Atmos vs 5.1

[AYanguas]

It's DD not DD+.

Sure. DD or AC3

Too many times writing DD+ for the lossy Atmos JOC

 

[DrKlahn]

That's my understanding of how it works too. Except I would say this sounds more similar to "matrix" quad, where the surround info exists in the stereo signal only to be decoded and send to the other speakers if the playback system is capable of doing that.

No doubt there are some like Wilson who prioritize the full Atmos speaker system. But I have to question whether that is true for many/most of the engineers cranking out a lot of the mixes we see streaming. Many are quite weak through a full system.

I just attended Mwave 2024 and Martin Logan had a room dedicated to Immersive Audio (Atmos) played via Apple Music. They played a variety of tracks and took requests. I was in the room 3 different times over the weekend. None of the tracks that they played or attendees requested sounded weak. None. I heard a lot of tracks I have never heard. The ones that stood out were by Madonna, Prince, The Who (now I REALLY want that set), Dead Mau 5. I threw out some from SW, Peter Gabriel, and The Doors (Riders on the Storm).

Who knows what the future will bring, but I can tell you that where we are today isn't at all bad. My opinion is that some of us want things that are impractical. I have listened to mixes some consider "bad" or "weak" and really think this a case of expecting too much or expecting music to be something it isn't. Knopfler's One Deep River, for instance, has had its share of critics on here, but I really would like to know what the detractors want. You're not going to take what is essentially a simple intimate blues/rock album and make it into I/O or The Harmony Codex. It's just not that sort of music. Myself on revisits of that particular mix have ended up appreciating it more for what it does. It makes the 2ch into a more enveloping and personal experience for me.

Maybe we will see Atmos become a casualty of mediocrity, but I really do not feel like that is where we are.

MLs room:

 

[key_wiz]

I just attended Mwave 2024 and Martin Logan had a room dedicated to Immersive Audio (Atmos) played via Apple Music. They played a variety of tracks and took requests. I was in the room 3 different times over the weekend. None of the tracks that they played or attendees requested sounded weak. None. I heard a lot of tracks I have never heard. The ones that stood out were by Madonna, Prince, The Who (now I REALLY want that set), Dead Mau 5. I threw out some from SW, Peter Gabriel, and The Doors (Riders on the Storm).

Who knows what the future will bring, but I can tell you that where we are today isn't at all bad. My opinion is that some of us want things that are impractical. I have listened to mixes some consider "bad" or "weak" and really think this a case of expecting too much or expecting music to be something it isn't. Knopfler's One Deep River, for instance, has had its share of critics on here, but I really would like to know what the detractors want. You're not going to take what is essentially a simple intimate blues/rock album and make it into I/O or The Harmony Codex. It's just not that sort of music. Myself on revisits of that particular mix have ended up appreciating it more for what it does. It makes the 2ch into a more enveloping and personal experience for me.

Maybe we will see Atmos become a casualty of mediocrity, but I really do not feel like that is where we are.

MLs room:

I was speaking more of a lot of the more current pop releases rather than the “legacy” artists

 

[sjcorne]

The Doors (Riders on the Storm).

I was surprised to see this track kind of got slagged in the poll thread for the new Best Of release, I’d demo Atmos with it.

 

[Owen Smith]

I was surprised to see this track kind of got slagged in the poll thread for the new Best Of release, I’d demo Atmos with it.

It's the best track on the disc for me!

 

[DrKlahn]

I was speaking more of a lot of the more current pop releases rather than the “legacy” artists

I couldn't tell you all the tracks that people picked while I was in there, but some were current (I didn't recognize the artists). But it's certainly possible that I just wasn't there for anything awful. I'd still say that given the variety it was encouraging. My guess is that we'll see a lot of the same pattern we have over various formats. Engineers and artists that care will put out good product, those that just want to print money will cut corners or not care and put out a less than stellar product.

 

[DrKlahn]

I was surprised to see this track kind of got slagged in the poll thread for the new Best Of release, I’d demo Atmos with it.

Not to derail the thread, but it was an interesting comparison to me since I've played that track on my setup many times. The ML setup did not have the atmospherics of my room/setup on that particular track. It still sounded great, but that "veil of the storm effect" wasn't as prevalent. On the flip side Road to Joy off I/O had more of a bouncing around the room thing on the MLs than my room does.

Kudos to ML for setting that room up. I think it introduced a lot of folks there to what immersive audio can really sound like and why it's worth pursuing.

 

[quicksrt]

Who knows what the future will bring, but I can tell you that where we are today isn't at all bad. My opinion is that some of us want things that are impractical. I have listened to mixes some consider "bad" or "weak" and really think this a case of expecting too much or expecting music to be something it isn't. Knopfler's One Deep River, for instance, has had its share of critics on here, but I really would like to know what the detractors want. You're not going to take what is essentially a simple intimate blues/rock album and make it into I/O or The Harmony Codex. It's just not that sort of music. Myself on revisits of that particular mix have ended up appreciating it more for what it does. It makes the 2ch into a more enveloping and personal experience for me.

Maybe we will see Atmos become a casualty of mediocrity, but I really do not feel like that is where we are.

MLs room:

I honestly thought that the issue with that Mark Knopfler album was that it's not a really great album, rather than an uninteresting mix.

 

[DrKlahn]

I honestly thought that the issue with that Mark Knopfler album was that it's not a really great album, rather than an uninteresting mix.

Certainly fair not to like the album. I was just commenting on some of posts on the mix and some the expectations I thought the posters had. I personally liked it content wise.

 

[Sal1950]

I honestly thought that the issue with that Mark Knopfler album was that it's not a really great album, rather than an uninteresting mix.

IMHO it fell short everywhere. I gave it an 8 in the poll and thought I was being quite generous.
YMMV

 

[key_wiz]

I honestly thought that the issue with that Mark Knopfler album was that it's not a really great album, rather than an uninteresting mix.

Typically slow, boring Knopfler album. But I thought it fine if you like his slow, boring stuff.

The mix was beyond uninteresting, however. The stereo through a simple AVR processer is better.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

The mix was beyond uninteresting, however. The stereo through a simple AVR processer is better.

I strongly disagree with this. No upmixer I've heard can come even remotely close to providing the dynamics, illusion of height, and imaging the Atmos mix has. If such an upmixer existed, I'd use it for all my stereo sources.

 

[himey]

The stereo through a simple AVR processer is better.

No way. I will keep all the dynamics of the Atmos mix every time.
edit...
Didn't see @LuvMyQuad post.

 

[Malhomme]

How do you figure that ???

Simply, having so many speaker you can trip into. In my living room the structure is non symetric, and if I had a 7.1.4 system, I couldn't even access the couch.

 

[sjcorne]

The mix was beyond uninteresting, however. The stereo through a simple AVR processer is better.

This Atmos mix makes heavy of the front height speakers, so you’re not really getting the full effect listening in 5.1. I agree it’s a conservative mix, but definitely more impressive than an upmix/manipulation from stereo as others above have said.

 

[stoopid]

This topic had me double check things on my end, and I'm pleased to report everything is working fine ('folding' atmos down to 5.1).

The missing guitar parts I noticed, upon a more critical examination, are there just MUCH lower in the mix than the stereo version. Overall the Pearl Jam album is just not the best sound quality, though they did a respectable job making use of the surround field. The problems I have with the release are more to do with mixing decisions than technical issues.

To verify things are fine, I played some tracks from Van Morrison's Moondance and Dark Side of the Moon in atmos, and both sounded as good as the included 5.1 mixes. I may even like the Moondance atmos mix more, I'd have to do a better comparison to the 5.1 as I'm not as familiar with this album as DSotM. I recall when playing Moondance last on my old receiver the atmos mix sounded very bland even though surround elements were there in all the speakers. I suspect that was a result of something set in my old receiver.

Additionally, I was able to verify the UBP-X800M2 bluray player [attached image] was sending 7.1 (direct) to the receiver, and the STR-DH590 receiver was receiving TrueHD data [video below].

 

[Sal1950]

Correct, even @jimfisheye and myself agree there is something wrong with the base 7.1 in the Atmos on DSOTM.

Again, I could be wrong but as I inferred from my reading was that on DSOTM the Side and Rear surround channels got mixed, with the Side Surround signal coming from the Rear Surround speakers and vs-versa? With only a 5.2.4 rig here I've got no way to personally check?

I still maintain that in an ideal world, rendering Atmos to 7.x or 5.x should sound identical to ignoring the Atmos data and just playing the True HD as 7.x or 5.x.

That's my opinion also.

Not to mention it will ruin your living room

How do you figure that ???

Simply, having so many speaker you can trip into. In my living room the structur is non symetric, and I have a 7.1.4 system, I cant even acess the couch.

Ya got to make a choice.
Great sound or easy access.

 

[Owen Smith]

Again, I could be wrong but as I inferred from my reading was that on DSOTM the Side and Rear surround channels got mixed, with the Side Surround signal coming from the Rear Surround speakers and vs-versa?

That couldn't explain the issues I hear with DSOTM. Indeed given I have a 5.0 system I wouldn't even be able to hear that.

 

[MidiMagic]

Backward compatibility? Where's the backward compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic? If you have that, you can't play any of these.

I remember reading about the National Association of Broadcasters putting its foot down on all the different versions of the so-called standard record. There were differences in all of these factors:
- Turntable Speed
- Hole size
- Center or outside start
- Vertical, lateral, or diagonal recording
- Groove size
- Playback equalization
- Different finishing groove

The NAB said that their members would not play your records unless they conformed to THIS standard:
- Turntable Speed of 78.26 rpm - the average of the 76 rpm Victor was using and the 80 rpm Columbia was using.
- Hole size - 5/16 inch
- Center or outside start - Outside start
- Vertical, lateral, or diagonal recording - Lateral recording
- Groove size - for a 3-mil stylus
- Playback equalization - 250 Hz turnover frequency for the bass restoration
- Different finishing groove - eccentric finishing groove

We need this kind of clout again. There are too many different standards.

I was happy when Dolby Pro Logic was the ONLY system in use. I wish it still were.

 

[Owen Smith]

Backward compatibility? Where's the backward compatibility with Dolby Pro Logic?

That is unrelated to Atmos. Dolby introduced "Dolby Surround" which does not accurately decode any of the old Dolby Surround, Pro Logic or Pro Logic II formats. But there was no reason why Atmos could not have co-existed with those.