Dolby Atmos - Speaker vs. Headphone playback

[JimofMaine]

Everything I'm about to say ONLY APPLIES TO HEADSET LISTENING, not speakers.

I have yet to hear a ATMOS stereo mix-down (through a headset) of ATMOS that sounds better than the original stereo version. In other words an ATMOS version that doesn't have the binaural HRTF applied is crap in my opinion.

 

[minimumtumbleweed]

Everything I'm about to say ONLY APPLIES TO HEADSET LISTENING, not speakers.

I have yet to hear a ATMOS stereo mix-down (through a headset) of ATMOS that sounds better than the original stereo version. In other words an ATMOS version that doesn't have the binaural HRTF applied is crap in my opinion.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is talking about headphone "Atmos" here (you can hardly call it Atmos). I would go further and exclude soundbars as well. I think that's justified considering the nature of this forum and its users.

 

[MidiMagic]

Maybe use this kind of mic array to record the Atmos mix:

 

[JediJoker]

Maybe use this kind of mic array to record the Atmos mix:

View attachment 104098

That would work (and is used) for acoustic/orchestral/a cappella recordings, but not in any satisfactory way for amplified music.

 

[JimofMaine]

Sure, but I don't think anyone is talking about headphone "Atmos" here (you can hardly call it Atmos). I would go further and exclude soundbars as well. I think that's justified considering the nature of this forum and its users.

Then qualifications should be stated. Otherwise what use are comparative opinions?

 

[JimofMaine]

Sure, but I don't think anyone is talking about headphone "Atmos" here (you can hardly call it Atmos). I would go further and exclude soundbars as well. I think that's justified considering the nature of this forum and its users.

You have a point. However, this site is about spatial audio. Since Atmos binaural listening constitute 99% of all playback of Atmos mixes, mentioning how it sounds to the 1% is insignificant. While not trying to hijack this thread, my point was it's easy to listen to mixes with the wrong techniques and technologies. If your headset isn't Dolby certified, you're hearing headset stereo. If your device is Dolby and headset Dolby, then at least the spatial Dolby mix is being heard correctly.

And yes, Binuaral Atmos IS Atmos! In fact I'd argue it is the best way to experience the format. Atmos over speakers is problematic. The 99% of headphone-only Atmos listeners, suggests they agree on some level.

 

[sjcorne]

Atmos over speakers is problematic.

I think the vast majority of listeners on this forum would disagree with you there.

 

[DrKlahn]

You have a point. However, this site is about spatial audio. Since Atmos binaural listening constitute 99% of all playback of Atmos mixes, mentioning how it sounds to the 1% is insignificant. While not trying to hijack this thread, my point was it's easy to listen to mixes with the wrong techniques and technologies. If your headset isn't Dolby certified, you're hearing headset stereo. If your device is Dolby and headset Dolby, then at least the spatial Dolby mix is being heard correctly.

And yes, Binuaral Atmos IS Atmos! In fact I'd argue it is the best way to experience the format. Atmos over speakers is problematic. The 99% of headphone-only Atmos listeners, suggests they agree on some level.

I haven't had been in a room with Atmos where I found using speakers problematic. And I've been in several. I would argue that headphones make up the majority because of cost and ease of use. And how many of those headphone owners have every experienced an actual Atmos setup or even are aware that their headphones are doing anything special for Atmos? I don't have the answers to those questions, but I know far less audiophile headphone enthusiasts vs those that buy "nice headphones" to listen to their streaming service.

I've not listened to a good set of Atmos headphones playing Atmos material, but I have listened to headphones that were trying to recreate a spatial experience from 5.1. The effect didn't approach a decent 5.1 setup, but maybe the tech has improved.

We certainly shouldn't ignore enthusiasts that invest in good headphones to experience Atmos. But I sincerely doubt this will eclipse the experience of a well setup room with modest equipment.

 

[JimofMaine]

I haven't had been in a room with Atmos where I found using speakers problematic. And I've been in several. I would argue that headphones make up the majority because of cost and ease of use. And how many of those headphone owners have every experienced an actual Atmos setup...

Listening on an Atmos device and Atmos headset is certainly Atmos.

 

[JimofMaine]

I haven't had been in a room with Atmos where I found using speakers problematic. And I've been in several. I would argue that headphones make up the majority because of cost and ease of use. And how many of those headphone owners have every experienced an actual Atmos setup or even are aware that their headphones are doing anything special for Atmos? I don't have the answers to those questions, but I know far less audiophile headphone enthusiasts vs those that buy "nice headphones" to listen to their streaming service.

I've not listened to a good set of Atmos headphones playing Atmos material, but I have listened to headphones that were trying to recreate a spatial experience from 5.1. The effect didn't approach a decent 5.1 setup, but maybe the tech has improved.

We certainly shouldn't ignore enthusiasts that invest in good headphones to experience Atmos. But I sincerely doubt this will eclipse the experience of a well setup room with modest equipment.

I like Atmos, but it isn't perfect and is certainly problematic for three reasons:
1) Atmos claims listeners can discern the location of a sounding body at an infinite number of locations in a hypothetical sphere about the listener. It cannot.
2) Atmos claims listeners can sense a sounding body moving throughout space accurately about the listeners. It cannot.
3) Atmos has a very small sweetspot and the listener's head must face forward, unmoving.

Does it sound cool? Yes. Do I like it? Yes. Does it do all that's claimed? No, it's problematic.

(see my other response regarding Atmos headset listening. Atmos, arguably, is only for headset listening! Atmos mixes done well sound amazing on Atmos devices and Atmos headsets.)

 

[jimfisheye]

Binaural stereo Atmos is Atmos, yes! But it is NOT the surround mix anymore. It's the remains of the surround mix as best as binaural stereo fold down can preserve. And that's more than in the past where the consumer might see the surround version in the store but it needs some weird system they don't have and they never hear any of it. Atmos is not a synonym for surround sound.

If we're going to speculate that 99% of the public will still never listen to full surround sound and will only ever hear surround mixes with an Atmos downmix to stereo... Well, then it just looks like a form of copy protection that ties decoding to requiring a new hardware purchase. With Dolby only licensing the decoder to hardware devices at present. But I'm not supposed to say that part out loud.

 

[DrKlahn]

I like Atmos, but it isn't perfect and is certainly problematic for three reasons:
1) Atmos claims listeners can discern the location of a sounding body at an infinite number of locations in a hypothetical sphere about the listener. It cannot.
2) Atmos claims listeners can sense a sounding body moving throughout space accurately about the listeners. It cannot.
3) Atmos has a very small sweetspot and the listener's head must face forward, unmoving.

Does it sound cool? Yes. Do I like it? Yes. Does it do all that's claimed? No, it's problematic.

But you've moved the bar, the initial statement was:

Atmos over speakers is problematic.

Which I disagree with.

I don't think anyone is saying it's perfection. But it and DTS:X are the best spatial audio formats we have so far. And though Atmos is obviously better at the focus point of the room it is enjoyable/convincing outside of that point. Actually more so than 2ch. And several rooms I've experienced, including mine, are able to convincingly move sounds in a "hemisphere of sound". We're not at a holodeck/Matrix level by any means, but it is creating a convincing 3D sound space.

 

[JimofMaine]

Binaural stereo Atmos is Atmos, yes! But it is NOT the surround mix anymore. It's the remains of the surround mix as best as binaural stereo fold down can preserve. And that's more than in the past where the consumer might see the surround version in the store but it needs some weird system they don't have and they never hear any of it. Atmos is not a synonym for surround sound.

If we're going to speculate that 99% of the public will still never listen to full surround sound and will only ever hear surround mixes with an Atmos downmix to stereo... Well, then it just looks like a form of copy protection that ties decoding to requiring a new hardware purchase. With Dolby only licensing the decoder to hardware devices at present. But I'm not supposed to say that part out loud.

You have it backwards. Listening to Atmos over 7.1.4 speakers is a fold-down of the theoretical many hundreds of speakers around the listener. Binaural attempts to propagate to the ears exactly what should be heard.

 

[jimfisheye]

You have it backwards. Listening to Atmos over 7.1.4 speakers is a fold-down of the theoretical many hundreds of speakers around the listener. Binaural attempts to propagate to the ears exactly what should be heard.

Haha. Yeah, 7.1.4 mixes are for plebes! We listen to 100 channel mixes around here! (No... not with speakers... just headphones... yeah...)

 

[JimofMaine]

But you've moved the bar, the initial statement was:

Atmos over speakers is problematic.

Which I disagree with.

I don't think anyone is saying it's perfection. But it and DTS:X are the best spatial audio formats we have so far. And though Atmos is obviously better at the focus point of the room it is enjoyable/convincing outside of that point. Actually more so than 2ch. And several rooms I've experienced, including mine, are able to convincingly move sounds in a "hemisphere of sound". We're not at a holodeck/Matrix level by any means, but it is creating a convincing 3D sound space.

Stereo creates a convincing 3D space. Audio history is full of three-dimensional hyperbole. In fact pull up some old ads and you quickly see the claims match that of Atmos. Is Atmos moving the yardstick forward? Yes. Definitely monetizing it.

I think we agree but are using different words. You say it's not perfect and I say it's problematic the sound doesn't match the claims. Ok so Atmos is not perfect.

 

[DrKlahn]

Stereo creates a convincing 3D space. Audio history is full of three-dimensional hyperbole. In fact pull up some old ads and you quickly see the claims match that of Atmos. Is Atmos moving the yardstick forward? Yes. Definitely monetizing it.

I think we agree but are using different words. You say it's not perfect and I say it's problematic the sound doesn't match the claims. Ok so Atmos is not perfect.

Stereo/2ch can create a convincing soundstage. I've listened to $100k ML Neoliths at the last 2 Mwaves. Incredible? You bet. Do they do what a well setup Atmos system does? No.

You're changing the argument again. Your statement said Atmos over speakers is problematic. It isn't. I'm saying it just hasn't reached holodeck levels of realism, but is the best we have so far and it IS able to create a convincing sphere of 3D sound. Which 2ch does not.

 

[JimofMaine]

Haha. Yeah, 7.1.4 mixes are for plebes! We listen to 100 channel mixes around here! (No... not with speakers... just headphones... yeah...)

Do you see the point? Dolby's selling point is that it does a good job of folding-down to whatever format the listener has. This includes folding down to 7.1.4 from its 118 beds and objects. So it's always folding down, except in one instance: binaural rendering. Binaural is not a fold-down. It's a mathematical equation based off head related transfer functions.

 

[JimofMaine]

Stereo/2ch can create a convincing soundstage. I've listened to $100k ML Neoliths at the last 2 Mwaves. Incredible? You bet. Do they do what a well setup Atmos system does? No.

You're changing the argument again. Your statement said Atmos over speakers is problematic. It isn't. I'm saying it just hasn't reached holodeck levels of realism, but is the best we have so far and it IS able to create a convincing sphere of 3D sound. Which 2ch does not.

So you agree with me? A soundstage is a three-dimensional experience. Just like Atmos. Never said stereo and Atmos sound the same. That's changing the discussion.

 

[DrKlahn]

So you agree with me? A soundstage is a three-dimensional experience. Just like Atmos. Never said stereo and Atmos sound the same. That's changing the discussion.

No, it's continuing your discussion point:

Stereo creates a convincing 3D space

It can create an area where sound exists and moves in a space. It does not have the ability to create the same space and dimensionality as Atmos does.

 

[JimofMaine]

No, it's continuing your discussion point:

Stereo creates a convincing 3D space

It can create an area where sound exists and moves in a space. It does not have the ability to create the same space and dimensionality as Atmos does.

The Op asked for Atmos fails. My point is careful what you say because maybe you're not hearing the mix in the best light. It's very easy to do. I'm a Dolby Atmos mix engineer and have seen colleagues grab non-Atmos headsets thinking they can hear the spatial cues correctly encoded, which you cannot.