Format versus Content - a discussion!!

[edisonbaggins]

Content is king.

I love some mono titles. I loathe some Atmos titles.

I enjoy a variety of mix styles. I have defended mixes early on from “this isn’t a Steven Wilson mix” types. It’s all about serving the music.

If fidelity is lowered, vocals way too loud, or other obvious detriments are introduced with a multichannel mix, that’s mainly when I’ll turn critical.

 

[mandrix]

Content is king.

I love some mono titles. I loathe some Atmos titles.

I enjoy a variety of mix styles. I have defended mixes early on from “this isn’t a Steven Wilson mix” types. It’s all about serving the music.

If fidelity is lowered, vocals way too loud, or other obvious detriments are introduced with a multichannel mix, that’s mainly when I’ll turn critical.

I quite agree on enjoying a variety of mix styles. Wilson seems to get it right more times than not, and there are certainly others who have adapted well to Atmos, and others who make a 5.1 that makes one smile.

 

[edisonbaggins]

As far as “immersive” formats go, I perceive Auro-3D to have better quality control than Atmos.
Maybe the bar is higher. Fewer studios and engineers able to perform the mixing. Maybe it costs more, so the hassle and expense motivate a better result.
I can’t recall a shabby Auro mix (though they surely exist?!), but have experienced quite a few disappointing Atmos mixes.

 

[wavelength]

The mix and fidelity are the most important things to me. Content? That's simple. It comes down to personal taste - if I don't like the music I'm not going to listen to it. As long as the format is lossless surround I'm happy. I have a 5.1 system but I will gladly buy atmos and quad if the other parameters are in place.

 

[Willie Wilson]

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 agree with that and also feel that with Blu-ray, there is room for additional mixes as well. I have always liked demos, remixes, 12” takes and cover versions of great songs. To me, there is the stand-alone original that needs to be respected, but that does not have to be the end of the experiment. Music is both a collective and a unique experience. If a band member or producer hears it differently, have at it.

 

[JediJoker]

I don't boycott releases just because a particular format or channel configuration isn't included. I'm in it for the music first, the fidelity second, and the mix(es) third. I find the "no Atmos/surround, no sale" attitude antithetical to being a music fan. I guess those consumers must be primarily surround fans, rather than music fans who enjoy surround.

Now, to be clear, I joined this forum because I am a surround fan. I seek out multichannel releases because I enjoy the listening experience, but only because it enhances the enjoyment of the underlying music. While a surround mix may bring new appreciation to previously less-than-favorite music, it is not going to make me love or even like listening to music that I hate. The inverse is also true: a disappointing surround mix cannot ruin my enjoyment of music I like.

As for what I'm looking for in a surround mix, it's highly dependent on the content. The mix should serve the music, arrangement, and (original) production (in the case of classic album remixes). If the music is full of crazy effects and/or many layers, then by all means: spread those effects and layers around the room, actively when appropriate. But if it's a straight ahead three-piece rock/jazz band arrangement without overdubs, I would require a pretty compelling reason for ping-pong pans or unconventional placement. The most disappointing surround mixes, to me, are ones that disrespect the music/arrangement/(original) production by being either too conservative (e.g. James Guthrie's 5.1 mixes of Pink Floyd's DSOTM and WYWH) or too adventurous (e.g. Tim Weidner's 5.1 mix of Yes' Fragile or Guthrie's stereo/5.1/Atmos of Floyd's Animals).

 

[mandrix]

Well I reckon though we don't all agree on everything, we're bonded by the love of music.
Here we can tell it like it is, how we feel about music and mixes, whether others agree on our point of view or not.
An added plus is we have people in the industry actively engaging with us! Though I sometimes wonder if they go into sensory overload from the plethora of replies. lol.
But anyway, how cool is that?

 

[ar surround]

Though I sometimes wonder if they go into sensory overload from the plethora of replies. lol.

"...You can't please everyone, so you go to please yourself."

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I'd like to ask @Stephen W Tayler , what do you think we expect? And what is your surround preference?

 

[MidiMagic]

I want it to sound real - like I am actually there. That was my original reason for getting into quad.

I want all of my recordings to play correctly through the same sound system (manufacturers want you to buy the recordings again).

This means that I must still be able to play my matrix records through proper decoding.

Almost every recording I have made of bands is in RM. Dolby wants to take that away so you buy their new gear.

Discrete? Human hearing is not discrete. It's matrixed. Human color vision is matrixed too.

I want to hear the sound from the direction it actually comes from. I do NOT want to have to turn my head to hear the correct direction.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I want it to sound real - like I am actually there. That was my original reason for getting into quad.

I want all of my recordings to play correctly through the same sound system (manufacturers want you to buy the recordings again).

This means that I must still be able to play my matrix records through proper decoding.

Almost every recording I have made of bands is in RM. Dolby wants to take that away so you buy their new gear.

Discrete? Human hearing is not discrete. It's matrixed. Human color vision is matrixed too.

I want to hear the sound from the direction it actually comes from. I do NOT want to have to turn my head to hear the correct direction.

Does any of this answer the OPs question about what we expect from an Atmos recording?

 

[kfbkfb]

Starting over 400 years ago, there were a few compositions that had musicians/singers spread across the front of the performance venue and also a few singers placed on (IIRC) balconies at the "Left Back" and "Right Back" of the performance venue, providing live surround sound to the listening audience.

Are there any cases (historical or current) where performers or speakers are overhead at a live performance venue to provide sound from above the venue audience?

If there aren't overhead sound cases, then overhead Atmos is an entirely arbitrary thing, not linked to a live performance (which, IMHO, complicates mixing Atmos since there's no reference).


Kirk Bayne

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Starting over 400 years ago, there were a few compositions that had musicians/singers spread across the front of the performance venue and also a few singers placed on (IIRC) balconies at the "Left Back" and "Right Back" of the performance venue, providing live surround sound to the listening audience.

Are there any cases (historical or current) where performers or speakers are overhead at a live performance venue to provide sound from above the venue audience?

If there aren't overhead sound cases, then overhead Atmos is an entirely arbitrary thing, not linked to a live performance (which, IMHO, complicates mixing Atmos since there's no reference).


Kirk Bayne

Funnily enough, when I was a boy chorister with New College Choir in Oxford during the 60s there was a special occasion when we went up to London to perform with the choir at Westminster Abbey. I'm trying to remember the classical music piece (sure it will come back to me!) but it involved the main choir who sang along with the organ, a male choir that was placed in the organ loft at the back of the abbey with a brass section, and a boy treble choir with a string quartet behind the altar. Must have been an incredible immersive experience for the congregation in the main part of the abbey. I suspect this might have inspired me all those years ago!!! SWTx

also there had to be three conductors who synchronised by sight - there was quite the delay involved!!

and most organs in chapels and churches have always been above head height.....

 

[JediJoker]

Funnily enough, when I was a boy chorister with New College Choir in Oxford during the 60s there was a special occasion when we went up to London to perform with the choir at Westminster Abbey. I'm trying to remember the classical music piece (sure it will come back to me!) but it involved the main choir who sang along with the organ, a male choir that was placed in the organ loft at the back of the abbey with a brass section, and a boy treble choir with a string quartet behind the altar. Must have been an incredible immersive experience for the congregation in the main part of the abbey. I suspect this might have inspired me all those years ago!!! SWTx

oh and most organs in chapels and churches have always been above head height.....

I've had the pleasure of singing some multi-choir pieces from the Italian Renaissance, mostly written to be performed at St. Mark's in Venice, which could (and still can) accommodate up to four separate choirs in four separate lofts. Giovanni Gabrieli is probably the most famous of the Venetian school today.

 

[Thonolan]

It depends on the music and instruments, for me it has to have lots of stuff going on, as much as I love AC/DC and Black sabbath it’s pointless having them in atmos when there’s more speakers than instruments

Atmos seems very suited to prog rock, electronic music and classical. I love heavy rock but can’t think of too many albums where i’ve thought “that would sound great in atmos”

Personally i’m more than happy with a good 5.1 mix as opposed to a crap atmos mix like Hootie and the blowfish

Exactly. That's pretty much my own approach to it.

I know some of you say that any kind of music can benefit from atmos (or 5.1, let's say multichannel in general) mixes, and you might have a point, but personally I wouldn't be interested in getting any music in surround that isn't layered or doesn't have any sort of production or sound design, especially if we're talking hard rock or metal with basic instrumentation. Honestly, I wouldn't see the point of getting something like Slayer, or a blues rock power trio without studio overdubs, in surround. However, I can see how some acoustic or "intimate" music, even with few instruments, can benefit from a surround approach if done tastefully.

As far as I'm concerned, my priotities with studio music are, in the following order:

1) I have to like it. I'm a listener who loves physical releases, but not a collector neither a completist, so I'm not buying anything I don't like.

2) Good mix and mastering (regardless of the format).

3) Ideally, the album will include a multichannel mix, but most of the times I don't need it to be interested in purchasing the album as long as 1) and 2) are there, although sometimes it will make the difference if I'm hesitant.

Additionally, I really appreciate having different mixes in the same release, as @armyjazzer said. A Blu-ray disc that includes the original mix, a stereo remix, a 5.1 and an Atmos mix will be 10x more interesting to me than an Atmos release alone, especially if the 5.1 isn't just a watered down version of the atmos, but a different approach instead.

 

[omnipotent1]

As far as “immersive” formats go, I perceive Auro-3D to have better quality control than Atmos.
Maybe the bar is higher. Fewer studios and engineers able to perform the mixing. Maybe it costs more, so the hassle and expense motivate a better result.
I can’t recall a shabby Auro mix (though they surely exist?!), but have experienced quite a few disappointing Atmos mixes.

Well I think we all have Apple to thank for this current wave of surround content resurgence.
We are most definitely benefiting from the the synergy of Apple's marketing push to get Atmos everywhere even if its core market, headphones, is a rather dubious application for Atmos

I suggest we just shut up and ride the wave while it lasts

 

[barfle]

Are there any cases (historical or current) where performers or speakers are overhead at a live performance venue to provide sound from above the venue audience?
Kirk Bayne

I attended a performance of Holst’s “The Planets” at Segerstrom Hall in Costa Mesa, CA back in the late 1990s. If you’re unfamiliar with the work, toward the end of it, there’s a wordless chorus off stage that lends an etereal element to the music. It’s worth listening to and getting to know.

Anyway, at that performance, they placed the choir in the balconies of the hall. I know and love the piece (I probably have ten recordings of it), and when the chorus was to start, the conductor turned around to cue the singers. The sound, of course, came from above and behind those of us seated below. Clearly, it was marvellous, since I’ve remembered it for a quarter-century.

So it probably doesn’t happen often, but I’ve experienced it, and loved it!

 

[kfbkfb]

Could be interesting Atmos panning - front floor speakers to front overhead speakers then back to front floor speakers for the sound of the rotating piano.


Kirk Bayne