The Beatles - Abbey Road 50th Anniversary (5.1 & Dolby Atmos mixes)

[mrcond]

So what I had assumed was that the Atmos mix would be an extension of the 5.1 mix (or conversely, the 5.1 mix would be a mixdown of the Atmos mix), but it seems clear that we are getting two distinct and different surround mixes here. This could prove to be interesting. And yes, the Atmos mix may not be as wild and discrete as we would hope, but will at least provide a different perspective than we've ever heard, and you will at least have a choice to go back to a (hopefully) discrete 5.1 DTS-MA mix if that is your preference. This Atmos mix should give some insight into how future Atmos mixes are going to sound if they continue with this model of miking the room at different locations during a stereo playback (like the Kind of Blue mix being discussed elsewhere, for example). It is both encouraging and a little scary.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Wasn't Abbey Road recorded to only an eight tracks machine; perhaps the real power of Atmos will be revealed in newer recordings derived from a multitude of tracks via DAWs like Pro Tools.

 

[dr. simple]

A bit more encouraging review, I'd say:
https://variety.com/2019/music/news...M3cN61Hn04a7BHZGniT9rZ5ZfZhwAxUP0JXHIbb8XuHBM

THANK YOU for sharing this. Hope springs eternal.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I'm sure I'm just being obtuse here, but I don't get how picking up the ambiance from stereo playback fits into an Atmos discrete mix. If the ambiance is used for providing height, shouldn't it be the height associated with a discreet channel instead of the height from an overall stereo signal? If the strings are in the rears of a 5.1 system, why would you want to get the height aspect of them from a stereo playback ambiance capture? Shouldn't the rear height channels just provide the height aspect of the strings toward the rear of the soundscape? What am I missing?

 

[esimms86]

Wasn't Abbey Road recorded to only an eight tracks machine; perhaps the real power of Atmos will be revealed in newer recordings derived from a multitude of tracks via DAWs like Pro Tools.

As Garry(@HomerJAU)points out in his Dolby Atmos FAQ(thanks Garry!), there are several ways to configure an Atmos system. One way is to have a 5.1.2 setup(e.g., five ear level surround speakers, one subwoofer, 2 overhead speakers). You then could potentially do some very cool surround mixes using an eight track machine.

Also keep in mind that, though the Beatles bounced tracks to put together a final recording release, they ALSO kept and later digitized the original recordings pre-bounce. This in significant measure explains how Giles was gifted with such wonderful tools to work his magic on TWA and SPLHCB. (Yeah, and he also had the enormous good fortune to be working with the Beatles’ recorded output!)

 

[J. PUPSTER]

As Garry(@HomerJAU)points out in his Dolby Atmos FAQ(thanks Garry!), there are several ways to configure an Atmos system. One way is to have a 5.1.2 setup(e.g., five ear level surround speakers, one subwoofer, 2 overhead speakers). You then could potentially do some very cool surround mixes using an eight track machine.

Also keep in mind that, though the Beatles bounced tracks to put together a final recording release, they ALSO kept and later digitized the original recordings pre-bounce. This in significant measure explains how Giles was gifted with such wonderful tools to work his magic on TWA and SPLHCB. (Yeah, and he also had the enormous good fortune to be working with the Beatles’ recorded output!)

I'm not trying to be negative at all, quite the opposite. I understand the possibilities with only eight tracks. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't expect too much out of a 50 year old eight track recording into Atmos. I'm very excited over the possibilities since most of us have only ever heard this album in stereo. As far as the strings/orchestration, perhaps they only recorded that session in stereo/two track, therefore the need to handle it as such. And ultimately, since no one here has heard the new final mixes yet, we have no clue what it will sound like; it's all just speculation.

Reminds me though of another mixing situation on the Jethro Tull Steve Wilson mix for This Was; about how he mixed this from just four tracks, utilizing effects like isolating mono track reverb and moving it into another speaker helping to fill out the sound.

 

[ar surround]

One thing about the ATMOS mix for which I'd hope to get clarification: From what I read in the Michael Fremer article, I am concerned that the ATMOS recording is 100% based on miking the room. That would mean that the whole thing including the front channels is effectively a second generation product. However, I think the way he put it says that only the rears and heights are the room-recorded product and the fronts remain the first generation digital stereo master. No?

[Edit: I also wonder what will come out of a 7.1 rig using PLIIx or L7 when the ATMOS mix is played through it.]

 

[JonUrban]

It would be pretty pointless to create a surround mix that would be essentially someone playing the audio through a 45 year old receiver and pressing this:

Then again, it would not surprise me if it turned out that way. At this point, low expectations is the norm. This way we can always be pleasantly surprised.

 

[markshan]

​ ​

​ And in the end... there's no pleasing everyone It has been 10 days since Universal Music and Apple announced the 50th anniversary reissue of The Beatles' 1969 album Abbey Road and while it's not out until 27 September, the feedback from fans – based on track listings and specification – has been coming through. As a seasoned observer of music box sets hitting the marketplace, I have to say that there does seem to be a pragmatic approach to the Fab Four reissues which means the label will bend and make adjustments when it comes to preparing the next anniversary box set, if they feel something could be improved, and that has happened with Abbey Road. This can presentational; so for example Abbey Road is back to being a 12-inch box set after the 'book' dimensions of The White Album. But it can also lead to content changes. The White Album CD 6CD+blu-ray super deluxe had three discs of 'sessions' but vinyl buyers got exactly NONE of those sessions, having to make do with two LPs of those (admittedly great) Esher Demos. This time around, vinyl buyers get a lot more. In fact, ALL the sessions on the two CDs included in the big 3CD+blu-ray super deluxe are included in the 3LP vinyl box. But for every positive, a negative can always be found. A few have queried whether the CD content has been artificially limited in order to allow for the same content to appear on the time-constrained vinyl. To be fair, it's a reasonable question. Also, vinyl fans are wondering 'where's our book?' Why do CD box set buyers get an 100-page hardcover volume full of great photos and essays and vinyl buyers get naught? Yes, the CD box is more expensive (by about £20) but you are also getting the blu-ray with surround sound. Talking of which, Sony's recent Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland 50th anniversary included a blu-ray with the surround sound mix on BOTH the CD and vinyl box sets. Couldn't Apple/Universal have done that? Other grumbles include issues such as the original stereo mix being missing and the fact that the blu-ray with the 5.1 and Dolby Atmos mix isn't available separately. While Apple might argue that the original stereo mix is easily available elsewhere, this is supposed to be reissue that celebrates the album. And 'the album' that everyone knows and loves is the original version. Whatever the merits of Giles Martin and Sam Okell's 2019 stereo remix, surely that should sit alongside the original and not supersede it? In the end, there is no perfect reissue that satisfies fan cravings and addresses the more strategic concerns of the record label. So, for example, while fans love the XTC CD+blu-ray reissue packages or the Jethro Tull deluxe sets, neither would generate the kind of income Apple require to make these project worthwhile. The Beatles are and always will be 'premium' product and Apple are never going to throw EVERYTHING on a blu-ray (multiple mixes, outtakes, demos, sessions, surround mixes) and charge you less than £20 for it. But the debate is always an interesting one. What do you think? If you have a strong view or a take on this, then please do head over to the Abbey Road post on SDE and leave a comment! For now, have a great week!

​

​ 18 August 2019 Paul Sinclair. Editor, SuperDeluxeEdition. [email protected]

IMHO all valid concerns except the one about the original mix not being present. Why add cost to the project when we all have that already?

 

[H.A.L.]

"Since the “Abbey Road” sessions overlapped with those of “Let It Be” — which was recorded before, but released after, “Abbey Road” — some other contemporaneous recordings will be included in that anniversary reissue, which has not been officially announced, but everyone knows is getting the 50th anniversary treatment next year. "

 

[Circular Vibes]

I read that too and my wallet groaned while I was dancing with glee or at least 4 nanners.

 

[Goona]

A bit more encouraging review, I'd say:
https://variety.com/2019/music/news...M3cN61Hn04a7BHZGniT9rZ5ZfZhwAxUP0JXHIbb8XuHBM

See nothing to worry about we are in for a treat

 

[esimms86]

I'm not trying to be negative at all, quite the opposite. I understand the possibilities with only eight tracks. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't expect too much out of a 50 year old eight track recording into Atmos. I'm very excited over the possibilities since most of us have only ever heard this album in stereo. As far as the strings/orchestration, perhaps they only recorded that session in stereo/two track, therefore the need to handle it as such. And ultimately, since no one here has heard the new final mixes yet, we have no clue what it will sound like; it's all just speculation.

Reminds me though of another mixing situation on the Jethro Tull Steve Wilson mix for This Was; about how he mixed this from just four tracks, utilizing effects like isolating mono track reverb and moving it into another speaker helping to fill out the sound.

I hear you. I wrote something about This Was but ended up deleting it from my post.

 

[milt]

IMHO all valid concerns except the one about the original mix not being present. Why add cost to the project when we all have that already?

Not in 24/96 we don't.

 

[milt]

I'm sure I'm just being obtuse here, but I don't get how picking up the ambiance from stereo playback fits into an Atmos discrete mix. If the ambiance is used for providing height, shouldn't it be the height associated with a discreet channel instead of the height from an overall stereo signal? If the strings are in the rears of a 5.1 system, why would you want to get the height aspect of them from a stereo playback ambiance capture? Shouldn't the rear height channels just provide the height aspect of the strings toward the rear of the soundscape? What am I missing?

You haven't heard the Atmos mix
I find it kind of funny that on a forum pretty much dedicated to surround sound that there's so much skepticism about a "new" surround technology.

I don't know if there are any software devs here but Atmos is an object oriented approach to surround processing very much akin to object oriented programming originated in C++

 

[markshan]

Not in 24/96 we don't.

Okay. As a vinyl guy I guess I didn't consider that.

 

[Larry Geller]

You haven't heard the Atmos mix
I find it kind of funny that on a forum pretty much dedicated to surround sound that there's so much skepticism about a "new" surround technology.

I don't know if there are any software devs here but Atmos is an object oriented approach to surround processing very much akin to object oriented programming originated in C++

We're not skeptical about the technology, it's the people implementing it.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I just don't get all the negativity (Maybe SPLHCB???) ; this should be a time of great jubilance

 

[GOS]

I just don't get all the negativity [emoji44] (Maybe SPLHCB???) [emoji21]; this should be a time of great jubilance [emoji3060]

Hey bro, I’m happy..I may buy 2 copies.. whoop!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LuvMyQuad]

You haven't heard the Atmos mix
I find it kind of funny that on a forum pretty much dedicated to surround sound that there's so much skepticism about a "new" surround technology.

I don't know if there are any software devs here but Atmos is an object oriented approach to surround processing very much akin to object oriented programming originated in C++

I realize I haven't heard it, and the comment about programming is lost on me, but I've been burned enough times to know not to simply accept anything on pure faith anymore. Especially when it comes to mega-advances in sound reproduction.