Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[blgentry]

Does Atmos really apply to music at all?

What I mean is this:  Recorded music is generally 2 channel.  Many times 2 channel audio is "synthetic stereo" in that it's mixed from a bunch of mono sources that are panned from left to right.  So the stereo part is "fake" because it's not an acoustic stereo recording.  Most music we listen to today is like this.

Multi-channel music (5.1, etc) is totally synthetic as far as I can tell.  It is again, mono tracks that are panned somewhere between the 5.1 (or 7.1) speakers in the system.  But 5.1 and 7.1 are far more complex than stereo.  Stereo is relatively simple and the illusion of panned left to right audio is strong and fairly convincing.  Synthetic surround, on the other hand, is a weak illusion.  It's all very non specific.  You can't precisely pick out locations of anything.  The reverb and other environmental sounds are diffuse.  I've never heard a 5.1 music setup that produced involving interesting music.  It's more of a novelty.

So now we step it up to Atmos, which is yet another synthetic surround format, but this time with "object oriented" channels.    Does this really produce a sonic illusion that's any good?  Or is it just throwing even more sound around the room that was not present with the recording was made?

Perhaps there are a lot of good 5.1 music systems in people's houses and in demo rooms at stereo shops around the country.  Perhaps my information is old and outdated.  Or maybe this is just matter of spending the correct amount of money to have equipment installed and set up correctly by pros with good instruments to measure response?  Maybe if I heard a $30,000 5.1 music setup I would be impressed.  But I suspect not.

Thanks for indulging me.

Brian.

[jmone]

HI Brian, You may be right but I guess this thread is more about being able to play the content rather than if the content is "good".

[jrdiandrea]

Does Atmos really apply to music at all?

What I mean is this:  Recorded music is generally 2 channel.  Many times 2 channel audio is "synthetic stereo" in that it's mixed from a bunch of mono sources that are panned from left to right.  So the stereo part is "fake" because it's not an acoustic stereo recording.  Most music we listen to today is like this.

Multi-channel music (5.1, etc) is totally synthetic as far as I can tell.  It is again, mono tracks that are panned somewhere between the 5.1 (or 7.1) speakers in the system.  But 5.1 and 7.1 are far more complex than stereo.  Stereo is relatively simple and the illusion of panned left to right audio is strong and fairly convincing.  Synthetic surround, on the other hand, is a weak illusion.  It's all very non specific.  You can't precisely pick out locations of anything.  The reverb and other environmental sounds are diffuse.  I've never heard a 5.1 music setup that produced involving interesting music.  It's more of a novelty.

So now we step it up to Atmos, which is yet another synthetic surround format, but this time with "object oriented" channels.    Does this really produce a sonic illusion that's any good?  Or is it just throwing even more sound around the room that was not present with the recording was made?

Perhaps there are a lot of good 5.1 music systems in people's houses and in demo rooms at stereo shops around the country.  Perhaps my information is old and outdated.  Or maybe this is just matter of spending the correct amount of money to have equipment installed and set up correctly by pros with good instruments to measure response?  Maybe if I heard a $30,000 5.1 music setup I would be impressed.  But I suspect not.

Thanks for indulging me.

Brian.

I assure you, on even lessor systems/rooms than mine (attached), it can be  very enjoyable.

[jrdiandrea]

front

[tij]

I assure you, on even lessor systems/rooms than mine (attached), it can be  very enjoyable.

Good opportunity to show off set up

[kr4]

Does Atmos really apply to music at all?

Yes, it can.

Multi-channel music (5.1, etc) is totally synthetic as far as I can tell.

That depends on how it is used/made.  There are a large number of discrete realistic 5.1 recordings that are derived from real acoustic events recorded in real time.  More common (even typical) of classical recordings but there are many non-classical ones as well.

It's more of a novelty.

Only if it is made as such.

So now we step it up to Atmos, which is yet another synthetic surround format, but this time with "object oriented" channels.    Does this really produce a sonic illusion that's any good?  Or is it just throwing even more sound around the room that was not present with the recording was made?

Again.  ATMOS is a format and, as with 5.1, can be used in many ways.  I would not castigate the format because some use in ways that do not appeal to you.  Some do not appeal to me but others do.

Perhaps there are a lot of good 5.1 music systems in people's houses and in demo rooms at stereo shops around the country.

I have never heard a good 5.1 demo at a stereo shop, only in homes. 

Perhaps my information is old and outdated.  Or maybe this is just matter of spending the correct amount of money to have equipment installed and set up correctly by pros with good instruments to measure response?  Maybe if I heard a $30,000 5.1 music setup I would be impressed.  But I suspect not.

It can be done and for much less than $30K but your objections seem to have little to do with the 5.1/ATMOS formats or with the playback systems but with the recording/mixing processes that are applied.  I agree with you that these formats should be used in the effort to re-create real acoustic events and I have thousands of recordings which are done that way.  But, you are right that most are not.

[blgentry]

That depends on how it is used/made.  There are a large number of discrete realistic 5.1 recordings that are derived from real acoustic events recorded in real time.  More common (even typical) of classical recordings but there are many non-classical ones as well.

Interesting.  How are these recordings made?  What I mean is, how many mics and how are they placed.  I am not asking for crazy detail here.  Just a general idea.  I'm wondering how you would derive 5 channels if you were not using 5 mics (or more).  If we apply the same thinking as a "good" stereo recording, where the mics are approximately where the ears of a listener would be, then we would need 5 mics in an array about as big as a human head, aimed at the angles that are recommended for 5.1 playback.  As a guess.

All of this ignores the fairly complex nature of the Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) and the effect of the shape of the human ear on the incoming sound with respect to polar coordinates.  I.E., something coming from behind you sounds different than something coming from directly to the side because of the shape of the outer ear.

To address what you said about my "objections":  Because I have not had any positive experiences with surround sound music, I don't see the utility in providing more and more channels.  To me that's attacking the problem in the wrong direction by making it more complex with more signals, more speakers, and more things to get wrong.  But again, I have not heard any good examples.  According to you and the gentleman who posted pictures of his setup, you can definitely achieve a good sonic illusion with 5.1 or 7.1 audio systems and recordings.  I would very much enjoy hearing one some day.

Still, a good stereo system with 2 channels can produce a pretty convincing audio illusion.  I wonder if 5.1 can be better, or if it's just like more sonic seasoning.  Different, but not necessarily better?  This is a question and not a statement.

Thanks for the discussion.

Brian.

[jmone]

Here is a link to the Dolby "promo" for Atmos for Music - https://music.dolby.com/

Click on the Link - "Hear What Artists are Saying" , one interesting comment was that one artist plans to mix to Atmos then use that to downmix for the Stereo track.

[jmone]

Looks like they plan to give ATMOS for Music a push in the market,
https://www.whathifi.com/news/dolby-and-universal-partner-to-create-thousands-of-songs-in-atmos

will be interested to see if it takes off or ends up like BD-Audio, so far this is the list:
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/experience/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-music-titles.html

[jmone]

I had a listen to INKS Kick 30 with Atmos on my 7.2.4 setup.  It certainly sounds very different to the 2ch mix and it was clear it was a 3D Audio mix.  I'm no audio purest but it sounded pretty good to me, but it certainly reminds me more of a Movie Soundtrack than CD Audio.  If that is good or bad, I don't profess to know but the 3D effect works even if you move around your listening space.  No need to anchor yourself in a sweet spot.  Some of the effects were gimmicky however (there is an opening pan around the front of the sound stage that was more to demonstrate the format I think) and the 3D Placment was odd on occasion with a percussion appearing to be High Top Left. 

[tij]

I had a listen to INKS Kick 30 with Atmos on my 7.2.4 setup.  It certainly sounds very different to the 2ch mix and it was clear it was a 3D Audio mix.  I'm no audio purest but it sounded pretty good to me, but it certainly reminds me more of a Movie Soundtrack than CD Audio.  If that is good or bad, I don't profess to know but the 3D effect works even if you move around your listening space.  No need to anchor yourself in a sweet spot.  Some of the effects were gimmicky however (there is an opening pan around the front of the sound stage that was more to demonstrate the format I think) and the 3D Placment was odd on occasion with a percussion appearing to be High Top Left. 

not sure how they plan to use object based for music ... in classical music, all musicians sit at same spot ... in live concerts band move around but huge speakers behind them are not

and the ceiling atmos for music just seems weird ... singer flying over your head? ... i guess they can put helicopter or plane zooming by, but those are rare (superball?)

its like 3D gimmick on TV that converts 2D video to 3D

[RoderickGI]

ATMOS seeks to reproduce the audio experience of attending a live environment/show, in a real location. So that doesn't only mean hearing the music from the position of the performers but also hearing the reflections of sound from the environment.

So those helicopter singers are just sound reflections.

In that sense, it is just a more realistic representation of the DSP effects such as Theatre, Hall, Cathedral, Forest, etc. that some people have been using and loving for years, even though they are simulated spatial effects.

[ThoBar]

Interesting.  How are these recordings made?  What I mean is, how many mics and how are they placed.  I am not asking for crazy detail here.  Just a general idea.  I'm wondering how you would derive 5 channels if you were not using 5 mics (or more).  If we apply the same thinking as a "good" stereo recording, where the mics are approximately where the ears of a listener would be, then we would need 5 mics in an array about as big as a human head, aimed at the angles that are recommended for 5.1 playback. 

Short Answer: Many microphones.

From observation (wife is an Opera singer) mic'ing for an event can vary massively (concert vs opera, budget variable, etc.), but can have many mic's. Sometimes multiple per singer, multiple for the stage, multiple for the orchestra, and even dispersed throughout the hall, depending on what they're after (or so it seems). As to how it's all used and put together.. /shrug/  That's what the sound engineer has to do, I guess

[thecrow]

My day job is providing technical support in a recording studio, the majority of what we record is orchestral scores for big budget films often released in Atmos.
Although the microphone setup usually runs up to 100 separate mics the basis of the sound is three omni mics placed above the conductor on what is known as a Decca Tree, this gives you left, centre and right, a pair of omni mics placed high up behind the orchestra which give you surround left and surround right and for height channels you hang microphones from the ceiling above the orchestra. To this you then add more mics to fill in the sound and close mics on each section of the orchestra to be able to alter the balance of the sound.
But the basis is placing mics in similar positions to those of the speakers used to reproduce the sound quite obvious when you think about it.
Obviously this only works well for something that is performed en-mass live in a good sounding room, if we are talking rock and roll then that as has been said is totally synthetic.

[JimH]

My day job is providing technical support in a recording studio, the majority of what we record is orchestral scores for big budget films often released in Atmos.
Although the microphone setup usually runs up to 100 separate mics the basis of the sound is three omni mics placed above the conductor on what is known as a Decca Tree, this gives you left, centre and right, a pair of omni mics placed high up behind the orchestra which give you surround left and surround right and for height channels you hang microphones from the ceiling above the orchestra. To this you then add more mics to fill in the sound and close mics on each section of the orchestra to be able to alter the balance of the sound.
But the basis is placing mics in similar positions to those of the speakers used to reproduce the sound quite obvious when you think about it.
Obviously this only works well for something that is performed en-mass live in a good sounding room, if we are talking rock and roll then that as has been said is totally synthetic.

Really interesting to read.  Thanks for posting that.

[rec head]

Thanks for the post I love hearing from they people actually doing it.

Obviously this only works well for something that is performed en-mass live in a good sounding room, if we are talking rock and roll then that as has been said is totally synthetic.

But there is no reason they couldn't do a similar scaled down live setup right?

[Desertpilot]

I recently added 4 height speakers to my 5.1 system (now a 5.1.4 system).  They are configured for Auro 3D but can also be used as Dolby Atmos for movies.  I listen primarily to classical music.  2L is producing a lot of titles with two discs, SACD for 5.1/Stereo and BluRay (typically 24 bit 192 Khz) for both 5.1 and Auro 3D.  Some of these BluRay discs include video of the ensemble practicing for the recording.  You can see in the video a group of microphones on a tripod in the center of the ensemble and another group of microphones much higher on the tripod to capture ambient sound.

Where are we going with this?  You could be correct that this "niche" market is so small that it will fade away.  But, Atmos is very entrenched in the movie market.  Auro 3D is gaining popularity, especially since it is preferred over Atmos in European theaters.  SACD was supposed to be dead a long time ago.  Yet, it is the preferred method of recording classical music.  I have both the discs and downloaded .dsf files.  If. however, it does fade away, my system will up-convert to either Amos or Auro 3D.

Personally, I prefer multi channel surround and adding height channels gives me an even more immersive experience.

Marcus

[kr4]

Interesting.  How are these recordings made?  What I mean is, how many mics and how are they placed.  I am not asking for crazy detail here.  Just a general idea.  I'm wondering how you would derive 5 channels if you were not using 5 mics (or more).  If we apply the same thinking as a "good" stereo recording, where the mics are approximately where the ears of a listener would be, then we would need 5 mics in an array about as big as a human head, aimed at the angles that are recommended for 5.1 playback.  As a guess.

Yes, 5 or more mics for 5.1 recording and a parallel increase in both as we expand.  However, mic placement is not as you describe since that would (with a dummy head) include HRTF and would be proper for binaural listening and not with spaced stereo/5.1/ATMOS speaker arrays.

All of this ignores the fairly complex nature of the Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) and the effect of the shape of the human ear on the incoming sound with respect to polar coordinates.  I.E., something coming from behind you sounds different than something coming from directly to the side because of the shape of the outer ear.

Your own HRTF applies to speaker listening and, therefore, need not be incorporated into the recording.

Still, a good stereo system with 2 channels can produce a pretty convincing audio illusion.  I wonder if 5.1 can be better, or if it's just like more sonic seasoning.  Different, but not necessarily better?  This is a question and not a statement.

Undoubtedly better.  Have you read Floyd Toole's book?  He takes no a priori position on the matter but arrives at the conclusion that multichannel is superior to 2 channel for approaching realistic reproduction in the home.

[Absinthe]

Reading this is very interesting to me but I fear this adds yet another layer of subjective criteria to music (and Cinema) production.  There are millions of examples of audio recording and production that illuminate exceptional (and dismal) recording prowess from recording to mixing to equalization added to the recording.  Now we are adding another layer to this onion which is going to further complicate selecting which recording is worth the purchase investment and which is not.  I suppose variety is the slice of life but I have to wonder if the vast majority of Americans are going to put this much effort into the process when most listen to low bitrate MP3 files and watch movies off an iPhone??

[kr4]

Reading this is very interesting to me but I fear this adds yet another layer of subjective criteria to music (and Cinema) production.  There are millions of examples of audio recording and production that illuminate exceptional (and dismal) recording prowess from recording to mixing to equalization added to the recording.  Now we are adding another layer to this onion which is going to further complicate selecting which recording is worth the purchase investment and which is not.

Well, I read (and write) a lot of reviews.

. I suppose variety is the slice of life but I have to wonder if the vast majority of Americans are going to put this much effort into the process when most listen to low bitrate MP3 files and watch movies off an iPhone??

Of course.  They really don't care about such things and that's......................OK.  Do you?

[Absinthe]

Well, I read (and write) a lot of reviews.
Of course.  They really don't care about such things and that's......................OK.  Do you?

Since I don't consider myself a normal American in the area of Audio/Video, I don't really see what I care about has to do with my post.  It's a general commentary on the market worthiness of the technology.  If the average American won't buy it, it dies whether its sonically/technically superior or not.   

[jjkale]

I can't comment on Atmos, but I can tell you that there are some outstanding multichannel recordings and with decent equipment, the result is sweet.
In one of the posts above, Floyd Toole is referenced and he is bullish on MCH.  Well done MCH is just better period.
As usual however, it is all in the studio execution.  I would recommend Steven Wilson (he is also the frontman of Porcupine Tree) for anyone who wants an MCH tryout.  He is considered to be the modern master of MCH.
I live in San Antonio.  If anyone ever would like a demo, we can probably set one up.
Play it loud!