I sat mesmerized listening to MK2 last night. My images improved incredibly after breaking it in, changing fuse, doing Ground lift on i2S1and shorting USB and i2S2. 3M absorber lowered noise floor.
Short of new firmware I feel the orange has been squeezed. The juice is pretty natural and tasty. But I still have more thirst for natural and engaging.
That leaves different output transformers, new firmware, different speakers or Bacch4mac. Since I have no control over firmware release BACCH4MAC is closest to pick the fruit off the tree fresh.
These discussions of the BACCH systems almost tempt me to pull my ancient Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator out of its box in the basement. But âalmostâ is the operative word here. I remember how the C-9 could make some music sound very 3-dimensional, but it didnât seem quite natural with every track I listened to. Ultimately, I decided that the C-9 gave me the impression that the music was often a bit over-processed and that there was an âelectronic edgeâ that convinced me that the music sounded more real and natural without the special effects of the C-9.
The BACCH, however, seems to be impressing a lot of folks who have refined ears and resolving systems. Still, my recollections of the C-9 experience are keeping me on the sidelines - at least for now - as other listeners work the BACCH into their audio systems. For me, the BACCH remains a definite âmaybeâ - or âmaybe not.â
Ok I donât get this BACCH thing; I remember perusing their website a few weeks ago. Itâs just yet another DSP-like processor (I understand that the underlying algorithms are anything but standard FFT) that have come and gone in the past, no? What am I missing?
Isnât one main point of our hobby to remove as much extraneous stuff in electronics and software as much as possible between the source and the ear? This adds yet another layer.
The purpose of our hobby is to enjoy music. We are all free to have our opinions. I like not to shoot down something without experiencing it.
As for signal processing thereâs plenty of that in recording process already and it doesnât scare me. If the Bacch improves experience half the time it is a keeper. If not I can send it back. The thing is the algorithm doesnât add or color the music just bring image forward and adds dimensionality. For classical it may or may not be the ticket. I do know live unamplified music loses luster for me.on recorded playback. The MK2 improves it but âŚâŚ maybe thereâs more to be had. Might as well try versus wonder.
I have done every other trick and enjoyed each step. I have means and will to try and it doesnât cost as much as next bigger steps.
I have 2 C9 Carver processors in my closet. I used Sonic Holography for 25 years. I always enjoyed it. The BACCH-SP processing is way better IMHO. No downside that I can detect. Last night I listened to a new classical CD and it was absolutely a joyride, start to finish. No downside to this, none.
Shankha, the issue with Stereo is the sound from each channel arrives at one ear first, then the opposite ear after a short delay. This situation makes it difficult for the imaging to be all that it can be. The BACCH processing cancels out the delayed secondary sound hitting the opposite ears allowing all the images to be very obvious to hear. You can easily switch it in and out so you can hear exactly what the benefits of this processing are.
I just built an amazing Gryphon and Grimm system and the man I bought the gear from says that with the addition of the BACCH DSP I have completely undone everything I had just accomplished. He is welcome to his opinion. What I hear is a really nice improvement to the believability of the sound generated by my system. The improvement is not subtle. I sometimes switch it out for upwards of 3 to 8 seconds at a time. It sounds nice, it sounds very nice without the BACCH processing. It just sounds so much better with it. Realism increases nicely.
DSP is a dirty word for many. I understand this. But my BACCH-SP adio replaces or can replace a Preamp, DAC, is an excellent Roon endpoint as well as other options. It is actually possible for this one device to simplify a system. It can eliminate the interconnects between the preamp and Amplifier, as well as the interconnects between the DAC and the preamp, as well as interconnects between the Streamer and the DAC. You can also avoid the power cable(s) to a preamp and DAC and streamer. And all you get is much better sound.
It is understandable that it isnât easy to understand exactly what this thing is and why you might choose it. Their website is a bit odd and could be improved to help with this.
@shankha A true user speaks up. I have followed Al for years on this forum. He has lent me over 15K in cables to try for amusement. He has tried and not always liked my tweaks. But sage experienced ears I trust.
I will take Alâs opinion over 99 percent of noise that I hear, experience trumps opinion. Not flaming but laying my money where the experts experience lies.
I think I didnât yet understand enough, and especially not which price levels there are and how the basic options of HW/SW architecture are.
But at least (thinking of an all digital chain) the 40-50k option seems to replace streamer, DAC and preamp and makes the thought about a normal 20k DAC + 10k streamer + 20k pre or so category obsolete, right?
If so, a manufacturer planning products on such a price level should think about it.
I am an @aangen fan and live on his opinions relative to sound quality. If Michael Fremer gave the BACCH a great review that would add a lot more cred in my eyes, well, ears.
Thank you! I get Gramophone (for my classical habit) and the Strad (for my violinist habit) and those together are $300 annual subscriptions. So I couldnât justify yet another audio-related subscription.
(Also to be honest, I found the marketing and advertising of every new thing on TAS, Stereophile etc a bit too much and decided to stay away from it. But in this case, it woulda helped!)
.
