"The lossy version of Atmos is to me a bleak shadow of the real, uncompressed source." Not that bleak to me.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/dolby-atmos-bleak-shadow
https://www.stereophile.com/content/dolby-atmos-bleak-shadow
Been there, done thatyou hunt down and fork out a serious wodge for old out of print discs or it's tough titty
This isn't an issue unique to Atmos. Perhaps you've forgotten about the dozens of poorly-executed 5.1 mixes from the SACD/DVD-A days of the early-2000s?The amount of poor or fake mixes.
Agreed! Fidelity before more channels or it devolves into a gimmick. Surround streaming bluntly doesn't exist yet for the audiophile."The lossy version of Atmos is to me a bleak shadow of the real, uncompressed source." Not that bleak to me.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/dolby-atmos-bleak-shadow
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.This isn't an issue unique to Atmos. Perhaps you've forgotten about the dozens of poorly-executed 5.1 mixes from the SACD/DVD-A days of the early-2000s?
The most ambitious audacious mixes I've ever heard in my life, using Dolby Atmos, do not use 12 chanel format. They use Atmos Objects all around the room, and I can assure that I additionaly enjoy the "expanded" stage when the Wides from 9.1.4 are used.But then we have people starting to make some of the most ambitious audacious mixes I've ever heard in my life with the 12 channel format! This is greatness. Buyer beware and all. Avoid the scams. 7.1.4 is worth your time and effort!
Um... You realize that those objects are intermediary, right?
In a perfect scenario, Dolby atmos decoder renders the objects and the result mix matches exactly 1:1 to the same speaker array and matches exactly what the mix engineer was hearing.
The downmix scenarios work as well as they do and this system IS more elegant than in the past.
You're not hearing "objects".
You're not hearing panning around the room any differently.
And if you are... then something has gone wrong! And that's precisely the concern when we start delivering raw materials and trust the consumer facing device to finish rendering them!
I suppose we could cut right to the chase here:
The listener with the 9.1.6 array lamenting their silent wide channels when playing 7.1.4 mixes, right?
The x,y coordinates for the wide channels in the Dolby panner are
-100, 68
100, 68
Hard L/R and 68 on the Y axis hits the wides (channels 9/10 of 16) precisely.
If you want to deliver some of that content as objects in the encoded Atmos copy of the mix and shut these 9.1.6 guys up!
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.I only have two and a half problems with Atmos:
1. The amount of poor or fake mixes.
2. The amount of hurdles you have to jump through for making or listening to Atmos music.
2½. How low the bitrate is for streaming Atmos. Ideally, lossless is preferred. Realistically, I think I could live with a lossy codec. But at 768kbps? Ew.
Enter your email address to join: