Post about Atmos benefiting audio engineers but comments are anti-Atmos

[AYanguas]

Haha. You 9.1.6 and above folks? You need to be aware that you have a bigger setup than most studios and there are truly only a handful of mixes out there that fully utilize your system. You're just gonna have to put up with a lot of 7.1.4 mixes like us plebes.

I have 9.1.4 (with Wides), and there are really 'more than a handful of mixes' that use the Wides. (I cannot speak aboout 6 ceiling speakers..... yet)

What Dolby says is that the mix 'testing' should be done 'at least' in a 7.1.4 system.

The deal is not what number of speakers a studio have, but the locations of objects that a mixer decides. When the object location is not static and there is a pan, with more speakers the best. I really get good enough results with the 7.1 (sides + rears) in many mixes, either with different discrete content or with pannings behind me.

If the mixer decides to put sounds only in bed channels, or objects located at the bed channel locations, then the mix could be 'poor'.
If the mixer decides (because he has learned) to use objects locations all around the room, then, as more speakers the better. Of course the incremental benefit of additional speakers will be decreasing, and the improvement from 5.1.2 to 7.1.4 will be bigger than 7.1.4 to 9.1.6.

If the reality is that much majority of people are only going to listen Atmos in binaural stereo headphones, then Why justify an elaborated (aka expensive) mix?

I really hope that if a mix is 'well done' maximizing the Atmos objects features and locations, its binaural stereo rendering will be also good. And I will benefit from that.
If, eventually, the Atmos hype declines or Apple/Dolby monetizing does not improve, ... I will have a good amount of good Atmos mixes to enjoy for the rest of my life.

 

[ted_b]

I too prefer @AYanguas' approach to speaking about it because Dolby Atmos isn't just a 'wrapper' for discrete multichannel PCM. It's not like you start with a 12-channel file, then 'convert' it to Atmos like you'd encode a raw 5.1 WAV to DTS-HD or Dolby AC-3. Your DAW feeds the Dolby Renderer during the mix process, which in turn yields an ADM BWF master. This ADM can be mapped to different sized speaker arrays (5.1.2, 7.1.4, 9.1.6, etc), but the master file format is technically "Atmos."

That’s exactly why my new mantra is “please sell us the downloadable ADMs”. It’s very little work, if any, for the labels, and those of us with the tools ( MMH and a Dolby renderer) can convert them to MKVs in no time. I’ve already done it for some LSO stuff that they offered us at Native and it was a breeze. No need to author a Blu-ray, no packaging needs. Small market but we’re used to that

 

[nikomen]

I think that the "elephant" in this conversation isn't if the music was conceptualized and recorded first in 7.1.4, or 9.1.4, or for the few out there 12.2.6, and then encoded in Atmos or any other object surround field array or instead the other way around, that if was first conceptualized in an Atmos or DTS:X field with 12-19 "objects", and playing back in any other way than the original setup and worse yet, having to listen to it downfolded in any way is inferior to and insulting to our ears. (Wow, what a run-on sentence!) The elephant is really about as the technology advances in this way, our niche group of listeners are always going to be on the fringe where we will spend whatever money we have or are able to spend to keep up to the next setup of 40 different sound sources, and that the masses are not going to be the ones to continue advancing how music is "better" sounding than before. It is always just different, isn't it?

I know there are some on this and other forums that feel that any upmixing technology is sacrilege. yet there are many in this group that create "better" mixes in 5.1 etc. than some of the most well-known studio mixers with all of the wealth of studio monies and gear/tech available today, but really it's only different rather than better.

It's better to me, and that's what we all forget to remember. I'm 64 years old, and a full time practicing pediatric anesthesiologist with a 50-60 hour work week, yet I still find time to spend 20-40 hours a week using DeMix Pro and Lalal.ai with Audacity to create 5.1 mixes from my favorite 60's and 70's music that IMHO (and others) are quite often "better" than some of the current new remixes, even Atmos mixes. I with the the help of another motivated amateur yet talented upmixer have created 5.1 mixes of a number of Beatles albums that not only rival but blow away the mixes by Giles Martin, and even sound IMHO far superior to his Revolver Atmos mix by leaps and bounds.

5.1, or 7.1 mixes can often sound better than Atmos mixes, and I'm setup for 7.1.4 Atmos. Whether you are pro-Atmos, anti-Atmos, whether you feel one way or another about the chicken or egg discussions about whether studios, or even companies like Apple are giving incentives to artists or mixers to create mixes that are actually an Atmos mix first from concept, the more pertinent question is similar to quad. Will the current interest in Atmos die due to the masses listening to their songs through stereo ear buds rather than expensive SS setups that playback Atmos Blu-rays or stream Atmos like we have, or will it continue to advance to larger and larger sound field technologies ad infinitum, because there is enough of the masses that are willing to spend their money upgrading to bigger and bigger streaming systems where the music sounds any "better" to them.

Personally, I think not, that we will reach a saturation point where who cares that there are 16 different object sound sources because the "songs driven" masses don't have that type of setup nor are interested in spending money on one. I will always prefer to listen to my more adventurous 5.1 upmixes even with my 4 Atmos speakers quiet and not being utilized, rather than some boring studio Atmos mix with a hundred different sound fields.

The film industry is really responsible for advancing audio surround technologies more than anyone in the business in the last 40 years, and we are lucky to benefit from this advancing tech for our music listening pleasure. I love to buy big-ass box sets, and stand alone Steven Wilson releases and remasters, but we are still the niche market, and Atmos per-se may just stay at 5.1.4, or 7.2.4 and will continue to be driven by the film industry to some point. The more the mass market go to streaming music and films in our home, either though low-end ear buds, or though even a mid-grade Sony TV with built-in 7.1 surround sound, that doesn't advance Atmos' cause.

IMHO Atmos is likely to be only here and now, today's more advanced Quad set-up, and only the standard for this time, and will be surpassed by other Dolby/DTS product, and it's people like us who will continue to buy the stand-alone Atmos Blu-Rays until the industry stops making or losing money on them, like Quad. I think the future will look back on these esoteric conversations of Atmos love or hate, with equal merit to the stereo vs quad, or VHS vs.Betamax wars, or the 8-track vs. cassettes wars, or the cassettes vs. minidisc wars or even the ongoing Dolby Labs vs. DTS labs wars. It was and is, and will always be only a sign of the times. Atmos may die, but will only likely to be a current step on the music journey rather than the end-all standard moving to the future. Look at people who thought that CD's would the ultimate tech . Again, all IMHO.......or is it?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Ultimately the problem is that surround sound literacy is not widespread...
Audio literacy in general is lacking for the general public now compared to maybe 20 or 40 years ago (although, I wasn't alive then, so I can't really say for sure, but that's the sense I get talking to people).
Actually scratch that. The biggest problem is marketing and enforcement of standards. Just think where the world would be if SACD got the push it needed, or DVD-A was included in the normal DVD spec...
If you make something ubiquitous or popular, it doesn't matter if the general public is too stupid to use it effectively. This is what Apple is trying to do with Atmos, methinks.

 

[ar surround]

Atmos just might make it commercially because it addresses the least common denominator…earbuds, earphones and sound bars.

It's analogous to my model railroad equipment: the train manufacturers produce large equipment with compromises that will allow it to run on 18” or 22” radius curves no matter how silly such large locomotives look on these sharp curves. These models look good on 40” radius curves (the 7.1.4 system people) yet still work acceptably on sharp curves (the earbud people.) Good outcomes for everyone.

 

[MidiMagic]

The thing that annoys me is that the new equipment cannot play the thousands of recordings I have in older systems: QS, SQ, EV4, DQ, DY, and DS. They expect you to use a compromise playback or replace all of your surround recordings.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Where did @IronWaffle's message go? I didn't see anything wrong with it? It had some interesting first-hand experience? Did I hallucinate it?

 

[ar surround]

The thing that annoys me is that the new equipment cannot play the thousands of recordings I have in older systems: QS, SQ, EV4, DQ, DY, and DS. They expect you to use a compromise playback or replace all of your surround recordings.

Thank goodness for the Surround Master.

 

[AYanguas]

The thing that annoys me is that the new equipment cannot play the thousands of recordings I have in older systems: QS, SQ, EV4, DQ, DY, and DS. They expect you to use a compromise playback or replace all of your surround recordings.

Yes. I understand.

But we cannot expect hw companies earn money with small niches like us.

Once we understand this, and the market evolution, if possible, we have to evolve to digitalize, convert or find the records we love in newer formats, like digital servers and the corresponding players.

Nice that we can now, and possible in the future, acces to many surround releases, vía streaming, with Cheap players. Of course, amp/speakers and room space conditioning not Cheap as long as you want more quality and fidelity.

I'm afraid I'm talking about the obvious. Adapt to survive, or die of grief.

 

[barfle]

The thing that annoys me is that the new equipment cannot play the thousands of recordings I have in older systems: QS, SQ, EV4, DQ, DY, and DS. They expect you to use a compromise playback or replace all of your surround recordings.

Formats, like all of us, live for a while, then they die, I’m fairly obsessed with a video playback format called “EVR,” for which one model of player was ever built. I also have a fairly large collection of quad vinyl, some of which (CD-4) I’ve never actually heard in surround, but I’m working (albeit slowly) to integrate the gear into my system. That can be frustrating, because the MCH analog audio inputs are scarce and becoming more so, so I feel your pain.

I accept the fact that modern distribution formats (optical discs beyond RBCD) are far more robust than the 1970’s attempts to put ten pounds of music in a five-pound bag that is the vinyl LP. So when I can replace a recording with something that’s going to sound more like the original master tape, I tend to pick it up. Sure, it’s a gamble, but so was the original vinyl purchase, especially if it was quad.

 

[par4ken]

The thing that annoys me is that the new equipment cannot play the thousands of recordings I have in older systems: QS, SQ, EV4, DQ, DY, and DS. They expect you to use a compromise playback or replace all of your surround recordings.

True, that is why you need to keep all/most of your vintage equipement. I have since the very beginning added to my system. While I have replaced low or mid range gear with better stuff over the years as well as built what I wanted/needed that just didn't exist or was just too expensive. For the most part I add new technology while seldom if ever giving up the old. I still have my mother's 78's.

I still have a number of reel to reel machines, Q8 decks, CD-4 demodulators, Beta HiFi, VHS HiFi, Laser Disc players, Cassette decks, turntables and most important quad decoders. Actually my S&IC has been my decoder since about 1982, briefly when it malfunctioned I was using others, Sony SQD-2010, Lafayette SQW, Sansui QS1, QSD-1 etc., all except for the QSD-1 were obtained at bargain prices! I now own multiple S&IC's as well as a Tate II. Also Involve.

I would never discard a quad decoder for a Dolby Upmixer or discard my vinyl for CD's etc., I only add new to the old.

I guess the point that I'm making is shun the new stuff that doesn't meet your needs, keeping the old stuff and just add to that. Embrace the new only if it has something new and worthwhile to offer.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

Please people... Don't get sucked into MidiMagic's 'legacy' (pre-digital) trap!

 

[par4ken]

Please don't fall into his 'legacy' (pre-digital) trap...

Trap?

 

[mandrix]

I think that the "elephant" in this conversation isn't if the music was conceptualized and recorded first in 7.1.4, or 9.1.4, or for the few out there 12.2.6, and then encoded in Atmos or any other object surround field array or instead the other way around, that if was first conceptualized in an Atmos or DTS:X field with 12-19 "objects", and playing back in any other way than the original setup and worse yet, having to listen to it downfolded in any way is inferior to and insulting to our ears. (Wow, what a run-on sentence!) The elephant is really about as the technology advances in this way, our niche group of listeners are always going to be on the fringe where we will spend whatever money we have or are able to spend to keep up to the next setup of 40 different sound sources, and that the masses are not going to be the ones to continue advancing how music is "better" sounding than before. It is always just different, isn't it?

I know there are some on this and other forums that feel that any upmixing technology is sacrilege. yet there are many in this group that create "better" mixes in 5.1 etc. than some of the most well-known studio mixers with all of the wealth of studio monies and gear/tech available today, but really it's only different rather than better.

It's better to me, and that's what we all forget to remember. I'm 64 years old, and a full time practicing pediatric anesthesiologist with a 50-60 hour work week, yet I still find time to spend 20-40 hours a week using DeMix Pro and Lalal.ai with Audacity to create 5.1 mixes from my favorite 60's and 70's music that IMHO (and others) are quite often "better" than some of the current new remixes, even Atmos mixes. I with the the help of another motivated amateur yet talented upmixer have created 5.1 mixes of a number of Beatles albums that not only rival but blow away the mixes by Giles Martin, and even sound IMHO far superior to his Revolver Atmos mix by leaps and bounds.

5.1, or 7.1 mixes can often sound better than Atmos mixes, and I'm setup for 7.1.4 Atmos. Whether you are pro-Atmos, anti-Atmos, whether you feel one way or another about the chicken or egg discussions about whether studios, or even companies like Apple are giving incentives to artists or mixers to create mixes that are actually an Atmos mix first from concept, the more pertinent question is similar to quad. Will the current interest in Atmos die due to the masses listening to their songs through stereo ear buds rather than expensive SS setups that playback Atmos Blu-rays or stream Atmos like we have, or will it continue to advance to larger and larger sound field technologies ad infinitum, because there is enough of the masses that are willing to spend their money upgrading to bigger and bigger streaming systems where the music sounds any "better" to them.

Personally, I think not, that we will reach a saturation point where who cares that there are 16 different object sound sources because the "songs driven" masses don't have that type of setup nor are interested in spending money on one. I will always prefer to listen to my more adventurous 5.1 upmixes even with my 4 Atmos speakers quiet and not being utilized, rather than some boring studio Atmos mix with a hundred different sound fields.

The film industry is really responsible for advancing audio surround technologies more than anyone in the business in the last 40 years, and we are lucky to benefit from this advancing tech for our music listening pleasure. I love to buy big-ass box sets, and stand alone Steven Wilson releases and remasters, but we are still the niche market, and Atmos per-se may just stay at 5.1.4, or 7.2.4 and will continue to be driven by the film industry to some point. The more the mass market go to streaming music and films in our home, either though low-end ear buds, or though even a mid-grade Sony TV with built-in 7.1 surround sound, that doesn't advance Atmos' cause.

IMHO Atmos is likely to be only here and now, today's more advanced Quad set-up, and only the standard for this time, and will be surpassed by other Dolby/DTS product, and it's people like us who will continue to buy the stand-alone Atmos Blu-Rays until the industry stops making or losing money on them, like Quad. I think the future will look back on these esoteric conversations of Atmos love or hate, with equal merit to the stereo vs quad, or VHS vs.Betamax wars, or the 8-track vs. cassettes wars, or the cassettes vs. minidisc wars or even the ongoing Dolby Labs vs. DTS labs wars. It was and is, and will always be only a sign of the times. Atmos may die, but will only likely to be a current step on the music journey rather than the end-all standard moving to the future. Look at people who thought that CD's would the ultimate tech . Again, all IMHO.......or is it?

Hmm. Some good points.
I've been upmixing since about 2006, and I do things the way they suit me and have gained much joy from my upmixes. I also am a big fan of immersive music, and Atmos in particular. I would not give either up. But as to what the future brings, who's to say?
What will last? Who knows? I started with mono, then stereo, then Quad, then 5.0/5.1 then ever upwards to 7.1.4

In the end, people gonna do what they gonna do. I have no control over that. I agree that time marches on, and just hope I'm here to witness it a bit longer.

 

[mandrix]

The thing that annoys me is that the new equipment cannot play the thousands of recordings I have in older systems: QS, SQ, EV4, DQ, DY, and DS. They expect you to use a compromise playback or replace all of your surround recordings.

You could get in modern times and digitze it. But I'm sure you know that. If you didn't, then you weren't looking ahead. Things change.

 

[Electric Moo]

Yeah I wish my turntable would play 78's too

 

[par4ken]

You could get in modern times and digitze it.

You still need the vintage analogue equipment to play the recording in order to be able to digitize it!

 

[JimHansonDC]

LinkedIn is mostly Joe/Jill Businessman types who sound like people saying there was nothing wrong with cassettes why do we need these newfangled disc things. I like the one guy who was saying he doesn't think it sounds better "but I've only listened to it on headphones". Riiiiight Champ.

It's not going to be a big deal for people who don't really care about music, Shocker. But with all the home theater systems coming out it's one time we the audiophiles are benefiting from the suits wanting to have more products. Bring on the multitrack remixes.

 

[mandrix]

You still need the vintage analogue equipment to play the recording in order to be able to digitize it!

That's very true. But the question becomes, why/how were the recordings played back? I assume some one would have a way if they own a fair quantity. Then copying is not so hard with a computer.

I myself have some SQ and CD-4 LP's from the 70's. I don't have a need to copy them as that has been done.

My point was really not to stir up hard feelings! But people have to realize that to preserve vintage recordings they have to do that while the playback equipment is/was available. Back in Quad days, when I had the equipment, there was no pc's/Mac's, just R2R and cassette basically. Because of circumstances I had to sell off my Quad equipment many years ago, before pc's were available. Plus my ex absconded with well over 400 LP's (not all quad), Q8's, etc.

These days to buy modern equipment/AVR's that plays all codecs just isn't out there, but there may well be solutions I don't know about. We can complain about it, and do, but not much else except to use vintage equipment and copy as we can. Planning ahead was my intent, personal computers have been around for a while now.

I (modest brag, as people say) have a very large surround collection. Every single one has been digitized and is on a HDD, in .iso format when possible, or flac otherwise or just DTS-CD wav files. But I started a long time ago before my collection grew very large, and the net provided fill-in's for the titles I still own.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I (modest brag, as people say) have a very large surround collection. Every single one has been digitized and is on a HDD, in .iso format when possible, or flac otherwise or just DTS-CD wav files. But I started a long time ago before my collection grew very large, and the net provided fill-in's for the titles I still own.

Nice...