Grimm Audio MU1 and MU2 Music Players

[aangen]

I kind of cheat and use Theoretica Applied Physics BACCH processing so my soundstage is always whatever the recording engineer wanted it to be. I get all the width and depth intended.  Always. The DAC is not really a limiting factor. I'm not worried at all about the soundstage. I will merely compare the DAC in the MU2 to my Gryphon Ethos DAC, the DAC in my BACCH-SP adio, and my Tambaqui. Winner takes all. But I do like to try different DACS every now and then. The Tambaqui is a standout for its speed. It is my current favorite. The Ethos is warmer, and the BACCH-SP adio is kind of in between the two. I am hoping the MU2 DAC is a nice addition. If not, I'll probably keep quiet about it.

 

The next DAC that has my attention is the Playback Designs MPD-8. You can't have too many DACs.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, aangen said:

I kind of cheat and use Theoretica Applied Physics BACCH processing so my soundstage is always whatever the recording engineer wanted it to be. I get all the width and depth intended.

 

😳

 

 

How many recordings do you have that were mixed using BACCH, or any other crosstalk cancellation, plugins? Unless the engineer created the album using BACCH, and heard what it's doing, you aren't getting anything close to what was intended to be heard.

[PYP]

2 hours ago, aangen said:

 I will merely compare the DAC in the MU2 to my Gryphon Ethos DAC, the DAC in my BACCH-SP adio, and my Tambaqui. Winner takes all. But I do like to try different DACS every now and then. The Tambaqui is a standout for its speed. It is my current favorite. The Ethos is warmer, and the BACCH-SP adio is kind of in between the two. I am hoping the MU2 DAC is a nice addition. If not, I'll probably keep quiet about it.

 

@aangen please do let us know whatever you discover about the MU2.  Everyone understands that these are personal findings and that all setups are different and have different synergy.  Because you collect DACs for a hobby, you have a unique comparative view.  

[ls13]

At the risk of oversimplification, I feel the MMT/Mu1 has more high frequency emphasis than the Mu2. My system was erring toward being analytical, and the insertion of the Accuphase 3900 was a good compensation for this. The Mu2 directly driving my Gryphon Essence Stereo did improve image density, tonal quality, quantity of bass, and kept good depth compared to Mu1/MT. However, it wasn't as dynamic, had a smaller width/height soundstage, bass was more loose, and a little less air than the Mu1/MMT/3900 combo.

If your system is already neutral to warm, I believe the Mu2 will move this further in that direction. I listened to both the Mu2 and MMT/Mu1 with three different pre's, an Aesthetix Metis (Mu2 sounded good here), Soulnote P-3 (Mu-2 in this combination lacked air, energy, and excitement), and the C3900 (as above, Mu1/MMT and this pre combined for large soundstage, better image density and shape, better dynamics, better defined bass). All of the differences were not subtle. 

As we design our systems, we aren't just looking for truth, we are trying to paint the illusion of music that reaches us emotionally. That will be different for many of us. There is a big difference between the sound of the MMT/Mu1 combo and Mu2. Which is better will be determined by your other components and your tastes.

@aangen, I think you are misguided by trying to make all these decisions on your own. You really should be listening more to Jay's audio lab and making all of your decisions based on his input.

[aangen]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

😳

 

 

How many recordings do you have that were mixed using BACCH, or any other crosstalk cancellation, plugins? Unless the engineer created the album using BACCH, and heard what it's doing, you aren't getting anything close to what was intended to be heard.

Respectfully, BACCH is not a recording technique. It's a crosstalk cancellation DSP. Remember Carver Sonic Holography? It is a major step up from that. Seek out the extensive review that The Absolute Sound did on the BACCH-SP adio.

 

As to the do I hear what the recording Engineer intended I had a Recording Engineer come and listen to my system. He brought his own recordings and stated my system clearly demonstrated every shortcut he made and ever mistake. He was convinced it was accurate and brutal at times. YMMV.

[aangen]

5 hours ago, ls13 said:

I think you are misguided by trying to make all these decisions on your own. You really should be listening more to Jay's audio lab and making all of your decisions based on his input.

LOL! You said that to be funny I hope.
I have a Gryphon Commander Preamp, Gryphon Apex Amp, Gryphon Ethos Transport DAC, Vivid G1 Spirit speakers. Jay is catching up slowly. But his attention span is unmeasurably short.  You had to be joking.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, aangen said:

Respectfully, BACCH is not a recording technique. It's a crosstalk cancellation DSP. Remember Carver Sonic Holography? It is a major step up from that. Seek out the extensive review that The Absolute Sound did on the BACCH-SP adio.

 

As to the do I hear what the recording Engineer intended I had a Recording Engineer come and listen to my system. He brought his own recordings and stated my system clearly demonstrated every shortcut he made and ever mistake. He was convinced it was accurate and brutal at times. YMMV.

I know the technology very well. It sounds nothing like what the mixing engineer hears in the studio, unless the plugin is used during mixing. 
 

Im all for people using this, but to claim 

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

my soundstage is always whatever the recording engineer wanted it to be

Is 100% preposterous. 

[aangen]

We will have to agree to disagree. I'll ask Dr. Edgar Choueiri, my personal friend who invented the technology if he is aware of you. I think you are mistaken about something or other. But hey, enjoy your day!

[ls13]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know the technology very well. It sounds nothing like what the mixing engineer hears in the studio, unless the plugin is used during mixing. 
 

Im all for people using this, but to claim 

Is 100% preposterous. 

 

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know the technology very well. It sounds nothing like what the mixing engineer hears in the studio, unless the plugin is used during mixing. 
 

Im all for people using this, but to claim 

Is 100% preposterous. 

Is there value in responses like this? As a parent, I try to avoid reactions like this. Aangen is known for his humorous, individualistic style. I disagree with public dismissals like this. Even if you own this site.

 

[ls13]

17 minutes ago, aangen said:

LOL! You said that to be funny I hope.
I have a Gryphon Commander Preamp, Gryphon Apex Amp, Gryphon Ethos Transport DAC, Vivid G1 Spirit speakers. Jay is catching up slowly. But his attention span is unmeasurably short.  You had to be joking.

I'm extremely serious. Audio equipment is to be judged by size, price tag, weight, and extreme sound effects. Musical enjoyment should be low down on the list of considerations. 

[aangen]

15 minutes ago, ls13 said:

I disagree with public dismissals like this. Even if you own this site.

Hacked account, obviously. Why would a founder act in such a manner.

[Ronnie112]

Hacked account or the stars not aligned well. Hope it all will be solved after a good night of sleep.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

28 minutes ago, ls13 said:

 

Is there value in responses like this? As a parent, I try to avoid reactions like this. Aangen is known for his humorous, individualistic style. I disagree with public dismissals like this. Even if you own this site.

 

 

12 minutes ago, aangen said:

Hacked account, obviously. Why would a founder act in such a manner.

When I see something that can only serve to mislead thousands of people, I have to ask questions, then give an opinion based on the reply. 
 

If anything said is false please let me know. 

[aangen]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If anything said is false please let me know. 

Well to start with, a plugin being required when the recording was made is absolutely without basis. This demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not going to try to convince you, there is nothing to gain from that. I know better.

But your behavior in this manner brings me back to USENET battles from the mid 90's. I am embarrassed for you.
Respectfully.  

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

44 minutes ago, aangen said:

We will have to agree to disagree. I'll ask Dr. Edgar Choueiri, my personal friend who invented the technology if he is aware of you. I think you are mistaken about something or other. But hey, enjoy your day!

I’ve sat through personal demos with Edgar. Whether he is aware of me is neither here nor there. 
 

The fact is that any technology that changes the sound, to make it different from what was hear when the music was created, by definition can’t be what the engineers wanted it to be.

[ls13]

4 minutes ago, aangen said:

Well to start with, a plugin being required when the recording was made is absolutely without basis. This demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not going to try to convince you, there is nothing to gain from that. I know better.

But your behavior in this manner brings me back to USENET battles from the mid 90's. I am embarrassed for you.
Respectfully.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, aangen said:

Well to start with, a plugin being required when the recording was made is absolutely without basis. This demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not going to try to convince you, there is nothing to gain from that. I know better.

But your behavior in this manner brings me back to USENET battles from the mid 90's. I am embarrassed for you.
Respectfully.  

 

The Bacch plugin, or Bacch hardware, changes the sound greatly. Unless this is used at the time of the mix, which would make all non-Bacch versions sound terrible, there can be no way an engineer will know what it sounds like. 
 

It’s like saying turning your bass adjustment tone control to the max is what the engineer intended, even though he has no such adjustment. Do you see the impossibility?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Do you know of any engineers using the Bacch plugin or hardware while mixing? I know of none. 
 

P.S. I’m not dumb enough to think the sound is baked in with the plugin. I’m talking about using Bacch while monitoring the mix. Without this, your statement must be false by any use of logic. 

[aangen]

Can't help you sir. Sadness. The more you say, the deeper you fall. My last words to you.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, aangen said:

Can't help you sir. Sadness. The more you say, the deeper you fall. My last words to you.

Seriously. Think about your logic. 
 

Your using a tone control that nobody uses while mixing the music, yet saying it’s what the engineer intended. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Even experts in the field of XTC will acknowledge what I’m saying. This isn’t something crazy. 
 

XTC is really cool, but it can’t deliver what the engineers wanted, unless they used it to monitor while creating the mix. It changes the sound from what they mixed. 

[Lyons77]

This is off topic from Grimm audio, but it is an interesting question since Bacch is getting a lot of press. I've wondered if it might be worth checking out.  It might be possible that Bacch is not what the engineer intended, but that it still improves the sound by correcting for room artifacts.   Or perhaps it does get closer to the original studio or live recording by correcting for room artifacts.  But it is difficult to say exactly what the sound engineer "intended", so it might not be worth arguing that point.

@TheComputerAudiophile - what did you think of Bacch?  Did it correct for room issues or improve the sound in any way? Maybe we can move this discussion to a new topic on Bacch.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Lyons77 said:

This is off topic from Grimm audio, but it is an interesting question since Bacch is getting a lot of press. I've wondered if it might be worth checking out.  It might be possible that Bacch is not what the engineer intended, but that it still improves the sound by correcting for room artifacts.   Or perhaps it does get closer to the original studio or live recording by correcting for room artifacts.  But it is difficult to say exactly what the sound engineer "intended", so it might not be worth arguing that point.

@TheComputerAudiophile - what did you think of Bacch?  Did it correct for room issues or improve the sound in any way? Maybe we can move this discussion to a new topic on Bacch.

This is very important. Bacch and other crosstalk cancellation techniques are really cool! I’m not against them at all. In fact, anything that can make audio more enjoyable for people, and not remove choice from others (like MQA on Tidal), is fantastic. 
 

The presentation of music is hugely different when using XTC. It really must be experienced, to see if you like it. I’m more of a purist for the most part. I want to hear what’s on the recording, as intended by those involved. If they listened to the mix using XTC, then I’ll need XTC to reproduce it as they intended. 

[aangen]

They just released Optimal Room Correction. As happy as I was with their Crosstalk Cancellation the Room Correction is on a new level. Instead of using multiple microphone locations and then averaging to create a correction filter ORC uses the BACCH microphones in your ears. This allows your personal ear shape and characteristics to make a room correction filter for where you sit and what your ear shape does to sound. And with the head tracking enabled if you move it adjusts the sound to match your move. It is quite stunning and may be a more important breakthrough than the crosstalk cancellation feature.

 

I have a BACCH-SP adio and when I discovered that the Room Correction software would be released first for the Bacch4Mac product I bought it immediately as I did not want to wait the four or five months before it would be released for my version of the hardware. Plus I wanted to become acquainted with the Bacch4Mac hardware. You will be hearing more and more about this I believe. It is a stunning achievement.

 

XTC works on the timing information of a recording

ORC works on the frequency response of your environment

Together they bring realism to a very enjoyable level.

[vkennedy]

I am vaguely aware of the rabbit loving madman @aangen and while I am not going to defend his rabid (rabbit) passion for Bacch, I am going to weigh in on the DCS Bartok Apex w/headphone implementation of Expanse. While not exactly like Bacch, it does do something similar and it's mind blowingly (is that a word?) better then any standard headphone implementation. And no, it's not used by recording engineers. That's just a silly thing to say about post-processing. 

 

Bunny on my friend @aangen!!!