Dolby Atmos: a Bleak Shadow?

[mandrix]

Yep, it’s going to take about $4,000 worth of hoop-jumping before I get to listen to Atmos in my room. I’ll do it, but it’s far from the top of my giterdun list.

You already have a 5.1 setup? Assuming you "only" need an Atmos processor and a few speakers you could get by cheaper.
When I built my Atmos system, I already had a good base 5.0 and an inexpensive sub. I also had 4 identical speakers that used to be my "pc" setup so I just incorporated those for the height speakers. Not expensive at the time I bought them, just Polk Monitor 30's. I later filled out the surround backs with a pair of Klipsch "refurbs" I bought off the Amazon, as my base 5.0 speakers are no longer sold.
I know others can and do buy more expensive equipment, but for my retirement income level I'm happy with what I have.

 

[barfle]

You already have a 5.1 setup? Assuming you "only" need an Atmos processor and a few speakers you could get by cheaper.
When I built my Atmos system, I already had a good base 5.0 and an inexpensive sub. I also had 4 identical speakers that used to be my "pc" setup so I just incorporated those for the height speakers. Not expensive at the time I bought them, just Polk Monitor 30's. I later filled out the surround backs with a pair of Klipsch "refurbs" I bought off the Amazon, as my base 5.0 speakers are no longer sold.
I know others can and do buy more expensive equipment, but for my retirement income level I'm happy with what I have.

Yes, I have a decent 5.1 setup, and when I built the room, I anticipated Atmos and installed ceiling speakers. My fronts are powered studio monitors, and my backs are passable Realistic Minimus 7s, powered by an old Akai 75WPC stereo amp.

Yes, I could set up a mishmash of who-knows-what stuff, and maybe I can get a few hundred in trade for my Marantz pre-pro on the Atmos-capable version, but I still need six channels of amplification, replacing my Akai in the rack with something that will do what’s necessary.

So, yeah, if I’m going to do this right, I’m going to drop some bucks on it.

 

[himey]

"And I don't care about the proprietary part."
The author (and editor) writes this about MQA which is hilarious, in the comment section about Atmos. Is he bitter about the lost revenue from the demise of MQA? What a horrible format to cling to.

 

[ergalthema]

If I'm listening in a car, or casually around the house, working out with earbuds, etc. - I'm not very picky about compression (dynamics or data artifacts). But if I'm sitting at speakers/headphones and critically/closely listening, I want the best possible source material. I've been surprised how much more I enjoyed a Blu-ray Atmos mix compared to streaming from Apple Music. I don't always notice the difference between high bitrate MP3 and WAV, but I really think I noticed a lack of clarity/separation with the streamed Atmos mix. I'd like to learn more about the spec differences - I haven't looked into it.

 

[jimfisheye]

... We, at home, do not listen the same way what the mix engineer was hearing. ...

Some of us do precisely that and find it incomprehensible that others wouldn't. Listening to a mix someone made to hear it as they intended is a thing.

Those that immediately start altering stuff with their system without even listening to it as delivered... well it's going to get at least raised eyebrows from some of us!

Stop making me agree with Phil Spector! Dammit...
(FYI, He was opposed to stereo and quad because it allowed the opportunity to alter his mix after the fact. A broken clock and all...)

 

[mandrix]

Unless you're sitting in the room it was mixed in, with the exact same equipment, I find it incomprehensible that anyone thinks they are hearing exactly what the mixer did.

Not sure what "altering stuff" means.
There are some that have special built rooms, with professional treatment and calibration, and may spend a million dollars. Obviously all of us can't do that.
With audio, there's always a bias between the ones that can spend freely and the ones who can't. While others may sniff at what I have put together, it matters none at all when I sit down to listen.

 

[jimfisheye]

Haha. It doesn't only go from 0 to 100! If the room and gear isn't exactly the same... nope! Totally changed! Might as well just use the audio to play with now... Chasing good seats for someone's mix is a thing. Always has been. The utter dismissal of this and doubling down on it so hard surprises me. That's all. Wasn't expecting that!

Enjoy whatever it is you are doing! Call out those of us wanting to reproduce someone's mix as the outlier if you want.

That shit aside. We've already won this round as far as I'm concerned. 12 (and sometimes 16) channel mixes are here to stay. The format is here to stay. There's some amazing ambitious art being created with this! No bleak shadows. Just a few desperate players around the fringes. Screw them!

 

[mandrix]

I'm not dismissing anything or anyone's intent on capturing the playback as the mixer intended. That's a good thing.
What I'm saying is near impossible to exactly duplicate the conditions. If that is doubling down...well I don't know about all that.
Like is so often said, it's the room! But most of us have to live with less than perfect, so we rely on a variety of methods to make up for this the best we can, whether if it's perfect spacing of the speakers (not always possible) or calibration softwares, etc.

 

[CINERAMAX]

To add to the drama Would you be interested in viewing a video where I drop two Apple TV 4Ks, Generation 1 and 2, from a height of 34 floors? I concur with the author's opinion that Apple should develop a sonic bidet utilizing this thin stream technology. The current offering lacks sufficient uncompressed content, necessitating an increase in Blu-ray options and downloads.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

I dunno...the impression I'm getting with Atmos is that the sheer volume of those mixes seem to be greater. I can't actually name more than 5 or 10 fake/bad mixes on SACD/DVD-A.

Silverline

 

[mandrix]

Silverline

Not sure about fake, but sometimes bad for a fact. I remember buying The Fixx - 1011 Woodland, a Silverline product. DualDisc. I was initially disappointed, not because of the mix but because these were different versions "reworked" by the band with less energy. Eventually it grew on me though.

 

[ssully]

I'm just starting to explore Apple Music and Tidal offerings in Atmos (via a used 2nd gen Apple 4K streamer box I picked up on ebay, routed by HDMI to my Atmos-ready AVR, played in a 5.2 -- that's 2 subs -- setup)

I'm noticing what seems to be a difference between the two services -- there seems to be a lot more of what I might call 'Atmos is name only' offerings on Tidal than Apple Music. Meaning, Atmos tracks that sound like they haven't been seriously remixed at all (i.e. fake remixes). And when a truly remixed track (like, say, the 'When Doves Cry" or "Take on Me' Atmos mix) comes on, it's stunningly noticeable how lame many others are.

Again, I seem to be encountering this much more on Tidal than AM - both of course share a lot of offerings but there seems to be more 'old' catalog content on Tidal that I don't see on AM, and much of this is back catalog Tidal stuff is lame in terms of 'remix' quality. E.g., 'Maggie May' by Rod Stewart' "Taxi' by Harry Chapin. Both mighty underwhelming.

Am I imagining all this or is it a real thing about Tidal vs AM that's been hashed over elsewhere?

 

[HomerJAU]

Am I imagining all this or is it a real thing about Tidal vs AM that's been hashed over elsewhere?

I’d start by listening to the same songs on both services before coming to any conclusions.

 

[perzon57]

Or maybe listening on a real Atmos setup.

 

[ssully]

I’d start by listening to the same songs on both services before coming to any conclusions.

Maybe I was unclear -- the songs with questionable sounding surround are typically ones I'm finding only on Tidal.

Also, I have certainly seen complaints on this forum about mediocre/'fake' surround offerings in Atmos. I guess I'm wondering if these are more a Tidal thing than an AM thing, because so far that's been my limited experience.

Or maybe listening on a real Atmos setup.

How odd that so many Atmos-tagged tracks sound amazingly surround-y with just my poor little setup, then. I need more channels to unlock the Atmos glories of Tidal's 'Maggie May' and "Taxi' so that they don't sound like weak upmixes?

 

[perzon57]

I just think to base an opinion on Atmos mixes without listening on a Atmos setup is wrong.

 

[sjcorne]

If the user's AVR has an Atmos decoder, I can't see how you'd consider that not to be an Atmos setup.

As for the faked back-catalog singles, there were a ton of them on Apple Music from the WEA family of labels that mysteriously vanished. I guess these are still on Tidal? Some even got replaced by real remixes, like Peter Schilling's "Major Tom (Coming Home)" and Sister Sledge's "We Are Family".
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...on-the-streaming-services-unacceptable.32866/

 

[perzon57]

His speaker setup is 5.2 with 2 subs, not much Atmos in that.

 

[ssully]

I just think to base an opinion on Atmos mixes without listening on a Atmos setup is wrong.

So, tell me what I'm missing in the tracks I mentioned.

(Which, as I also mentioned , are in contrast to other Atmos surround tracks that sound very good indeed)

 

[perzon57]

So, tell me what I'm missing in the tracks I mentioned.

(Which, as I also mentioned , are in contrast to other Atmos surround tracks that sound very good indeed)

I didn't say they were any good, in fact I haven't listened to them, but some Atmos mixes don't lend themselves well to 5.1 downmix.