Strong disagree! A singer and guitar is two sources, both with 3D qualities. I.e. guitar resonating from the sound hole is different from the buzz of the strings on the bridge is different from the sound of fingers on the fretboard.
Format versus Content - a discussion!!
- Thread starter Stephen W Tayler
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,457
I still think all mixes, even the most stripped down simple, would benefit. Why not, right? It's just obvious diminishing returns for more stripped down and small arrangement mixes. Some/most of the speakers would only have the lightest trace of ambience. This would be decadent and greatness to be normalized for everything! Most consumers are still in volume war stereo territory and it would make no sense to them whatsoever.
A point of clarification. I like to hear mixes from the mixing/mastering desk unaltered. For good or bad. I might have opinions and even want to change something sometimes but I still at least initially want to hear a mix like the mixer heard it. Same fidelity. Absolutely the same speaker channel arrangement. It's something new to me that I didn't have any control over. Someone's work unaltered by anything I thought or did. I need to hear that! The part of the Atmos system that really puts me off is the downmixing and upmixing ability being touted as the norm rather than the compromised exception.
A point of clarification. I like to hear mixes from the mixing/mastering desk unaltered. For good or bad. I might have opinions and even want to change something sometimes but I still at least initially want to hear a mix like the mixer heard it. Same fidelity. Absolutely the same speaker channel arrangement. It's something new to me that I didn't have any control over. Someone's work unaltered by anything I thought or did. I need to hear that! The part of the Atmos system that really puts me off is the downmixing and upmixing ability being touted as the norm rather than the compromised exception.
This is a subject close to my heart. What I say here applies only to music, not movies.
I think a part of the issue is what @Blackwood describes above. The "I spent a lot of money on this gear, and I want to hear it perform" idea. It's a childish attitude IMO. There are QQ members that will no longer buy releases that are merely stereo or 5.1. it's not hard to find poll comments that say things like, "not enough action going on in the tops for my taste" and then trash the release with a low vote. Either it's a symptom of what's described above or it's some misguided delusion that the Atmos simply must be better than any other format because it has more channels. Have a listen to some of the streaming dreck on Apple and the only conclusion you can logically come to is Atmos isn't better as a format, it simply offers more potential. I have heard some very good Atmos, but some of the best surround experiences for me are still 5.1 and even Quad tracks. A lot depends on the fidelity, just as it does with stereo, just as it does with 5.1. Even more important is the content.
What's the goal here? For me it's to get an experience that sounds more plausibly realistic, even though it isn't. By that I mean, in my imagination, I can sense sounds coming from different places as if I'm in the center of it all, even if it never really happened that way. It's the mixers interpretation of how it could have happened. Along with the separation of instruments comes the welcome dose of added detail that occurs, further enhancing the perceived fidelity.
With the exception of effects and synths, discreet sound that calls attention to itself in the height speakers is usually a distraction for me. I ask myself, why, where, in what world should guitar riffs or vocals, or hand claps come from above my head? I can make a case for some psychedelic music, but not much else. Keep the gimmicky stuff, give me something that truly enhances the image in my head.
@Blackwood also mentions the latest Knopfler release. It is high on my list for the best Atmos mix I've heard. And that goes against the opinion of many here on QQ. Finally, the Atmos technology was used in a way that reinforced what was going on in the floor speakers. It did not try to replace them or overshadow them. The additional channels were used to add height, depth, and dynamic impact to great effect. Yeah, it's a bit front centric. It could have used the rears a bit more as with Knopflers previous 5.1 releases, but the way the heights were used to supplement and enhance the floor channels is exemplary.
James Guthrie finally hit a home run with the PF Animals releases, both the Atmos and the 5.1. When you compare the two, the Atmos is only a slight extension of the 5.1. Some discreteness in the heights is there, but it's done tastefully. It is seldom distracting unless it fits, as with synths and effects.
The foghorn from Van Morrisons "Into the Mystic". It fits. It enhances. It doesn't sound gimmicky. The overhead thunder in Roger Water's US+Them concert video. Absolutely sublime.
So @Stephen W Tayler , if I were to give you advice on how to make the perfect Atmos mix for me, I would say to extract the best fidelity you can and create a great 5.1/7.1 mix with discreet elements where it makes sense to do so. Let me hear supporting instruments placed around me. Then use the Atmos capability to enhance that base to give it more depth, height and impact. Only call my attention specifically to the heights when you want to say something special, like with an effect.
The surround community has to stop listening to hardware and wizz bang format capabilities and start listening to music again. Isn't that the point, after all?
I think a part of the issue is what @Blackwood describes above. The "I spent a lot of money on this gear, and I want to hear it perform" idea. It's a childish attitude IMO. There are QQ members that will no longer buy releases that are merely stereo or 5.1. it's not hard to find poll comments that say things like, "not enough action going on in the tops for my taste" and then trash the release with a low vote. Either it's a symptom of what's described above or it's some misguided delusion that the Atmos simply must be better than any other format because it has more channels. Have a listen to some of the streaming dreck on Apple and the only conclusion you can logically come to is Atmos isn't better as a format, it simply offers more potential. I have heard some very good Atmos, but some of the best surround experiences for me are still 5.1 and even Quad tracks. A lot depends on the fidelity, just as it does with stereo, just as it does with 5.1. Even more important is the content.
What's the goal here? For me it's to get an experience that sounds more plausibly realistic, even though it isn't. By that I mean, in my imagination, I can sense sounds coming from different places as if I'm in the center of it all, even if it never really happened that way. It's the mixers interpretation of how it could have happened. Along with the separation of instruments comes the welcome dose of added detail that occurs, further enhancing the perceived fidelity.
With the exception of effects and synths, discreet sound that calls attention to itself in the height speakers is usually a distraction for me. I ask myself, why, where, in what world should guitar riffs or vocals, or hand claps come from above my head? I can make a case for some psychedelic music, but not much else. Keep the gimmicky stuff, give me something that truly enhances the image in my head.
@Blackwood also mentions the latest Knopfler release. It is high on my list for the best Atmos mix I've heard. And that goes against the opinion of many here on QQ. Finally, the Atmos technology was used in a way that reinforced what was going on in the floor speakers. It did not try to replace them or overshadow them. The additional channels were used to add height, depth, and dynamic impact to great effect. Yeah, it's a bit front centric. It could have used the rears a bit more as with Knopflers previous 5.1 releases, but the way the heights were used to supplement and enhance the floor channels is exemplary.
James Guthrie finally hit a home run with the PF Animals releases, both the Atmos and the 5.1. When you compare the two, the Atmos is only a slight extension of the 5.1. Some discreteness in the heights is there, but it's done tastefully. It is seldom distracting unless it fits, as with synths and effects.
The foghorn from Van Morrisons "Into the Mystic". It fits. It enhances. It doesn't sound gimmicky. The overhead thunder in Roger Water's US+Them concert video. Absolutely sublime.
So @Stephen W Tayler , if I were to give you advice on how to make the perfect Atmos mix for me, I would say to extract the best fidelity you can and create a great 5.1/7.1 mix with discreet elements where it makes sense to do so. Let me hear supporting instruments placed around me. Then use the Atmos capability to enhance that base to give it more depth, height and impact. Only call my attention specifically to the heights when you want to say something special, like with an effect.
The surround community has to stop listening to hardware and wizz bang format capabilities and start listening to music again. Isn't that the point, after all?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2023
- Messages
- 9
Well, since I've been asked for my two cents...
I most enjoy surround mixes that are placed logically, with separation of elements to allow clarity and freedom from an otherwise densely packed stereo mix. The mixes that I keep coming back to hear again and again have a solid front mix of stereo drums, bass guitar, lead vocals (focused into the center channel), and when present, stereo grand piano, and of course, instrument solos located in the front three speakers. For the sides and rear channels, I find it logical to place the supporting elements, such as strings, keyboard supporting chords, background vocals, horn section punctuations, and if appropriate, rhythm guitars and percussion accents. And when the music elements are sparse, rich reverb used for the front elements should add surround ambience to the rears. Flying-around elements should be a logical enhancement to the original stereo ping-pong effects. Not all music needs flying elements. Most prog-rock headphone-friendly original stereo mixes often work very well with the additional options surround offers. It needs to be flying around in context to the song, and not "just because".
5.1 or Dolby Atmos? It doesn't matter to me which it is. It's the feeling that matters most.
I most enjoy surround mixes that are placed logically, with separation of elements to allow clarity and freedom from an otherwise densely packed stereo mix. The mixes that I keep coming back to hear again and again have a solid front mix of stereo drums, bass guitar, lead vocals (focused into the center channel), and when present, stereo grand piano, and of course, instrument solos located in the front three speakers. For the sides and rear channels, I find it logical to place the supporting elements, such as strings, keyboard supporting chords, background vocals, horn section punctuations, and if appropriate, rhythm guitars and percussion accents. And when the music elements are sparse, rich reverb used for the front elements should add surround ambience to the rears. Flying-around elements should be a logical enhancement to the original stereo ping-pong effects. Not all music needs flying elements. Most prog-rock headphone-friendly original stereo mixes often work very well with the additional options surround offers. It needs to be flying around in context to the song, and not "just because".
5.1 or Dolby Atmos? It doesn't matter to me which it is. It's the feeling that matters most.
And what's your point? Do you want to use the Atmos format to separate these things somehow? In terms of where in space these things happen in the real world, it calls for stereo at best. Anything else is just ambience, which, admittedly, can work well to enhance sometimes.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,457
Another point of clarification. Surround sound is for music first for me and movie soundtracks are a moot point. I'm only talking about music mixes as well.
I'll watch nothing but black and white movies if it just so happens that those are the only available choices vs something I'm not interested in. But if I invested in a color TV... There will be a point of frustration with that, right?
Full reference system Atmos is so audacious in capability that it's a hard bridge to gap! How absolutely great is it to see something this creative and decadent in this otherwise plastic corporate world, right?! If someone would have suggested 10 years ago that this is coming I would have confidently bet my life savings against it! (I'm a musician type so that's not that big a number. But still.)
This is my internal battle right now. I still chase fidelity. It's synonymous with "best seats in the house" to me. I've chosen mono mixes as preferred over some 12 channel mixes! I want to chastise myself for turning a mix into a contest or something on one hand. The capabilities of a 12 channel 3D system though... It kind of begs to be used!
I'll watch nothing but black and white movies if it just so happens that those are the only available choices vs something I'm not interested in. But if I invested in a color TV... There will be a point of frustration with that, right?
Full reference system Atmos is so audacious in capability that it's a hard bridge to gap! How absolutely great is it to see something this creative and decadent in this otherwise plastic corporate world, right?! If someone would have suggested 10 years ago that this is coming I would have confidently bet my life savings against it! (I'm a musician type so that's not that big a number. But still.)
Most singers have a single microphone. Most guitar players have a single microphone. Splitting the two into stereo is awful. I suppose you could get creative with a mic on the neck and one on the body, but does that make stereo?
Not that I've heard. YMMV.
I think it's going to be difficult to reenact a mixing theater. I don't believe there is a set standard for mixing theaters, so there's a variety of speakers and speaker placements around the console.
Sure, I want to come close. But one thing I'm sure of is that my four-seat theater won't sound like anyone's mixing room. Not that it doesn't sound pretty good, but it's never going to match ANY room.
YES! I've heard that there are those who buy music to listen to their systems, and there are those who buy systems to listen to the music. To me, it's the music, with rare exceptions ("Cartoons in Stereo" comes to mind).
To my way of thinking, I've bought the gear I've bought because I want to hear and see the fanciest stuff available. But that doesn't mean that just the fanciest stuff is enjoyable. I remember loving AM radio, and if they hadn't all gone to political talk, I probably still would. I have mono records that I play from time to time, and they bring me great joy.
If someone fiddled with the tracks and turned it into 7.1.4, would I enjoy it just as much? Hard to say. It wouldn't necessarily feel the same, and it's highly possible that I would resent the intrusion.
I recall when I first heard of Atmos, I hoped it would go the way of the Elcassette. More speakers, more hardware, more complicated recording formats, who needs it? Well, I don't need it, but I want it, and I intend to get it.
I don't believe that there are types of music more appropriate for Atmos than others. It is said that prog, electronic, and even classical music are suited for Atmos. Or that if there are more speakers than different tracks or instruments, Atmos is not appropriate.
I don't agree with any of that.
I believe that all types of music are appropriate for Atmos. The same way they are all appropriate for stereo. Atmos is a 'format' that can expand the sound scene into a complete bubble around and above us, allowing for a multitude of sound effects and movements. This must be independent of the music itself. It is the music what matters, isn’t it? So whatever music is suited to Atmos to enhance its presentation.
Of course, the mix must be artistically good and take advantage of the technology to envelop us with many speakers. That's what this technology is for, offering more possibilities than stereo and 5.1
When there are very few recorded tracks, for example, a single voice with a single acoustic guitar, or even a single a cappella vocals, Atmos can also be used to enrich the experience. For example, you can alternate, following the musical concept of the song, between front and surrounding vocals from behind and/or above. A voice that tells or answers something with a whisper through the surrounds or rears is very effective.
You may like it that way or not. As with other arts, there are people that like more classical realistic painting and rejects modern abstract painting. In Atmos I prefer an excess of effects than a lack of them. For the second, there is already the stereo, which if mixed well can be very well expanded with an upmixer.
I believe that most of us who have invested in many speakers want them to be used, not just for the sake of using all of them, but looking for an artistically good mix that elegantly includes sound images in the bubble, localized instruments, and both slow and fast sound displacements or pannings.
I don't like the term gimmicky mix. It seems to imply something easy or vulgar, while it may be enjoyable for many. For me, a good mix should include all kinds of discrete instrument locations, pannings, sound displacements, diffuse images, etc., BUT in the right amount and at the right musical moments to make it elegant and not overwhelming.
I don't agree with any of that.
I believe that all types of music are appropriate for Atmos. The same way they are all appropriate for stereo. Atmos is a 'format' that can expand the sound scene into a complete bubble around and above us, allowing for a multitude of sound effects and movements. This must be independent of the music itself. It is the music what matters, isn’t it? So whatever music is suited to Atmos to enhance its presentation.
Of course, the mix must be artistically good and take advantage of the technology to envelop us with many speakers. That's what this technology is for, offering more possibilities than stereo and 5.1
When there are very few recorded tracks, for example, a single voice with a single acoustic guitar, or even a single a cappella vocals, Atmos can also be used to enrich the experience. For example, you can alternate, following the musical concept of the song, between front and surrounding vocals from behind and/or above. A voice that tells or answers something with a whisper through the surrounds or rears is very effective.
You may like it that way or not. As with other arts, there are people that like more classical realistic painting and rejects modern abstract painting. In Atmos I prefer an excess of effects than a lack of them. For the second, there is already the stereo, which if mixed well can be very well expanded with an upmixer.
I believe that most of us who have invested in many speakers want them to be used, not just for the sake of using all of them, but looking for an artistically good mix that elegantly includes sound images in the bubble, localized instruments, and both slow and fast sound displacements or pannings.
I don't like the term gimmicky mix. It seems to imply something easy or vulgar, while it may be enjoyable for many. For me, a good mix should include all kinds of discrete instrument locations, pannings, sound displacements, diffuse images, etc., BUT in the right amount and at the right musical moments to make it elegant and not overwhelming.
Content is always king,,,next is fidelity...and any surround mix is just an added bonus...I have purchased MANY CD's...mono versions of titles and as long as they aren't compressed to death....that's fine....I would rather have those than an awesome surround mix when I hate the content.....As an example...I used to buy Steven Wilson's music...due to the incredible job he does on the mixes....BUT I soon found out that I never listened to the music..they just collected dust on the shelf...I think a lot of that was in the beginning of my multi channel purchases I loved to "show off my system" to my friends....
OldAsMono
Senior Member
Thank you so much for asking!
What do those consumers want, who have paid to get a new, updated version of music that they already own in stereo, or possibly a surround version? I think that the question is almost like asking the Beatles or the Stones (prehistorically speaking) what they would like their next song release to sound like. The answer would most likely be "better than the last one." And that's what I think all audiophiles would like their next Atmos purchase to sound like. In other words, yes, updated, and certainly better than the last stereo or surround release. Just that easy? No.
Just like any other art form, music recording appreciation is subjective. So if you ask an audiophile what do you specifically want from your next Atmos purchase, I believe the consensus would be that everyone would have a different answer. But I think they all would agree they don't want it to sound like the last version. Different and BETTER. So what does better mean? Since different means not the same, then I believe you can interpret that to mean it better not sound like the stereo or surround version that came before it. To the mixer that would mean that first and foremost the Atmos version should be freakin' different, even just simply for the sake of being different, so that the poor audiophile can justify his spending on a new copy.
Now, the second part is much trickier because it is the mixer's job to artistically, and pleasingly, make the recording better. One way is to make it more immersive -- and that is where Atmos technology is a great tool for a knowledgeable and creative mixer to really enhance the music-listening experience. Another method of making an Atmos mix more immersive is to use ALL speakers on EVERY track; not necessarily simultaneously but tastefully, oh, and surprises are always appreciated. The mixer needs to do a ton of listening and use the mindful discretion of a record arranger, or producer. In other words, engage in a lot of hard, painstaking work.
Discreteness does NOT mean that each speaker has a different instrument soloing. Especially not when Atmos can place a discrete instrument anywhere in our dome of listening pleasure. To me, discreteness is separating the instruments (sound sources) in their own Atmos space and not 100% sharing the same space.
Mono had us love music playback. Stereo started ‘unstacking the sounds” and spreading them across the front sound field. Quad allowed the sound fields to open more with sound spread across the front, along the sides and across the back. Surround to me tweaked the Quad theory by allowing an anchored center too. Now Atmos allows us separate sounds much better by having almost limitless sound fields.
I guess for me it is the old theory of sitting in the center of a band, group, orchestra, etc. and closing my eyes to enjoy the music all around me. Sort of like real life except I can never afford those seats sitting on stage in the middle of a group. And, like spreading reverb, the ceiling top speakers always have sound in real life and I like my Atmos there too. Atmos allows opening up the music and letting it breath very deep.
What do those consumers want, who have paid to get a new, updated version of music that they already own in stereo, or possibly a surround version? I think that the question is almost like asking the Beatles or the Stones (prehistorically speaking) what they would like their next song release to sound like. The answer would most likely be "better than the last one." And that's what I think all audiophiles would like their next Atmos purchase to sound like. In other words, yes, updated, and certainly better than the last stereo or surround release. Just that easy? No.
Just like any other art form, music recording appreciation is subjective. So if you ask an audiophile what do you specifically want from your next Atmos purchase, I believe the consensus would be that everyone would have a different answer. But I think they all would agree they don't want it to sound like the last version. Different and BETTER. So what does better mean? Since different means not the same, then I believe you can interpret that to mean it better not sound like the stereo or surround version that came before it. To the mixer that would mean that first and foremost the Atmos version should be freakin' different, even just simply for the sake of being different, so that the poor audiophile can justify his spending on a new copy.
Now, the second part is much trickier because it is the mixer's job to artistically, and pleasingly, make the recording better. One way is to make it more immersive -- and that is where Atmos technology is a great tool for a knowledgeable and creative mixer to really enhance the music-listening experience. Another method of making an Atmos mix more immersive is to use ALL speakers on EVERY track; not necessarily simultaneously but tastefully, oh, and surprises are always appreciated. The mixer needs to do a ton of listening and use the mindful discretion of a record arranger, or producer. In other words, engage in a lot of hard, painstaking work.
Discreteness does NOT mean that each speaker has a different instrument soloing. Especially not when Atmos can place a discrete instrument anywhere in our dome of listening pleasure. To me, discreteness is separating the instruments (sound sources) in their own Atmos space and not 100% sharing the same space.
Mono had us love music playback. Stereo started ‘unstacking the sounds” and spreading them across the front sound field. Quad allowed the sound fields to open more with sound spread across the front, along the sides and across the back. Surround to me tweaked the Quad theory by allowing an anchored center too. Now Atmos allows us separate sounds much better by having almost limitless sound fields.
I guess for me it is the old theory of sitting in the center of a band, group, orchestra, etc. and closing my eyes to enjoy the music all around me. Sort of like real life except I can never afford those seats sitting on stage in the middle of a group. And, like spreading reverb, the ceiling top speakers always have sound in real life and I like my Atmos there too. Atmos allows opening up the music and letting it breath very deep.
For me, the answer is rather simple as stated by @marpow five years ago:
So do whatever you want Stephen, whether it be in 5.1 or Atmos, because everything you've done so far meets the above criteria as far as I'm concerned.
@Stephen W Tayler
So let's turn it around here.
Do you mix anything in Atmos?
Do you LISTEN to Atmos at home?
If so, what titles do you consider good?
I'm a major Atmos fan. I'm also just a surround music fan that started with Quad in the early 70's.
To me, a well done Atmos mix surpasses 5.1...but not many mixers are worth a shit mixing Atmos. A few are very good. Some are very good mixing 5.1, and I put you up there with the best.
A good 5.1 mix is better than a crappy 7.1.4 mix.
I still buy a lot of 5.1, and I own hundreds of stereo AND surround SACD's & DVD's. Right now I have over 30 TB of ripped surround, mostly in .iso format as that's how I play it on the pc. DVDA/SACD/BD/DVDV/DTS-CD combined. Of course I also buy IAA downloads, mostly but not all Atmos.
So for me, Content, then Format when it gets right down to it.
So let's turn it around here.
Do you mix anything in Atmos?
Do you LISTEN to Atmos at home?
If so, what titles do you consider good?
I'm a major Atmos fan. I'm also just a surround music fan that started with Quad in the early 70's.
To me, a well done Atmos mix surpasses 5.1...but not many mixers are worth a shit mixing Atmos. A few are very good. Some are very good mixing 5.1, and I put you up there with the best.
A good 5.1 mix is better than a crappy 7.1.4 mix.
I still buy a lot of 5.1, and I own hundreds of stereo AND surround SACD's & DVD's. Right now I have over 30 TB of ripped surround, mostly in .iso format as that's how I play it on the pc. DVDA/SACD/BD/DVDV/DTS-CD combined. Of course I also buy IAA downloads, mostly but not all Atmos.
So for me, Content, then Format when it gets right down to it.
deleted: probably too far off the original topic
Last edited:
IMHO, musicians/artists have a certain vision (aural vision?) of their song(s), I would like the musicians/artists and mixers finished creative works (quad to Atmos) to be undisturbed.
I don't want to work too much to be entertained, I just want to hit play and be done with it.
Kirk Bayne
I don't want to work too much to be entertained, I just want to hit play and be done with it.
Kirk Bayne
Last edited:
I agree
I digress...but this is a superb metaphor for the state of our culture these days....critical thinking is a dying art.
Implying that I listen to Atmos so I can get use out of all my 11 speakers and sub is ridiculous. Especially since yesterday I received two Dutton/Vocallion discs in the mail.
Wanting more Atmos titles (and well done) to me is no different than wanting more Quad titles back in the '70's.
Wanting more Atmos titles (and well done) to me is no different than wanting more Quad titles back in the '70's.
Similar threads
