ATMOS remixes: whence this bounty?

[ssully]

Does it not seem incredible to anyone else that we've gotten thousands of Atmos remixes in such a short time?

Is there some sort of production factory, where an army of mix engineers are given multitrack master files and are cranking these Atmos mixes out?

Seriously: does anyone here have an industry take and know the 'how' of it? How is this being achieved, logistically?

 

[JediJoker]

Is there some sort of production factory, where an army of mix engineers are given multitrack master files and are cranking these Atmos mixes out?

There is the in-house Dolby Labs production facility in San Francisco, whence came the Atmos mix of Alanis Morissette's Little Jagged Pill, sans any specific engineer credit. It follows that there are likely more of these mixes on streaming.

 

[pat bateman]

A lot them are extremely low effort. Some outright fake. Trivium - a metal band I liked back in the day, all the sudden just released all their albums in Atmos, which I thought was weird. Sure enough, there is no center channel - they put in some gibberish noise in there every once in a while, probably to fool an automated filter of some sort, and the rears were just reverb. I've seen debate here if this is "fake" Atmos or not, but it's basically just reproducing what Dolby Prologic II started 20 years ago, or what any modern receiver up-mixing does today with DTS Neural:X, etc.

Apple pays 10% higher royalties for Atmos. Naturally that's going to attract both good and bad attention. But it also gives Apple a reason to remove fake Atmos stuff, as they don't want to pay 10% more for no reason, but low effort Atmos is still Atmos technically I guess, unfortunately.

 

[PurpleMoustache]

The way I see it is it’s multiple companies all coming to the same realizations around the same time, and working together to settle on *a* format, rather than competing formats.

Dolby has an interest in Atmos as their “latest and greatest” sound technology. They want Atmos out in the world everywhere that can handle it: movie theaters, concert venues, home theaters, video games, phones, etc. The fact that it’s object based allows the format to scale to many speakers, or few speakers, or virtualized surround on headphones (and sound better than channel based surround bodged into headphone output).

The movie studios have an interest in it because people will pay premium prices for Dolby Cinema screenings, or IMAX screenings or other “larger and or better” formats, so they adopt it over on the movies/tv side of things.

The record labels have an interest in it because they get an extra 10% on Apple Music and can sell the mixes in big anniversary box sets that collectors and enthusiasts will complain about but buy anyway. From their perspective you pay people for a couple weeks or so of work and you get a pretty good ROI.

Apple has an incentive because the iTunes Store is one of the leading movie purchase/rental services and they need to keep up technologically AND they sell products on the pitch that Apple products tend to have pretty good screens AND they sell home theater equipment (the Apple TV) AND they sell audio equipment (HomePods, AirPods, etc) AND they have an AR/VR device in which positional audio (like Atmos) makes sense.

The other streaming services (audio and or video) have an interest because they can keep up with the times and also charge a premium for it (cough, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Max, cough cough).

For better or for worse, the reason why it’s gotten so big is because of the headphone support. A movie on Netflix will have an Atmos mix, and those with full Atmos setups (or soundbars, etc) will benefit with great audio. The person watching a downloaded Netflix movie on a plane also benefits because that same Atmos mix will scale down to the headphones they brought for the plane. Same goes for all the streaming Atmos mixes. More and more people are listening to music on headphones. With True Wireless headphones like AirPods and Galaxy Buds and the Sony XM-something-or-others, more and more people are listening to music all the time, on the go, anywhere they want. Why not offer something that sounds pretty good on headphones, while also pointing to the fact that it could sound better on a full setup?

The mix quality will vary but hasn’t that kind of always been the case? For every Steven Wilson 5.1 there’s a Silverline 5.1. For every supremely polished stereo mix done by industry professionals there’s also crap stereo mixes done by the band’s friends on the cheap. We can point to a certain level of learning curve to the format itself. Steven Wilson has mentioned it, and others regularly mention it in IAA interviews. The “heavy hitters” as it were have figured it out, but the newcomers are still learning, and as more and more bands start wanting their music in Atmos either for the love of the tech or the love of the money (streaming, disc, download, etc) I have a feeling it could eventually become as ubiquitous as stereo is now.

 

[barfle]

Well, whatever the reason, I’m upgrading my room to atmos. Rebuilding my rack to accommodate a few updated decisions, and looking forward to hearing some immersive stuff. I have a fair number of discs with atmos, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I end up with a spotify stream. Then I’ll be able to make informed remarks about how things sound.

 

[himey]

I wouldn’t be surprised if I end up with a spotify stream.

?

 

[jimfisheye]

A lot them are extremely low effort. Some outright fake. ...

Most people listening to "Atmos" are listening in stereo and have never heard surround sound. "Oh yeah I saw that!" Holds their phone up for me to see. (A phone wielding earbud listener.) Points to "Atmos" printed on the screen. "Yeah, I'm listening in Atmos!" A music collection of their own even is "retro". They're blown by the winds online.

Fakes will rule especially on streaming. Haha yeah, no one is beating down my door for Atmos mixes either! The local musicians I work with just give me a weird face. With surround in general! It's a weird aside of a studio listening experience or something. There are wows and accolades for sure! Then they go back to their phones and earbuds. They usually still say the limited/boosted to -10 LUFS version of the mix sounds better too. Still living in the volume wars. No one clicks on the nominal settings on Spotify or Apple music for -14 or -16 LUFS 1:1 lossless for stereo.

I mean, bring it on! Lets make some awesome 12 channel mixes! Getting their fan base to hang speakers let alone even go to 5.1 is barely a dream. Musicians scraping up any money for any kind of studio work right now is another issue too.

We've basically recreated the reel to reel experience of the 70s of a niche way to have the most expensive music listening experience possible. 21st century edition.

 

[barfle]

?

!

 

[par4ken]

The way I see it is it’s multiple companies all coming to the same realizations around the same time, and working together to settle on *a* format, rather than competing formats.

Dolby has an interest in Atmos as their “latest and greatest” sound technology. They want Atmos out in the world everywhere that can handle it: movie theaters, concert venues, home theaters, video games, phones, etc. The fact that it’s object based allows the format to scale to many speakers, or few speakers, or virtualized surround on headphones (and sound better than channel based surround bodged into headphone output).

The movie studios have an interest in it because people will pay premium prices for Dolby Cinema screenings, or IMAX screenings or other “larger and or better” formats, so they adopt it over on the movies/tv side of things.

The record labels have an interest in it because they get an extra 10% on Apple Music and can sell the mixes in big anniversary box sets that collectors and enthusiasts will complain about but buy anyway. From their perspective you pay people for a couple weeks or so of work and you get a pretty good ROI.

Apple has an incentive because the iTunes Store is one of the leading movie purchase/rental services and they need to keep up technologically AND they sell products on the pitch that Apple products tend to have pretty good screens AND they sell home theater equipment (the Apple TV) AND they sell audio equipment (HomePods, AirPods, etc) AND they have an AR/VR device in which positional audio (like Atmos) makes sense.

The other streaming services (audio and or video) have an interest because they can keep up with the times and also charge a premium for it (cough, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Max, cough cough).

For better or for worse, the reason why it’s gotten so big is because of the headphone support. A movie on Netflix will have an Atmos mix, and those with full Atmos setups (or soundbars, etc) will benefit with great audio. The person watching a downloaded Netflix movie on a plane also benefits because that same Atmos mix will scale down to the headphones they brought for the plane. Same goes for all the streaming Atmos mixes. More and more people are listening to music on headphones. With True Wireless headphones like AirPods and Galaxy Buds and the Sony XM-something-or-others, more and more people are listening to music all the time, on the go, anywhere they want. Why not offer something that sounds pretty good on headphones, while also pointing to the fact that it could sound better on a full setup?

The mix quality will vary but hasn’t that kind of always been the case? For every Steven Wilson 5.1 there’s a Silverline 5.1. For every supremely polished stereo mix done by industry professionals there’s also crap stereo mixes done by the band’s friends on the cheap. We can point to a certain level of learning curve to the format itself. Steven Wilson has mentioned it, and others regularly mention it in IAA interviews. The “heavy hitters” as it were have figured it out, but the newcomers are still learning, and as more and more bands start wanting their music in Atmos either for the love of the tech or the love of the money (streaming, disc, download, etc) I have a feeling it could eventually become as ubiquitous as stereo is now.

While I basically agree with what you are saying I would caution against believing Atmos to be a panacea. I've seen too many great things that were touted as being the wave of the future suddenly dropped. I am therefore skeptical about the long term survival of Atmos based on past experience. We are currently in good place with a lot of new surround music in Atmos. Will it last, I hope so but I am rather doubtful. I see Atmos' survival hinging more on its link to the movie industry, than with surround music.

Lastly I agree with MidiMagic in his belief that when the patent has expired Dolby will abandon the technology and then support something else entirely. A universal surround system unencumbered by patent constraints would be a panacea but is unlikely to come from Dolby.

 

[ar surround]

I see Atmos' survival hinging more on its link to the movie industry, than with surround music

Wasn't that the same for 5.1?

 

[par4ken]

Wasn't that the same for 5.1?

Yes

 

[barfle]

While I basically agree with what you are saying I would caution against believing Atmos to be a panacea. I've seen too many great things that were touted as being the wave of the future suddenly dropped. I am therefore skeptical about the long term survival of Atmos based on past experience. We are currently in good place with a lot of new surround music in Atmos. Will it last, I hope so but I am rather doubtful. I see Atmos' survival hinging more on its link to the movie industry, than with surround music.

Lastly I agree with MidiMagic in his belief that when the patent has expired Dolby will abandon the technology and then support something else entirely. A universal surround system unencumbered by patent constraints would be a panacea but is unlikely to come from Dolby.

I’m a lousy fortune-teller, but Atmos has been around for over ten years, which is longer than CD-4 records were being pressed (pretty close, anyway). So it isn’t a flash-in-the-pan thing. I don’t know any marketing numbers, but it seems pretty robust to me.

Whether Dolby comes up with an incrementally new whoopdedo once the patents expire (and they can be renewed) is another thing entirely. But I probably won’t be able to care by then.

 

[mandrix]

I give Dolby credit for taking MLP/Meridian Lossless Packing - not invented by them of course - to a higher level, i.e. expanding the number of speakers and going beyond a mere "channel" format. Yes phantom imaging is nothing new, we know that. Like listening to Quad and hearing the vocals come from a non-existent center speaker.
What is wrong with extending that, as when you hear sounds apparently coming from a location where you know darn well there is no speaker? Not voodoo. Nothing fake here.

But the use of "objects" has allowed the mixers to expand their own and our imaginations and hearing in all directions. Some people view Atmos as fake voodoo because either they haven't heard good mixes or don't understand how it works. (or don't care...which is fine) It's not voodoo, there's no real "secret sauce" involved, just more freedom to move the sound around in (hopefully) interesting and appropriate ways that add to the soundscape.

Of course, just like some are perfectly happy with stereo, or Quad, or (pick your own) channel format, I embrace the immersive mixes, and if another does not, I'm perfectly fine with that.

One of @jimfisheye complaints is or was, (I believe) and I think a very valid one, is having to be an "approved" shop for cranking out commercial Atmos releases, at least as pertains to the streamers like Tidal and Apple.
The sheer quantity of crappy streaming releases shows this to be a bad decision. Yes, there are very good ones as well!

Only guessing of course, but if an "approved" shop can turn out Atmos mixes for commercial release, I would think that umbrella would extend to all who work under that shop's direction....everyone has to start somewhere, and some are bound to furk it all up along the way, and in fact may never excel at mixing anything. But one would hope like in all crafts these people will improve with time and practice.

Sometimes I think Quality Control for releases is nigh near non existent. e.g. I'm told the "new" Thompson Twins release has no vocals on one track in DTS-HD, but does on the Atmos version on the same disc.
Don't know personally as I always concentrate first on the Atmos version on disc.

What will the future bring? I sure as hell don't know. I hope to live a bit longer, but at this point do not want to invest in any more electronics for some as yet undefined new format. But as time has shown us since mono > stereo > tri channel > quad > (matrixed/discrete) > 5.0/5.1 and on, at least the audio world IS moving and not static. I see that overall as a good thing, if my bank account does not.
We can rail against abandoned formats but ultimately seemingly powerless to do much about it but adapt and move on.
As such we are too small a segment of the buying population to have a major impact on decisions made by corporations.
Movie watchers/buyers will be the major segment of immersive audio products and move the AVR manufacturers by and large more than music surround enthusiasts will. Dollars is where it's at for them.

Sorry for writing a book here, but this is the way I see it.

 

[ssully]

?

Probably meant Apple or Tidal.

 

[AYanguas]

But the use of "objects" has allowed the mixers to expand their own and our imaginations and hearing in all directions.

IMO, the original need to develop the 'object' based technology (for Dolby Movies) was to avoid the arbitrary/impossible ever increasing number of channels. Then to be able to decode in different rigs with different number of speakers, not to be constrained by the number of actual speakers/channels.

I mean, all directions can be achieved with imaging between channels. But the use of 'objects' has improved a lot both the mixing processes and the listening results.
Now, when a technology is well stablished in the market (for movies) lets use it also for music only. More than a half way of the marketing is already done. (Sorry for the free/open technology lovers).

Movie watchers/buyers will be the major segment of immersive audio products and move the AVR manufacturers by and large more than music surround enthusiasts will. Dollars is where it's at for them.

It's a pitty that the whole Home Theater market for movies are not also people fan of multichannel music. I think about how disjoint may be the groups of movie watchers and music listeners with a certain degree of audiophile (like us).

I always say to friends: You have an Atmos Movie to only hear some seconds shoots or passing planes rear or above. While you have the whole music track length to listen to discrete Atmos sound directions (if the mix collaborates for it). I.e. the invest of a great number of speakers room pays off more with music than with movies. (Well, I know there are some movies with great Atmos soundtracks, but I have to 'sell' the Atmos music concept).

 

[par4ken]

IMO, the original need to develop the 'object' based technology (for Dolby Movies) was to avoid the arbitrary/impossible ever increasing number of channels. Then to be able to decode in different rigs with different number of speakers, not to be constrained by the number of actual speakers/channels.

Object based is really nothing new. I would consider Ambisonics to be object based. The idea of speaker "channels" is thrown out.

The original RM system as opposed to QS has been said to be a kernel system rather than a matrix system. Objects can be placed or panned to any position. The use of additional speakers placed between the corners is very feasible. Other systems were intent on producing specific corner signals.

I agree that only an object based system would be compatible with any number of channels and any placement of speakers as well.

 

[jimfisheye]

"Object based" isn't something you hear per say or an alteration on how a mix sounds. It's an intermediate delivery of some of the mix subgroup elements within the system. The mix comes out at the end sounding as the engineer intends while listening to their speaker array.

You hear the mix as it was intended with the same speaker setup. You hear it hopefully close enough with a different speaker array. Folddown works as well (or not) as it always has.

There are no new panning options available due to the intermediate treatment of panned elements with 'objects'. Joystick panners have been around for a long time! All points in the soundstage can be panned to and with any motion one wants. This offers literally nothing new to hear! It only offers the potential for a mix to be heard skewed from how it was intended to sound if something goes wrong.

The original mix as it was made and intended to be heard on a specific speaker array is still the main event. Compromises with smaller speaker arrays are always secondary.

But the decode requirement offers a dongle system to tie media listening to a hardware product. That's the big new ability from Atmos. Make people already setup for pcm digital audio have to buy some new hardware anyway.

None of this is a bad thing! The part where surround got extended to 12 channels and commercial released mixes is actually taking off is pretty amazing and honestly unexpected. The gaslighting with the hardware kerfuffle is a little blunt. The "you're hearing objects!" is just absurd!
You're hearing a mix someone made into 12 channels of 24 bit audio.

 

[par4ken]

"Object based" isn't something you hear per say or an alteration on how a mix sounds. It's an intermediate delivery of some of the mix subgroup elements within the system. The mix comes out at the end sounding as the engineer intends while listening to their speaker array.

You hear the mix as it was intended with the same speaker setup. You hear it hopefully close enough with a different speaker array. Folddown works as well (or not) as it always has.

There are no new panning options available due to the intermediate treatment of panned elements with 'objects'. Joystick panners have been around for a long time! All points in the soundstage can be panned to and with any motion one wants. This offers literally nothing new to hear! It only offers the potential for a mix to be heard skewed from how it was intended to sound if something goes wrong.

The original mix as it was made and intended to be heard on a specific speaker array is still the main event. Compromises with smaller speaker arrays are always secondary.

But the decode requirement offers a dongle system to tie media listening to a hardware product. That's the big new ability from Atmos. Make people already setup for pcm digital audio have to buy some new hardware anyway.

None of this is a bad thing! The part where surround got extended to 12 channels and commercial released mixes is actually taking off is pretty amazing and honestly unexpected. The gaslighting with the hardware kerfuffle is a little blunt. The "you're hearing objects!" is just absurd!
You're hearing a mix someone made into 12 channels of 24 bit audio.

Object based is the entire point of a system like Atmos. To reduce it to a discrete twelve channel "system" is both limiting and impractical. when a mix is created the "objects" should be placed at a location, not in a speaker channel. That location should not depend on a set number of channels or speakers.

If one is to view it merely as twelve discrete channels, all assigned a firm location then the entire usefulness of Atmos becomes even more ludicrous. The "masses" will never run twelve channels in thier Living Room. It has been so hard to preach to people about Quad all these years and that only requires two more speakers!

I'm not saying that Atmos is a panacea either but going "object based" makes everything much more practical. A system that is future proof because it can be scaled up. A system that is backward compatible because it can be scaled down.