In The Works: BACCH 3D Video Tour/Interview & Review

Professor Edgar Choueiri of Princeton University. photo: Stephen Mejias

Let's tease with some quotes. First from CES 2015, the first time I encountered Bacch 3D:

"One the biggest and most mind-boggling moments of CES 2015 was delivered by Professor (of applied physics) Edgar Choueiri of Princeton University."

"Color me more than wowed and let me state the more-than-obvious—this is ground-breaking technology that I hope we'll see trickle down into more affordable products."

And more recently, from Munich 2017:
"Do you remember how Neil Young, when pitching Pono, said people would hear the difference? And like it? Of course that's not how Pono played out. I'm here to say that if/when people hear BACCH 3D, they will be BLOWN AWAY. Regardless of their interest in hi-fi and/or music (of course everyone loves music)."
Hyperbole? I think not.

photo: Stephen Mejias

Coming soon to a barn near. . .me will be two products born of the 3D Audio and Applied Acoustics (3D3A) Laboratory at Princeton University from Theoretica Applied Physics; the hardware-based BACCH-SP dio, and the software-based BACCH4Mac Audiophile.

the BACCH-SP dio sits atop the BACCH-SP

The BACCH-SP dio does not include a DAC like it's stable mate the BACCH-SP so audiophiles can roll their own.

Here's the pricing for the BACCH products [updated 8.3.17, Ed.]:

BACCH4Mac Audiophile: starts at $4,980
BACCH-SP dio: $19,800
BACCH-SP adio: $23,800
BACCH-SP Grand: $54,000

I recently took a trip down to Princeton to visit Professor Choueiri (Director of Princeton University's Program in Engineering Physics, and Director of Princeton's Electric Propulsion and Plasma Dynamics Laboratory) along with Stephen Mejias and Jana Dagdagan where we were treated to some mind-boggling demos, weird science, and one of the most enchanting homes I've had the pleasure to inhabit.

Jana is working on the video tour and I will be receiving review samples in the near future.

Stay tuned...

COMMENTS
Anton's picture

When that hits my implemnetation budget, I am in.

insertusernamehere's picture

... I've only read (many & positive) reviews of this technology, but have never had the pleasure to experience it myself. So my (theoretical vs. empirical) understanding of the technology is that the improvements wrought with binaural recordings are mesmerizing, but that applications with non-binaural recordings are far less impressive.

Given that precisely 0% of my music library consists of binaural recordings, the attractiveness of a very expensive piece of kit that works with none of the music to which I like to listen is... limited. OTOH, if I am mistaken and it produces (almost) equally impressive results with "normal" recordings: color me interested. So, while not wishing to ask that you to tip your hand on your forthcoming article, did you and the others find that this technology remained viable for non-binaural recordings? Thank you.

Michael Lavorgna's picture
...yes.
insertusernamehere's picture

... interested.

Michael Lavorgna's picture
;-)
PeterMusic's picture

Very excited--two key pieces of good news from your last post on this topic. First, full review on the way. Second, looks like price of admission, at least for Mac users, is "only" $7K.

Thanks!

Bob Karp's picture

As I commented for the Munich 2017 post, this strikes me like Carver Sonic Holography - with head motion tracking/compensation. A cool idea for a cool technology. The effects are certainly not limited to "natural" (Blumlein) stereo or binaural recordings. Dramatic mixing console stereo effects will translate to dramatic three-dimensional acoustic events for the listener. And simple stereo mixing will still yield vivid three-dimensional effects (without gratuitous drama).

But Carver's device had very strict setup and listener position requirements. If you set it up very well, the sweet spot had a bit of liberty, and you could even turn your head somewhat, without having the illusion come crashing down. But multiple listeners would have to sit in a line, one behind the other. The sweet spot was never large enough for side-by-side listening. For a single listener, though (and, hands-up - how many of us often do listen alone - yes, I'm included), Carver's device was pretty darn good!

I like the idea of having more liberty in setup and head movement, without losing the effect but ... even with today's computing speed, I have to question whether continuous real-time tweaking of the sound processing parameters (to compensate for listener movement) can be as good as using a *fixed* algorithm and simply telling the listening to STAY PUT. Since, if we are seriously listening ... we're probably going to be staying put anyway.

All that said, count me anxious to hear more about this - thanks!

X