Smyth Research Realiser A16
Aug 5, 2022 at 10:43 AM Post #13,891 of 15,986
Hmm.. you might have misunderstood what I was saying... In the video, he (Choueiri) says the Smyths are using his (Bacch) technology.

Check out the video at timestamp 58:20
Frankly writing, it wasn’t quite easy for me to follow his presentation (pronunciation). At 00:58:14 he began explaining that one doesn’t need to wear something on the head to do the tracking.

As you’ve suggested, I’ve checked out the video at timestamp 00:58:20. I think he wasn’t quite fair when he said Smyth Research had used his (Bacch) technology. He also said he had heard about Realiser A16, which might mean that he only had heard and not had used a Realiser A16 unit. In my previous post, there’s a link towards the time line of his patents precisely to highlight that it was quite unfair to state that someone who patented a technology in 2004-2005 used his technology that dated more than ten years later.
 
Aug 5, 2022 at 12:29 PM Post #13,892 of 15,986
Frankly writing, it wasn’t quite easy for me to follow his presentation (pronunciation). At 00:58:14 he began explaining that one doesn’t need to wear something on the head to do the tracking.

As you’ve suggested, I’ve checked out the video at timestamp 00:58:20. I think he wasn’t quite fair when he said Smyth Research had used his (Bacch) technology. He also said he had heard about Realiser A16, which might mean that he only had heard and not had used a Realiser A16 unit. In my previous post, there’s a link towards the time line of his patents precisely to highlight that it was quite unfair to state that someone who patented a technology in 2004-2005 used his technology that dated more than ten years later.
I’m not on my laptop now so I can’t post a link at the moment, but there’s a thread on the Audio Science Review forum in which the question is posed as to how BACCH3D differs from the Smyth Realiser. A BACCH 3D team member chimes in to state the differences in detail. That makes it clear to me that either Dr. Choueiri, a member of his team, or both have experienced the Smyth Realiser.
 
Aug 5, 2022 at 5:37 PM Post #13,894 of 15,986
Thanks for the info. Anyhow, I’m not going to open a dispute or whatever. As I wrote previously, who uses whose technology and who has the right of priority is less important for commoners.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. All I am saying is that the BACCH 3D team is very familiar with the Smyth Realiser, by their own admission:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-in-light-of-bacch-and-smyth-realiser.17359/


"Apologies for not catching this thread earlier (we have been busy with the release of BACCH4Mac 9.5).

The Smyth Realizer has no way of emulating a pair of BACCH-ed speakers. First, in order to emulate BACCH-ed speakers you would need to make the impulse response measurements (needed to produce the headphones filter) with the BACCH filter on, so you would need BACCH4Mac, but even that will not work as the BACCH 3D Sound process consists not only of a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter for crosstalk cancelation (XTC), which, in principle, could be measured by an impulse response measurement system (although not easily, as the filter requires a true stereo (aka 2x2) convolution) but also a proprietary mono correction algorithm than cannot be captured by an impulse response measurement.

With the BACCH-hp module of BACCH4Mac, you make an IR measurement with in-ear microphones and head tracking (a process not unlike that the Smyth Realizer requires) and the BACCH-dSP application then automatically produces, from the same measurement, two filters that are applied in series. The first is a head externalization filter that allows emulating those speakers over headphones (that filter plays the same goal as that produced by the Smyth) and the second filter is a BACCH filter for crosstalk cancelling the (headphones-emulated) speakers. For listening, BACCH-dSP applies these two filters in series to the input audio, along with the the mono correction process, to emulate BACCH-ed speakers. At any time, the user, if he so wishes, can bypass the BACCH filter with a click of a button and hear an emulation of the speakers (non-XTCed), which would then be equivalent to what the Smyth Realizer does.

In other words BACCH-hp does what the Smyth Realizer plus gives you the additional option of projecting the perceived sound in 3D space — not having the soundstage anchored at, and limited to, the (headphones-emulated) speakers as in regular stereo listening.

An additional advantage of BACCH4Mac over the Smyth Realizer is that head tracking is done optically (and very accurately) via a regular webcam (or the built-in webcam in your laptop) and therefore does not require that you wear anything on your head in addition to the headphones.

We generally advise not to think of systems like BACCH-hp or Smyth Realizer, as wonderful and magical as they are, as replacements of the audiophile speaker listening experience (for reasons that include that mentioned by maverickronin) but rather as a way to emulate that experience when you are constrained not to turn on your speakers (someone is sleeping nearby, or you are on travel away from your system). No matter how good your headphones are and how accurate the emulation is, the sensation of sound waves hitting you in the face and body, which adds much to the “being there” realism, is in the realm of speakers and real life sources.

I hope that this explanation is helpful.

Please feel free to reply here, and/or write to us at info@theoretica.us if you have more detailed questions.

Regards,
Buddy
info@theoretica.us"
 
Aug 6, 2022 at 12:13 AM Post #13,895 of 15,986
Thanks again. There is another post of the same user, who wrote: “BACCH is focused on stereo and getting the most out of stereo. We have two ears only and we therefore, in principle, need only two channels to get the cues needed to correctly locate sound in 3D. This is the binaural approach (as opposed to object-based Surround Sound approach) to 3D sound.

Multi-channel Surround Sound (i.e. Dolby 5.1, 7.1, Atmos, Auro3D, etc.), wether channel or object based, is not of interest to us. It is not a focus of research and development at Theoretica (nor is it a topic of academic research in spatial audio, where the main three approaches are: binaural, higher-order-ambisonics, and wavefield synthesis).”

I think it’s pretty clear that the two technologies, Smyth Virtual Surround and Bacch aim at achieving different objectives.
 
Aug 6, 2022 at 11:48 AM Post #13,896 of 15,986
Here's the review of my experience with John, and 3DSoundShop.

"John's dedication to his craft is second to none.

I had pre-ordered an A16 in the summer of 2017, but due to shipping delays, and getting tired of waiting around to experience more than the Dolby Headphone virtualization I'd been using from various sources for many years previously, I decided to pick up a second-hand A8 two years later to hold me over until my A16 finally arrived.

While I was able to make my own PRIR, and while the results were convincing, I was not really satisfied with the outcome. For many reasons, and I knew I could get better at some point. About two years later I tried it again, in a different location and this time the results were even better, but still not satisfactory. The biggest issue was finding a proper room. To get the most out of the Realisers, you really need to get some kind of PRIR that has been done in a studio setting.

My A16 finally arrived, and I had been planning on searching out a studio and attempting this yet again on my own, primarily because no one else was offering the same kind of service John is until he started. Not having much luck finding an adequate studio within driving distance, I had started to wonder if I'd ever get the kind of PRIR I was after. Then I noticed the posts on Head-Fi.org in the dedicated A16 thread about the 3DSoundShop, as well as the demos John was offering.

He had also shared some images of his studio setup in the same thread. What he was doing looked somewhat similar to what I had tried, but was in an entirely different league, from the markers he used, to the custom, industrial strength speaker stands to the speakers themselves. It was much more elaborate as well as precise looking too, and it is well beyond the scope of what most will be able, or willing to do.

A few months went by, and then I decided to reach out to him to get a feel for his process, and to see if simply traveling to his studio and having him do all the work would be time better spent than me attempting this on my own yet again. It was.

I don't believe I've ever dealt with someone who has quite the same mix of professionalism and dedication while also being as personable and patient as John can be. His communication skills are exemplary, and he spent time answering any questions I had, sometimes the same ones two or three times even over the course of a few months.

He assuaged any lingering doubts I had, and after months of regular correspondences, I finally made the leap. Just two weeks ago I traveled to his studio with a friend to get an in-person PRIR done for each of us.

It was absolutely worth the trip, as the end result was so much better than what I was able to accomplish on my own. I previously also did not like using my HD800s when watching films, but the in-person PRIR I had done was transformative for them. They are now my preferred headphone, and the reputation they sometimes get about being bass light? Previously I would have agreed, but now? Completely unwarranted in my opinion. Feed them a good source, and they will return in kind.

I can finally say that I am completely happy with the results of my PRIR, and the friend who came along with me also thinks it's a vast improvement over what he was previously using as well. Our movie viewing experiences took on a life that was previously unattainable, and the immersion is out of this world.

If you cannot get an in-person PRIR done, those available on the store would still be a stark improvement over the stock BBC and Surrey rooms, and possibly even better than what most users might be able to do on their own. Either option will take your listening experience to the next level. I cannot recommend John's services enough. He really is offering the best of the best."

Much of what I had been intending to say, had already been said by other clients, and I did not want to seem like I was simply copying them. So if someone requires more details on the actual process during an in-PRIR session, I suggest reading other reviews. They mirror my own experience.
 
Last edited:
Aug 6, 2022 at 3:46 PM Post #13,897 of 15,986
I stated this earlier but can’t help but repeat it:

Regarding BACCH and the Realiser - This dispute! What nonsense and another testament that all these guys are dealing with overpriced snake oil. Binaural room impulse responses have been around much longer than any of their products. In fact, one of the first publications on the subject dates back to the 70s (Göttingen group), Lehnert & Blauert (1992) with the current method dating to 1993 (headed by Angelo Farina)

See: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...pulse-responses.pdf?origin=publication_detail

The same applies to spherical to channel-based transformations. Ambisonics, anyone? What do you guys think the bed is made of in Dolby Atmos? The objects are limited to only 64 focused objects. The bed (I.e. at least 70 percent of the mix) is mostly spherical anyway.

There is nothing … I repeat … NOTHING original about BACCH or the Realiser. The latter is just a really cool all-in-one package that is well calibrated. Not sure what BACCH is other than overpriced (cannot comment on their crossfeed cancellation product; overpriced applies to either product). I’m sure the development of either solution is commendable.

When I mention this thread or any of these discussions to my colleagues at the acoustics department, we all just laugh our asses off. Sorry, but it’s really that pathetic.

/stop rant
 
Last edited:
Aug 6, 2022 at 4:33 PM Post #13,898 of 15,986
I stated this earlier but can’t help but repeat it:

Regarding BACCH and the Realiser - This dispute! What nonsense and another testament that all these guys are dealing with overpriced snake oil. Binaural room impulse responses have been around much longer than any of their products. In fact, one of the first publications on the subject dates back to the 70s (Göttingen group), Lehnert & Blauert (1992) with the current method dating to 1993 (headed by Angelo Farina)

See: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...pulse-responses.pdf?origin=publication_detail

The same applies to spherical to channel-based transformations. Ambisonics, anyone? What do you guys think the bed is made of in Dolby Atmos? The objects are limited to only 64 focused objects. The bed (I.e. at least 70 percent of the mix) is mostly spherical anyway.

There is nothing … I repeat … NOTHING original about BACCH or the Realiser. The latter is just a really cool all-in-one package that is well calibrated. Not sure what BACCH is other than overpriced (cannot comment on their crossfeed cancellation product; overpriced applies to either product). I’m sure the development of either solution is commendable.

When I mention this thread or any of these discussions to my colleagues at the acoustics department, we all just laugh our asses off. Sorry, but it’s really that pathetic.

/stop rant
The creators of both products would freely admit that they stand on the shoulders of earlier pioneering technologies like Ambisonics. Edgar Choueiri(BACCH 3D), in fact, references Ambisonics in every interview and presentation that he gives.

A "really cool all-in-one package that is well calibrated" is actually a really great description of a smartphone or a tablet. Cassette players broke out on the market when Advent married cassette machines with Dolby noise reduction. Same thing happened with the iPod when small, ultra portable hard drives became available.

"Overpriced"? Regarding the Smyth Realiser A16, I'm one of over 250 Kickstarter backers who paid around 800 USD for a unit. And if you don't want one, don't buy one at any price; that's your right as a consumer. And the A16 does objectively (pun intended) perform as advertised.

To quote someone from another forum, "life is too short to argue with strangers over the internet." I don't care to read any of your further responses, so I won't be re-engaging with you (I've already put you on my "Ignore" list). Having said that, I sincerely wish you all the best and I hope that you are enjoying our little hobby.
 
Last edited:
Aug 6, 2022 at 5:02 PM Post #13,899 of 15,986
I follow this thread but can’t honestly say I’m following what the disagreement is.
 
Aug 6, 2022 at 5:20 PM Post #13,900 of 15,986
I follow this thread but can’t honestly say I’m following what the disagreement is.
The question was essentially, who came first, Smyth Research or BACCH 3D. @GeorgeA and I agreed that (1)as consumers, we didn’t really care(we don’t have a dog in this fight), (2)the two companies are well aware of each other, and (3)the two products are aimed at different markets.
 
Aug 6, 2022 at 6:52 PM Post #13,901 of 15,986
The question was essentially, who came first, Smyth Research or BACCH 3D. @GeorgeA and I agreed that (1)as consumers, we didn’t really care(we don’t have a dog in this fight), (2)the two companies are well aware of each other, and (3)the two products are aimed at different markets.
And that they both base their products on theoretical research done by others, but have added their own development work to bring their respective products to market.
 
Last edited:
Aug 6, 2022 at 7:59 PM Post #13,902 of 15,986
The creators of both products would freely admit that they stand on the shoulders of earlier pioneering technologies like Ambisonics. Edgar Choueiri(BACCH 3D), in fact, references Ambisonics in every interview and presentation that he gives.

A "really cool all-in-one package that is well calibrated" is actually a really great description of a smartphone or a tablet. Cassette players broke out on the market when Advent married cassette machines with Dolby noise reduction. Same thing happened with the iPod when small, ultra portable hard drives became available.

"Overpriced"? Regarding the Smyth Realiser A16, I'm one of over 250 Kickstarter backers who paid around 800 USD for a unit. And if you don't want one, don't buy one at any price; that's your right as a consumer. And the A16 does objectively (pun intended) perform as advertised.

To quote someone from another forum, "life is too short to argue with strangers over the internet." I don't care to read any of your further responses, so I won't be re-engaging with you (I've already put you on my "Ignore" list). Having said that, I sincerely wish you all the best and I hope that you are enjoying our little hobby.
So much spirit in the air.

I also love the Realiser. Though, not so much that the advertised USB interface does not work on MacOS (>10.15) and the low latency mode is still missing. Both made the device mostly useless to me (other than calibrated measurements) and the studios I have consulted. However, I’m not the typical consumer either. But low latency is on their list: so let’s see. I’m also sad to see that so many people have yet to receive their units.

For the record, I mentioned Ambisonics due to the division between surround (Realiser) and 3D audio (BACCH) that was stated earlier. Essentially, BIR are unrelated to Ambisonics - just another layer in the toolbox. So, I don’t see how the creators of Realiser or BACCH would rely on it other than at the encoding/decoding stage.

But before getting all too emotional and derail any further, let’s get back to the subject on how to improve life with the Realiser. There is nothing wrong about taking joy from that. If any of you understood it the other way, I apologize. I just took issue with some parties claiming (even in non-reviewed published papers as well as an attempt at that during the review of a certain computer science and audio conference) their ownership or the invention of the method. And that’s something we do not tolerate well within the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
Aug 7, 2022 at 1:49 AM Post #13,903 of 15,986
I follow this thread but can’t honestly say I’m following what the disagreement is.
It’s not quite a dispute. The discussion a few posts back started from Professor Choueiri’s statement made recently in an interview/presentation at Audioholics that Smyth Research used his technology. In my opinion, that statement was not fair.

Reading more carefully the posts at the link suggested by @esimms86, the Professor may have referred to a device that might be a competitor for BACCH-derived devices, namely the Smyth Realiser A16 Speaker Edition. That device seems to be something without parents, as neither Smyth Research nor the French company Audio XD claim authorship at their Internet sites. The only site where it is promoted and sold is av-in.com, the French distributor of Realiser A16.
 
Last edited:
Aug 7, 2022 at 2:23 AM Post #13,904 of 15,986
My latest purchases of pure audio/immersive productions consist of three Blu-ray discs: Jazzmachine – 24, Jan Gunnar Hoff – Home and Steinar Granmo Nilsen & Kristin F - The Horn in Romanticism.

The playback of such productions also on Realiser A16 brings together video and music sound in equally high quality. Another novelty is the mShuttle technology, which allows one to enjoy music even when away from a Blu-ray player.
 

Attachments

  • Jazz01.jpg
    Jazz01.jpg
    305.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Jazz02.jpg
    Jazz02.jpg
    285.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Home01.jpg
    Home01.jpg
    118.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Home02.jpg
    Home02.jpg
    228.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Horn01.jpg
    Horn01.jpg
    205.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Horn02.jpg
    Horn02.jpg
    212.7 KB · Views: 0
Aug 7, 2022 at 5:21 AM Post #13,905 of 15,986
I submit that this same notion goes back even further than BACCH or SVS... to the early 80's (and possibly before that) and the days of Bob Carver and his "sonic holography". I actually have one of his C-9 sonic hologram generator units installed in the "tape loop" of my own vintage analog system (that also includes such rare relics as a DBX 224 noise reduction unit, a Nakamichi CR-7a cassette deck that includes Dolby B/C noise reduction as well as automatic azimuth calibration for different tape media, DBX 14/10 EQ, etc.). Again, very much based on eliminating cross-talk (i.e. isolating L and R channels arriving at your ears, to match binaural recording).

Through Google I found some interesting historical references on this subject:

(1) Quadraphonicquad.com forum discussion of C-9 Sonic Hologram Generator

(2) Semi-interesting but very limited video discussion of "Bob Carver's sonic holography" by Paul McGowan (founder of PS Audio, who claims his own patents and work in the same general field).

(3) Relatively basic summary article from 1980 in Washington Post (which you may or may not be able to read) of Carver C-4000 preamp with built-in sonic hologram generator functionality.

(4) PDF of December 1981 High Fidelity Magazine that supposedly includes an equipment review of the C9 on page 33 (of the magazine), but unfortunately those pages are missing from the PDF! However on page 65 of the PDF (actually page 69 of the magazine) there is what perhaps is a paid-ad ("circle 7 on the reader-service card" and mail it in, if you want additional information sent back to you from the manufacturer... if you remember how these old PAPER magazines used to work!!) which is a Q&A from Bob Carver himself, "telling you briefly how Sonic Holography" works.

(5) PDF of March 1981 Popular Electronics Magazine that actually does include on page 20 an equipment review of the "standalone" Carver C-9 processor. Previously it was available included as part of the C-4000 preamp.

(6) Useful comments from another online forum discussion:

"Although this is an active process, it essentialy feeds out of phase L and R signals to the opposite channel in an effort to keep the left and right channels from being heard by the opposite ear. Think of a wall straight out from your face perfectly separating the left and right channels with no crosstalk to the opposite ear, thus eliminating the smearing effect caused by your brain hearing L R locational sound being heard in the wrong ear. Carver Hologram generators basically do this electronically. The concept is a sound one, but hard to implement perfectly. Sonic Holography requires extreme care in speaker setup and a perfectly placed listening position, otherwise it does not work well and I think the biggest reason (poor setup) why the unit is unfairly criticized. BUT, when dialed in correctly, it can be overwhelming as to how well it presents the space in a recording; especially the reverb, decay, and ambiance in well done recordings. It also can throw audio all over the room emulating multi speaker setups. Sound can appear to come from outside, behind, or in front of the speakers..... and even from behind the listener depending on the recording. Sometimes it can mimic being in the middle of a studio surrounded by the musicians. This is dependent on the particular recording."

"What really triggered this post is that today I listened to Jean-Michel Jarre's new Welcome To The Other Side release. It is, by far, the album that best takes advantage of the C-9's capabilities, of all the albums I've listened to so far. On the tracks Oxygene 2 and Oxygene 4 in particular, I had to check more than once to make sure I was listening to a stereo system, and not the full 7.1 system in that room. There were synth notes moving in an arch across the top of my head, the full width of the room, and even slightly behind me. It was as close to a discrete surround sound experience as I've ever heard - from two stereo speakers at the front of the room!"
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top