If stereo sounded as good as this I might starting listening to stereo again, but it don't and I won't.
HiRez Poll Knopfler, Mark - ONE DEEP RIVER [Blu-ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]
- Thread starter rtbluray
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Jim.olga
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2023
- Messages
- 45
Please post your thoughts and comments on this brand new album from Mark Knopfler entitled "One Deep River".
The album was released as an SDE exclusive Blu-ray Audio disc as part of their SDE Surround Sound Series. (Thanks @PaulatSDE!)
The Blu-Ray includes a Dolby Atmos mix of the album and five bonus tracks.
While the Blu-ray Audio disc is now sold out, you can still stream the Dolby Atmos mix on all Dolby Atmos streaming providers:
I will preface my assessment by saying I heard Sultans of Swing on WXRT in Chicago when it first came out. I was 16 or 17 and blown away by that song and that 1st Dire Straights album. I have been a fan of Mark Knopfler ever since. I rated this release a 7. The music is at least a 9 or 10 as well as the stereo mix. The Atmos mix was too laid back for my taste. My system is a 5.1.2 with front wall heights. There was not enough going on in the surrounds or the heights. I understand the engineers' intent on the Atmos mix and it is lush, but I think my money may have been better spent on just the CD. The the stereo mix is fantastic, but the Atmos Mix does not sound substantially different to me. The music content and approach is exactly what I expected. I did not expect a hard rocking album and that's ok. This music is great! It reminds me a lot of JJ Cale and somewhat of Dylan both of whom I really dig. So, to be in that league of gentlemen is an awesome accomplishment. I wish the Atmos mix was more Atmosy, if that's a word! Mark Knopfler definitely has a unique sound with that guitar and he is a great artist!
Last edited:
Edit: Due to a technical glitch explained here:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...r-blu-ray-audio-dolby-atmos.35866/post-774663
this post is misinformed. I am leaving the text because it spurred some discussion, and therefore will provide context for that discussion. Sorry in advance!
Original Post:
I think your criticism of my review is spot-on. Perhaps my problem is in my expectations of what a surround or Atmos mix should be. Of course a mixer can use either two or more surround channels to make a mix feel more spacious. One can also use a variety of AVR processing to make a stereo mix sound more spacious.
I guess I wish there was a new surround designation - Spacious Surround - which is perhaps less "immersive" and more like Big Stereo - a term I have seen around here. In that way I could make my buying decision with all the information I need. Because this disc is limited edition I bought it sight unheard.
You may like this approach to mixing. Great! I am glad you are enjoying the disc. For me I supported the project financially because I want to encourage SDE and surround mixing in general. But for this listener (and my listening companion) the surround experience was a bland and disappointing one. Especially in contrast to Boris Blank and his excellent mix, which we had enjoyed only minutes earlier.
Last edited:
After the first listen of the Blu-Ray, I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of this Atmos mix. I was afraid to find true the criticisms labeling this mix as simple, disappointing, and poor frontal scene. But, for me, there's none of those negative aspects. It's not a simple stereo expanded with reverberation echo in the back. Instead, it's a much more elaborate mix.
At the end of the post, I've added images of the Atmos decoding to the number of channels I have: 9.1.4. Those images show, more clearly than other article referenced in the other thread, the amount of content in each channel.
The mix does indeed make considerable use of the Wides, as well as the Top Fronts and Side Surrounds. In contrast, the Rear Surrounds and Top Rears are used very little. But it's not just the amount of content in each channel that makes a mix better or worse, but rather it depends on what that content is.
This mix stands out for Mark's main voice as a front image. But that doesn't imply that the mix is "front-centric." On the contrary, the rest of the music is expanded in a "front" bubble or mid-bubble mode, through the correct use of the Top Fronts, Wides, and Sides, leaving minimal echo/reverberation content to the Rears and Top Rears, to complete the sonic coherence of the "bubble."
The mix isn't aggressive, but it's done in a correct and elegant manner. There are discrete components both in vocals and in sounds that float "around" in the room's sound bubble and move slightly in a very subtle and elegant manner.
In addition to the main front voice, some vocal lines are emphasized from the Side Surrounds. In "Scavengers Yard," voices are heard from behind and above, and in "Janine," additional voices are added in the bubble, choir-like, in some verses.
"Sweeter Than The Rain" starts with the main vocals image centered, but when the music starts, it expands throughout the room, enveloping the voice as if from a much larger room. A realism and spatial grandeur effect, similar to what Auro-3D try to achieve in its recordings and realistic mixes.
In an interview with a renowned mixing engineer, he said that "any sound coming from behind the listener triggers a primal instinct of fear, adrenaline, and self-preservation. So, when they hear a voice or percussion from behind them, it can actually be quite an uncomfortable sensation. This may partly explain why some people only like stereo."
This applies to this mix. It's not intended for discrete sounds to come from behind, hence the minimal echo/reverb content of the Rears and Top Rears. Instead, the discrete part is very subtle and elegant, and a sound bubble with discrete sonic elements is achieved which, being so subtle, should please those who dislike unrealistic ping-pong effects on stage.
In "Watch Me Gone," the choruses coming from the Sides and Top Fronts aren't "aggressive" because they don't come from the Rears, but they add an elegance that many other mixes don't achieve.
I've tried the stereo track, with upmixers, and although it may sound more "grandiose" or aggressive, it's not as subtle and elegant as Atmos.
On a first listen, the Bonus tracks in Atmos are, even, a little more discrete than the main album.
In summary, it's a much better mix than, for example, the poor front mix in Atmos from Riverside-ID.Entity.
I look forward to many more listens where I believe I'll discover many more great details of this enough good Atmos mix. I will wait to more likstening before I decide my Vote.
The following three pictures show the decoding to 9.1.4 channels.
The first picture shows the subtle Sides Surround content
The second picture shows the minimal Rear content but great Wides and Top Fronts content
The third picture shows that Top Rears are lower than Top Fronts, but still greater than Rear Surrounds. This to provide sufficient coherence of the sound bubble.
At the end of the post, I've added images of the Atmos decoding to the number of channels I have: 9.1.4. Those images show, more clearly than other article referenced in the other thread, the amount of content in each channel.
The mix does indeed make considerable use of the Wides, as well as the Top Fronts and Side Surrounds. In contrast, the Rear Surrounds and Top Rears are used very little. But it's not just the amount of content in each channel that makes a mix better or worse, but rather it depends on what that content is.
This mix stands out for Mark's main voice as a front image. But that doesn't imply that the mix is "front-centric." On the contrary, the rest of the music is expanded in a "front" bubble or mid-bubble mode, through the correct use of the Top Fronts, Wides, and Sides, leaving minimal echo/reverberation content to the Rears and Top Rears, to complete the sonic coherence of the "bubble."
The mix isn't aggressive, but it's done in a correct and elegant manner. There are discrete components both in vocals and in sounds that float "around" in the room's sound bubble and move slightly in a very subtle and elegant manner.
In addition to the main front voice, some vocal lines are emphasized from the Side Surrounds. In "Scavengers Yard," voices are heard from behind and above, and in "Janine," additional voices are added in the bubble, choir-like, in some verses.
"Sweeter Than The Rain" starts with the main vocals image centered, but when the music starts, it expands throughout the room, enveloping the voice as if from a much larger room. A realism and spatial grandeur effect, similar to what Auro-3D try to achieve in its recordings and realistic mixes.
In an interview with a renowned mixing engineer, he said that "any sound coming from behind the listener triggers a primal instinct of fear, adrenaline, and self-preservation. So, when they hear a voice or percussion from behind them, it can actually be quite an uncomfortable sensation. This may partly explain why some people only like stereo."
This applies to this mix. It's not intended for discrete sounds to come from behind, hence the minimal echo/reverb content of the Rears and Top Rears. Instead, the discrete part is very subtle and elegant, and a sound bubble with discrete sonic elements is achieved which, being so subtle, should please those who dislike unrealistic ping-pong effects on stage.
In "Watch Me Gone," the choruses coming from the Sides and Top Fronts aren't "aggressive" because they don't come from the Rears, but they add an elegance that many other mixes don't achieve.
I've tried the stereo track, with upmixers, and although it may sound more "grandiose" or aggressive, it's not as subtle and elegant as Atmos.
On a first listen, the Bonus tracks in Atmos are, even, a little more discrete than the main album.
In summary, it's a much better mix than, for example, the poor front mix in Atmos from Riverside-ID.Entity.
I look forward to many more listens where I believe I'll discover many more great details of this enough good Atmos mix. I will wait to more likstening before I decide my Vote.
The following three pictures show the decoding to 9.1.4 channels.
The first picture shows the subtle Sides Surround content
The second picture shows the minimal Rear content but great Wides and Top Fronts content
The third picture shows that Top Rears are lower than Top Fronts, but still greater than Rear Surrounds. This to provide sufficient coherence of the sound bubble.
Nice review!
I have a 7.4.4 setup, no wides and can't seem to hear anything in the rear surrounds at any time. I don't have tops but front and surround heights, the latter placed directly over the side surrounds high on the wall. On Watch me Gone the backing vocals are both in the side surrounds and surround heights, but at a lower level in the heights. This confirmed by putting my ear to the speakers. One of the bonus tracks has the same effect.
So, your heights seem to be "canonical" Auro-3DNice review!
The Rear surrounds have very little content, as shown in the pictures. When I put my ear together the rears I do listen some very very distance "echo" of the sound. As if I were listening from outside the concert room with the doors closed. This, I guess, should complete the whole bubble with "simulated" echoes from the rear, or, perhaps, also a contribution to eliminate or compensate the real echo in your listening room when no full room sound treatment is in place. But, yes, the rears level is so low, that I could doubt if this effects that I mention are achieved at all.
Surround heights was for Auro 3D, but after a update about a year ago my AVR can use theme for Atmos too. I have my side surrounds at about 120 degrees and it sounds good enough to me.
I always appreciate your analysis of Atmos music, just so you know.
Edit: Here is the first hint that something was amiss in my first listening experience:
OK, it may be time for a snack. Maybe a little "crow appetizer," if not a full crow meal.
I have been listening to this disc on my 5.1 system. I am reading other comments and I feel like I need to give this disc a fair shake. I find the experience to be more immersive in 5.1. I have listened both in full surround, and with isolated rears. It is surely not pure ambience in the rears in this configuration. To be sure there are times when the rears appear to double or reinforce the fronts in 5.1, but definitely not ALL of the information in the fronts. In short, I have found the experience to be more enjoyable in 5.1 than Atmos. My impression of the Atmos mix remains unchanged. I can only surmise that because the "sides" information is not directed to the sides or overheads, they appear in the rears in 5.1 instead, making for a more surroundy experience - at least more the way that I prefer a mix. It is still not the most immersive 5.1 mix by a longshot, but deserves better than the 6 I gave it after my Atmos listen.
A big man can admit when he is wrong. I guess so can I. Manly yes, but Fourplay likes it too! (a callback to an old soap commercial)
Final answer: try it in 5.1 before you write it off.
OK, it may be time for a snack. Maybe a little "crow appetizer," if not a full crow meal.
I have been listening to this disc on my 5.1 system. I am reading other comments and I feel like I need to give this disc a fair shake. I find the experience to be more immersive in 5.1. I have listened both in full surround, and with isolated rears. It is surely not pure ambience in the rears in this configuration. To be sure there are times when the rears appear to double or reinforce the fronts in 5.1, but definitely not ALL of the information in the fronts. In short, I have found the experience to be more enjoyable in 5.1 than Atmos. My impression of the Atmos mix remains unchanged. I can only surmise that because the "sides" information is not directed to the sides or overheads, they appear in the rears in 5.1 instead, making for a more surroundy experience - at least more the way that I prefer a mix. It is still not the most immersive 5.1 mix by a longshot, but deserves better than the 6 I gave it after my Atmos listen.
A big man can admit when he is wrong. I guess so can I. Manly yes, but Fourplay likes it too! (a callback to an old soap commercial)
Final answer: try it in 5.1 before you write it off.
Last edited:
Oh man, this is turning out to be way more drama than I had ever intended or desired.
OK, I got a call from my friend yesterday. He had gone out of town for the eclipse, and when he returned he neglected to turn on the amps for his side speakers. So the Atmos system I listened to One Deep River on was NOT properly calibrated, as earlier stated, and in fact the side channels were absent not because of the mix, but because they were not turned on. So my impression of the mix, while understandable, was completely wrong. Since this Atmos setup is more than an hour from my home, it will be a while before I get a second chance to revise my opinion.
In light of this information, my previous opinions of the Atmos were uninformed. My apologies. I have gone back to amend those posts with the appropriate caveat.
OK, I got a call from my friend yesterday. He had gone out of town for the eclipse, and when he returned he neglected to turn on the amps for his side speakers. So the Atmos system I listened to One Deep River on was NOT properly calibrated, as earlier stated, and in fact the side channels were absent not because of the mix, but because they were not turned on. So my impression of the mix, while understandable, was completely wrong. Since this Atmos setup is more than an hour from my home, it will be a while before I get a second chance to revise my opinion.
In light of this information, my previous opinions of the Atmos were uninformed. My apologies. I have gone back to amend those posts with the appropriate caveat.
Last edited:
1/1 packaging
3/3 fidelity
1.5/3 music
0.5/3 mix
I’ve enjoyed this album and I acknowledge that the Atmos mix sounds more open and dynamic than the stereo mix. But… it is still rather conservative an unimaginative. It’s very far from what I like to hear in surround.
Some tracks work well even if the surround effect is subtle. For example, Scavengers Yard, Tunnel 13 and most bonus tracks. The singles are not very good in Atmos.
Total: 6/10. The bare minimum to be “satisfactory”.
3/3 fidelity
1.5/3 music
0.5/3 mix
I’ve enjoyed this album and I acknowledge that the Atmos mix sounds more open and dynamic than the stereo mix. But… it is still rather conservative an unimaginative. It’s very far from what I like to hear in surround.
Some tracks work well even if the surround effect is subtle. For example, Scavengers Yard, Tunnel 13 and most bonus tracks. The singles are not very good in Atmos.
Total: 6/10. The bare minimum to be “satisfactory”.
Great fidelity, I like the music overall. I thought the mix could be a little more adventurous, though Knopfler's music has def hit a more introspective, mellow period and maybe I'm trying to make Mark sound like Dire Straits in my mind. IDK but no regrets on my purchase.
I like the bonus tracks!
I voted an 8.
I like the bonus tracks!
I voted an 8.
quadrifonico
Senior Member
So as I expected... pleasing stereo hi res listen... Useless multichannel track. Speaking of the music, his late songwriting is so disappointing, as always happens when material is not satisfactory they put best songs at beginning of album, then you unknowingly sleep off while trying to finish the record... Mind that I grew up listening to him, being my father one of his greatest fans, and he always says "he's possibly the greatest guitarist on Earth 
, but all that country! Why he does not rock anymore?" Well I tell him, because he's not in his thirties anymore. I mean whenever he touches those strings is heaven but...
ok when I'm sleepless I know what to listen
(I appreciate that they put bonus tracks as well on this 
blu-ray though)
That's of course my personal opinion , nobody feel offended please
, but all that country! Why he does not rock anymore?" Well I tell him, because he's not in his thirties anymore. I mean whenever he touches those strings is heaven but...ok when I'm sleepless I know what to listen (I appreciate that they put bonus tracks as well on this blu-ray though)That's of course my personal opinion , nobody feel offended please
I really love this album. At first i found it a bit dull until i started noticing that some songs are really brilliant. So i have now listened to this album more than many albums i have in my collection. I felt that i should give this an 10 but the Atmos mix just isn´t worth that. But still it really fills the room nicely so i gave it an 8 which is quite a good verdict. For the music itself i would give it an 10.
I have changed my vote to a nine. The album just keeps getting better and better. As much as I love Local Hero, I now regard this as his best solo album.
Also, this time around, I've added Auro3D upmixer to my playback listening, which does seem to 'heighten' things more. I may do that more often when a mix is less atmosy than I'd like.
Also, this time around, I've added Auro3D upmixer to my playback listening, which does seem to 'heighten' things more. I may do that more often when a mix is less atmosy than I'd like.
I voted a 5. If you are suffering from imsomnia and need something to put you to sleep, this is it. Mind you, this coming from someone who likes slow depressing music. Surround, what surround? Barely much there. This purchase was a waste of money for me. In retrospect, I should have sampled the music before blindly purchasing it. I have the Shangri La DVD and like that one far better than this.
I explained in a previous post how I perceive this Atmos mix.
It is a well done mix using very well the Wides. But yes, you have to have 9.1.4 to get it. The image effect between Fronts and Sides, could not be so impacting.
Should we call it Surround? Or better "Enhanced Stereo"?
It uses the "Atmos" format to present a frontal hemisphere sound bubble, with minimal and subtle discrete effects. It is more than "front centric", but less than surrounded by side/behind you.
It is a subtle sensation that may not be percieved by everyone rig.
I would say that this is conceived for Knopfler fans, not for surround fans, in general.
I don't have wides, but on my 5.1.4 setup it still presents a remarkable, wide, 3D soundstage that just would not be possible with stereo. I'd assume the use of wides makes an already great front image even grander.
The way the front heights are used to provide the illusion of height and to increase the dynamic impact is most striking to me. I don't believe Ive heard that effect with any other mix. It's quite unique in my experience.
Yes, thats why I call It hemisphere buble. Sound is coming from front, Wides, front heights and a little from sides.
There is few sound from rears and top rears, so there is little feeling of "surround".
But the big sound scene at front,Wides,heights is very good.
Last edited:
There's an old adage in politics: "if you're explaining, you're losing" that I think applies here.
If some like the mix and find it satisfying and that it matches the music? That's fine. But if we are at the point of having to reach to graphs and screenshots and detailed explanations for why there is a lack of discreetness or use of the rears? That doesn't make the listening experience any better for those who don't enjoy it.
Sure. It may all have been intentional to create this exact result. So are live mixes with only audience and a bit of reverb in the rears. I get that this was probably exactly what the engineer wanted. Just don't call something "surround" or "immersive" when it really isn't. That's gonna piss a lot of people off.
If some like the mix and find it satisfying and that it matches the music? That's fine. But if we are at the point of having to reach to graphs and screenshots and detailed explanations for why there is a lack of discreetness or use of the rears? That doesn't make the listening experience any better for those who don't enjoy it.
Sure. It may all have been intentional to create this exact result. So are live mixes with only audience and a bit of reverb in the rears. I get that this was probably exactly what the engineer wanted. Just don't call something "surround" or "immersive" when it really isn't. That's gonna piss a lot of people off.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
