Listening to in Dolby Atmos Streaming, via Tidal/Apple/Amazon

[Ephi82]

I don't think the post I replied to mentioned physical media. There is no question that streaming Atmos is inferior to Blu-ray 4K lossless Atmos. The question here is whether the Apple "headphone virtualization" of Atmos is worse than the Dolby version and it doesn't look to me like anyone has seriously compared them.

can You describe for me what one hears to say streaming ATMOS is inferior to the same content on a Blu-ray? I have a reasonably resolving system, with a Marantz 8012 and full range Bowers and Wilkins drivers all around. Playback is from a Oppo Blu ray and a Apple TV. Are my ears too old to hear the difference?

 

[haikubass]

David Byrne's American Utopia
Much more discrete than the BD-V! (I'm listening in 5.1)
https://music.apple.com/us/album/american-utopia-on-broadway-original-cast-recording-live/1484015849https://tidal.com/album/216889539Mixed most likely by Pete Keppler

 

[zeerround]

can You describe for me what one hears to say streaming ATMOS is inferior to the same content on a Blu-ray? I have a reasonably resolving system, with a Marantz 8012 and full range Bowers and Wilkins drivers all around. Playback is from a Oppo Blu ray and a Apple TV. Are my ears too old to hear the difference?

It would take some effort, but technically I could provide examples of something encoded with "full" Atmos (or less effort, DTS:X) and then the same content in Atmos encoded similar (but not exactly the same) as Tidal. Same bit rates, but what channels are objects and which are "bed" etc. are different and I don't know how to replicate exactly what Tidal or Apple is doing but the quality and direction of sound, as to channels, should be the same up to 7.1.4 anyway (Tidal has 15 Objects, plus LFE, vs. 11 plus LFE, for 7.1.4).

But basically we are talking the difference between Dolby True HD and Dolby digital, in terms of quality.

 

[zeerround]

I have experienced that kind of thing with my VR Oculus headset. In addition to the moving games, It was a short concert of somebody playing guitar and singing. You start with the sound at your back and do not see him. Then you turn your head and as the visual turns around you hear the guitar and his voice turning around until you look near his face and listen directly with sound coming from the front near you. It was a very very immersive thing. Very progressive moving, very real. You were there just at the side of the player.

This was a very amazing sound render, depending on your head position. Was it Dolby or Apple? Who renders sounds for Oculus or others VR headsets?

That kind of sensations are impresive with the aditional visuals to get you there, but without visuals, only sound changing direction as you move your head, is another kind of immersion that could work well. Really, this is nothing more than the emulation of what we have in our home cinema room with discrete speakers. As you move, the differentt sounds remain where they are. They do not move with you as you turn you head, as they do with traditional headsets.

VR uses Ambisonics to deliver immersive sound. Ambisonics has experienced a resurgence with VR, mainly because it is technically "easy" to rotate and set the distance of the object in the sound field with math, and of course, the head tracking is there to support the video.

To my knowledge I believe it is only 2nd order ambisonics, so everything is encoded in 4 channels, then rendered to binaural after doing the rotation etc. Anyway, it's not Dolby or DTS or anything we have on our AVRs.

With the Oculus Rift, I know how to play 7.1.4 channels in realtime and represent each channel as glowing ball in VR Space. You can move around and the balls get bigger/smaller louder/softer. You can also move the balls around.

This is done using a Facebook 360 plugin per channel, in a VST or other plugin host (In my case Plogue Bidule) for each channel.

Taking that further into an actual scene with video, etc. is something I have the tools for, but not the chops (or time), however.

 

[harync]

What are you talking about? If you are listening to Atmos on AppleTV connected via HDMI to an Atmos capable receiver you are getting the real thing.

Whether Dolby's headphone virtualization algorithms for headphones are any better than Apple's "spatial audio" is anybody's game and I really don't care that much.

Apple is providing the same or better Dolby Atmos experience via the AppleTV. If you care about fake headphone virtualization, you need to provide some evidence that Apple's is worst than Dolby's. No doubt it is different given its support for a directional sound field based on motion or device position (not sure Dolby has that?) but saying it is inferior needs some evidence.

The reason you should care about the headphone virtualization process is because Apple Music is streaming "Spatial Audio Atmos" mixes that are not what the mixer intended, and this is the way the vast majority of the users are hearing the mixes. Quoting from Zeeround above:

Apple is using the original Dolby Atmos mix in the form of the encoded DD+JOC file, but their own Renderer, the spatial audio engine, creates a Headphone Virtualization (their form of Binaural Audio) and Speaker Virtualization (for playing on their supported iPads and Macs). It is more like a "spatial interpretation" of your Dolby Atmos mix, and there is no "Apple Spatial Audio Emulation" button that you can enable while creating your Dolby Atmos mix. Bottom line, you are mixing blind for Apple Music because you don't know how your Atmos mix will sound.

Until I looked in at the Mac Rumors site, I did not realize the significant number of complaints about Apple's virtualization. If enough people decide they don't like the virtualized "Spatial Audio Atmos" Apple may give up on Atmos completely, and then we all lose. Apple needs to devise a way for mixers to mix for Spatial Audio or else use the Dolby virtualization so mixers can deliver music the way they intended.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

The reason you should care about the headphone virtualization process is because Apple Music is streaming "Spatial Audio Atmos" mixes that are not what the mixer intended, and this is the way the vast majority of the users are hearing the mixes. Quoting from Zeeround above:

Until I looked in at the Mac Rumors site, I did not realize the significant number of complaints about Apple's virtualization. If enough people decide they don't like the virtualized "Spatial Audio Atmos" Apple may give up on Atmos completely, and then we all lose. Apple needs to devise a way for mixers to mix for Spatial Audio or else use the Dolby virtualization so mixers can deliver music the way they intended.

If I interpret this correctly, you are saying that virtualized Atmos (for headphones) is a poor implementation. And that is the way most users are listening to Spatial Audio (via headphones). Hence they are raising complaints. So we should be worried about Apple closing down the Spatial Audio project completely.

Even though Apple Atmos streams destined for an AVR does not use the headphone virtualizer, that mode of streaming will be penalized as well.

Yes??

 

[harync]

If I interpret this correctly, you are saying that virtualized Atmos (for headphones) is a poor implementation. And that is the way most users are listening to Spatial Audio (via headphones). Hence they are raising complaints. So we should be worried about Apple closing down the Spatial Audio project completely.

Even though Apple Atmos streams destined for an AVR does not use the headphone virtualizer, that mode of streaming will be penalized as well.

Yes??

Yes that's what I'm saying. Maybe this will clarify:

When the mixer sends out his mix to Apple, it is in the DD+JOC format. When this is output by an Apple TV to an Atmos AVR, it sounds as intended.

When output to headphones, it uses the Apple Spatial Audio Renderer which may sound worse than the intended binaural mix.

If 75% of people (just making up a number) are listening to the possibly inferior Apple Spatial Audio render and stop requesting those files, Apple will stop asking for Atmos files from mixers entirely.

I think all of us here know that surround is a niche format. It behooves us for a company like Apple to deliver a product to the mainstream that will keep surround alive. If Apple's metrics are telling them that Spatial Audio is a success and they are bought in, I'll gladly just keep listening through my Apple TV / Atmos AVR.

 

[Cheezmo]

can You describe for me what one hears to say streaming ATMOS is inferior to the same content on a Blu-ray? I have a reasonably resolving system, with a Marantz 8012 and full range Bowers and Wilkins drivers all around. Playback is from a Oppo Blu ray and a Apple TV. Are my ears too old to hear the difference?

Don't ask me, my ears are too old too. But lossless is generally considered to be superior to lossy so I am sure there is a difference.

 

[Cheezmo]

I was fortunate to see this show twice (touring in Dallas and the Broadway preview in Boston) glad to see it in Atmos!

https://music.apple.com/us/album/american-utopia-on-broadway-original-cast-recording-live/1484015849

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Yes that's what I'm saying. Maybe this will clarify:

When the mixer sends out his mix to Apple, it is in the DD+JOC format. When this is output by an Apple TV to an Atmos AVR, it sounds as intended.

When output to headphones, it uses the Apple Spatial Audio Renderer which may sound worse than the intended binaural mix.

If 75% of people (just making up a number) are listening to the possibly inferior Apple Spatial Audio render and stop requesting those files, Apple will stop asking for Atmos files from mixers entirely.

I think all of us here know that surround is a niche format. It behooves us for a company like Apple to deliver a product to the mainstream that will keep surround alive. If Apple's metrics are telling them that Spatial Audio is a success and they are bought in, I'll gladly just keep listening through my Apple TV / Atmos AVR.

So what is your idea for an alternative? Should Apple just cease offering headphone renditions? Maybe wait and evolve the technology so its more acceptable? They certainly aren't going to admit their headphone renderer sucks.

Maybe I'm being too condescending with my idea of how the non-audiophile masses consume music these days, but my guess is the vast majority of Iphone/headphone listeners aren't savvy enough to know good sound from bad, nor they even care. To them, if it says "Dolby Atmos", it must be better. Right? It seems to me that's the draw when it comes to low end sales like soundbars and such.

 

[stormchaser]

Senses-Floating Dao by Weiss and Leuschner in Atmos on Tidal is pretty yummy if you are into relaxing electronica.

 

[harync]

So what is your idea for an alternative? Should Apple just cease offering headphone renditions? Maybe wait and evolve the technology so its more acceptable? They certainly aren't going to admit their headphone renderer sucks.

There are two straight-forward solutions:
1. Apple can give mixers the ability to render binaural spatial audio mixes themselves so they can make sure they sound as intended
2. Apple can just use the Dolby renderer (knowing Apple I'm guessing that's probably not going to happen).

Maybe I'm being too condescending with my idea of how the non-audiophile masses consume music these days, but my guess is the vast majority of Iphone/headphone listeners aren't savvy enough to know good sound from bad, nor they even care. To them, if it says "Dolby Atmos", it must be better. Right? It seems to me that's the draw when it comes to low end sales like soundbars and such.

I didn't give the headphone listeners a second thought until I ventured into the Mac Rumors forum talking about Spatial Audio. There are numerous complaints about the mixes sounding quiet (that's a problem for everybody), or funny, or garbled, or distant. I don't know if using the Dolby binaural rendering would fix that, but at least the mixers can deliver the mixes as they intend them. Right now, they are sending files to Apple blind not knowing how they will turn out. Who knows if they go to the trouble of streaming their own mix after the fact to make sure it sounds good.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

David Byrne's American Utopia
Much more discrete than the BD-V! (I'm listening in 5.1)
https://music.apple.com/us/album/american-utopia-on-broadway-original-cast-recording-live/1484015849https://tidal.com/album/216889539Mixed most likely by Pete Keppler

Wow, the LFE channel is the strongest I've yet encountered on Apple, by a damn sight. Don't do EDM, hip-hop etc. FWIW.
Tons of kick & bass in a full-range center speaker, as well.
(Also listening in 5.1)

I was fortunate to see this show twice (touring in Dallas and the Broadway preview in Boston) glad to see it in Atmos!

Were the subs loud enough to make your chest resonate?
That's what I'm getting here in my sweet spot.

 

[popshop]

https://music.apple.com/us/album/the-tipping-point/1586912660?lsNew Tears for Fears

 

[salsdali]

https://music.apple.com/us/album/the-tipping-point/1586912660?lsNew Tears for Fears

My Demons is awesome

 

[Ephi82]

Don't ask me, my ears are too old too. But lossless is generally considered to be superior to lossy so I am sure there is a difference.

You know, I never bought into “lossy“ music, ie mp3’s , because I could hear the difference compared to the same by flac or on a cd.

So far, I don’t hear a difference between the “lossy” Apple TV ATMOS and ATMOS on a Blu ray, and that’s good. Old ears or is the difference very subtle?

 

[perzon57]

You know, I never bought into “lossy“ music, ie mp3’s , because I could hear the difference compared to the same by flac or on a cd.

So far, I don’t hear a difference between the “lossy” Apple TV ATMOS and ATMOS on a Blu ray, and that’s good. Old ears or is the difference very subtle?

Old ears here too, and it helps. I can hear the difference if I listen for it, but it don't bother. I buy the BD's with Atmos that are affordable, the the rest I will stream from Apple Music. Quite some Atmos releases are only on streaming too.

 

[scooob]

You know, I never bought into “lossy“ music, ie mp3’s , because I could hear the difference compared to the same by flac or on a cd.

So far, I don’t hear a difference between the “lossy” Apple TV ATMOS and ATMOS on a Blu ray, and that’s good. Old ears or is the difference very subtle?

I think the difference is there, if you really look for it. I know some people here have very expensive systems, and they are quite discerning about subtle differences in source material. I have a respectable but lower-end system, and a good surround mix from my Apple TV can sound really fine to me. The quality of the mix, and the dynamics and EQ of the mastering, are so much more important than the lossiness factor or bitrate specs, to my (admittedly old) ears.

To take it a step farther, I think a well-mastered 320-kbps mp3 stereo track can sound great from my iPhone via Bluetooth to my Sennheiser PXC 550-II wireless headphones, when I'm out walking my dog. The dog thumbs his nose at my appreciation of this lossy delivery chain. I ignore his snobbery.

 

[beerking]

https://music.apple.com/us/album/the-tipping-point/1586912660?lsNew Tears for Fears

This release is really on fire with the use of all surround speakers in my 7.2.4 system.

It makes up for the disappointment in not being able to order the physical copy.

 

[Cheezmo]

https://music.apple.com/us/album/love-sux/1604367016