Comments Inspired by Lennon, John - GIMME SOME TRUTH (Ultimate Remixes) [Blu-Ray Audio]

[EricKalet]

I stated that was how i thought it worked in thread #159, but was told that was incorrect.

Nothing is discarded, just the appropriate substream is played back based on setup.

 

[himey]

I always thought it worked the other way around. The 7.1 already has the object info imbedded in it. Running it through an Atmos decoder takes that info and routes it to the additional height channels and suppresses it (to whatever degree the mixer specifies) in the 7.1 bed. Kind of like a digital version of a matrix encode. Is this incorrect?

I had someone else tell me this disputes that idea and "Therefore the Atmos data (objects) is added as an extension to the format and put into the bitstream, they do not live in the 7.1 bed." I told him he was reading into to that his opinion and that link wasn't being specific.

 

[Guy Robinson]

To me the 7.1 part of the Atmos track, as I don't have Atmos capability, sounds considerably better than both the DTS (which is not worth playing as the bass is way too loud) and the DD 5.1.

 

[musicmemorabiliashoppellc]

If anyone is having trouble with 5.1 or Atmos coming from your receiver....the following article, just might answer your troubles....you can thank me later

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.p...ber+28,+2020&utm_term=m-hdmi21bugreceiver_jpg

 

[himey]

I had a conversation with a guy who mixes TV shows to Atmos and the way he put it, it is up to the mixing engineer to make sure the downmix sounds good during the production. During the actual mixing, care is needed to ensure it will sound good with both old 2D setups and of course with height speakers. This is an excerpt : "I do find that I mix in Atmos with an awareness of how the downmix will be created (and this is just from experience). For example I don't put a lot of signal up high and in the back because it sounds almost indistinguishable from signal panned to the surrounds. Likewise I don't use a 7.1.2 bed as signal sent to the .2 tends to cover the entirety of the height space in Atmos and then fold down to be heavier than I would like in the side channels. When I use height for objects that are fixed I usually stay in the front half of the room and I almost never use 100% height. This way any objects that I'm placing in space will always have a focal anchor to the front array weather that be L+R or LCR. When panning objects I don't worry as much about it because movement tricks the brain quite a lot and almost any objects that "fly" overhead will translate very well when being panned rear-side-front or vice versa."

So rather than getting too lost in the technical details, for now, I am just going to trust that the mixer is going to make the effort to get it right on both fronts. The multiple substream's is confusing to me now and I need to gather more information about it to fully understand, but for now my impression is the first substream does indeed carry the entire soundtrack, so nothing is actually discarded, even if playing back on a simple 2 channel system.

 

[jimfisheye]

That's accurate. There is absolutely an intentional compromise in most broadcast surround mixes to make them so they fold down to stereo. The stereo mix is the target and what's left of the surround mix is what's left of the surround mix. These sound like the front heavy more ambient surround mixes that everyone around here hates. They're intentionally only making one mix and making it one size fits all. And that does kind of sound like the cookie cutter approach this album was subjected to.

 

[himey]

That's accurate. There is absolutely an intentional compromise in most broadcast surround mixes to make them so they fold down to stereo. The stereo mix is the target and what's left of the surround mix is what's left of the surround mix. These sound like the front heavy more ambient surround mixes that everyone around here hates. They're intentionally only making one mix and making it one size fits all. And that does kind of sound like the cookie cutter approach this album was subjected to.

On a similar note, he mentioned that a lot of new Atmos mixes for TV are just automated from the original two channel mix, sadly, but I am not going to get into that here...

 

[harync]

I had a conversation with a guy who mixes TV shows to Atmos and the way he put it, it is up to the mixing engineer to make sure the downmix sounds good during the production. During the actual mixing, care is needed to ensure it will sound good with both old 2D setups and of course with height speakers. This is an excerpt : "I do find that I mix in Atmos with an awareness of how the downmix will be created (and this is just from experience). For example I don't put a lot of signal up high and in the back because it sounds almost indistinguishable from signal panned to the surrounds. Likewise I don't use a 7.1.2 bed as signal sent to the .2 tends to cover the entirety of the height space in Atmos and then fold down to be heavier than I would like in the side channels. When I use height for objects that are fixed I usually stay in the front half of the room and I almost never use 100% height. This way any objects that I'm placing in space will always have a focal anchor to the front array weather that be L+R or LCR.

Thanks for sharing his explanation. It explains the what I noticed with "Sweetness Follows" from the Atmos version of REM's Automatic for the people. In Atmos the cello is localized in the heights (primarily left front ceiling on my 5.2.4 system), but on a non-atmos system it ends up in LF, C, RF, an LS.

When panning objects I don't worry as much about it because movement tricks the brain quite a lot and almost any objects that "fly" overhead will translate very well when being panned rear-side-front or vice versa."

I think this explains why we are seeing such a learning curve with Atmos music mixes. In most movies and TV shows, everything other than dialogue and background noise is fleeting and may only be audible for a few seconds and our brains are much more forgiving.

 

[jimfisheye]

Hmmm...

If I was given a mastering job and requested to make it volume war crude by the client, I might wonder if I could get away with "accidentally" muxing the wrong file to the dd stream version? (ie the raw mix)
Maybe instead of busting this guy for the loud mastering we should be praising the heroics of liberating the mix!

Not to get anyone in trouble. Of course it was a completely innocent accident!

 

[ssully]

You may be onto something

 

[James Jay]

to simplify: if you are playing the decoded Atmos mix (Not the 7.1 Atmos core) with a complete 7.2.4 speaker setup - are the side surround speakers / rear surround speakers/ or Atmos ceil speakers - reduced in volume -6db from the front speakers? I’m getting confused here. Can anyone break this down for me. Thanks

 

[davidjpoole]

(duplicate post)

 

[davidjpoole]

(duplicate post...internet issues. apologies)

 

[GOS]

To be honest, I'm pretty shocked that we don't have more votes on a title of this stature.

 

[Scott65]

To be honest, I'm pretty shocked that we don't have more votes on a title of this stature.

I have had it for awhile but not ready to rate it. My initial reaction was one of mild disappointment, but I have to play it some more and compare it with the Lennon Legend DVD.

 

[texquad]

It may not be possible to separate the vocals and piano to that degree because of the way it was recorded. I'm assuming--someone correct me if I'm wrong--that Lennon recorded his vocals while playing the piano, so there is probably some piano bleeding into the vocal mic and vice versa. Keeping both elements in the same relative space on the surround mix would cover up the crosstalk. I haven't heard this new version yet, but there is piano in the center channel along with Lennon's vocal on both Peter Cobbin's 2003 5.1 mix and Paul Hicks' 2018 5.1 mix. Even the extreme hard-panned 'raw studio mix' on the 2018 set doesn't separate the vocals from the piano.



As I mentioned in the pre-release thread, Paul Hicks is responsible for the very discrete 5.1 mixes on The McCartney Years DVD video compilation.

I've been meaning to comment on this suggestion. I wasn't familiar with the Maca DVD's and purchased on this recommendation. Even though many of the studio tracks aren't my cup of tea the surround mixes are excellent. Got mine for $20 on ebay and for 3 disc and hearing Maybe I'm Amazed in 5.1 it's a true bargain.

 

[ar surround]

To be honest, I'm pretty shocked that we don't have more votes on a title of this stature.

Mine is STILL under the Christmas tree. I will report to this esteemed body of surround sound fanatics between Xmas and New Years...Ain’t gonna be much else to do this year.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Anyone else still waiting on their copy from MusicVaultz?!
Order placed August 31st, 2020!

 

[califcab]

They cancelled my order. So I ordered from Amazon and got it next day.

 

[EricKalet]

Anyone else still waiting on their copy from MusicVaultz?!
Order placed August 31st, 2020!

I hope the price was too good to pass up! I would have cancelled at this point #NoPatienceForThat