NY Times article from yesterday: “Dolby Atmos Wants You to Listen Up. (And Down. And Sideways.)”

[key_wiz]

Of course not. Humans have not been listening to music, especially reproduced music, long enough for that. However, live music performed anywhere (except in an anechoic chamber) is experienced as a three-dimensional perception because the direct sounds of the instruments and/or voices is transduced along with their reflections from the surfaces and the resonances of the space of the performance site. So, the issue really is whether listeners, who have been conditioned to listening to reproduced music via stereo headphones, mono speakers or, even, stereo systems, are prepared to accept a different listening paradigm which may be closer to reality or even enhanced beyond that.

Reflexions and resonances are not the same as the instruments themselves surrounding you. Which is why most classical performances in surround utilize ambient-rears to attempt to more accurately reproduce the concert hall experience.

I love surround mixes (obviously or I wouldn’t be here) but I don’t believe they are MORE “natural” than mono or stereo. Just not less so. Even stereo isn’t “natural”, as with any mix we are at the mercy of the mixing engineer for instrument placement. I like surround because I like hearing more separation of instruments. My history as a musician leads me to find such mixes to often be a better facsimile of being on stage with other musicians. And I’m entertained by clever and interesting instrument placements and pannings. But none of it is accurate representation of an actual live music experience.

 

[esimms86]

Reflexions and resonances are not the same as the instruments themselves surrounding you. Which is why most classical performances in surround utilize ambient-rears to attempt to more accurately reproduce the concert hall experience.

I love surround mixes (obviously or I wouldn’t be here) but I don’t believe they are MORE “natural” than mono or stereo. Just not less so. Even stereo isn’t “natural”, as with any mix we are at the mercy of the mixing engineer for instrument placement. I like surround because I like hearing more separation of instruments. My history as a musician leads me to find such mixes to often be a better facsimile of being on stage with other musicians. And I’m entertained by clever and interesting instrument placements and pannings. But none of it is accurate representation of an actual live music experience.

And then there’s someone like Suzanne Ciani performing live in quadraphonic sound.

 

[barfle]

Whether it’s “natural” or not is simple. There’s nothing “natural” about a guitar, saxophone, or snare drum, other than the raw materials they were made from. Especially if they are amplified or fuzzed or reverbed or whatever.

What’s important is whether or not we find the experience of listening to be enjoyable.

I have a handful of discs that are “natural” sounds. All are pleasant, none are music. If I’m in “nature” (outdoors), sound comes from all directions, even birds overhead, and I’m pretty good at locating the sounds. Anyone else notice that a high-flying airplane’s sounds lag behind the plane itself?

Some people may be put off by having instruments behind them, or maybe their hearing simply doesn’t let them notice the difference. To me, that’s a shame, but understandable. Of course, being a member of this group, I happen to (mostly) enjoy being in the middle of the performance.

 

[mkt]

And then there’s someone like Suzanne Ciani performing live in quadraphonic sound.

I know this is TMI but my lizard brain is perfectly fine with her sounds swirling around me (b/c abstract?). But not the guy with guitar behind me. My mind's got a mind of its own.

 

[AYanguas]

But not the guy with guitar behind me. My mind's got a mind of its own.

I think that to enjoy rear and ping-pong sounds, your mind has to think about just the guitar sound. Not that it is beeing played by a guy.

I.e. just closing your eyes and be immersed in moving sounds. It is easy for electronic bips, that you don't think about a guy playing guitar. But for whatever instrument, you have to think only about the sounds, not to think that you are in front of a stage with a band playing instruments.

Or if there is a human playing the thing, then imagine he/she is playing the mixing console, moving the sounds around you. (.... Suzanne Ciani ?)

This is the way I imagine it to enjoy more.

EDIT: Of course this is for discrete movements. Hall recreation with echo/reverb will have different considerations.

 

[splinter7]

'For some artists, transforming old recordings into Atmos has been challenging. Chic recently had its first three albums mixed in the format. “The process took months and months to get right,” Rodgers said. “The team that was working on it, we gave them notes, we went into different rooms, did rough mixes to show them what we were talking about.”'

Yeah - Like Steven Wilson needs anyone to show him how to get it right. That comes across rather harsh, what a wanker.

I am no "psychoacoustician" like Susan Rogers but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in Paisley Park once and I have never had anyone ever say after they sat and listened to my surround set-up that it was off putting. 99.9% of the time, the listener was genuinely surprised as to how cool a good immersive mix is (the exception is my wife who probably just pretends it's ho-hum just to get under my skin).

Granted, these people aren't running out of my house singing "glory hallelujah - I have heard heaven, take me to Best Buy for a new receiver" but our immersive passion requires space, equipment, and critical listening. Most people likely think of music from the viewpoint that it is a background feature.

 

[Infomas]

XXs have much better hearing than XYs!

What?

 

[kap'n krunch]

What?

precisely my point!

 

[ar surround]

“evolutionary and biological reasons that sound sources coming from behind and above listeners can be unsettling or anxiety inducing”
My lizard brain tends to agree.

Some personal facts:

1) No visitor has yet to comment about "music all around" from my 7.4.1 system being anything other than totally cool!

2) I am probably the black sheep of this QQ family in that I find surround sound effects from MOVIES distracting and annoying, but not surround sound music.

I have an issue with Disney+ where I now can get only stereo, so I use Dolby Surround to upmix. The effects stay mostly up front with the music all around. I actually find that I enjoy the movie more presented this way; and the dialog is clearer.

 

[ar surround]

I dunno. A recent conversation with an engineer friend of mine had him saying almost exactly the same thing as Rogers said: he talked about psychoacoustics and he doesn't believe humans have evolved to listen to music in anything other than the more 'natural' position of it spread out in front of them.

Huh? There is a local church here that had a choral concert. The main pipe organ pipes were located front left. The antiphonal organ was rear right in the balcony. This presentation had singers front center (spread wide) and also in the rear balcony. Plus the church acoustics gave the sense of music all around...even from sources coming from the front.

There are Broadway shows, and local shows, where some singing parts take place behind, along the sides, or move from back to front. (depending on where one is sitting.)

I have never heard anyone complain about that choral presentation or these shows where deliberate surround sound techniques have been utilized.

 

[barfle]

Most people likely think of music from the viewpoint that it is a background feature.

I recall reading an article that said surround sound was a loser because when people listen to music, they move around the room, talk to other people, dance, etc., etc., etc. What was clear from that article was that the author had no clue what “listen to music” meant.

 

[barfle]

Huh? There is a local church here that had a choral concert. The main pipe organ pipes were located front left. The antiphonal organ was rear right in the balcony. This presentation had singers front center (spread wide) and also in the rear balcony. Plus the church acoustics gave the sense of music all around...even from sources coming from the front.

There are Broadway shows, and local shows, where some singing parts take place behind, along the sides, or move from back to front. (depending on where one is sitting.)

I have never heard anyone complain about that choral presentation or these shows where deliberate surround sound techniques have been utilized.

I attended a performance of Holst’s “The Planets” several years ago. At the end of the final piece (Neptune, the Mystic), there’s a choral element that is usually off-stage. It’s a work I love, and have probably ten copies of, so I was just delighted when the conductor turned around and cued the chorus, which was in the balcony above and behind most of the audience. Absolute magic! No encoding or compression involved.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

“True believers in the immersive audio format say it could restore a musical appreciation lost to a generation that has come up during the streaming era.”

Click here for the article

One part that annoyed me a little:

{“The recording industry went from mono to stereo decades ago, and it didn’t move from there,” John Couling, senior vice president of Dolby Laboratories, said in a phone interview.

There have been efforts to convince the public to adopt new advanced technologies in the years since, ‌including Quadraphonic sound in the ’70s ‌and 5.1 surround sound in the ’90s, but with little success. “We’ve changed formats, we’ve changed delivery methods, we’ve changed all sorts of things,” Couling said, “but it was still fundamentally the same sound. Atmos is a completely new experience.”}

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what he is trying to convey but to me it almost sounds like he’s saying that after mono there was stereo, then quad & 5.1 were released but they were all fundamentally the “same sound”.
Look I realize Atmos can be great but c’mon, …a great quad or 5.1 mix sounds nothing like stereo.

Yeah, that's pretty silly. From mono to stereo, stereo to quad/5.1, those to Atmos, you're literally adding another potential dimension to the sound. I don't say that pejoratively, either. Stereo is a 1-dimensional space, quad/5.1 is a 2D space, and Atmos is 3D.

 

[ar surround]

If Daryl Hall and the O'Jays ask to come over to my house, and tell me to sit in the middle of their circle, I'm going to say that my psychocoustic brain doesn't like hearing music coming from the sides or behind me. I will tell them to piss off.