There's a phrase widely used among musicians: GAS, "gear acquisition syndrome." I just got it for speakers (SAS!), but even for me, that's INSANE!!!
Last edited:
David Bowie: Ziggy-era Box out in June; Dolby Atmos Blu-Ray out in Sept!
- Thread starter rtbluray
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
But are mix engineers mixing in 10.1.6? I know that 9.1.6 is becoming more prevalent in Atmos mix rooms, but 7.1.4 seems to be the standard for Atmos mixes.
If a song or album is mixed for 12 channels in a 7.1.4 configuration, where does the Atmos algorithm derive the source for the 10th channel?
..and when you sit down to listen it is basically ....Mono.
No clue, we need to hear from someone who does Atmos mixing.
All I can tell you is that on the three Atmos discs I received Monday (Ziggy Stardust, Chicago IX, and No Secrets) that there are some instances on all of them of isolated instruments appearing only in Cb (or Cr, depending on the naming convention). Whether it is part of the rendering algorithm or part of the intentional construction of the Atmos metadata by the mixer I have no way of knowing. More generally in my experience Cr either simply supports Lr and Rr, or more often is silent.
If indeed mixing to Cr is being done, clearly the rendering engine can simply put content on both Lb and Rb in the case of 9.1.6, just as fake C is often done. Perhaps mixing to that Cr is more the default since falling back to 9.1.x is easy for the decoder.
I haven’t listened much with 12.1.10 to the new content, but the little I did do (with Ziggy Stardust) all of the channels were active. Whether that is being done in the mix or simply by the rendering algorithm, I don’t know. I do know that in the descriptions of Atmos metadata I’ve read from Dolby, metadata describe location and movement of objects, and the renderer maps these objects to the physical speakers present - so the mixer doesn’t mix to Cr, which is not part of any bed, but perhaps an isolated rear object described by the metadata can end up on that one speaker. Guidelines from Dolby give pretty narrow ranges for elevation and azimuth angles for each speaker governed by speaker label, and the Atmos definitions for the various listening rooms have strict speaker labels.
Last edited:
You’ll notice that Dolby 24.1.10 diagram has three rows of seats in the theatre, so a pretty big space. I can believe that, say, orbiting objects in a movie would be nicely rendered...and when you sit down to listen it is basically ....Mono.
On my A16 I did try switching among the 15 “rear” channels (Ls1/Lss/Ls/Lsr1/Lb/Lrs2/Lbs/Cr/Rbs/Rrs2/Rb/Rsr1/Rs/Rss/Rs1), which run from azimuth -110º to +110 (through 180º), listening to each solo, and I was easily able to distinguish the different angles. I was trying to pick the best rear to use for quadraphonic rendering. The front channels on the arc from side to side are likewise easily distinguishable. Overheads are a bit harder.
I assume you mean 48/24. I didn't think Atmos came as 96/24
Thank you LuvMyQuad. You are absolutely right. I stand corrected.
I'll correct my post.
JediJoker
Audio Engineer/Enthusiast
Not for consumers. I do think cinemas can receive Atmos in Dolby MAT format at higher resolutions.
How’s everybody feeling about Ken Scott adding samples over Woody’s drum playing:
https://superdeluxeedition.com/interview/ken-scott-on-remixing-david-bowies-ziggy-stardust-album/
https://superdeluxeedition.com/interview/ken-scott-on-remixing-david-bowies-ziggy-stardust-album/
JediJoker
Audio Engineer/Enthusiast
Mixed. In principle, it's the kind of classic album revisionism I dislike. In practice, it's a fairly minor change, and probably not even noticeable without being pointed out. I'm reserving final judgment for when I can hear it for myself.
It’s a common method of modern producers and he says he used only Woody samples. So, that’s not exactly changing his sound, IMO. Sounds reasonably respectful, and doesn’t bother me.
Plus there have been a lot of compliments, including in this thread, about the punch of the rhythm section for this remix. I think the samples offer a partial explanation of how that has been made possible.
JediJoker
Audio Engineer/Enthusiast
I've used drum sample replacement/supplementation before. It's a great tool for when you couldn't control the recording conditions/setup, or are otherwise unsatisfied with what was recorded, but I'm not mixing classic albums.
Your very knowledgeable Luv.
Why on the new Ziggy standalone Atmos Blu Ray is there two choices of Original 1972 Stereo Mix?
1. 192/24
2. 48/24
I understand the new 2024 Stereo Mix at 96/24.
I want to give a shout to @RustyM for quoting Ken Scott liner notes. There is a lot of discussion in the poll, and Ken Scott is very clear as to his choice of mix.
I just finished ripping all and will listen some day soon.
JediJoker
Audio Engineer/Enthusiast
I'm guessing one is a new remaster and the other is an archive of an older master.
The best it says in liner notes is:
Original 1972 Stereo : Mixed by Ken Scott. Maybe this is the 96Khz? But I assume this credit is for the new 2024 mix.
Original 1972 Stereo Mix- 2012 Re-master by Ray Staff at Air Studios, London. Maybe this is the 48Khz?
Really confusing.
I have seen this a few other times with different Khz rates offered on stereo mixes.
I wonder is it possibly because of different listening machines, an older machine cannot handle the 96Khz?
But if that was the case there would be no reason to buy any Blu Ray at all?
I was able to capture the Ken Scott 2024 Ziggy liner notes.
I believe all of our opinions are important, but with the intent of the person who actually re-mixed the product to be put in consideration.
I have listened to the entire Dolby Atmos 2024 version, I find it very enjoyable, especially from a 1972 recording.
I am curious about the three stereo's offered, might need quiet and pen and paper to figure those three out.
I believe all of our opinions are important, but with the intent of the person who actually re-mixed the product to be put in consideration.
I have listened to the entire Dolby Atmos 2024 version, I find it very enjoyable, especially from a 1972 recording.
I am curious about the three stereo's offered, might need quiet and pen and paper to figure those three out.
I think it’s well-done. I appreciate the SDE interview being more in depth than the Bobby Owsinski, in that Ken reveals that they’re Woody’s samples. My first listen I was on guard, but very soon into it I thought, “yeah, that sounds like the drums I remember. I only heard some of the single-stroke snare rolls as sounding slightly robotic, but the trade-off for increased fidelity and separation was worth it for me. The whole thing sounds glorious!
Just saw this pop up with Ken Scott & Emre Ramazanoglu
Thanks for fiinding this, Pup--really elucidating.
I didn't realize Ramazanoglu had done Atmos mixes for Courtney Barnett. (Things Take Time, Take Time?--I remember being underwhelmed by that one. Maybe it's the End of the Day soundtrack?) I like the vast majority of his list of favorite artists: "P Funk, James Brown, Death Grips, D'Angelo, Fela, Talking Heads, Die Antwoord, Guns N' Roses (Appetite era), Earth, Wind & Fire, Bee Gees, Miles Davis, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, AC/DC, Bob Dylan, A$AP Rocky, Dr. Dre, Beastie Boys, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Velvet Underground, Can, The Lonely Island, Brecker Brothers, Tower of Power, The Meters, Jack DeJohnette."
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
