Edgar Choueiri and BACCH 3D Audio

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

humprof

Junior Senior
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
6,302
Location
NoCal
What with all the recent talk elsewhere on QQ about Penteo vs. SPEC vs. Involve, I'm not sure if this is a "MultiChannel in the Media" post or some other kind of post. (Surround Sound Tech Talk > Stereo to Surround Upmixing, maybe?) But this morning, someone on the Facebook "Quad Traders" group--maybe he's also here on QQ, under another handle--posted a link to a 2013 piece in The New Yorker by Adam Gopnik, "Music to Your Ears," about rocket scientist and audioacoustic theorist/engineer Edgar Choueiri's "BACCH" 3-D audio. (I probably read this article when it first appeared, but I wasn't into surround sound back then, so that--and not my middle-aged memory, I swear!--must explain why I don't recall it.)

So anyway, if you Google "Edgar Choueiri 3D Sound" you come up with all kinds of interesting--and more recent--articles and videos about his lab at Princeton and his BACCH system. By all accounts it sounds amazing, and to an impressionable non-expert like me, the descriptions of the science behind it make the hype more believable than similar claims we've all heard for Sony 360 Reality Audio, the Dolby Atmos upmixer (a/k/a the post-2014 version of Dolby Surround), DTS Neural:X, etc., etc. But so far the only commercial adaptations of BACCH run into the thousands of dollars. (Quoted on an Oswald Mills Audio blog, also in 2013, Choueiri said the technology was "being licensed in the audiophile, pro and consumer audio markets," but five to seven grand isn't exactly within reach for the majority of us consumers.)

So I guess this is a question for the sound engineers and the industry insiders here: what do you know about BACCH and how it compares to other "immersive" systems? Has Dolby (or anyone else) licensed it, either openly or behind the scenes, or are they trying to bury it, or what?
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to revive this thread, as the BACCH received some very enthusiastic reviews from people at the AXPONA convention. I'm curious if anyone here can speak from experience regarding using this vs a multichannel setup. Obviously these are two different things, but as we all know, the number of albums available in a multi-channel format are reasonably limited. So this is the closest we'll be able to come for many albums.
 
Have you heard the BACCH in person?
Yes, a few times.
If so, do you see it as a gimmick you'd use now and again to change things up or instead, is it the way you would choose to listen to stereo recordings moving forward?
I would not use the word "gimmick." It does something that can be useful. However, it is not for me. Note that you are asking someone who is committed to discrete multichannel, so I am not in the same boat as the vast majority of listeners.
The best/only advice that I can offer is obvious: You must try it for yourself and decide for yourself if the results justify the cost and disruption.[/QUOTE]
 
For anyone who stumbles across this thread in the future, I just wanted to add my two cents about how it sounds (limited sweet spot and other tech limitations aside).

I purchased the intro software and have used it for about two weeks. First off, IMO, in most cases, it cannot compete with well mixed, multi-channel music. That said, as we all know, there are a VERY limited number of true multi-channel mixes out there! So for your 2 channel music, this is the closest you will get to a 3D sound stage.

Equipment: Mac Mini running the Bacch software with lossless audio being played; Paradigm 100 V2 loudspeakers and a Denon x3600H AVR. Room is a carpeted basement with no sound treatments.

The Good:
For tracks where instruments are well defined or there are a lot of ambient sounds and effects, the Bacch filters create a sound stage so that you will hear the music coming from between the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock position of your seating area. So basically, the sound stage is 180 degrees from your seating area. It can be pretty remarkable. Thus far, the effect is particularly profound when listening to many Radiohead tracks (Kid A & Amensiac in particular), where there is a ton of ambient sounds/samples. These sounds will appear to come from next to you at times rather than speakers in front of you. It's a trip. I had my wife listen and she thought the surround speakers were on behind her! Similarly, funky, well recorded tracks, like the Jimmy Smith Root Down Sessions sound awesome. When you hear tracks sounds this good, you'll love this tech and will feel like it's money well spent.

I should also add that tech support/installation is as good as it gets. Edgar from Bacch set this up for me over Zoom on a Saturday morning(!!!) and you can tell how proud he is of it.

The Not as Good:
On very simple two channel tracks, such as stripped down tracks on the Beatles Anthology 3 album (where there's often just an acoustic guitar and vocals), I did not get the sort of 3D sound stage effects described above. Instead, the sounds stage simply expanded slightly. You'll no longer hear the music coming directly from the speakers. Instead, the sound will appear to come generally from the entire area where the speakers are located (11'oclock to 1 o'clock). Similarly, on tracks where it's just a wall of sound (common to a lot of rock, especially 90's alternative rock), you'll find Bacch offers minor improvement, at best. That said, I own multi-channel recordings of Soundgarden, STP and Metallica and was similarly unimpressed with the multi-channel mixes. So it's hard to fault Bacch.

Overall, I can't think of a way to improve 2 channel recordings better than this for $1000 or less. I expect I will use it for 2 channel recordings moving forward. I suspect if I sprung for the more expensive options(that include a camera for head tracking to expand the sweet spot), I would have even better things to say about Bacch... but I had a hard $1000 budget and stuck to it.
 
For anyone who stumbles across this thread in the future, I just wanted to add my two cents about how it sounds (limited sweet spot and other tech limitations aside).

I purchased the intro software and have used it for about two weeks. First off, IMO, in most cases, it cannot compete with well mixed, multi-channel music. That said, as we all know, there are a VERY limited number of true multi-channel mixes out there! So for your 2 channel music, this is the closest you will get to a 3D sound stage.

Equipment: Mac Mini running the Bacch software with lossless audio being played; Paradigm 100 V2 loudspeakers and a Denon x3600H AVR. Room is a carpeted basement with no sound treatments.

The Good:
For tracks where instruments are well defined or there are a lot of ambient sounds and effects, the Bacch filters create a sound stage so that you will hear the music coming from between the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock position of your seating area. So basically, the sound stage is 180 degrees from your seating area. It can be pretty remarkable. Thus far, the effect is particularly profound when listening to many Radiohead tracks (Kid A & Amensiac in particular), where there is a ton of ambient sounds/samples. These sounds will appear to come from next to you at times rather than speakers in front of you. It's a trip. I had my wife listen and she thought the surround speakers were on behind her! Similarly, funky, well recorded tracks, like the Jimmy Smith Root Down Sessions sound awesome. When you hear tracks sounds this good, you'll love this tech and will feel like it's money well spent.

I should also add that tech support/installation is as good as it gets. Edgar from Bacch set this up for me over Zoom on a Saturday morning(!!!) and you can tell how proud he is of it.

The Not as Good:
On very simple two channel tracks, such as stripped down tracks on the Beatles Anthology 3 album (where there's often just an acoustic guitar and vocals), I did not get the sort of 3D sound stage effects described above. Instead, the sounds stage simply expanded slightly. You'll no longer hear the music coming directly from the speakers. Instead, the sound will appear to come generally from the entire area where the speakers are located (11'oclock to 1 o'clock). Similarly, on tracks where it's just a wall of sound (common to a lot of rock, especially 90's alternative rock), you'll find Bacch offers minor improvement, at best. That said, I own multi-channel recordings of Soundgarden, STP and Metallica and was similarly unimpressed with the multi-channel mixes. So it's hard to fault Bacch.

Overall, I can't think of a way to improve 2 channel recordings better than this for $1000 or less. I expect I will use it for 2 channel recordings moving forward. I suspect if I sprung for the more expensive options(that include a camera for head tracking to expand the sweet spot), I would have even better things to say about Bacch... but I had a hard $1000 budget and stuck to it.

Thanks for that detailed report. (And welcome to QQ!)
 
Notes on the Search for Startling Innovations in 3D Audio

Here is the briefest of excerpts from the above linked Atlantic Monthly article from 2011(Kal Rubinson is also referenced in the same article in relation to his Stereophile review of the Smyth Realiser A8; the article, unfortunately, misspells his last name):

"Born in Lebanon in 1961, Choueiri was an Apollo-age science and audio geek, the only 13-year-old in the country with a quadrophonic sound system."
 
(Kal Rubinson is also referenced in the same article in relation to his Stereophile review of the Smyth Realiser A8; the article, unfortunately, misspells his last name):
Not unusual although the more common misspelling is Robinson.

EDIT: Neither of those are really misspellings. They are proper spellings of names based on a misreading or misinterpretation of my name. It is the same when I am referred to as Ken or Karl when I identify as Kal or Kalman.
 
Last edited:
I am not 100% sure, but think that David Chesky’s The Audiophile Society (link) releases recordings processed by BACCH. You may download a free album here. The reason I think this is that the site advertises BACCH4Mac.

I think that your surmise is on the money. The ideal set up described in the Chesky FAQ is exactly the same as the BACCH 3D listening set up.

From the Chesky Audiophile Society web site:

"FAQ​


How do I play back files for best results ?

These recordings were created to be played back in a 60-degree equilateral triangle. Please make sure you are in the sweet spot for best results ( in the the middle and the same distance away from each speaker). Also, the better treated your room is the bigger and more spacious these recordings will sound. A properly treated and dampened room is one of the most important things you can have in your playback system. The more direct sound that hits your ears, the better the soundstage will be. We want to avoid the sound bouncing around the room before it hits your ears. Also, if you have a live room, we recommend you listen in the near field."
 
I am not 100% sure, but think that David Chesky’s The Audiophile Society (link) releases recordings processed by BACCH. You may download a free album here. The reason I think this is that the site advertises BACCH4Mac.
Yes. When setting up Bacch, not only did Edgar use tracks from this label to dial in the speakers, but he mentioned that he has some connection to the label or their recording methods.
 
Back
Top