If stereo sounded as good as this I might starting listening to stereo again, but it don't and I won't.
HiRez Poll Knopfler, Mark - ONE DEEP RIVER [Blu-ray Audio (Dolby Atmos)]
- Thread starter rtbluray
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Please post your thoughts and comments on this brand new album from Mark Knopfler entitled "One Deep River".
The album was released as an SDE exclusive Blu-ray Audio disc as part of their SDE Surround Sound Series. (Thanks @PaulatSDE!)
The Blu-Ray includes a Dolby Atmos mix of the album and five bonus tracks.
While the Blu-ray Audio disc is now sold out, you can still stream the Dolby Atmos mix on all Dolby Atmos streaming providers:
I will preface my assessment by saying I heard Sultans of Swing on WXRT in Chicago when it first came out. I was 16 or 17 and blown away by that song and that 1st Dire Straights album. I have been a fan of Mark Knopfler ever since. I rated this release a 7. The music is at least a 9 or 10 as well as the stereo mix. The Atmos mix was too laid back for my taste. My system is a 5.1.2 with front wall heights. There was not enough going on in the surrounds or the heights. I understand the engineers' intent on the Atmos mix and it is lush, but I think my money may have been better spent on just the CD. The the stereo mix is fantastic, but the Atmos Mix does not sound substantially different to me. The music content and approach is exactly what I expected. I did not expect a hard rocking album and that's ok. This music is great! It reminds me a lot of JJ Cale and somewhat of Dylan both of whom I really dig. So, to be in that league of gentlemen is an awesome accomplishment. I wish the Atmos mix was more Atmosy, if that's a word! Mark Knopfler definitely has a unique sound with that guitar and he is a great artist!
Last edited:
Edit: Due to a technical glitch explained here:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...r-blu-ray-audio-dolby-atmos.35866/post-774663
this post is misinformed. I am leaving the text because it spurred some discussion, and therefore will provide context for that discussion. Sorry in advance!
Original Post:
I think your criticism of my review is spot-on. Perhaps my problem is in my expectations of what a surround or Atmos mix should be. Of course a mixer can use either two or more surround channels to make a mix feel more spacious. One can also use a variety of AVR processing to make a stereo mix sound more spacious.
I guess I wish there was a new surround designation - Spacious Surround - which is perhaps less "immersive" and more like Big Stereo - a term I have seen around here. In that way I could make my buying decision with all the information I need. Because this disc is limited edition I bought it sight unheard.
You may like this approach to mixing. Great! I am glad you are enjoying the disc. For me I supported the project financially because I want to encourage SDE and surround mixing in general. But for this listener (and my listening companion) the surround experience was a bland and disappointing one. Especially in contrast to Boris Blank and his excellent mix, which we had enjoyed only minutes earlier.
Last edited:
After the first listen of the Blu-Ray, I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of this Atmos mix. I was afraid to find true the criticisms labeling this mix as simple, disappointing, and poor frontal scene. But, for me, there's none of those negative aspects. It's not a simple stereo expanded with reverberation echo in the back. Instead, it's a much more elaborate mix.
At the end of the post, I've added images of the Atmos decoding to the number of channels I have: 9.1.4. Those images show, more clearly than other article referenced in the other thread, the amount of content in each channel.
The mix does indeed make considerable use of the Wides, as well as the Top Fronts and Side Surrounds. In contrast, the Rear Surrounds and Top Rears are used very little. But it's not just the amount of content in each channel that makes a mix better or worse, but rather it depends on what that content is.
This mix stands out for Mark's main voice as a front image. But that doesn't imply that the mix is "front-centric." On the contrary, the rest of the music is expanded in a "front" bubble or mid-bubble mode, through the correct use of the Top Fronts, Wides, and Sides, leaving minimal echo/reverberation content to the Rears and Top Rears, to complete the sonic coherence of the "bubble."
The mix isn't aggressive, but it's done in a correct and elegant manner. There are discrete components both in vocals and in sounds that float "around" in the room's sound bubble and move slightly in a very subtle and elegant manner.
In addition to the main front voice, some vocal lines are emphasized from the Side Surrounds. In "Scavengers Yard," voices are heard from behind and above, and in "Janine," additional voices are added in the bubble, choir-like, in some verses.
"Sweeter Than The Rain" starts with the main vocals image centered, but when the music starts, it expands throughout the room, enveloping the voice as if from a much larger room. A realism and spatial grandeur effect, similar to what Auro-3D try to achieve in its recordings and realistic mixes.
In an interview with a renowned mixing engineer, he said that "any sound coming from behind the listener triggers a primal instinct of fear, adrenaline, and self-preservation. So, when they hear a voice or percussion from behind them, it can actually be quite an uncomfortable sensation. This may partly explain why some people only like stereo."
This applies to this mix. It's not intended for discrete sounds to come from behind, hence the minimal echo/reverb content of the Rears and Top Rears. Instead, the discrete part is very subtle and elegant, and a sound bubble with discrete sonic elements is achieved which, being so subtle, should please those who dislike unrealistic ping-pong effects on stage.
In "Watch Me Gone," the choruses coming from the Sides and Top Fronts aren't "aggressive" because they don't come from the Rears, but they add an elegance that many other mixes don't achieve.
I've tried the stereo track, with upmixers, and although it may sound more "grandiose" or aggressive, it's not as subtle and elegant as Atmos.
On a first listen, the Bonus tracks in Atmos are, even, a little more discrete than the main album.
In summary, it's a much better mix than, for example, the poor front mix in Atmos from Riverside-ID.Entity.
I look forward to many more listens where I believe I'll discover many more great details of this enough good Atmos mix. I will wait to more likstening before I decide my Vote.
The following three pictures show the decoding to 9.1.4 channels.
The first picture shows the subtle Sides Surround content
The second picture shows the minimal Rear content but great Wides and Top Fronts content
The third picture shows that Top Rears are lower than Top Fronts, but still greater than Rear Surrounds. This to provide sufficient coherence of the sound bubble.
At the end of the post, I've added images of the Atmos decoding to the number of channels I have: 9.1.4. Those images show, more clearly than other article referenced in the other thread, the amount of content in each channel.
The mix does indeed make considerable use of the Wides, as well as the Top Fronts and Side Surrounds. In contrast, the Rear Surrounds and Top Rears are used very little. But it's not just the amount of content in each channel that makes a mix better or worse, but rather it depends on what that content is.
This mix stands out for Mark's main voice as a front image. But that doesn't imply that the mix is "front-centric." On the contrary, the rest of the music is expanded in a "front" bubble or mid-bubble mode, through the correct use of the Top Fronts, Wides, and Sides, leaving minimal echo/reverberation content to the Rears and Top Rears, to complete the sonic coherence of the "bubble."
The mix isn't aggressive, but it's done in a correct and elegant manner. There are discrete components both in vocals and in sounds that float "around" in the room's sound bubble and move slightly in a very subtle and elegant manner.
In addition to the main front voice, some vocal lines are emphasized from the Side Surrounds. In "Scavengers Yard," voices are heard from behind and above, and in "Janine," additional voices are added in the bubble, choir-like, in some verses.
"Sweeter Than The Rain" starts with the main vocals image centered, but when the music starts, it expands throughout the room, enveloping the voice as if from a much larger room. A realism and spatial grandeur effect, similar to what Auro-3D try to achieve in its recordings and realistic mixes.
In an interview with a renowned mixing engineer, he said that "any sound coming from behind the listener triggers a primal instinct of fear, adrenaline, and self-preservation. So, when they hear a voice or percussion from behind them, it can actually be quite an uncomfortable sensation. This may partly explain why some people only like stereo."
This applies to this mix. It's not intended for discrete sounds to come from behind, hence the minimal echo/reverb content of the Rears and Top Rears. Instead, the discrete part is very subtle and elegant, and a sound bubble with discrete sonic elements is achieved which, being so subtle, should please those who dislike unrealistic ping-pong effects on stage.
In "Watch Me Gone," the choruses coming from the Sides and Top Fronts aren't "aggressive" because they don't come from the Rears, but they add an elegance that many other mixes don't achieve.
I've tried the stereo track, with upmixers, and although it may sound more "grandiose" or aggressive, it's not as subtle and elegant as Atmos.
On a first listen, the Bonus tracks in Atmos are, even, a little more discrete than the main album.
In summary, it's a much better mix than, for example, the poor front mix in Atmos from Riverside-ID.Entity.
I look forward to many more listens where I believe I'll discover many more great details of this enough good Atmos mix. I will wait to more likstening before I decide my Vote.
The following three pictures show the decoding to 9.1.4 channels.
The first picture shows the subtle Sides Surround content
The second picture shows the minimal Rear content but great Wides and Top Fronts content
The third picture shows that Top Rears are lower than Top Fronts, but still greater than Rear Surrounds. This to provide sufficient coherence of the sound bubble.
Nice review!
I have a 7.4.4 setup, no wides and can't seem to hear anything in the rear surrounds at any time. I don't have tops but front and surround heights, the latter placed directly over the side surrounds high on the wall. On Watch me Gone the backing vocals are both in the side surrounds and surround heights, but at a lower level in the heights. This confirmed by putting my ear to the speakers. One of the bonus tracks has the same effect.
So, your heights seem to be "canonical" Auro-3DNice review!
The Rear surrounds have very little content, as shown in the pictures. When I put my ear together the rears I do listen some very very distance "echo" of the sound. As if I were listening from outside the concert room with the doors closed. This, I guess, should complete the whole bubble with "simulated" echoes from the rear, or, perhaps, also a contribution to eliminate or compensate the real echo in your listening room when no full room sound treatment is in place. But, yes, the rears level is so low, that I could doubt if this effects that I mention are achieved at all.
Surround heights was for Auro 3D, but after a update about a year ago my AVR can use theme for Atmos too. I have my side surrounds at about 120 degrees and it sounds good enough to me.
I always appreciate your analysis of Atmos music, just so you know.
Edit: Here is the first hint that something was amiss in my first listening experience:
OK, it may be time for a snack. Maybe a little "crow appetizer," if not a full crow meal.
I have been listening to this disc on my 5.1 system. I am reading other comments and I feel like I need to give this disc a fair shake. I find the experience to be more immersive in 5.1. I have listened both in full surround, and with isolated rears. It is surely not pure ambience in the rears in this configuration. To be sure there are times when the rears appear to double or reinforce the fronts in 5.1, but definitely not ALL of the information in the fronts. In short, I have found the experience to be more enjoyable in 5.1 than Atmos. My impression of the Atmos mix remains unchanged. I can only surmise that because the "sides" information is not directed to the sides or overheads, they appear in the rears in 5.1 instead, making for a more surroundy experience - at least more the way that I prefer a mix. It is still not the most immersive 5.1 mix by a longshot, but deserves better than the 6 I gave it after my Atmos listen.
A big man can admit when he is wrong. I guess so can I. Manly yes, but Fourplay likes it too! (a callback to an old soap commercial)
Final answer: try it in 5.1 before you write it off.
OK, it may be time for a snack. Maybe a little "crow appetizer," if not a full crow meal.
I have been listening to this disc on my 5.1 system. I am reading other comments and I feel like I need to give this disc a fair shake. I find the experience to be more immersive in 5.1. I have listened both in full surround, and with isolated rears. It is surely not pure ambience in the rears in this configuration. To be sure there are times when the rears appear to double or reinforce the fronts in 5.1, but definitely not ALL of the information in the fronts. In short, I have found the experience to be more enjoyable in 5.1 than Atmos. My impression of the Atmos mix remains unchanged. I can only surmise that because the "sides" information is not directed to the sides or overheads, they appear in the rears in 5.1 instead, making for a more surroundy experience - at least more the way that I prefer a mix. It is still not the most immersive 5.1 mix by a longshot, but deserves better than the 6 I gave it after my Atmos listen.
A big man can admit when he is wrong. I guess so can I. Manly yes, but Fourplay likes it too! (a callback to an old soap commercial)
Final answer: try it in 5.1 before you write it off.
Last edited:
Oh man, this is turning out to be way more drama than I had ever intended or desired.
OK, I got a call from my friend yesterday. He had gone out of town for the eclipse, and when he returned he neglected to turn on the amps for his side speakers. So the Atmos system I listened to One Deep River on was NOT properly calibrated, as earlier stated, and in fact the side channels were absent not because of the mix, but because they were not turned on. So my impression of the mix, while understandable, was completely wrong. Since this Atmos setup is more than an hour from my home, it will be a while before I get a second chance to revise my opinion.
In light of this information, my previous opinions of the Atmos were uninformed. My apologies. I have gone back to amend those posts with the appropriate caveat.
OK, I got a call from my friend yesterday. He had gone out of town for the eclipse, and when he returned he neglected to turn on the amps for his side speakers. So the Atmos system I listened to One Deep River on was NOT properly calibrated, as earlier stated, and in fact the side channels were absent not because of the mix, but because they were not turned on. So my impression of the mix, while understandable, was completely wrong. Since this Atmos setup is more than an hour from my home, it will be a while before I get a second chance to revise my opinion.
In light of this information, my previous opinions of the Atmos were uninformed. My apologies. I have gone back to amend those posts with the appropriate caveat.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
