Theoretica Applied Physics BACCH

Audio Components
,
1414

Happy cakes :cake:!

In fairness, Edgar and I did not really talk much (if at all) about, nor spend time on the PST/SACD matter. It was really just me looking at the back of a mini, then my disc player, and finally scratching my head. I like my physical library more than most. BACCH seems ENTIRELY ready to help my situation, but the price goes up dramatically in order to do so.

It was a very fun little adventure with just the intro package, and again, I hope to pursue down the line. I leave said adventure still being very nerdy about excellent speaker positioning, and very sound room treatmentsā€¦pun intended.

2 Likes
1415

Thanks.

Maybe the BACCH-SP should be the right way to go for a bunch of reasons. In my case this implies a further delay in jumping to conclusions because of the investment required. But itā€™s really intriguing. Time will tell.

Any EU based BACCH owner around there, forum members?

1 Like
1416

Enjoy your cake day, Luca.

2 Likes
1417

I am a huge fan of DSP for speaker and room correction.

IME, it can improve the overall sound of a quality system provided it has a pretty light touch and one makes the effort to push the room/speaker response to something that is very musical and measures relatively well, BEFORE applying DSP.

For example, I use Anthemā€™s ARC via a Pre/Pro that does double duty (2.1 Hi-Fi and 7.2 HTE) as a preamplifier and a HTE processor. ARC allows me to apply its digital magic for both use cases, separately.

Even though the analogue output of my DS Sr. DAC has to go through the digital signal processing that is ARC, I was able to discern and enjoy the differences between most of the myriad DS software changes wrought by PSA and Ted Smith over the years.

In other words, the great sound capabilities of my DS Sr. - centric digital front end did not suffer (to my ears) when subjected to ARC. It ā€œdoes no harmā€ and I canā€™t listen to my system in 2.1 mode without having it engaged. It is just that much better.

The point I am getting at (taking the long way around), is I am a bit concerned (maybe wondering is a better term) that the various BACCH system options all seem to take a step backward in terms of how the signals from the base system it is designed to enhance are transmitted.

I have spent a fair amount of time optimizing my digital front end for the best performance I can afford with my current system. And, like many others here, I have invested in various bits and bobs to try and get the quietest and most revealing digital and analogue signals going to and from my gear. This effort includes making sure the highest quality inputs and outputs my gear offers are used and the ā€œbestā€ signal cables I can afford/muster are deployed.

The default equipment and methods Edgar has settled on thus far strike me as not being up to snuff compared to what I, and many here, have deployed and eschewed in our systems.

Again, I am a big fan of properly integrated digital signal processing. But I like to start with the best input signal and speaker/room interaction I can muster (and seek to keep improving same) before applying DSP programs. And, I understand, and have no reason to doubt, the wonderful effects that BACCH software can wring out of a system (ORC sounds particularly promising). However, the limitations I think I am perceiving about the hardware options gives me pause.

A question for you experienced users: Is the BACCH software so great that any optimization of the signal chain and equipment upstream is rendered moot?

Sorry for the length of this post and I hope my inquiry makes sense.

Cheers.

4 Likes
1418

Say, isnā€™t Entanglement a subset of Quantum Physics?

1 Like
1419

Thanks, Greg!

1 Like
1420

Being our Mentor Al the most passionate fan of BACCH makes me feel that what you are cornered about, is taken seriously into consideration. A different way of thinking is probably needed here.
Having said that Iā€™m like you pausing (or postponing) my decision.

2 Likes
1421

ORC sounds appealing but I donā€™t think you can integrate ORC without some form of the BACCH software and its associated hardware interfaces.

More pondering neededā€¦ :slight_smile:

Happy Cake Day, Luca.

2 Likes
1422

I hear you. I am a minimalist at heart, favor physical media (for now), and try to wring every ounce of good out of the tools and toys at hand. I am not anti processing, I just want to start, at least, with the fewest, high quality, links in the chain. Remember the day when you werenā€™t truly an audiophile if you had tone controls?
Forward to today, the opposite rules. Everything matters and the number of signal enhancing or
reducing add-ons have increased exponentially. I am caught in the excitement of the hunt but know my learning curve has to ratchet up to understand it. Old dog, new tricks.

3 Likes
1423

Your thoughts track along the lines of mine.

If you (or a non-maven) were to take one look at my system, the first word that popped into your head would not be, ā€œminimalistā€ though. Itā€™s far from it.

But every piece is intended to squeeze out some modicum of increased performance and to enjoy the music. My journey is till along the path of purposeful complication as opposed to integration of kit and reduction of footprint.

I have bought into the idea that this is the most economical and enjoyable (I like kit) Hi-Fi path for me at this point in my life.

That said, if a piece of gear or software can simultaneously move me forward sonically and simplify the signal path, I canā€™t help but be interested.

3 Likes
1424

Thanks, Scotte!

1 Like
1425

I think I may put my toe in the water with this:

2 Likes
1426

ā€œPurposeful complicationā€ sums up my system. Not quite an oxymoron but I my wife thinks Iā€™m moronic for having such pursuits.

2 Likes
1427

We are kindred spirits with significant others who also have something in common.

:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes
1428

@scotte1 Careful there though. BACCH Labs is a different Edgar / Princeton unit from Theoretica. If you like it, and then want to get fully wet with BACCH4Mac Audiophile, you likely will need to switch over to Theoretica. You can try first with this instead, though a Mac Mini is needed: BACCH4Mac Intro Edition ā€“ Theoretica Applied Physics. The upgrades (there are different options related to equipment still needed or not) to Audiophile are reduced in price by the cost of this Intro.

1429

It looks like you need to move up to the SP line to have the ostensible benefits of the most common/favored inputs and outputs.

FYI:

Screen Shot 2024-03-02 at 11.41.40 AM
Screen Shot 2024-03-02 at 11.41.40 AM1920Ɨ851 82.4 KB

2 Likes
1430

Those are the hardware, with Macā€™s hidden inside. BACCH4Mac is more accessible.

1 Like
1431

Actually, its what I have read about he BACCH4Mac that gives me the most pause (such that it is) ā€“ as I attempted to convey in my post above (at or about Post # 1404)

Thank you for the additional information.

1432

Hmmmā€¦

Thanks again.

1433

As Al describes for himself above, the idea of using a Mac Mini was a BIG hurdle for me. Trying and listening made the difference for me.

1 Like