Is Dolby Atmos the future?

[hopkins]

The Prince Atmos mixes I have heard aren’t very good.

I saw that one coming.... That is going to be the reality of ATMOS when it scales (it has already started...) and labels start mass producing ATMOS mixes. You may end up with a high performing ATMOS system, chasing those few "really good mixes". I personally don't like it when the system dictates what I should listen to and enjoy.

Here is another feedback on AudiophileStyle of a comparison between 2 channel and ATMOS (https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/my-visit-to-audiophile-style-hq-—-another-take-on-immersive-vs-2ch-audio-r1186/):

Listening to the Blomstedt Schubert album in 2ch lossless 24/96 after the lossy Atmos was quite illuminating. On the one hand, the 2ch mix did not convey that sense of ambience and space that the Atmos mix did. On the other hand, soundstage depth, instrument timbre and texture were so much better on the 2ch mix.

On the Stravinsky, we were going from the lossless Atmos mix with 24/48 resolution per channel to the 2ch 24/96 mix. This was a better indicator of what a surround mix adds without the downsides of compression. Certainly, here again, there was a loss of space and ambience, but was it a crushing loss? Not to me. My focus is on the stage, and I place the most value on how the musicians and instruments sound and are rendered.

But to make a long story short, it seems to me that the way ATMOS is being promoted on audiophile forums (and especially on AudiophileStyle) is a little heavy-handed. ATMOS is not "more accurate" or "superior" - it is different.

The comparison between mono and stereo is interesting because there are many people still today who really appreciate mono (I am one of them).

 

[Joe Whip]

expensive, and a room fully executed for optimal sound staging, are different things. and there are many degrees of both. and then having the analog sources to take full advantage of the gear and room is another thing yet.

I have heard all levels of roomsand equipment, well calibrated rooms and studios, again, i have m6 opinions and you have yours.mi am fine with that.

 

[Joe Whip]

I saw that one coming.... That is going to be the reality of ATMOS when it scales (it has already started...) and labels start mass producing ATMOS mixes. You may end up with a high performing ATMOS system, chasing those few "really good mixes". I personally don't like it when the system dictates what I should listen to and enjoy.

Here is another feedback on AudiophileStyle of a comparison between 2 channel and ATMOS (https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/my-visit-to-audiophile-style-hq-—-another-take-on-immersive-vs-2ch-audio-r1186/):

Listening to the Blomstedt Schubert album in 2ch lossless 24/96 after the lossy Atmos was quite illuminating. On the one hand, the 2ch mix did not convey that sense of ambience and space that the Atmos mix did. On the other hand, soundstage depth, instrument timbre and texture were so much better on the 2ch mix.

On the Stravinsky, we were going from the lossless Atmos mix with 24/48 resolution per channel to the 2ch 24/96 mix. This was a better indicator of what a surround mix adds without the downsides of compression. Certainly, here again, there was a loss of space and ambience, but was it a crushing loss? Not to me. My focus is on the stage, and I place the most value on how the musicians and instruments sound and are rendered.

But to make a long story short, it seems to me that the way ATMOS is being promoted on audiophile forums (and especially on AudiophileStyle) is a little heavy-handed. ATMOS is not "more accurate" or "superior" - it is different.

The comparison between mono and stereo is interesting because there are many people still today who really appreciate mono (I am one of them).

Well, yes maybe we are a bit heavy handed. I guess the opposite isn ‘t true on many traditional audiophile sites an don’t get me started on MQA. You seem to be looking for pieces that support your opinion, which is fine as it is only audio, but my ears, rooms and experience tells me something else. One final point, go to a great concert hall and hear classical music performance. It is an immersive experience. Not two channel.

 

[dminches]

I have a very nice Dolby Atmos setup with a Lyngdorf MP 60 2.1 processor. For movies it sounds great. For albums recorded specifically for Dolby Atmos, like Steven Wilson's "Harmony Codex" it sounds amazing. Same for Dark Side Of The Moon. However, for most vintage audio recordings I much prefer my 2 channel setup. It is all good since I can enjoy both.

 

[Joe Whip]

Exactly? Find the 4K ultra blu ray of Bob James Feel Like Making Live. Amazing.

 

[hopkins]

Well, yes maybe we are a bit heavy handed. I guess the opposite isn ‘t true on many traditional audiophile sites an don’t get me started on MQA. You seem to be looking for pieces that support your opinion, which is fine as it is only audio, but my ears, rooms and experience tells me something else. One final point, go to a great concert hall and hear classical music performance. It is an immersive experience. Not two channel.

I guess I am curious to understand what the appeal is of listening in ATMOS to music that was made for mono or stereo.

In my humble opinion, I don't see the point. It would be like viewing a colorized black and white movie (or photography). You make it more "modern" but I think you lose in the original subtlety and refinement. The process is not "transparent", you end up with something different...

In one of his latest articles about immersive audio ("Embracing Immersive Audio") Chris Connaker mentions his 11 year-old daughter being infatuated with listening to Taylor Swift in immersive audio and disappointed when a track is only available in stereo. LOL. When my kids were that age, they did not want to see black and white movies. Fortunately, they grew up to appreciate art in any form...

 

[Joe Whip]

Read about the transition from mono to stereo. I wrote a bit about it. Stereo was developed for movies but too quite awhile to migrate to music. Again, enjoy what you vs.trying to convince meI am wrong. Even better, try it. If you do not like it, fine.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Isn't this just a matter of preference based on one's net net perception of the pros and cons of each format?

Joe is reporting that for him the benefits of the multi-channel presentation outweigh the sonic costs of the digital processing and the inevitable loss of some transparency.

hopkins is speculating that for him the multi-channel presentation will not outweigh these sonic costs, and that he will continue to prefer high purity two-channel.

 

[hopkins]

Read about the transition from mono to stereo. I wrote a bit about it. Stereo was developed for movies but too quite awhile to migrate to music. Again, enjoy what you vs.trying to convince meI am wrong. Even better, try it. If you do not like it, fine.

I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong! I was just trying to understand how immersive audio would be "superior".

 

[henrich3]

I am not trying to convince you that you are wrong! I was just trying to understand how immersive audio would be "superior".

Immersive audio played back on a good system in an acoustically treated room can provide a more accurate reproduction of the ambience of the venue where the recording took place. In a stereo playback system, you hear early reflected sounds coming off your walls. With immersive audio the delayed reflected sounds that you would have in a large concert hall, for example, are reproduced by the speakers above & all around you. You may also hear the clinking of drink glasses, whispered voices, and other audience noises coming from your sides or behind you, just as you would in a live concert. The end result is greater realism.

 

[hopkins]

Immersive audio played back on a good system in an acoustically treated room can provide a more accurate reproduction of the ambience of the venue where the recording took place. In a stereo playback system, you hear early reflected sounds coming off your walls. With immersive audio the delayed reflected sounds that you would have in a large concert hall, for example, are reproduced by the speakers above & all around you. You may also hear the clinking of drink glasses, whispered voices, and other audience noises coming from your sides or behind you, just as you would in a live concert. The end result is greater realism.

Reflected sound can be dealt with to some extent with acoustic treatment, or with nearfield listening. Perhaps multiple speakers can solve that problem, but it is not the only way of doing it (and it would require some acoustic treatment anyhow).

As for room ambience, you should give single-microphone recordings a try. Here's what Steve Hoffman has to say (quoted from his forum):

"Most of the recordings made from the invention of the Western Electric microphone in 1925 are single miked. Was standard procedure in the old days. Thousands of records from every company around the world.

Sometimes they would add a spot mic but that was rare. As radio became more popular, the recording engineers learned from their radio brothers the technique of adding a group of microphones to control the sound from the booth rather than have the musicians move. So the knobs moved around, not the musicians. The beginning of the end of "natural sound"....."

P.S. In any event, I don't think accuracy in audio is limited to spatial rendition...as stated before.

 

[Joe Whip]

Single mic recordings can be used for Atmos. In fact, I have some test mixes from Sound liaison that sound fantastic but not commercially available. Maybe some day.

 

[henrich3]

Reflected sound can be dealt with to some extent with acoustic treatment, or with nearfield listening. Perhaps multiple speakers can solve that problem, but it is not the only way of doing it (and it would require some acoustic treatment anyhow).

As for room ambience, you should give single-microphone recordings a try. Here's what Steve Hoffman has to say (quoted from his forum):

"Most of the recordings made from the invention of the Western Electric microphone in 1925 are single miked. Was standard procedure in the old days. Thousands of records from every company around the world.

Sometimes they would add a spot mic but that was rare. As radio became more popular, the recording engineers learned from their radio brothers the technique of adding a group of microphones to control the sound from the booth rather than have the musicians move. So the knobs moved around, not the musicians. The beginning of the end of "natural sound"....."

P.S. In any event, I don't think accuracy in audio is limited to spatial rendition...as stated before.

Although my comment was intended to point out the benefits of immersive audio over stereo for music listening, my system's primary use is home theater. Most of my ATMOS music discs are studio recordings - not live concerts. (eg. Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, and The Who's Who's Next). ATMOS on those recordings have manufactured ambience. ATMOS mix engineers can also get creative with where they put instruments or background vocals. These immersive audio recordings can make the listening experience more interesting & enjoyable if they're mixed well IMO. I suspect that most stereo fans would be bowled over if they heard the ATMOS version of DSotM on a good system.

 

[hopkins]

I found this video interesting.

Here to Stay? The Controversy Around Dolby ATMOS

Coverage of Dolby Atmos has be characterized by one of two things: Hype or Hatred. Are there real benefits to the format? Is it just a fad? Or is it a danger...

www.youtube.com

The first 15 minutes discuss the relevance and prospects of ATMOS.

 

[Analog Scott]

There clearly is some serious industry support for Dolby Atmos. But given the legacy of stereo recordings it is saddled with the inherent limitations of up mixing and the often added bad taste in specific up mixes.