyond the left and right confines of the cabinets? Really an audiophile? Also, I don’t want surround sound when I listen. Every performance I’ve ever been to has the artists i front of me. As far as crosstalk management, this has been around from Carver and Polk (and others?) since the early 80’s, and for very little $.
You don't listen very well, do you? This will not produce the effect of artists playing behind you. It will just widen the soundstage and restore the sense of spatial realism. In essence, your room disappears and replaced by the recorded space.
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt You din’t read very well do you? Go back and reread the first half of my post about speaker set up.
@@36karpatoruski You should reread what you wrote in it's entirety. I have a genius I.Q. and have no problems with comprehension. By the way don't is spelled this way. Cheers!
I enjoyed Bob Carver’s sonic holography in its day; and as I recall, it tended to emphasize the bass. This processing claims to have no tonal alteration to the original signal. For the last decade or so, I have had the controversial bsg technologies qol in my system which also employs some aural crosstalk cancellation. It makes most recordings sound more live to me.
My advice. Just demo it. Then decide for yourself. It isn’t surround sound.
Interesting but $34.500 for the processor. No thanks.
BACCH4Mac Intro sells for $980.
A very disappointing interview, Steve. The most basic question wasn't asked. And this question is: Why isn't there a licensed consumer product that is sold for $2000 and less by an audio company like NAD for example? Why is it that after 11 years ongoing is this still a niche product that sells for $20,000 and more? What's the excuse for this kind of nonsense?
There is. For some time now Theoretica offers a version of the BACCH4Mac package at below $1000 that is popular with computer audiophiles.
@@adamtheoretica9758 Thanks, Adam. That’s a more reasonable proposition, though still very expensive for such a severely crippled software solution. This should have been discussed in the interview, and the question should have been posed: Why are these products including the severely gimped and non-gimped software so damn expensive? Where’s the business sense in such outrageous nonsense?
The one on one tech support alone is worth more than 1K. Not sure if you are considering the hours of research and the overhead costs of creating this DSP. The people doing the work deserve to get paid for it
@@scottwheeler2679 Oh stop it already. Stop justifying this exorbitant nonsense. They did get paid for it, and were subsidized with our tax dollars. University faculty get sweet money, and sweet working conditions. Microsoft sells a whole damn Operating System for $100, and made trillions of dollars doing so. This nonsense of charging thousands of dollars for this software and thereby limiting it from of 99.9% of the potential costumer base is complete assbackwardness. It makes ZERO business sense, but tells us much about the swinish characters involved.
I think he means, the audio companies should pay the professor and team for their work, and we buy the products with the tech installed and user friendly. Instead of us paying the professor thousands for something that only dedicated audio nuts could figure out how to use let alone understand the concept in the first place