I'm still occasionally mystified by what both producers and mixers--never mind record labels and ill-informed music writers--mean when they talk about "mixing for Atmos."
For instance: take this article from Stereophile about the San Francisco Symphony's recent recording of Henry Brant's "Ice Field": Brant's piece would seem to be uniquely well suited for Atmos, with instruments literally placed all around the concert hall and reaching the listener's ear from all directions. And indeed, says engineer Jack Vad: "We just couldn't get it to work in 5.1, 7.1, or 2-channel—it was a mess. The only way this recording has worked musically for us is in an Atmos presentation." Only the recording they released--and Stereophile's writer just can't get over how cool he thinks this is--doesn't require any special playback equipment other than an ordinary pair of stereo headphones. Well, that's because the recording is not Atmos; it's binaural!
So I don't get it. I mean, I think I understand that when you're mixing in Atmos, you can encode the master instrument-placement metadata using a binaural rendering mode (see Section 16) for purposes of Dolby AC-4 "immersive stereo" playback (or, in some cases, for in-studio monitoring). Engineers: tell me if I've got that wrong, or if I'm expressing it wrong. But why would you go to all the trouble of mixing something in Atmos if "immersive" or binaural stereo is the only format you're going to release it in? Why not release it in Atmos, fer godssakes!
By the way: if you've got Amazon Prime Music, you can stream this binaural version of "Ice Field" in 320k mp3 (presumably Amazon HD streams it at a higher bitrate). It's also available to purchase in 48/24 FLAC from all the hi-res providers. Cheapest I've seen it is $5.99 on Qobuz. It's a great piece. But it's not in Atmos.
For instance: take this article from Stereophile about the San Francisco Symphony's recent recording of Henry Brant's "Ice Field": Brant's piece would seem to be uniquely well suited for Atmos, with instruments literally placed all around the concert hall and reaching the listener's ear from all directions. And indeed, says engineer Jack Vad: "We just couldn't get it to work in 5.1, 7.1, or 2-channel—it was a mess. The only way this recording has worked musically for us is in an Atmos presentation." Only the recording they released--and Stereophile's writer just can't get over how cool he thinks this is--doesn't require any special playback equipment other than an ordinary pair of stereo headphones. Well, that's because the recording is not Atmos; it's binaural!
So I don't get it. I mean, I think I understand that when you're mixing in Atmos, you can encode the master instrument-placement metadata using a binaural rendering mode (see Section 16) for purposes of Dolby AC-4 "immersive stereo" playback (or, in some cases, for in-studio monitoring). Engineers: tell me if I've got that wrong, or if I'm expressing it wrong. But why would you go to all the trouble of mixing something in Atmos if "immersive" or binaural stereo is the only format you're going to release it in? Why not release it in Atmos, fer godssakes!
By the way: if you've got Amazon Prime Music, you can stream this binaural version of "Ice Field" in 320k mp3 (presumably Amazon HD streams it at a higher bitrate). It's also available to purchase in 48/24 FLAC from all the hi-res providers. Cheapest I've seen it is $5.99 on Qobuz. It's a great piece. But it's not in Atmos.
Last edited:
