knifeman
500 Club - QQ All-Star
Well said.
Pink Floyd - "Animals" 5.1 Surround Sound Mix (Blu-Ray & SACD editions out in September 2022!)
- Thread starter César
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Thank you!
Well, it's the new standard for surround sound and it's on Disney+, Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Netflix and even Tidal. It's on most newer movies in 4K and many 1080p Blu-Rays as well. If you don't have an Atmos receiver, you wouldn't even notice as it's backwards compatible with 5.1, 7.1 and 2.0 for that matter so there's no issue with the studios using it as plays just fine on older systems while allowing newer systems to do more and larger home theaters to scale upward easily. If no one was using it, why on earth would Disney, Amazon, Apple and Netflix even bother? The movie studios have an incentive to make Atmos soundtracks as that's one more reason for people to come hear something larger than life at a real movie theater (assuming they survive Covid) and the soundtracks are easily scaled down to home Atmos.
Tech is moving forward almost yearly now in home theater with 8K receivers now available. 13-channel and even 15-channel receivers are now available. It's nearly plug'n'play. The only "hard" part is getting speakers on or near the ceiling and running the wire for them without looking terrible. I bought a 11-channel Marantz receiver for less than half its retail price by waiting until August of that year and buying that year's model as the new ones came in (huge discounts every year around that time). Great used speakers can be easily found on eBay in good condition. I bought most of my "upgrade" PSB speakers there for like half the price they were new. I could even find older ones that matched the speakers I already had fairly easily.
I know a few people at work with 5.1 setups, but I don't know a ton of people personally in general. I do know there's over a million members at AVS and it's not hard to find people using it online that way. Besides, how many people had Quad systems back in the 1970s? Does that mean people should not have wanted bands like Pink Floyd to make quad remixes of their albums back then? Atmos renders to and is fully backwards compatible with 5.1 so it's not like an Atmos remix wouldn't play on your 5.1 system either. Frankly, Blu-Ray albums have plenty of room for multiple optimized mixes even. I've got some music Blu-Rays that have 2.0 (192kHz 24-bit), 5.1, 7.1, Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D mixes all on the same disc with plenty of room to spare.
Personally, I had 5.1 clear back in 1997 (Technics external processor add-on with Dolby Digital AC-3 and DTS plugged into a Denon receiver using laserdiscs and then DVDs as the sources with a 57" CRT HDTV a couple of years later. I now use that Technics processor on my Carver system (so I can keep my Carver C-5 preamp) for the occasional surround album and mostly for TV shows and the occasional movie (I watch most movies in my home theater that has 17.1 (11.1.6 layout, meaning 11 speakers at ear level, 1 subwoofer and 6 speakers overhead).
I moved to 6.1 in 2007 at my new house with a 92" screen and Panasonic 720p projector and used that for 9 years. I upgraded to 1080p 3D projector in 2016 (got stick of waiting for 4K projectors in a reasonable price range) and then started on the Atmos upgrade in the summer of 2018. I didn't think I could fit stereo speakers in the rear of the room due to the half bathroom and off-center sliding back door, but I found the newer X1T PSB speaker could fit in that corner and I then somehow managed to fit three sets of side speakers and three rows of seats into the room with a bit of planning (I bought most of the new speakers on eBay used so it didn't cost as much as you might think). I first upgraded to 7.1.4 and then finished the upgrade in December to 11.1.6, but then I also redid my furniture and other changes to the room to make it more "theater-like". The actual speakers only took a couple of days to install all of them and that was 17 including some new mains and three rows of seating, not the more typical 9 or 11 total.
Well, now you do.
What I can tell you is that a well done Auro-3D or Dolby Atmos surround album is a revelation. Many of the Auro-3D recordings are done with dual-quad microphones in real venues and it's like listening to binaural recordings without headphones. The room disappears and you're transported to the venue. It's outright freakishly real sounding. I'm sitting there with a pipe organ playing Toccata and Fugue and it sounds like I'm sitting in this giant church. It's unreal. Lichtmond albums are more like Delerium/Enigma/Pink Floyd crossed together and sounds can just appear anywhere in the room or even fly around it, over/under, anywhere really (and those offer 3D video as well to make it extra trippy). I felt like I was at Disney World watching Magic Journeys in 3D back in 1984 again.
The best part, however is that they're backwards compatible with 5.1 (or even stereo) systems so you can listen to them on your existing system and they're ready to play with more channels if/when you upgrade. Thus, the notion that Pink Floyd would be giving something up by doing Atmos remixes of their albums is erroneous as they will still play on 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 and even 34.1 (24.1.10) systems. They're utterly scalable as the system moves the audio "objects" and renders to them to the closest approximations available in such a way that phantom imaging takes over.
All you really need is a receiver supporting 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 and 2 or 4 overhead speakers. They can be mounted high on the wall or on or in the ceiling. There are also "Dolby Enabled" speakers that attempt to bounce the overhead sound off the ceiling to make it sound like it's coming from there. But you don't even need to do that to hear overhead sounds as Dolby now has "Height Virtualization" (DTS uses "Virtual X" to do the same) that pscyhoacoustically simulates the overhead channels (similar to how Q-Sound simulated surround sound on 2-channel). I've tested the DTS system on my lower 7.1 channels and it works shockingly well for the main listening position. All you need to do that is a receiver that uses it (You can get one for under $700).
As for it being a fad, that's unlikely to happen precisely because the system is completely backwards compatible. Like I said, Pink Floyd could do an Atmos mix and it would play back fine on 5.1 or even 2.0 just fine. It'd be on their end to do a proper mix and let's face it, they can easily afford to do it.
Wow! Thanks for the very concise and interesting intelligent information regarding my post! I’ll have to read this again tomorrow as it’s very detailed. Thanks for taking the time to do this. Truly amazing the technical information on this site that members have. Cheers!Well, it's the new standard for surround sound and it's on Disney+, Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Netflix and even Tidal. It's on most newer movies in 4K and many 1080p Blu-Rays as well. If you don't have an Atmos receiver, you wouldn't even notice as it's backwards compatible with 5.1, 7.1 and 2.0 for that matter so there's no issue with the studios using it as plays just fine on older systems while allowing newer systems to do more and larger home theaters to scale upward easily. If no one was using it, why on earth would Disney, Amazon, Apple and Netflix even bother? The movie studios have an incentive to make Atmos soundtracks as that's one more reason for people to come hear something larger than life at a real movie theater (assuming they survive Covid) and the soundtracks are easily scaled down to home Atmos.
Tech is moving forward almost yearly now in home theater with 8K receivers now available. 13-channel and even 15-channel receivers are now available. It's nearly plug'n'play. The only "hard" part is getting speakers on or near the ceiling and running the wire for them without looking terrible. I bought a 11-channel Marantz receiver for less than half its retail price by waiting until August of that year and buying that year's model as the new ones came in (huge discounts every year around that time). Great used speakers can be easily found on eBay in good condition. I bought most of my "upgrade" PSB speakers there for like half the price they were new. I could even find older ones that matched the speakers I already had fairly easily.
I know a few people at work with 5.1 setups, but I don't know a ton of people personally in general. I do know there's over a million members at AVS and it's not hard to find people using it online that way. Besides, how many people had Quad systems back in the 1970s? Does that mean people should not have wanted bands like Pink Floyd to make quad remixes of their albums back then? Atmos renders to and is fully backwards compatible with 5.1 so it's not like an Atmos remix wouldn't play on your 5.1 system either. Frankly, Blu-Ray albums have plenty of room for multiple optimized mixes even. I've got some music Blu-Rays that have 2.0 (192kHz 24-bit), 5.1, 7.1, Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D mixes all on the same disc with plenty of room to spare.
Personally, I had 5.1 clear back in 1997 (Technics external processor add-on with Dolby Digital AC-3 and DTS plugged into a Denon receiver using laserdiscs and then DVDs as the sources with a 57" CRT HDTV a couple of years later. I now use that Technics processor on my Carver system (so I can keep my Carver C-5 preamp) for the occasional surround album and mostly for TV shows and the occasional movie (I watch most movies in my home theater that has 17.1 (11.1.6 layout, meaning 11 speakers at ear level, 1 subwoofer and 6 speakers overhead).
I moved to 6.1 in 2007 at my new house with a 92" screen and Panasonic 720p projector and used that for 9 years. I upgraded to 1080p 3D projector in 2016 (got stick of waiting for 4K projectors in a reasonable price range) and then started on the Atmos upgrade in the summer of 2018. I didn't think I could fit stereo speakers in the rear of the room due to the half bathroom and off-center sliding back door, but I found the newer X1T PSB speaker could fit in that corner and I then somehow managed to fit three sets of side speakers and three rows of seats into the room with a bit of planning (I bought most of the new speakers on eBay used so it didn't cost as much as you might think). I first upgraded to 7.1.4 and then finished the upgrade in December to 11.1.6, but then I also redid my furniture and other changes to the room to make it more "theater-like". The actual speakers only took a couple of days to install all of them and that was 17 including some new mains and three rows of seating, not the more typical 9 or 11 total.
Well, now you do.
What I can tell you is that a well done Auro-3D or Dolby Atmos surround album is a revelation. Many of the Auro-3D recordings are done with dual-quad microphones in real venues and it's like listening to binaural recordings without headphones. The room disappears and you're transported to the venue. It's outright freakishly real sounding. I'm sitting there with a pipe organ playing Toccata and Fugue and it sounds like I'm sitting in this giant church. It's unreal. Lichtmond albums are more like Delerium/Enigma/Pink Floyd crossed together and sounds can just appear anywhere in the room or even fly around it, over/under, anywhere really (and those offer 3D video as well to make it extra trippy). I felt like I was at Disney World watching Magic Journeys in 3D back in 1984 again.
The best part, however is that they're backwards compatible with 5.1 (or even stereo) systems so you can listen to them on your existing system and they're ready to play with more channels if/when you upgrade. Thus, the notion that Pink Floyd would be giving something up by doing Atmos remixes of their albums is erroneous as they will still play on 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 and even 34.1 (24.1.10) systems. They're utterly scalable as the system moves the audio "objects" and renders to them to the closest approximations available in such a way that phantom imaging takes over.
All you really need is a receiver supporting 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 and 2 or 4 overhead speakers. They can be mounted high on the wall or on or in the ceiling. There are also "Dolby Enabled" speakers that attempt to bounce the overhead sound off the ceiling to make it sound like it's coming from there. But you don't even need to do that to hear overhead sounds as Dolby now has "Height Virtualization" (DTS uses "Virtual X" to do the same) that pscyhoacoustically simulates the overhead channels (similar to how Q-Sound simulated surround sound on 2-channel). I've tested the DTS system on my lower 7.1 channels and it works shockingly well for the main listening position. All you need to do that is a receiver that uses it (You can get one for under $700).
As for it being a fad, that's unlikely to happen precisely because the system is completely backwards compatible. Like I said, Pink Floyd could do an Atmos mix and it would play back fine on 5.1 or even 2.0 just fine. It'd be on their end to do a proper mix and let's face it, they can easily afford to do it.
DTS:X has essentially replaced DTS HD MAS for DTS corporation I suppose as the older encoder doesn't even work for many in newer Windows updates. It seems like "abandonware" to me as some like to say, just like Surcode's DiscWelder.
Dolby's Atmos has the push from Dolby to be the dominant go-to for future surround sound. Will they both survive? I suspect so.
What the future may hold is anyone's guess, but as Windows updates make it harder to use the older encoders (on Windows systems- I know jack about MAC's) and necessitate "freezing" a Windows pc against future upates just to run the older encoders, it may at some point be so impossible that it becomes easier to just go with the direction of the companies writing whatever encoding systems they want you to buy. Don't think that these only get sold to industry professionals, as I know of a few folks here with the newer DTS:X encoders who aren't involved in the industry, to my knowledge. While that's fine, I've seen statements from individual artists who can't afford to make Blu Ray releases due to the costs of licensing encoders, etc., and we're only talking 5.1.......
What happens if DTS & Dolby decide in the future that actual lossless encoding can only happen with > 6 channels? I doubt it anytime soon but again, who knows. It could be initiated as an encoding requirement but still allow a "mix down" to 5.1. Why do I even say this? Probably because I don't like it the older encoders/authoring systems are being abandoned. Also because encoders just keep going up in price. Other than that I don't have a grudge toward DTS & Dolby for reaching into the future of surround programming and delivering winners. But seems to me the Indie artists are being priced out and no way in hell I can afford them.
Myself, I only have a 5.1.2 speaker setup and for my AVR that's the limit. I'd love to have a bigger, immersive system but being as how at my age I just paid off my mortgage I don't see having 20 channel capability anytime soon, happy to have what I have but not opposed to future upgrades if the money is there.
As the years take their toll on my hearing, I'm beginning to wonder if stretching out to capability of at least 2 more speakers would be substantive help? I don't know but if your hearing has diminished greatly and you have found the more "immersive" systems to help your listening experience then please do PM me with your thoughts, I would be happy to hear from you. Not quite at hearing aid buying yet, mainly loss of high end >10 kHz + overall attenuation of volume.
Now those are my thoughts, and here is my rant:
But dammit, man, it's just plain wrong on the part of those who keep us from getting the music in even 5.1 that was the backdrop for our lives that gets me riled. If you industry people/artists are going to hold out music from the 70's and 80's just for spite then I'm flabbergasted.
If it's the costs then release as mch FLAC downloads and I for one will accept it as offered if that's the way it is. At least I can still author a DVDA or an AVCHD if I desire-at least for now!
We in the older generation are the ones that have supported the Pink Floyds, Stones, etc since their inception ~50 years ago and contributed to your little pile of gold, so throw us some more bones while we're still alive, eh?
BTW, kudos again to Rhino for bringing us the Quadio sets!
Dolby's Atmos has the push from Dolby to be the dominant go-to for future surround sound. Will they both survive? I suspect so.
What the future may hold is anyone's guess, but as Windows updates make it harder to use the older encoders (on Windows systems- I know jack about MAC's) and necessitate "freezing" a Windows pc against future upates just to run the older encoders, it may at some point be so impossible that it becomes easier to just go with the direction of the companies writing whatever encoding systems they want you to buy. Don't think that these only get sold to industry professionals, as I know of a few folks here with the newer DTS:X encoders who aren't involved in the industry, to my knowledge. While that's fine, I've seen statements from individual artists who can't afford to make Blu Ray releases due to the costs of licensing encoders, etc., and we're only talking 5.1.......
What happens if DTS & Dolby decide in the future that actual lossless encoding can only happen with > 6 channels? I doubt it anytime soon but again, who knows. It could be initiated as an encoding requirement but still allow a "mix down" to 5.1. Why do I even say this? Probably because I don't like it the older encoders/authoring systems are being abandoned. Also because encoders just keep going up in price. Other than that I don't have a grudge toward DTS & Dolby for reaching into the future of surround programming and delivering winners. But seems to me the Indie artists are being priced out and no way in hell I can afford them.
Myself, I only have a 5.1.2 speaker setup and for my AVR that's the limit. I'd love to have a bigger, immersive system but being as how at my age I just paid off my mortgage I don't see having 20 channel capability anytime soon, happy to have what I have but not opposed to future upgrades if the money is there.
As the years take their toll on my hearing, I'm beginning to wonder if stretching out to capability of at least 2 more speakers would be substantive help? I don't know but if your hearing has diminished greatly and you have found the more "immersive" systems to help your listening experience then please do PM me with your thoughts, I would be happy to hear from you. Not quite at hearing aid buying yet, mainly loss of high end >10 kHz + overall attenuation of volume.
Now those are my thoughts, and here is my rant:
But dammit, man, it's just plain wrong on the part of those who keep us from getting the music in even 5.1 that was the backdrop for our lives that gets me riled. If you industry people/artists are going to hold out music from the 70's and 80's just for spite then I'm flabbergasted.
If it's the costs then release as mch FLAC downloads and I for one will accept it as offered if that's the way it is. At least I can still author a DVDA or an AVCHD if I desire-at least for now!
We in the older generation are the ones that have supported the Pink Floyds, Stones, etc since their inception ~50 years ago and contributed to your little pile of gold, so throw us some more bones while we're still alive, eh?
BTW, kudos again to Rhino for bringing us the Quadio sets!
I couldn't agree with you more on all that you said,and based on your recommendation I just purchased my first Lichtmond - The Journey.
I am all over the upcoming ATMOS wave and can't wait to fully enjoy it. I am just as excited about ATMOS as I was when I got my first Panasonic 5.1 system around 1993. Everything I can see industry wide is embracing ATMOS. What a great time to be a surround enthusiast.
Cyber 1
701 Club - QQ All-Star
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 732
I'm pretty sure unless one start from scratch and builds a dedicated A/V room 99% of all wives just ain't going to make a persons life very happy if he starts running wires up walls and ceilings
* just an educated hunch on my part*
It’s worth it, listening to 5.1 sources in Auro-3D is amazing also. I love Auro, prefer it much over Dolby surround (which would make a 5.1 source atmos). you can get the tracks that are low profile to hide cables under for your ceiling,
I have 7 overhead channels, one for Auro voice of god channel. I could have easily used just 4 for the Atmos setup and probably not noticed much of a difference between the 4 and 6. The VOG channel in Auro 3D is amazing though,
I’d think as long as you are happy with where your 2 atmos/ceiling speakers are placement wise, it may be more beneficial to do wides If you have the room. That’s my next upgrade. I’ll have to get a Trinnov or similar to do it right now which I can’t afford, hoping the next wave of processors will be 18.1 compatible.
Thanks! It will take a new AVR for me to expand. That's not on the budget this year, but I may be able to take that leap in a few month if I decide to go for it.
I guess it's a good thing I'm not married, then.
You can fish wires through walls and ceilings (or pros can). It helps to have an attic overhead to do in-ceiling speakers more easily or a drop ceiling, but high on the front, rear or side walls can also work fine. You can also try those ceiling bounce speakers, but results have been mixed. There's also the virtualization modes I previously mentioned which can work directly with existing 5.1 & 7.1 systems with no additional speakers required, but may only work well for one or two seats for the overhead effect.
I agree. I have great skills for doing construction type things. All my wives have put up with my hobby, some better than others, my current wife has been the hardest to please/convince. She has been thru one house with new addition, another new house sold, and the last 7 years at this house. Surround has always been a mandatory issue by me, but she doesn't understand/care and hates the look and complication of a surround system. The one thing she never complained about was in ceiling speakers, they are flat and you can paint the grills. The new in ceilings either have a woofer/tweeter aimed or a tweeter only aimed.I guess it's a good thing I'm not married, then.
You can fish wires through walls and ceilings (or pros can). It helps to have an attic overhead to do in-ceiling speakers more easily or a drop ceiling, but high on the front, rear or side walls can also work fine. You can also try those ceiling bounce speakers, but results have been mixed. There's also the virtualization modes I previously mentioned which can work directly with existing 5.1 & 7.1 systems with no additional speakers required, but may only work well for one or two seats for the overhead effect.
In my experience the wiring/positioning, cutting in of the speakers in ceiling is fairly easy, the hard part is transition from celling down inside of wall. Having an attic/crawl space above where you want to put them is a bonus. The new ceiling speakers are two part, cage and speaker which makes it super easy. If you feed the speaker wire down the wall and hit a fire block you have no choice but to open wall. Hiring a tape and mud guy to patch is fairly inexpensive.
I see a new wife on the horizon.......
Next time marry a tape and mud guy (or girl)
Next time marry a tape and mud guy (or girl)
harync
Senior Member
I do want to clarify that if you have a non-Atmos system, you can playback the TrueHD core, but you won’t be hearing what the artist intended. For a good deal of investigation on this, see this topic:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...uestions-experiences.29057/page-5#post-516170
I think the best approach is what was taken with the Abbey Road blu-ray release with an Atmos track and a DTS 5.1 track.
Nick Mason said he would like to hear Dark Side in Atmos, so maybe for the 50th anniversary?
How do you know what the artist "intended" ??? Did the artist even mix the album? Or did they let a mastering engineer do it? Did they even listen to the final mix or just approve of it? How could you possibly know short of asking them? What if their intent was purely to let the Atmos system do the best job it can with whatever the user's system has available?
I've written my own album and songs and I did my own mixing. I did the best job I could as I care about the recording itself, but I tested it on a half dozen different systems including a car and headphones. I tested Pro Logic IIx with it as well and made changes to improve it on all of them. I can't control how people listen to the music and I think they should have a good source to hear it however they like it (more bass, less bass, with Dolby surround processing or upmixing). I wouldn't presume to tell them which system to listen to it on and how they should enjoy it. I just hope they enjoy it. That was my "intent". Glean what you may.
Atmos does the best it can with the setup it's given. Without a Trinnov, you will get downmixing to both "heights" and "tops" speakers from the other location (as the information isn't thrown out) so unless you have full Trinnov 34 speaker system, how can you really be certain you're hearing the correct placement for a given instrument? Even then, it might sound different in different rooms with different speakers. How far down the crazy train line do you want to go with hearing what the artist heard? The exact same speakers and amps in the same size and decorated room? Most of us have to draw a line somewhere in the sand. I'm simply suggesting it's not worth worrying to death about it.
So in that example by REM, where would the separate 5.1 track place the cello in question? The stereo original? How do you know where the cello "should" be? Why does it matter to the point that you need a separate mix? What if the separate mix is just a copy of the TrueHD core? Would you even notice? I just tend to think people should worry more about what they like than what the artist likes. Tori Amos hates the song "Happy Worker" as it was recorded for the movie "Toys" but I like it a lot. Should I not listen to it because she doesn't like it and I care about her likes more than my own? There are some that say you should not listen to the Atmos track on the UHD version of Blade Runner as it's too different from the original version and therefore the original "intent". Does that matter, though? I have both versions. I'll listen to whateve version I feel like listening to. In fact, I have the Blu-Ray set of 5 different versions of the movie as well, some with Harrison Ford's voiceover and some without. I like his voiceover. I like the Atmos version too. I can watch either one whenever I feel like it and that's the summary of my opinion. I don't care which version Harrison Ford or Ridley Scott likes best. They can watch that version. I'll watch the version I like. I didn't create it, but it's out there and I've seen/heard them all so the ball is now in my court, so-to-speak. I don't care if they approve. I paid the money to choose my own adventure.
Do I listen to the Quad version or the 5.1 version in the mean time? Or do I listen to the stereo version? Would that be the original vinyl release, the 25th Anniversary release? The 30th Anniversary release? The Mobile Fidelity version? The Mobile Fidelity CD version? The list goes on and on. I have close to a dozen versions here. I'm kind of partial to the 30th Anniversary vinyl for some reason (my first play was recorded by me in 24/96 and I didn't even have to remove any click/pops as there were none on that play). The bass just seems "plumper" on it. I like the Alan Parsons Quad mix too. David Gilmour and Roger Waters didn't make that mix. Alan Parsons made it. But it's the bands' music. Whose "intent" should I be worried most about?
harync
Senior Member
By artist, I meant musician, engineer, or whoever created and/or approved the release. Also note I was specifically talking about non-Atmos systems playing back Atmos tracks. In the special Atmos issue of Mix Magazine, it is mentioned that the use of "the bed" and objects can get very different results and they do need to account for very different Atmos set-ups. That is not even taking into account the possibility of intentional playback on a non-Atmos system.
Again, an Atmos decoder will do the best it can with the setup it's given. A non-atmos AVR will read the TrueHD core with the downmixed information and possibly do strange things.
It's hard to say in the case of REM, because there was a separate 5.1 track that was made by a different engineer over a decade earlier. In the case of the Beatles Abbey Road Surround Album, in my experience playback of the Atmos version on a non-atmos system gets an "extended Stereo" effect. Playback of the 5.1 DTS track on my non-atmos system essentially gives a similar experience to playback of the Atmos track on my Atmos system.
It would be unnecessary to have a separate mix if it is a copy of the TrueHD core. In the case of Abbey Road, I don't find it to be the case, although I haven't bothered to compare waveforms. I assume it's because the downmixed height information ends up in various channels because of the choices Giles Martin made as various as "the bed" and objects in his mix.
In the case of movie soundtracks, I don't believe these end up being as much of an issue because sounds often only last seconds and are highly localized in ways that aren't going to cause odd playback when heights are downmixed.
As to the rest of your comments, I never intended to start a debate as to different version of songs, who is right/who is wrong, etc. For the record, I think Alan Parson's mix of Dark Side of the Moon is great and I like it more than James Guthrie's, even though the band has stated the opposite. I also am not trying to go after recreating the studio experience. On that note, I think the classical surround producer or engineer's obsession with recreating the concert hall is silly and I would rather hear a mix sound like you're in the orchestra. But that's just my opinion.
In the end, I just wanted to offer a clarification for someone with a non-Atmos system that would consider buying an Atmos-only surround album, like REM's Automatic for the People or INXS's Kick that DO NOT have non-Atmos 5.1 mixes. In my experience, those albums are not particularly enjoyable when played through a non-Atmos receiver, but other's mileage may vary.
The way I understand how the TrueHD core versus Atmos object version mix (or DTS:X for that matter) is that the TrueHD core contains the intended 5.1 or 7.1 mix, the same as any TrueHD soundtrack has contained. How it came to be may vary (as a result of the master soundtrack made for Atmos, for example). But functionally speaking, it's identical to any 5.1 or 7.1 TrueHD soundtrack. What the Atmos renderer does (regardless of "where" it renders the objects) is that it places/renders those objects wherever in the room (low or high), but it also cancels the same sound in the TrueHD mix by using a 180 degree phase reversal. Thus, an Atmos system will play the TrueHD bed tracks in the intended speakers, but any objects contained in the Meta data are canceled from the soundtrack. With TrueHD, this is nearly 100% accurate. With a lossy Dolby Digital Plus bed, it's not quite perfect, but the separation is more than enough to fool your ears with all the speakers going.
I have iZotope RX editing software and you can do the same thing with a sample from one part of a song used to cancel out the same thing from other parts (tape hiss for example). It's amazing how well it works. I got a cleaner version of Tori Amos' "Winter" from an LP than the CD version by doing noise editing that way.
In any case, the point is the "Core" of any Atmos track is identical to the same TrueHD or DD+ signal and that's why it's fully backwards compatible. They may use different tool sets to make the soundtracks, but the core is the same format and fully compatible with older equipment. The only thing changes with Atmos is the meta data contains the locations and samples of "objects" (that can render in the height channels or the bed channels or anywhere in-between as there are more bed channels than just the 5.1/7.1 layouts in Atmos (up to 24 speakers at ear level). Those are canceled/removed and replaced with the rendered object at a more precise location specified by the meta data. The end result is an object that was placed in side surround in the core might be rendered at front wides instead (using "snap" for example) or the core may be phantom imaged in-between while the rendered version uses any number of nearby speakers in a full 34 speaker setup or halfway between ear level and ceiling level. The point is once the bed level data is canceled out, the renderer can then place the objects anywhere they are specified to be in the Atmos render, but that will depend also on your processor and setup.
They should certainly know and test the 5.1 or 7.1 core before it leaves for production and thus should be aware of how it sounds on a 5.1 or 7.1 system or even a 2-channel stereo downmix (which for core systems works exactly as before). Yes, they can do a separate mix if they want to, but that would imply they want to use different tools or place the sounds in different locations in the room rather than the ear level equivalent of the height object. Even so, you could play either soundtrack and choose the one you prefer.
I have iZotope RX editing software and you can do the same thing with a sample from one part of a song used to cancel out the same thing from other parts (tape hiss for example). It's amazing how well it works. I got a cleaner version of Tori Amos' "Winter" from an LP than the CD version by doing noise editing that way.
In any case, the point is the "Core" of any Atmos track is identical to the same TrueHD or DD+ signal and that's why it's fully backwards compatible. They may use different tool sets to make the soundtracks, but the core is the same format and fully compatible with older equipment. The only thing changes with Atmos is the meta data contains the locations and samples of "objects" (that can render in the height channels or the bed channels or anywhere in-between as there are more bed channels than just the 5.1/7.1 layouts in Atmos (up to 24 speakers at ear level). Those are canceled/removed and replaced with the rendered object at a more precise location specified by the meta data. The end result is an object that was placed in side surround in the core might be rendered at front wides instead (using "snap" for example) or the core may be phantom imaged in-between while the rendered version uses any number of nearby speakers in a full 34 speaker setup or halfway between ear level and ceiling level. The point is once the bed level data is canceled out, the renderer can then place the objects anywhere they are specified to be in the Atmos render, but that will depend also on your processor and setup.
They should certainly know and test the 5.1 or 7.1 core before it leaves for production and thus should be aware of how it sounds on a 5.1 or 7.1 system or even a 2-channel stereo downmix (which for core systems works exactly as before). Yes, they can do a separate mix if they want to, but that would imply they want to use different tools or place the sounds in different locations in the room rather than the ear level equivalent of the height object. Even so, you could play either soundtrack and choose the one you prefer.
Agreed, I used some Klipsch speakers I had from an old HT500 system, they came with wall mounts that I used to ceiling mount them. They sure aren't attractive but I don't have a wife to give me grief. LOL. The wire tracks I got from Lowes to run the wires in pretty much disappear. My room was white but you can also paint over them to match any color you have. When available, you can run them down along side a window frame to hide them.
Sometimes you just do what you have to do.
The ultimate man cave, an entire house.Agreed, I used some Klipsch speakers I had from an old HT500 system, they came with wall mounts that I used to ceiling mount them. They sure aren't attractive but I don't have a wife to give me grief. LOL. The wire tracks I got from Lowes to run the wires in pretty much disappear. My room was white but you can also paint over them to match any color you have. When available, you can run them down along side a window frame to hide them.
Sometimes you just do what you have to do.
View attachment 57392
harync
Senior Member
Thank you for your thorough explanation of the Dolby Atmos methodology. I did look at the Dolby and DTS waveforms for one of the Abbey Road tracks (Here comes the Sun) and they are identical by my eye. I tried to figure out why I was getting different results and I think my non-Atmos AVR (Denon 3312CI) was applying some processing to Dolby TrueHD that it was not applying to DTS. After turning off every processing option the tracks sounded the same. Apologies for any mis-information there.
As you mention, a 5.1/7.1 core of an Atmos mix should be tested before it leaves for production. REM's Automatic for the People (my example of an Atmos album that doesn't translate as well to straight 5.1) had a few things working against it: 1) It was the very first Atmos album ever mixed by the engineer, who was the first person to ever mix in the Capital Records Atmos suite. 2) He had one month to learn the system and mix the album, so it was a fairly tight timeline. In the process of mixing the album, the engineer said he used a lot of objects and very little bed. Perhaps that does not translate well to a non-atmos set-up? Since it was being sold as an Atmos-only album, I wonder if they bothered to play back just the TrueHD core? 3) The album already had a well-received Eliott Scheiner 5.1 mix (which was not included on the Atmos Album), so 5.1 may have never even been a consideration.
If someone with a non-Atmos system listens to the Atmos version of Automatic for the People and enjoys it, that's great. I fortunately have an Atmos system, so I can enjoy it that way. It's hard to say if Automatic for the People was intended for non-Atmos systems, but fortunately there is a separate 5.1 mix out there, so all the bases are covered.
Last edited:
