PS Audio - Surround Sound not more popular with Audiophiles?

[mercury]

I’d love to have a chance to listen to a Bacch 3D system. Perhaps someday I’ll have $7,000 in discretionary spending to purchase such a system. Of course, Bacch 3D is based on measuring a personalized HTRF, plus it does have a rather limited sweet spot(unless immediately behind the person in the sweet spot). It is built on a foundation of stereo and it has little to nothing in common with a 5.1 or Dolby Atmos mix. In fact, surround mixes need not apply. Mind you, this is not a criticism; it just works off of a different paradigm. And the perceived soundstage is a product of the stereo mix. As I’ve said, I don’t have any direct experience with Bacch 3D but I would expect that listening to a live recording of, say, a five piece band would be absolute heaven.

With Bacch4mac there is a 180 degree soundstage and the effects for me are more natural, more organic, the value for me is in review my music catalog in a new way, I know is not cheap and as you mention there’s a narrow sweet point (in most scenarios I listen my music alone) but with stratospheric prices of many parts of the chain this for me adds more value than some snake oil things, in fact I change a mark levinson for a fosi amp and I don’t miss it, regards!

 

[par4ken]

Bacch4mac is one of the most revealing solution for listen stereo recording with convincing surround effects, I have also the realiser and a dolby atmos setup, but bacch4mac give me more to think about the recordings, the spatial cues are in the stereo recordings but due the crosstalk cancellation it’s not easy to listen on conventional stereo setups, give it a try!

I’d love to have a chance to listen to a Bacch 3D system. Perhaps someday I’ll have $7,000 in discretionary spending to purchase such a system. Of course, Bacch 3D is based on measuring a personalized HTRF, plus it does have a rather limited sweet spot(unless immediately behind the person in the sweet spot). It is built on a foundation of stereo and it has little to nothing in common with a 5.1 or Dolby Atmos mix. In fact, surround mixes need not apply. Mind you, this is not a criticism; it just works off of a different paradigm. And the perceived soundstage is a product of the stereo mix. As I’ve said, I don’t have any direct experience with Bacch 3D but I would expect that listening to a live recording of, say, a five piece band would be absolute heaven.

This sounds rather interesting however I can't help but think that it is yet just another version of "Sonic Holography" or "Q-sound". I don't think that any two speaker solution is a match for "real" multi-channel audio. On the other hand might it not have a usefulness in the studio to create mixes with the effect built in, even if not exactly optimised for all users?

The high price tag will certainly put most people off. With regular stereo and multichannel audio there is a so called "sweet spot" for sure but it is not all that critical. I listen to quad outside of the "sweet spot" often and enjoy it just about as well!

 

[esimms86]

With Bacch4mac there is a 180 degree soundstage and the effects for me are more natural, more organic, the value for me is in review my music catalog in a new way, I know is not cheap and as you mention there’s a narrow sweet point (in most scenarios I listen my music alone) but with stratospheric prices of many parts of the chain this for me adds more value than some snake oil things, in fact I change a mark levinson for a fosi amp and I don’t miss it, regards!

For me, the theoretical great benefit of something like Bacch4mac stems from the fact that the overwhelming majority of available music recordings is in stereo. Now, while having "the band onstage in front of you" (either as a live recording or as a virtual construct produced by the mix) has its appeal, that's not how most people with stereo systems listen to their music. Ironically, it's the surround music fans (and surround movie fans) who optimally prefer to be in the sweet spot when the music starts playing. Yes, there are audiophiles who love their stereo sweet spots too but that's not how the average non-air bud, non-headphone music fan consumes their music.

My other point about Bacch4mac is that you really have to be very active in seeking out an opportunity to experience it. I personally have few non-QQ friends and neighbors with 5.1 or Dolby Atmos systems but I know nobody with a Bacch4mac system. AndI don't think that Dr. Choueiri would appreciate having people schedule a visit to his lab in Princeton, New Jersey to "kick the tires."

 

[par4ken]

For me, the theoretical great benefit of something like Bacch4mac stems from the fact that the overwhelming majority of available music recordings is in stereo

That is why I always say that the use of a quad decoder either Tate, QS Vario-matrix or Involve is a necessity. I hardly ever and never via my own system, listen to stereo via only two speakers. Oh, don't call it fake either, spreading or expanding the stereo image is hardy a fake effect. It is a simple magnification of that image with nothing at all "faked"!

 

[esimms86]

I’d love to have a chance to listen to a Bacch 3D system. Perhaps someday I’ll have $7,000 in discretionary spending to purchase such a system. Of course, Bacch 3D is based on measuring a personalized HTRF, plus it does have a rather limited sweet spot(unless immediately behind the person in the sweet spot). It is built on a foundation of stereo and it has little to nothing in common with a 5.1 or Dolby Atmos mix. In fact, surround mixes need not apply. Mind you, this is not a criticism; it just works off of a different paradigm. And the perceived soundstage is a product of the stereo mix. As I’ve said, I don’t have any direct experience with Bacch 3D but I would expect that listening to a live recording of, say, a five piece band would be absolute heaven.

Edit: $9,000 plus with room correction and a pre-configured Mac Mini 4. Given how Bacch4mac works, I can’t imagine anyone contemplating owning a system without room correction. And some of us would be stepping out of the PC world and into the Mac world. All I can say to that is, thank God for the new Mac Mini!

 

[stevendive]

I’d love to have a chance to listen to a Bacch 3D system. Perhaps someday I’ll have $7,000 in discretionary spending to purchase such a system. Of course, Bacch 3D is based on measuring a personalized HTRF, plus it does have a rather limited sweet spot(unless immediately behind the person in the sweet spot). It is built on a foundation of stereo and it has little to nothing in common with a 5.1 or Dolby Atmos mix. In fact, surround mixes need not apply. Mind you, this is not a criticism; it just works off of a different paradigm. And the perceived soundstage is a product of the stereo mix. As I’ve said, I don’t have any direct experience with Bacch 3D but I would expect that listening to a live recording of, say, a five piece band would be absolute heaven.

As Bacch 3D is a crosstalk cancellation method, you might consider the much more economical and, probably, as effective Ambiophonic system. I think miniDSP have the firmware for their little processors. The inventor, Ralph Glasal, always has much to say about Ambio.

 

[esimms86]

As Bacch 3D is a crosstalk cancellation method, you might consider the much more economical and, probably, as effective Ambiophonic system. I think miniDSP have the firmware for their little processors. The inventor, Ralph Glasal, always has much to say about Ambio.

Thank you for your post. I did some reading about Ambiophonics a number of years back(pre-pandemic) and perhaps it’s time to revisit the subject. I’ve read a few of Ralph Glasal’s posts in other forums. He clearly knows what he’s talking about.

 

[stevendive]

Thank you for your post. I did some reading about Ambiophonics a number of years back(pre-pandemic) and perhaps it’s time to revisit the subject. I’ve read a few of Ralph Glasal’s posts in other forums. He clearly knows what he’s talking about.

FWIW, I have the original miniAMBIO box and front Ambiopole simple setup for my smaller system. It’s highly effective and pleasing, at least to my ear. The box itself is quite clearly a miniDSP one.

As the subject is on enhancement of stereo beyond the usual 2 signals to 2 ‘speakers, in ambisonics (not to be confused at all with the above) one of its 3 decodes, usually available in modern DSPs, is designed for stereo and gives better frequency with direction decode than stereo, leading to enhanced stability and naturalness WRT head movement. Of course, at least 4 loudspeakers are needed and a (virtual) central listening position. This ‘enhance’ mode works nicely, but quite differently, on quad SQ as well.

 

[esimms86]

FWIW, I have the original miniAMBIO box and front Ambiopole simple setup for my smaller system. It’s highly effective and pleasing, at least to my ear. The box itself is quite clearly a miniDSP one.

As the subject is on enhancement of stereo beyond the usual 2 signals to 2 ‘speakers, in ambisonics (not to be confused at all with the above) one of its 3 decodes, usually available in modern DSPs, is designed for stereo and gives better frequency with direction decode than stereo, leading to enhanced stability and naturalness WRT head movement. Of course, at least 4 loudspeakers are needed and a (virtual) central listening position. This ‘enhance’ mode works nicely, but quite differently, on quad SQ as well.

How would the listening experience compare to that of the original quad SQ mix?

 

[stevendive]

How would the listening experience compare to that of the original quad SQ mix?

SQ normally decodes to 4 speakers the 2 channels containing the matrix of those 4 discrete channels. The feeds are supposed to be discreet (but cannot be cleanly recovered). In ambisonics, all directions are treated equally. Ambisonic stereo ‘enhance’ or ‘super stereo’ does not try to extract individual ‘speaker feeds (from SQ) and, instead, first converts the 2 stereo channels into de novo B-format, allowing the user to apply a width or wrap-around adjustment (through a ratio adjustment of the X (front-back) of Y (left-right) inputs to the B-format decoder). Also, psychoacoustic optimisation in the B-format decoder operates to maintain imaging across low and high frequencies. SQ is treated by the ambi decoder as a normal stereo input but the effect is to give a smooth, adjustable wrap-around. Rear speakers sound less discrete. Whether you like the effect is another matter. Quad enthusiasts often tend to prefer a sense of discreteness.

 

[DaveLaPorte53]

Your favorite band probably didn't record your favorite music on a stage to begin with. It was in a recording studio, and the parts were probably not even recorded on the same day. The stereo soundscape is an artificial creation, as is the surroundscape. Both treatments are part of a creative process. One is more creative than the other IMO. Neither reflect reality.

all I can say is every band I have had the pleasure of hearing live was on a stage, none ever hung from the ceiling or floated around the space between. lol

 

[LuvMyQuad]

all I can say is every band I have had the pleasure of hearing live was on a stage, none ever hung from the ceiling or floated around the space between. lol

Yep. That is certainly how most live shows are. And most surround treatments of live shows try to reproduce that event. And they can usually do a better job of it than simple stereo can. They at least separate the audience chatter from the stage and can supply realistic ambiance.

But that doesn't change the validity of what I originally said, which pertains exclusively to studio recordings. The majority of popular studio recordings are not live events with a band playing in real time and space. The final soundscape, be it stereo or surround, is created from separate tracks of individual performances that are organized according to the creative vision of the mixer/producer/artist. The goal is not the reproduction of an an actual event, like every band you have had the pleasure of hearing.

 

[esimms86]

all I can say is every band I have had the pleasure of hearing live was on a stage, none ever hung from the ceiling or floated around the space between. lol

Even true for Cirque du Soleil. And then there’s the Super Bowl halftime show. Katie Perry anyone?

 

[DuncanS]

https://www.whathifi.com/news/spati...-where-i-believe-the-technology-truly-belongs

 

[esimms86]

View attachment 112084
https://www.whathifi.com/news/spati...-where-i-believe-the-technology-truly-belongs

London calling?

 

[DuncanS]

London calling?

There might be a Clash

 

[kfbkfb]

1974 California Jam:



Kirk Bayne

 

[key_wiz]

Sports card, not car! I don't think that too many females would be impressed by a piece of cardboard with a hockey, baseball or football; players picture on it! Or maybe $1,000,000 for a super bowl football!

If I had the money I wouldn't mind a classic car, or a classic sports car! Audio is still a much cheaper hobby!

A $100,000 sports card might be considered an investment. It might be worth $200,000 in a few years.

A $100,000 stereo system on the other hand?

 

[barfle]

all I can say is every band I have had the pleasure of hearing live was on a stage, none ever hung from the ceiling or floated around the space between. lol

I went to a symphonic performance of Holst’s “The Planets.” There is a chorus that is off-stage and shows up very late in the piece. In that show, the chorus was in the balcony, above and behind my seats. It was magical!

But more to your point, I know many rock stereo recordings where various instruments get panned around the sound field. And I don’t recall a drummer flying back and forth between the wings of the stage, but if you listen to Rita Coolidge’s “We’re All Alone,” it happens.

 

[AudiophileStyle]

A $100,000 stereo system on the other hand?

Is an investment in yourself and your wellbeing :~)