DCAudioDIY.com
http://dcaudiodiy.com/phpBB3/

Preliminary impressions of BACCH
http://dcaudiodiy.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2559
Page 1 of 2

Author:  tomp [ January 24th, 2026, 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Preliminary impressions of BACCH

After a relatively short time comparing the BACCH implementation and my normal stereo implementation I have come to the following conclusions. The best way to consider BACCH is not in the light of a system whose primary function is to increase stage width. Many of the demo pieces for BACCH are designed to place sound far to the left and right of the speakers. That’s great for demo purposes but doesn’t translate directly to music enjoyment. I just got back from listening to the Philadelphia Orchestra playing Pictures From An Exhibition. This orchestra is definitely first rate and the production was amazing. It reaffirms my feeling that no music reproduction system will ever totally match a live performance. My reasons for that conclusion is a subject for another discussion.

The best you can get with a playback system is what I call “a reasonable facsimile” of live. All of the fundamental parameters of the music including broad and flat frequency response, low distortion, wide dynamic range, good transient behavior and stage width and depth must be present for a somewhat believable result. The degree to which these are accomplished impact the reasonableness of the presentation of the music.

Beyond this is what I call “texture”. When listening in the concert hall, there is a great sense of the individual instruments and performers. Small details in the differences of the sounds of individual instruments and voices lend a sense of what the performers are trying to communicate, not just a bunch of musical notes. There is an overall sense of “air” that lets you know you are at a live performance. My article on the Danville Signal dspNexus 2/8 in the November and December 2025 issues of audioXpress noted some of the things that can destroy the sense of realism in playback systems.

The best thing about BACCH is that it does no damage to the important parameters of the music. It only eliminates artifacts of crosstalk that interfere with the sense of air and realism in the performance. If the original recording did not have a sense of air or width, it does not add any. I have been disappointed with many examples of surround sound and Atmos playbacks that, although creating a sense of immersion, damaged the sense of reality in the image. So at this point I am very satisfies of what BACCH accomplishes in regards to my requirements. There will be lots more after extended listening that I will put into an article for audioXpress.

Author:  SoundMods [ January 24th, 2026, 6:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

tomp wrote:
After a relatively short time comparing the BACCH implementation and my normal stereo implementation I have come to the following conclusions. The best way to consider BACCH is not in the light of a system whose primary function is to increase stage width. Many of the demo pieces for BACCH are designed to place sound far to the left and right of the speakers. That’s great for demo purposes but doesn’t translate directly to music enjoyment. I just got back from listening to the Philadelphia Orchestra playing Pictures From An Exhibition. This orchestra is definitely first rate and the production was amazing. It reaffirms my feeling that no music reproduction system will ever totally match a live performance. My reasons for that conclusion is a subject for another discussion.

The best you can get with a playback system is what I call “a reasonable facsimile” of live. All of the fundamental parameters of the music including broad and flat frequency response, low distortion, wide dynamic range, good transient behavior and stage width and depth must be present for a somewhat believable result. The degree to which these are accomplished impact the reasonableness of the presentation of the music.

Beyond this is what I call “texture”. When listening in the concert hall, there is a great sense of the individual instruments and performers. Small details in the differences of the sounds of individual instruments and voices lend a sense of what the performers are trying to communicate, not just a bunch of musical notes. There is an overall sense of “air” that lets you know you are at a live performance. My article on the Danville Signal dspNexus 2/8 in the November and December 2025 issues of audioXpress noted some of the things that can destroy the sense of realism in playback systems.

The best thing about BACCH is that it does no damage to the important parameters of the music. It only eliminates artifacts of crosstalk that interfere with the sense of air and realism in the performance. If the original recording did not have a sense of air or width, it does not add any. I have been disappointed with many examples of surround sound and Atmos playbacks that, although creating a sense of immersion, damaged the sense of reality in the image. So at this point I am very satisfies of what BACCH accomplishes in regards to my requirements. There will be lots more after extended listening that I will put into an article for audioXpress.

To add to Tom's findings -- During my past audio endeavors I recorded live events as an extension of the hobby. Small Jazz groups -- chorus -- large orchestra -- and Baroque groups. Being there in person, right behind the microphones, I never experienced the exaggerated effects that the BACCH system creates. Actually -- based on my experience with he BACCH system I felt it put me on the stage sitting among the musicians performing. That can be fun, but is worth $$$ thousands? As anal as I am about sound reproduction it is not for me. Not recommended.

Author:  tomp [ January 24th, 2026, 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

Attachment:
Dr. Chesky's recording microphone techniques.pdf [85.28 KiB]
Downloaded 2 times
Walt:

I think you missed part of what I said. If the original recording did not have extended width, BACCH does not add it. The only way you would feel like your are sitting in the middle of the performers is if that was where the mics were. Edgar did have a classical recording where it sounded like I was on the conductor's podium. When I mentioned that to him he said that was where the mics were placed. I have listened to many classical recordings with BACCH, and none placed me in with the musicians. If you want to see how the microphone choices and placement affect the spatial characteristics of a recording, this is a great resource.

Author:  SoundMods [ January 25th, 2026, 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

tomp wrote:
Attachment:
Dr. Chesky's recording microphone techniques.pdf
Walt:

I think you missed part of what I said. If the original recording did not have extended width, BACCH does not add it. The only way you would feel like your are sitting in the middle of the performers is if that was where the mics were. Edgar did have a classical recording where it sounded like I was on the conductor's podium. When I mentioned that to him he said that was where the mics were placed. I have listened to many classical recordings with BACCH, and none placed me in with the musicians. If you want to see how the microphone choices and placement affect the spatial characteristics of a recording, this is a great resource.

I didn't misunderstand one word. The BACCH system is a "fun toy" but that they market it as a better method of playback is a joke. Like I commented before, I've been there with the microphones, whether I used a stereo pair or multiple microphones, I never experienced in real life what the BACCH system proposes. The esperience that I captured on site is what I heard in the playback after the fact.

Author:  tomp [ January 25th, 2026, 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

Contrary to your uninformed statement, BACCH is not a fun toy. You should come hear it at my house before you make statements that are incorrect. Every reviewer that has heard it has commented that it increases the sense of realism without introducing gimmicks or damaging the underlying sounds. That includes people like Tom Martin and Andrew Quint of The Absolute sound. BTW, as far as cost, there are various ways to get into the BACCH system that range from less than $2K to around $40K if you go for the top of the line hardware that does far more than BACCH.

Author:  SoundMods [ January 25th, 2026, 12:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

tomp wrote:
Contrary to your uninformed statement, BACCH is not a fun toy. You should come hear it at my house before you make statements that are incorrect. Every reviewer that has heard it has commented that it increases the sense of realism without introducing gimmicks or damaging the underlying sounds. That includes people like Tom Martin and Andrew Quint of The Absolute sound. BTW, as far as cost, there are various ways to get into the BACCH system that range from less than $2K to around $40K if you go for the top of the line hardware that does far more than BACCH.

Then -- if it's not a fun toy -- why did you even buy one in the first place? I stand by my assessment. If any audiophile wishes to add special effects to their playback system - by all means go for it -- otherwise it is only an interesting plaything.

Author:  tomp [ January 25th, 2026, 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

I think you are still making the wrong assumption. The purpose of BACCH is not to introduce special effects, but rather eliminate many of the damaging effects of crosstalk that interfere with detail and air that you hear at a live performances. If you would like to get a very informed impression of BACCH, here are some links to look at. If you have an open mind you may get a different view.

https://youtu.be/o_uDzSKmXzk?si=VKtwk_FSd2CEu8_0

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articl ... -purifier/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r161zrg ... hW&index=6

Author:  Grover Gardner [ January 25th, 2026, 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

SoundMods wrote:
tomp wrote:
Contrary to your uninformed statement, BACCH is not a fun toy. You should come hear it at my house before you make statements that are incorrect. Every reviewer that has heard it has commented that it increases the sense of realism without introducing gimmicks or damaging the underlying sounds. That includes people like Tom Martin and Andrew Quint of The Absolute sound. BTW, as far as cost, there are various ways to get into the BACCH system that range from less than $2K to around $40K if you go for the top of the line hardware that does far more than BACCH.

Then -- if it's not a fun toy -- why did you even buy one in the first place? I stand by my assessment. If any audiophile wishes to add special effects to their playback system - by all means go for it -- otherwise it is only an interesting plaything.


That's what they said about stereo. And "talkies"...and radio...and airplanes...and automobiles... ;-)

Author:  Pelliott321 [ January 26th, 2026, 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

to each is own......
I never thought much of the BACCH demos at the audio shows which one would have to assume that vendors selling this tech knew how to set ip up and only play music that supposedly shows off this bit of kit.
I still believe that anything added to the production of music just takes away from the from the original intent of the artists or producers.
All this digital processing to me just adds noise and distortion that were not there in the original recording. Remember the great MQA promise that all just disappeared as people realized that there was nothing beneficial to all that processing. I think BACCH is just another way to get insecure audiophiles thinking if they just buy this thing they will get closer to an ideal that is not really there.
Just keep it simple and enjoy the music and stop jacking off to your system.

Author:  SoundMods [ January 26th, 2026, 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary impressions of BACCH

tomp wrote:
I think you are still making the wrong assumption. The purpose of BACCH is not to introduce special effects, but rather eliminate many of the damaging effects of crosstalk that interfere with detail and air that you hear at a live performances. If you would like to get a very informed impression of BACCH, here are some links to look at. If you have an open mind you may get a different view.

https://youtu.be/o_uDzSKmXzk?si=VKtwk_FSd2CEu8_0

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articl ... -purifier/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r161zrg ... hW&index=6

I sat through a very thorough demonstration of the BACCH. They set me up in the sweet spot -- calibrated the set-up to my seated position -- asked me some questions when setting it up -- then they performed the demo.

To be clear -- I did not make assumptions based on what I read about the kit. I experienced the use of the BACCH under controlled supervision.

Instead of a "GEE WHIZ" moment where I witnessed the audio playback "Holy Grail" -- I walked away from the experience very dissapointed. I found that the special effects exaggerated the playback experience to where it was distracting, and to add insult to injury, the extra electronic processing to produce those effects seemed to contaminate the possible inherent musicality of the source. It will not improve playback quality that is already mediocre -- if anything -- it can exacerbate and lay bare any issues that an audio system owner may already have with his/her system. It is interesting, but a well-sorted playback system "with the chops" will provide a superb experience without the added cost of this interesting gimmick.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/