Elilot Scheiner interview from Feb. 2022

[4-earredwonder]

Must all threads devolve into lossy vs. lossless?

For the PUREST of IMO, YES, Jonathan. It is after all 2022! And some of us can REALLY hear the difference! To go through ALL the trouble and expense of doing a proper remix, at least honor it by allowing it to sound as good as it can!

Why 'doodle' in crayons when tempera and oil based paints are SO MUCH MORE IMPACTFUL!

 

[himey]

Can ANYONE confirm his last "issue" he has with the Atmos mix in stereo, being used when you actually choose the stereo mix? That sounds like FUD to me. Also, considering how squashed new stereo mastering's have become the norm, I personally would rather listen to the more dynamic mix, even if it is downmixed to stereo, from the Atmos bed.

 

[himey]

For the PUREST of IMO, YES, Jonathan. It is after all 2022! And some of us can REALLY hear the difference! To go through ALL the trouble and expense of doing a proper remix, at least honor it by allowing it to sound as good as it can!

Why 'doodle' in crayons when tempera and oil based paints are SO MUCH MORE IMPACTFUL!

The dynamics of the mastering left intact and the quality of the mix, not the format is what makes for an "impactful" presentation. But I don't consider myself "pure"...

 

[Cheezmo]

Hard to imagine Steven Wilson sitting through a Dolby Atmos mixing class. But I'm sure he was glad to let them come check out his studio.

 

[peterzach]

Hard to imagine Steven Wilson sitting through a Dolby Atmos mixing class. But I'm sure he was glad to let them come check out his studio.

HAHA, yes I did think of that as well as it does sound ridiculous that Atmos would require that but that's what I think Elliot was getting at, maybe he's mixed up about that. Elliot S. and Steven W. are 2 of my favorite surround mixer's.

 

[Titch]

GOOD OLE ELLIOT: "IF YOU CAN'T SAY IT IN 5.1...GET OUTTA MY [OVER] HEAD!"

Maybe YOU should go to the Cinema MORE!

Your room for listening to music does not resemble that in the slightest.

 

[esimms86]

This reminds me when the first credit in a technical paper goes to a renowned investigator, but the people that really did the investigation job and get results appears at the end.

That’s actually not how authorship works in published journals. To oversimplify, the lead author deservedly gets credit for his/her major contribution to the study, not the least of which is often the concept underlying the study. The last named author is not uncommonly the person in whose lab and under whose mentorship the research was done. Research assistants/partners who do the grunt work, as it were, are credited somewhere between the first and last authors. Thsir contributions should not be confused with that of providing the intellectual rigor of the original study design.

Once upon a time, research papers used to list the authors alphabetically. This all changed after a prominent disease was inappropriately credited to/named after the author whose name appeared first alphabetically. You may have heard of Crohn’s disease.

 

[GilWave]

Gil, I also need to mention that Auro 3D changes the frequency spectrum a bit, and in this case it’s for the better. When I turn Auromatic off, the presentation does indeed drift towards midranginess.

I have my 5.1 setup (Pioneer VSX-LX505, Focal Solo 6, Sub 6) time-alligned to my listening position. The 5.1 Surround mixes of Love, White Album, Abbey Road sound incredible and musical right out of the box with no ussr-internation required, because they were mixed right. I'm glad you found a way to get the Sgt Pepper's surround mix to sound good with some tweaks. I'll try those next time - but I contend that it should sound proper and musical with default receiver and room settings.

 

[mandrix]

I believe I understand the gist of his complaints, although he may be off whack a little concerning the certification process. I defer here to others in the know, however.
But answer this for me: why do you have to be on an "approved" list to buy the Dolby software? Considering some of the Atmos mixes I've heard -and I am an Atmos fan- what the hell is their criteria for choosing who can/can't buy the software? I don't even know what it costs because I'm quite sure I can't afford it, but still?
@sjcorne , can you or some one help me out here?

 

[ar surround]

I'm glad you found a way to get the Sgt Pepper's surround mix to sound good with some tweaks. I'll try those next time - but I contend that it should sound proper and musical with default receiver and room settings.

Amen to that last sentence.

Sgt Pepper: dumb luck for me thanks to Auromatic.
White Album: I had to do EQ to get some of the “dirty“ sound out of it, which Giles said he did on purpose. Also I had to adjust volume levels on some tracks relative to others.
Abbey Road and Let It Be: Giles finally gets it right.

I’ve never had any issues with Eliot Scheiner’s work. His mixes are always really good and any juicing of high frequencies is left to the taste of the end user. I use his stuff as reference recordings.

 

[sjcorne]

I’ve never had any issues with Eliot Scheiner’s work. His mixes are always really good and any juicing of high frequencies is left to the taste of the end user. I use his stuff as reference recordings.

Definitely, but there are a handful that sound kinda crispy and/or dynamically-squashed due to questionable mastering choices (IMO):

• Porcupine Tree - In Absentia (the remastered stereo mix in the recent deluxe reissue sounds so much better)
• Faith Hill - Cry
• Guns 'n' Roses - Appetite For Destruction
• Foo Fighters - In Your Honor

 

[sjcorne]

But answer this for me: why do you have to be on an "approved" list to buy the Dolby software? Considering some of the Atmos mixes I've heard -and I am an Atmos fan- what the hell is their criteria for choosing who can/can't buy the software? I don't even know what it costs because I'm quite sure I can't afford it, but still?
@sjcorne , can you or some one help me out here?

As a yearly subscriber to Pro Tools studio, the Dolby Atmos Renderer (the piece of software required to mix) cost me $100. I did not have to be vetted to purchase it - Apple & Dolby definitely want people to download this and start mixing in spatial. If you don't have a Pro Tools subscription, I think it costs $300. This software is capable of generating ADM BWF files (this is like the Atmos master format, a very large WAV file with all the beds and objects contained as separate tracks - you can't play them back properly without the Renderer. These are what get submitted to the streaming services via AvidPlay distribution.) and MP4 files with Dolby Digital+/JOC (streaming-quality) audio.

There's another piece of software called the Dolby Media Encoder that will convert ADM to Dolby TrueHD (Blu-Ray quality). You do need to be approved to download this, probably because they only want authoring houses to have it. After a one-month trial, it costs $400 for a yearly-license. That may seem expensive for software, but the DTS:X encoder suite costs $2500.

 

[austinsignal]

I think Scheiner's point was that if you have a good Atmos mix and you can't hear it in Atmos--i.e., if you're only hearing it "downmixed" to 5.1 or stereo, or if you're only hearing it in binaural over headphones, when it was really meant to be heard on a full-room system--then you're not really hearing the work as the mixer intended it.

Well, I think most people mixing for ATMOS are toggling/checking at least between 7.1.4 (or more), 5.1, and binaural/spatial. I can't imagine not checking all those formats at least...so the mixer's intent would be to work to find a place where it works well across various formats.

 

[GilWave]

HAHA, yes I did think of that as well as it does sound ridiculous that Atmos would require that but that's what I think Elliot was getting at, maybe he's mixed up about that. Elliot S. and Steven W. are 2 of my favorite surround mixer's.

Wilson is now fully comfortable with Atmos, and did the 50th Anniversary Court of the Crimson King, his last solo album, and the current Porcupine Tree record in 5.1 surrround and Atmos

 

[humprof]

Well, I think most people mixing for ATMOS are toggling/checking at least between 7.1.4 (or more), 5.1, and binaural/spatial. I can't imagine not checking all those formats at least...so the mixer's intent would be to work to find a place where it works well across various formats.

Totally agree--although I think an unscrupulous mixer (or one who's underpaid and/or in a rush) might not be motivated enough to find that balance. And what we're increasingly hearing from other veteran mixers is that creating a mix that sounds good both in a full room and over headphones often involves some severe compromises--usually to the detriment of the full-room mix.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

As a yearly subscriber to Pro Tools studio, the Dolby Atmos Renderer (the piece of software required to mix) cost me $100. I did not have to be vetted to purchase it - Apple & Dolby definitely want people to download this and start mixing in spatial. If you don't have a Pro Tools subscription, I think it costs $300. This software is capable of generating ADM BWF files (this is like the Atmos master format, a very large WAV file with all the beds and objects contained as separate tracks - you can't play them back properly without the Renderer. These are what get submitted to the streaming services via AvidPlay distribution.) and MP4 files with Dolby Digital+/JOC (streaming-quality) audio.

There's another piece of software called the Dolby Media Encoder that will convert ADM to Dolby TrueHD (Blu-Ray quality). You do need to be approved to download this, probably because they only want authoring houses to have it. After a one-month trial, it costs $400 for a yearly-license. That may seem expensive for software, but the DTS:X encoder suite costs $2500.

Don't want to throw this thread off track; but is it the Renderer that deciphers the correct mix for your system (like some kind of a Metadata file reader etc?)

 

[sjcorne]

Don't want to throw this thread off track; but is it the Renderer that deciphers the correct mix for your system (like some kind of a Metadata file reader etc?)

Yes, there's a setup screen where you tell it how many speakers you have (and you can create separate presets for 5.1, 7.1, 5.1.2, etc) and it places the objects accordingly.

 

[ar surround]

Definitely, but there are a handful that sound kinda crispy and/or dynamically-squashed due to questionable mastering choices (IMO):

• Porcupine Tree - In Absentia (the remastered stereo mix in the recent deluxe reissue sounds so much better)

Somehow I just knew you were going to nail me on that one, Jonathan.

 

[mandrix]

As a yearly subscriber to Pro Tools studio, the Dolby Atmos Renderer (the piece of software required to mix) cost me $100. I did not have to be vetted to purchase it - Apple & Dolby definitely want people to download this and start mixing in spatial. If you don't have a Pro Tools subscription, I think it costs $300. This software is capable of generating ADM BWF files (this is like the Atmos master format, a very large WAV file with all the beds and objects contained as separate tracks - you can't play them back properly without the Renderer. These are what get submitted to the streaming services via AvidPlay distribution.) and MP4 files with Dolby Digital+/JOC (streaming-quality) audio.

There's another piece of software called the Dolby Media Encoder that will convert ADM to Dolby TrueHD (Blu-Ray quality). You do need to be approved to download this, probably because they only want authoring houses to have it. After a one-month trial, it costs $400 for a yearly-license. That may seem expensive for software, but the DTS:X encoder suite costs $2500.

Ah. OK. I did know about the .adm.wav files but thought for some reason the renderer was more expensive.
But for all practical purposes, what good is it (I'm thinking home use here) if they decide you can't get the Dolby Media Encoder? The price means nothing if they won't let you have it because you're not a "Pro". I think that stinks.
But I do thank you for the clarifications!

 

[austinsignal]

Totally agree--although I think an unscrupulous mixer (or one who's underpaid and/or in a rush) might not be motivated enough to find that balance. And what we're increasingly hearing from other veteran mixers is that creating a mix that sounds good both in a full room and over headphones often involves some severe compromises--usually to the detriment of the full-room mix.

yep. can get even weirder if you get fixated on trying to optimize across room/apple spatial/binaural.... one can go crazy