This video is a great Illustration of when you have a person come into your room and say they didn't like what they heard, and immediately assume it's your equipment. When in fact it only demonstrates that we all hear things differently. The mistake here is we blame the equipment when nothing is really wrong at a high level we just hear things differently and it's about matching equipment to our preferences. Advanced DSP which this is is the answer in most cases to getting high end equipment to sound at its optimal best. We as Audiophiles just have to get our heads around it, to accept that this is technology working to improve things.
Thanks Jason, very clearly articulated the impact out ears have on how we perceive sound and the reasons why posting baseline measurements from reviewers is important. Can’t wait till my BACCH arrives.
Fascinating stuff. If I go to a concert, I hear the orchestra with my ears. If my ears cause a peak at 5kHz that is what I hear as normal. If I correct my room to remove my peak does it still sound 'natural'? Obviously it works since all your guests like it.
You are already used to that natural focus from your ear pinna, so this is just making you aware of differences between people versus anything you need to change yourself. It will explain why you may not prefer a flat responses or certain curves more than others, but what the graph shows still doesn't mean it's 100% what your eardrums get. It also doesn't factor in hearing loss which isn't measured by the mics. Thus, those peaks the graph show are more for informational purposes than anything you need to correct with an EQ. It's not something you want to EQ out of the signal 100% since you are already used to that extra focus and, as I mentioned, it's not exactly your what ear drum heard and doesn't factor in natural hearing loss. It just teaches you about another variable in listening and taking other people's advice that you need to factor into the equation.
@@AudiophileJunkie Thanks for the explanation. I had missed the point. I thought you measured and then DSP out the hills and valleys for each listener. If that were the case you would create a less natural sound as our brains spent a lifetime using those pinnae to hear the world. If I understand correctly, you measure this simply to be aware of your individual trait, not to correct it out.
Correct... With JR and myself, we applied a very tiny DSP correction in that area (about 1db), that we both preferred, but nothing that 100% tried to "correct" for ear pinna effects. You are already used to that "flavor", so your question was a good one and important for people to realize what I'm saying about it being more of an FYI variable you have to consider when listening to other's opinions.
Your in-ear measurement and deviation from the measured flat response was a serious eye-opener for me. I'm a firm enthousiast of REW and DSP, however, although I have a reasonable flat response in-room, I'm always tweaking within that 2-8 Kz region to get it to sound 'flat'. Apparently, the dip I create in DSP, would be flat when measured in-ear, lol. Good stuff AJ, thank you.
That's going to be too much for a RUclips comment reply, but I'll do videos in the future to help. You can get the basics with Wikipedia and dedicated RUclips videos on the subject.
@@AudiophileJunkie This all happens in the digital domain so my hope is the price will come down in the next 5 to 10 years, especially if it’s going to get implemented in the automobiles, it should trickle down….. hopefully
It's likely to go up in price before going down for the audiophile level products. Lots of features will be added as well as options too. However, there may be trickle down products by others that license the technology in a decade or so as you mentioned. Nothing I'm aware of in the near term though.
I mentioned the evolutionary effect of aging being a probable hypothesis for the ear pinna highlighting higher frequencies. However, the hearing loss from aging is typically in a higher range than what's shown.
You didn't ask that. You asked why you need a mac computer? I explained that's what the piece was designed for...not windows...hence the title of the product. There is no Windows version, but if there ever is a Windows version look for the title "Bacch4Windows". Mac does what he wants best right now and multi-platform operating systems would also require far more support coverage for a variety of scenarios and thus higher costs. The operating system means very little in this product because it's not meant to be a multi-purpose PC. You are only using the mac to run the software, so you don't have to learn Mac to use it.
Junkie, do you use the BACCH at concerts? If everyone has different hearing, then we need to flatten out the live music with our HRTF as well, right? NO! Your brain is your equalizer!
I think you're making primitive analogies without thinking it through. Are you talking about live acoustic music going straight from the instrument to your ears? If so, that the whole point of the Bacch... To duplicate that same result instead of listening to two speakers shout the material directly at your ear from different spots in the room. If you're talking about a live concert where you're listening to amplified music mixed and mastered to go through speaker arrays, then you are nowhere close to hearing high fidelity and not even the Bacch could help much in that scenario because it's not even practical and those venues are just spreading sound around the room. You aren't hearing anything close to "live" from the bleachers except from the concept of time of playing. It's 100x worse on any other high fidelity metric.
Concerts are the worst listening environments and totally inapplicable to recorded music. The Sphere uses measurements to do the best possible sound at each spot that may rival or beat what you hear at home. Even an orchestra live is totally inapplicable to where the mics on the recorded album are located. Watch my video with the 1.5m Acapellas where the owner discusses this succinctly. Thus a live concert is no benchmark to be concerned with in terms of considering whether you need Bacch or not... The Sphere is the most advanced venue and the closest thing to it because it DOES take measurements and approximate HRTF for people in each area of the arena.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is a great Illustration of when you have a person come into your room and say they didn't like what they heard, and immediately assume it's your equipment. When in fact it only demonstrates that we all hear things differently. The mistake here is we blame the equipment when nothing is really wrong at a high level we just hear things differently and it's about matching equipment to our preferences. Advanced DSP which this is is the answer in most cases to getting high end equipment to sound at its optimal best. We as Audiophiles just have to get our heads around it, to accept that this is technology working to improve things.
Thanks Jason, very clearly articulated the impact out ears have on how we perceive sound and the reasons why posting baseline measurements from reviewers is important. Can’t wait till my BACCH arrives.
You're going to have fun playing with it and, of course, listening to it.
Fascinating stuff. If I go to a concert, I hear the orchestra with my ears. If my ears cause a peak at 5kHz that is what I hear as normal. If I correct my room to remove my peak does it still sound 'natural'? Obviously it works since all your guests like it.
You are already used to that natural focus from your ear pinna, so this is just making you aware of differences between people versus anything you need to change yourself.
It will explain why you may not prefer a flat responses or certain curves more than others, but what the graph shows still doesn't mean it's 100% what your eardrums get.
It also doesn't factor in hearing loss which isn't measured by the mics. Thus, those peaks the graph show are more for informational purposes than anything you need to correct with an EQ.
It's not something you want to EQ out of the signal 100% since you are already used to that extra focus and, as I mentioned, it's not exactly your what ear drum heard and doesn't factor in natural hearing loss.
It just teaches you about another variable in listening and taking other people's advice that you need to factor into the equation.
@@AudiophileJunkie Thanks for the explanation. I had missed the point. I thought you measured and then DSP out the hills and valleys for each listener. If that were the case you would create a less natural sound as our brains spent a lifetime using those pinnae to hear the world. If I understand correctly, you measure this simply to be aware of your individual trait, not to correct it out.
Correct... With JR and myself, we applied a very tiny DSP correction in that area (about 1db), that we both preferred, but nothing that 100% tried to "correct" for ear pinna effects.
You are already used to that "flavor", so your question was a good one and important for people to realize what I'm saying about it being more of an FYI variable you have to consider when listening to other's opinions.
Your in-ear measurement and deviation from the measured flat response was a serious eye-opener for me. I'm a firm enthousiast of REW and DSP, however, although I have a reasonable flat response in-room, I'm always tweaking within that 2-8 Kz region to get it to sound 'flat'. Apparently, the dip I create in DSP, would be flat when measured in-ear, lol. Good stuff AJ, thank you.
Same hear... It explains somewhat why I liked certain curves and my hearing didn't seem to match up with single point measurements.
i understand what a frequency response is, but what's an impulse response?
That's going to be too much for a RUclips comment reply, but I'll do videos in the future to help. You can get the basics with Wikipedia and dedicated RUclips videos on the subject.
Many try to equalize the low frequency in left and right channels using test equipment. Not preferred. Ears will hear the difference.
What’s the MSRP on the DiO model?
Depending on options, you'll be around $20k
@@AudiophileJunkie ouch!
The Bacch4Mac is much cheaper...I have a website link in the description where you can see pricing... approx $6k
@@AudiophileJunkie
This all happens in the digital domain so my hope is the price will come down in the next 5 to 10 years, especially if it’s going to get implemented in the automobiles, it should trickle down….. hopefully
It's likely to go up in price before going down for the audiophile level products. Lots of features will be added as well as options too.
However, there may be trickle down products by others that license the technology in a decade or so as you mentioned. Nothing I'm aware of in the near term though.
I suspect it isn’t just a pinnacle effect. Those are typical boosts found in hearing aids to compensate for age related hearing loss.
I mentioned the evolutionary effect of aging being a probable hypothesis for the ear pinna highlighting higher frequencies.
However, the hearing loss from aging is typically in a higher range than what's shown.
What's up with the "for MAC" part? Why do you have to have a MAC computer to use this stuff?
It's combination software and hardware designed specifically for each other as one product. It's like asking why a solid state amp doesn't have tubes.
No, it's like asking why a MAC vs a Windows.
You didn't ask that. You asked why you need a mac computer? I explained that's what the piece was designed for...not windows...hence the title of the product. There is no Windows version, but if there ever is a Windows version look for the title "Bacch4Windows". Mac does what he wants best right now and multi-platform operating systems would also require far more support coverage for a variety of scenarios and thus higher costs. The operating system means very little in this product because it's not meant to be a multi-purpose PC. You are only using the mac to run the software, so you don't have to learn Mac to use it.
Jason, it's rude to talk Bacch ...
That's why I made it easy for you... Just listen and don't talk👂🙊
Junkie, do you use the BACCH at concerts? If everyone has different hearing, then we need to flatten out the live music with our HRTF as well, right? NO! Your brain is your equalizer!
I think you're making primitive analogies without thinking it through. Are you talking about live acoustic music going straight from the instrument to your ears? If so, that the whole point of the Bacch... To duplicate that same result instead of listening to two speakers shout the material directly at your ear from different spots in the room.
If you're talking about a live concert where you're listening to amplified music mixed and mastered to go through speaker arrays, then you are nowhere close to hearing high fidelity and not even the Bacch could help much in that scenario because it's not even practical and those venues are just spreading sound around the room. You aren't hearing anything close to "live" from the bleachers except from the concept of time of playing. It's 100x worse on any other high fidelity metric.
@@AudiophileJunkie Thanks for the response, but we are not communicating. Anxious to see the next one.
Concerts are the worst listening environments and totally inapplicable to recorded music. The Sphere uses measurements to do the best possible sound at each spot that may rival or beat what you hear at home.
Even an orchestra live is totally inapplicable to where the mics on the recorded album are located. Watch my video with the 1.5m Acapellas where the owner discusses this succinctly.
Thus a live concert is no benchmark to be concerned with in terms of considering whether you need Bacch or not... The Sphere is the most advanced venue and the closest thing to it because it DOES take measurements and approximate HRTF for people in each area of the arena.