Why is everyone so jazzed about ATMOS?

[J. PUPSTER]

Up until a few days ago, I would have said that Steve's claim of not hearing much difference between stereo and 5.1 surround is nonsense. However, I recently did an experiment with my wife. I played the stereo version of a song (in stereo) and then a 5.1 version of the same song. She claimed not to hear any difference. I said, "What do you mean? Don't you hear vocals coming from the rear?" She replied, "Oh, I hear the guys' voices coming from the back, but it all still sounds all the same to me." I was flabbergasted.

In her defense, I will admit that my AR9 loudspeakers present a huge stereo sound stage; and I've found myself at times being fooled into thinking that pure 2-channel was actually one of the upmixing codecs doing its thing in faked surround. But it does show that perhaps some people respond only to the music and the fidelity rather than how it is presented in the sound space.

She must be related to Mrs. Pupster, no seriously, it's like they're from another planet or something!

 

[James Jay]

Up until a few days ago, I would have said that Steve's claim of not hearing much difference between stereo and 5.1 surround is nonsense. However, I recently did an experiment with my wife. I played the stereo version of a song (in stereo) and then a 5.1 version of the same song. She claimed not to hear any difference. I said, "What do you mean? Don't you hear vocals coming from the rear?" She replied, "Oh, I hear the guys' voices coming from the back, but it all still sounds all the same to me." I was flabbergasted.

In her defense, I will admit that my AR9 loudspeakers present a huge stereo sound stage; and I've found myself at times being fooled into thinking that pure 2-channel was actually one of the upmixing codecs doing its thing in faked surround. But it does show that perhaps some people respond only to the music and the fidelity rather than how it is presented in the sound space.

I hear you, but your wife doesn’t claim to be audiophile reviewer / equipment expert like Steve does - correct?

 

[ar surround]

I hear you, but your wife doesn’t claim to be audiophile reviewer / equipment expert like Steve does - correct?

In this household James, audiophile equipment is possibly the only area where she isn't the expert.

 

[barfle]

I know my main seats in my room have nacks that are way too high for surround sound to make a big difference. Part of the target is to get something similar but with low backs. Eames chairs would be ideal, but so far, I haven’t won the lottery, so it remains to be done.

 

[zeerround]

Have her turn her head. Maybe just say, look about the room. What I'm getting at is if one holds one head still in the stereo sweet spot is different, psychoacoustically, than when moving your head.

Moving your head should resolve, "cones of confusion", etc.

For Atmos, even standing up and "moving about the cabin" is fun to enjoy a good immersive mix.

 

[Quad D]

Up until a few days ago, I would have said that Steve's claim of not hearing much difference between stereo and 5.1 surround is nonsense. However, I recently did an experiment with my wife. I played the stereo version of a song (in stereo) and then a 5.1 version of the same song. She claimed not to hear any difference. I said, "What do you mean? Don't you hear vocals coming from the rear?" She replied, "Oh, I hear the guys' voices coming from the back, but it all still sounds all the same to me." I was flabbergasted.

In her defense, I will admit that my AR9 loudspeakers present a huge stereo sound stage; and I've found myself at times being fooled into thinking that pure 2-channel was actually one of the upmixing codecs doing its thing in faked surround. But it does show that perhaps some people respond only to the music and the fidelity rather than how it is presented in the sound space.

It is pretty hard to get huge soundstage presentation from just two speakers, with sacrifices in room layout, furnishing and comfort to get to it in most cases (unless dedicated space). For most people results are just quicker and easier with multichannel. Good 2 channel systems can sound stunning, with both width and height of soundstage (almost no need for Atmos unless the sound from top needs to be literally on top of your head). But, for people not experiencing such systems it is hard to conceptualize it, or understand it, so the discussion gets sidetracked into how can you prefer stereo to something as awesome as Atmos. And, if you add classic quad to such spatially expansive 2 channel system, results are twice as stunning.

 

[Sal1950]

Then Steve starts talking about Atmos soundbars??? Maybe he should stick to stereo reviews.

Steve is a card carrying member of the "stereo only" neanderthal crowd.

I know my main seats in my room have nacks that are way too high for surround sound to make a big difference. Part of the target is to get something similar but with low backs. Eames chairs would be ideal, but so far, I haven’t won the lottery, so it remains to be done.

Not sure what your looking for but I got this lounge chair with the power reclining headrest at RoomsToGo. Not too pricey and great for surround.
If you have a store locally, they have a number of recliners, loveseats, and sofas that do the power headrest bit, take a look.
https://www.roomstogo.com/furniture...way-navy-leather-dual-power-recliner/17610139

In this household James, audiophile equipment is possibly the only area where she isn't the expert.

Too bad she isn't a enthusiast. Makes things much easier to upgrade time.

 

[baward]

I think the late Isao Tomita would have loved the possibilities of Atmos. He was thinking about dimensional sound way back in the 1970's: "This album ('The Bermuda Triangle' from 1979, later partially remixed by him on 4.0 SACD) is different from my others in that the master was recorded onto five tracks. Ideally, it should be heard through five speakers, four in the conventional rectangle and the fifth suspended above the center - thus a sonic pyramid. Although it is impossible to encode this onto a phonograph record, as much as possible of the five-channel effect has been incorporated into standard discs through the help of the engineering staff of Japan Victor."

 

[barfle]

Not sure what your looking for but I got this lounge chair with the power reclining headrest at RoomsToGo. Not too pricey and great for surround.
If you have a store locally, they have a number of recliners, loveseats, and sofas that do the power headrest bit, take a look.
https://www.roomstogo.com/furniture...way-navy-leather-dual-power-recliner/17610139

Alas, the site says “Not available in your region.” And oddly enough, it got my location correct.

 

[stperry]

I just don't get it. I haven't heard anything that i thought was THAT much better by adding ATMOS to the mix. And it certainly doesn't warrant the expense of more speakers and the hassle of more wires etc. To each his own but I'll pass.

A little late to the party, but your assessment holds up. They have an ATMOS selection on Porcupine Tree's Closure/Continuation Blu-ray. I tried it out and was immediately unimpressed. Switched it back to DTS HD 96/24 Master Audio 5.1, and the difference was palpable. I'll stick with a good 5.1 mix any day. I did hear a new ATMOS mix of a well-known country artist in an ATMOS mixing studio, and it sounded quite nice. Given the setting, how could it not? Maybe they pushed out the EQ.

 

[sjcorne]

A little late to the party, but your assessment holds up. They have an ATMOS selection on Porcupine Tree's Closure/Continuation Blu-ray. I tried it out and was immediately unimpressed. Switched it back to DTS HD 96/24 Master Audio 5.1, and the difference was palpable. I'll stick with a good 5.1 mix any day. I did hear a new ATMOS mix of a well-known country artist in an ATMOS mixing studio, and it sounded quite nice. Given the setting, how could it not? Maybe they pushed out the EQ.

The DTS-HD 5.1 mix is definitely louder and has a bit more bass, but to me the soundstage actually sounds kind of small in comparison to the 7.1.4 Atmos. How could you not want to hear Richard Barbieri's keyboards swirling around the top speakers?

 

[Belgiumliver]

Got my AperionAudio Novus A5 Wall speakers from Germany now, and have 7.0.2 at the moment. No subs yet. Got my Apple subscription, plus I have been collecting Blu rays. I am compiling a list now in Apple. Way too much stuff to listen to in this lifetime, but I am not intrested in any modern hip hop or pop anyway

 

[austinsignal]

I'm spending a fair amount of time remixing to ATMOS these days. While mixing, I'm able to toggle between the original stereo mix, 5.1, 5.1.2, 7.1, and 7.1.2, and 7.1.4. In my view, the experience gets incrementally better as I move through the formats, finally ending at 7.1.4. That being said, if there's no program material up high in the space, there's no difference between 7.1 and 7.1.4, for instance. And, there is an argument (which I sometimes ignore) for not putting any material in the overheads, as if the music is played in final form on a non-ATMOS surround system, anything placed in the overheads is lost....

As for 'what's the big deal with ATMOS', it's clearly that the program material plays coherently (in theory) across all the ATMOS- supported surround formats... that is a big deal.

 

[fredblue]

I'm spending a fair amount of time remixing to ATMOS these days. While mixing, I'm able to toggle between the original stereo mix, 5.1, 5.1.2, 7.1, and 7.1.2, and 7.1.4. In my view, the experience gets incrementally better as I move through the formats, finally ending at 7.1.4. That being said, if there's no program material up high in the space, there's no difference between 7.1 and 7.1.4, for instance. And, there is an argument (which I sometimes ignore) for not putting any material in the overheads, as if the music is played in final form on a non-ATMOS surround system, anything placed in the overheads is lost....

As for 'what's the big deal with ATMOS', it's clearly that the program material plays coherently (in theory) across all the ATMOS- supported surround formats... that is a big deal.

great first post!!

i've had the same experience as you, only just as a listener, that 7.1.4 is the most immersive presentation of Atmos of all.

i'd love to hear your Atmos mixes, can you point us to them on the streaming platforms etc., please?

Welcome to QQ btw!

 

[austinsignal]

great first post!!

i've had the same experience as you, only just as a listener, that 7.1.4 is the most immersive presentation of Atmos of all.

i'd love to hear your Atmos mixes, can you point us to them on the streaming platforms etc., please?

Welcome to QQ btw!

ah thanks! Unfortunately there's only one project that's currently in distribution. Another coming in October, several more in the next 6 months. If you use Apple Music, David Ramirez's Rules and Regulations is up now. It's a bit unusual; the stereo version was recorded and mixed live at my place - directly off the board, no mastering/post applied. Just wanted the sound I heard in the control room as the band was playing. I cut the vinyl master and a short run was pressed. We also did 2 songs live-to-disc that are now on a 7", which is not available anywhere as far as I know. All this is very non-surround! But we saved all the original tracks and did ATMOS mixes of each song on the EP. This was really quite challenging, as there was a huge amount of bleed - for instance, one of the main contributors to the drum sound in the live stereo recording was from the lead vocal mic. Placing things in a 3D field sometimes was challenging. Anyway, it was our first full-project ATMOS mixed on the new monitoring system in the studio, and it is what it is. If interested you can see the stereo versions being recorded here:

This is probably too much information, but it's kind of a different project, and maybe someone will find it interesting. Or not. Also, if it violates and forum policy, apologies and feel free to delete!

 

[Doug G.]

I think the late Isao Tomita would have loved the possibilities of Atmos. He was thinking about dimensional sound way back in the 1970's: "This album ('The Bermuda Triangle' from 1979, later partially remixed by him on 4.0 SACD) is different from my others in that the master was recorded onto five tracks. Ideally, it should be heard through five speakers, four in the conventional rectangle and the fifth suspended above the center - thus a sonic pyramid. Although it is impossible to encode this onto a phonograph record, as much as possible of the five-channel effect has been incorporated into standard discs through the help of the engineering staff of Japan Victor."

For his live concert in Austria, he actually had helicopters flying above with speakers aimed down at the audience.

Doug

 

[himey]

I'm spending a fair amount of time remixing to ATMOS these days. While mixing, I'm able to toggle between the original stereo mix, 5.1, 5.1.2, 7.1, and 7.1.2, and 7.1.4. In my view, the experience gets incrementally better as I move through the formats, finally ending at 7.1.4. That being said, if there's no program material up high in the space, there's no difference between 7.1 and 7.1.4, for instance. And, there is an argument (which I sometimes ignore) for not putting any material in the overheads, as if the music is played in final form on a non-ATMOS surround system, anything placed in the overheads is lost....

As for 'what's the big deal with ATMOS', it's clearly that the program material plays coherently (in theory) across all the ATMOS- supported surround formats... that is a big deal.

What do you mean it is lost?

 

[austinsignal]

What do you mean it is lost?

if there is content in the overheads, and the program material is played on a non-ATMOS surround system (like DTS), the overhead stuff is just gone. If it's played on an ATMOS system that has no overhead speakers (5.1 or 7.1 for instance), Dolby 'figures out' where to put the overhead content to best represent the overhead material.

 

[sjcorne]

if there is content in the overheads, and the program material is played on a non-ATMOS surround system (like DTS), the overhead stuff is just gone. If it's played on an ATMOS system that has no overhead speakers (5.1 or 7.1 for instance), Dolby 'figures out' where to put the overhead content to best represent the overhead material.

Are you sure? If you connect an Apple TV to a non-Atmos AVR via HDMI, the Atmos tracks on Apple Music will be internally decoded to 5.1 PCM with the front height content redirected to the front speakers and the rear height & side content sent to the rears. It's very easy to confirm this using the Dolby Labs test tones on Apple Music. That said, some albums seem to downmix much better than others.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

if there is content in the overheads, and the program material is played on a non-ATMOS surround system (like DTS), the overhead stuff is just gone. If it's played on an ATMOS system that has no overhead speakers (5.1 or 7.1 for instance), Dolby 'figures out' where to put the overhead content to best represent the overhead material.

That is not true. First off, there is no way to play Atmos on a DTS system. Atmos is a Dolby system. In its raw, undecoded state, and Atmos track is encoded as 7.1 Dolby True HD. All the height info is embedded in the 7.1 channels. The embedded metadata directs the decoder where to put it. With no decoder it simply stays in the 7.1 channel array.

EDIT: My reply only applies to playback via AVRs ans AVPs. I cant speak for anything PC based.