Immersive Audio Album (IAA) - Shop for 5.1/Atmos Downloads (Birdsong, Magenta, Bruce Soord, Katatonia...)

[humprof]

As a new initiative for 2025, we're trying our hand at some longform video content: https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/iaa-podcast-episode-1-out-today/

This is new and unfamiliar territory (I'm definitely more of a written word kind of guy), so go easy on me with the feedback

...but I think that for people who have no prior experience with this sort of thing, it's not a bad first attempt (and it was fun mixing it in binaural). This episode turned out more like a scripted video essay than a real podcast, but we're looking to have future installments be more of a casual open-ended conversation.

This was a lot of fun, Jonathan, and I hope one side-effect is more exposure for IAA. (People who listen on Apple Podcasts or some other platform should rate and/or review!)

As far as feedback goes: I wouldn't add much to your self-critique. Looking forward to seeing where you take the podcast from here, but even this pilot episode is a really good primer on the development of surround & immersive recording--and, for that matter, on tape recording in general.

I listened to the Apple Podcast version, using AirPods Pro with fixed Spatial Audio enabled. I know you recorded & mixed this with binaural in mind, but if I download the free version from IAA, will I also get a fully immersive experience on my home system?

One other question--and I've long wondered this about Steven Wilson & Tim Bowness's podcast, too: I would've thought that the Fair Use provision of US copyright law allowed for the use of short (30 sec. or less) clips for illustrative purposes, at leas in the context of criticism, commentary, and/or education. Is that not the case, or is it just that record companies and their lawyers have gotten so overzealous about threatening people for any and all uses of their IP that "Fair Use" is only a notional thing anymore?

 

[sjcorne]

I listened to the Apple Podcast version, using AirPods Pro with fixed Spatial Audio enabled. I know you recorded & mixed this with binaural in mind, but if I download the free version from IAA, will I also get a fully immersive experience on my home system?

Yep, if you play the MP4 through an AVR it'll decode like any music file (it'll also play in spatial audio if you save it offline in Google Drive or the iPhone files app). I thought about doing a MKV/TrueHD version too, but decided it was kind of pointless for this.

One other question--and I've long wondered this about Steven Wilson & Tim Bowness's podcast, too: I would've thought that the Fair Use provision of US copyright law allowed for the use of short (30 sec. or less) clips for illustrative purposes, at leas in the context of criticism, commentary, and/or education. Is that not the case, or is it just that record companies and their lawyers have gotten so overzealous about threatening people for any and all uses of their IP that "Fair Use" is only a notional thing anymore?

I honestly couldn't find a straight answer for this online, but it seems like most people are avoiding using samples.

For example, there was a recent episode of The Album Years covering one of the live shows - you can see that Steven was playing LPs for the live audience, but those snippets were cut out of the YouTube version.

 

[humprof]

Yep, if you play the MP4 through an AVR it'll decode like any music file (it'll also play in spatial audio if you save it offline in Google Drive or the iPhone files app). I thought about doing a MKV/TrueHD version too, but decided it was kind of pointless for this.

I honestly couldn't find a straight answer for this online, but it seems like most people are avoiding using samples.

For example, there was a recent episode of The Album Years covering one of the live shows - you can see that Steven was playing LPs for the live audience, but those snippets were cut out of the YouTube version.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. I've certainly heard plenty of music podcasts that do use clips for reviews, commentary, and analysis, but it's possible that those podcasts are all produced by big outfits like NPR that have legal departments, money to spend on clearances, etc. I think the answer generally is that even if you're protected by Fair Use, Sony or UMe's lawyers won't necessarily recognize that, and they also won't think twice about threatening you with a nuisance lawsuit, esp. if they know you can't afford to defend yourself.

 

[coolerking101]

Yep, if you play the MP4 through an AVR it'll decode like any music file (it'll also play in spatial audio if you save it offline in Google Drive or the iPhone files app). I thought about doing a MKV/TrueHD version too, but decided it was kind of pointless for this.

I honestly couldn't find a straight answer for this online, but it seems like most people are avoiding using samples.

For example, there was a recent episode of The Album Years covering one of the live shows - you can see that Steven was playing LPs for the live audience, but those snippets were cut out of the YouTube version.

I think the answer is either:

LESS LIKELY ANSWER:
1) Any use of copyrighted media without permission is against YouTube's terms of service. As such, "fair use" is inapplicable; OR

MOST LIKELY ANSWER:
2) While Fair Use is technically applicable, the copyright holder will still flag it, the poster will receive a take down notice (and strike from YouTube) and the hoops the poster will have to jump through to prove "fair use" is not worth the poster's time.

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

I think the answer is either:

LESS LIKELY ANSWER:
1) Any use of copyrighted media without permission is against YouTube's terms of service. As such, "fair use" is inapplicable; OR

MOST LIKELY ANSWER:
2) While Fair Use is technically applicable, the copyright holder will still flag it, the poster will receive a take down notice (and strike from YouTube) and the hoops the poster will have to jump through to prove "fair use" is not worth the poster's time.

Copyrighted content (audio or video) is flagged by YouTube’s “Content-ID” system and then further information is displayed to the uploader, …which is usually something like this: “The copyright owner allows this content to be shared…” Oftentimes there is an exception for a certain country or countries (usually Russia & Belarus).

If you watch Rick Beato’s YouTube channels, he has all kinds of copyrighted music presented but occasionally he can’t play something & he usually makes a point of explaining that that particular artist does not allow their music to be uploaded by just anyone.

The reason many channels choose not to upload copyrighted material to their channel is because even though it may be allowed & the copyright owner will benefit from the extra views, …that video will not qualify for monetization by the channel owner.

 

[mandrix]

Really enjoyed the interview with Jon @austinsignal . Interesting background from a talented guy.
I had not been aware he had worked with Sweatson Klank, I've enjoyed that music and look forward to more...as well I hope with Richard Houghten.

 

[humprof]

MOST LIKELY ANSWER:
2) While Fair Use is technically applicable, the copyright holder will still flag it, the poster will receive a take down notice (and strike from YouTube) and the hoops the poster will have to jump through to prove "fair use" is not worth the poster's time.

Copyrighted content (audio or video) is flagged by YouTube’s “Content-ID” system and then further information is displayed to the uploader, …which is usually something like this: “The copyright owner allows this content to be shared…” Oftentimes there is an exception for a certain country or countries (usually Russia & Belarus).

If you watch Rick Beato’s YouTube channels, he has all kinds of copyrighted music presented but occasionally he can’t play something & he usually makes a point of explaining that that particular artist does not allow their music to be uploaded by just anyone.

The reason many channels choose not to upload copyrighted material to their channel is because even though it may be allowed & the copyright owner will benefit from the extra views, …that video will not qualify for monetization by the channel owner.

Right--although YouTube, which has a raft of "monetization" regulations that bring things into the domain of commerce, is in some ways its own kettle of fish. (It complicates the situation even further by--for starters--bringing things, at least potentially, into the commercial domain, which disqualifies you from claiming "Fair Use" right off the bat.)

I was thinking of the state of "Fair Use" in general (the UK has a less generous concept of "Fair Dealing" and the EU--since 2019, anyway--an even more restrictive set of "exceptions" to copyright law) and the entire entertainment industry's wanton disregard of it, not to mention their coercive tactics to effectively neuter or nullify it.

From the beginning, even before they started cc'ing their podcast to YouTube, Wilson and Bowness pointedly did not include samples of any of the music that their show is built around. I have to conclude that they were either being overly cautious and/or that they were abiding by their understanding of UK/EU law.

Of course Google (and its sibling corporations and its "Alphabet" parent) and their ilk have long exempted themselves from copyright law, as their whole business model is in many ways built around the unauthorized theft of copyrighted material.

But this is a thread about IAA, right? Sorry for sidetrack, and I guess these posts should get moved to an appropriate thread.