Universal Music to Remix Thousands of Songs Into Dolby Atmos

[lennon fan]

gosh I feel old....
if others are really jazzed about this Atmos thing, more power and all that but I am not enthused at all about more channels, I thought back years ago that quad was balanced and I didn't like 5.1 because A: I don't use a sub with 32 inch woofers in my fronts already, B: the center channel makes things front centric and it throws the balance off for me. I can accept it but still prefer vintage quad.

 

[himey]

gosh I feel old....
if others are really jazzed about this Atmos thing, more power and all that but I am not enthused at all about more channels, I thought back years ago that quad was balanced and I didn't like 5.1 because A: I don't use a sub with 32 inch woofers in my fronts already, B: the center channel makes things front centric and it throws the balance off for me. I can accept it but still prefer vintage quad.

That is dependent on the mix and rear speakers quality.

 

[4-earredwonder]

gosh I feel old....
if others are really jazzed about this Atmos thing, more power and all that but I am not enthused at all about more channels, I thought back years ago that quad was balanced and I didn't like 5.1 because A: I don't use a sub with 32 inch woofers in my fronts already, B: the center channel makes things front centric and it throws the balance off for me. I can accept it but still prefer vintage quad.

In a perfect world, If one were to utilize four full range floor standing speakers in a QUAD set up, there would theorectically be 6 channels of sound with no need for a sub .... as the front and rear r/l speakers would yield a perfectly rendered phantom front and rear channel.

But space constraints and cost factors eventually favored bookshelf type speakers which naturally needed a sub for deeper bass and the center channel, of course, was a direct correlation to the dialogue channel movie theaters had been utilizing for years in large theater venues to prioritize dialogue ....... but it was NEVER really intended for music which did cause a lot of confusion for remixers who at first didn't know what to do with it other than to isolate vocals.

And even renowned mixing engineer Elliot Scheiner once stated that 5.1 is more than sufficient for rendering music.

And now we have 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1 [or 2] channels of sound to 'play' with which begs the question of whether we're attempting to turn our home environment into cavernous movie emporiums!!!!!

Apparently, 4.0 and 5.1 didn't convince music enthusiasts of a pressing need for more than 2 speakers but out of the blue, because of Dolby's success with Atmos for movie theaters, Dolby and now Universal suddenly feel the urge to 'blast' an already minute niche market with overhead channels thinking this is THE moment we've SUDDENLY all been waiting for.

And like a bevy of QQ posters, I too am skeptical about this latest endeavor. We'd ALL love MORE and MORE [and MORE] Surround remixes but Universal's history [and they're NOT alone] has been one of playing HOPSCOTCH in the surround arena......QS QUAD Vinyl/Q8>DVD~A>SACD>BD~A and now DOLBY ATMOS.

IMO, the ONLY way this new endeavor WILL FLY is if Universal/DOLBY puts someone in charge who knows FULLY WELL what they're doing and not some hacks who will inevitably screw up what conceivably could put surround on the MAP! IMO, Steve Genewick is that step in the right direction and if he can bring in some other talented surround remixers from the vaulted Hollywood Motion Picture sectors who are adept at remixing for ATMOS, Eureka can finally be achieved.

 

[weekendtoy]

And now we have 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1 [or 2] channels of sound to 'play' with which begs the question of whether we're attempting to turn our home environment into cavernous movie emporiums!!!!!

Yes please.

 

[lennon fan]

In a perfect world, If one were to utilize four full range floor standing speakers in a QUAD set up, there were theorectically be 6 channels of sound with no need for a sub .... as the front and rear r/l speakers would yield a perfectly rendered phantom front and rear channel.

But space constraints and cost factors eventually favored bookshelf type speakers which naturally needed a sub for deeper bass and the center channel, of course, was a direct correlation to the dialogue channel movie theaters had been utilizing for years in large theater venues to prioritize dialogue ....... but it was NEVER really intended for music which did cause a lot of confusion for remixers who at first didn't know what to do with it other than to isolate vocals.

And even renowned mixing engineer Elliot Scheiner once stated that 5.1 is more than sufficient for rendering music.

And now we have 7.1, 9.1 and 11.1 [or 2] channels of sound to 'play' with which begs the question of whether we're attempting to turn our home environment into cavernous movie emporiums!!!!!

Apparently, 4.0 and 5.1 didn't convince music enthusiasts of a pressing need for more than 2 speakers but out of the blue, because of Dolby's success with Atmos for movie theaters, Dolby and now Universal suddenly feel the urge to 'blast' an already minute niche market with overhead channels thinking this is THE moment we've SUDDENLY all been waiting for.

And like a bevy of QQ posters, I too am skeptical about this latest endeavor. We'd ALL love MORE and MORE [and MORE] Surround remixes but Universal's history [and they're NOT alone] has been one of playing HOPSCOTCH in the surround arena......QS QUAD Vinyl/Q8>DVD~A>SACD>BD~A and now DOLBY ATMOS.

IMO, the ONLY way this new endeavor WILL FLY is if Universal/DOLBY put someone in charge who knows FULLY WELL what they're doing and not some hacks who will inevitably screw up what conceivably could put surround on the MAP! IMO, Steve Genewick is that step in the right direction and if he can bring in some other talented surround remixers from the vaulted Hollywood Motion Picture sectors who are adept at remixing for ATMOS, Eureka can finally be achieved.

if they downmix to 'traditional' 5.1 for us antiquities that still crank our Victrolas, that would be great and I'd be all for it. If they only offer the Atmos option as the way to get discrete mixes, then no, just no.
while I'm in the odd position of having awesome front speakers that are over 300 pounds each and stand 5 feet high and over 3 feet wide, it is not possible to also have those in the rears, but I do have DBX 5 way speakers w/15 inch woofs in the rears which are very full range and balance surprisingly well with the fronts even though they aren't a complete match....remember, the shape of the ear creates boundaries to the back and it simply doesn't sound the same behind you as in front of you anyway. but the phantom center channel thing is totally there in quad alone.

 

[edisonbaggins]

While 7.1 systems definitely have "rears," your 5.1 surrounds should be around 110°. Your ear shape shouldn't interfere!

 

[wavelength]

if they downmix to 'traditional' 5.1 for us antiquities that still crank our Victrolas, that would be great and I'd be all for it. If they only offer the Atmos option as the way to get discrete mixes, then no, just no.

As long as your BD player has Dolby True HD (and they all do) then Atmos is totally backwards compatible and will downmix when played on a non-Atmos system.

 

[ssully]

That is dependent on the mix and rear speakers quality.

And the calibration of the speaker levels.

 

[bmoura]

If others are really jazzed about this Atmos thing, more power and all that but I am not enthused at all about more channels.

At the end of the day, it depends on the quality of the recording and process to transfer the recording to Surround Sound.

I remember being at an audio show demo of the first 11 channel audio system several years ago (long before the days of Auro3D and Atmos) where the sound was just horrible.
A good reminder that more channels doesn't automatically deliver a better audio experience.

 

[HomerJAU]

As long as your BD player has Dolby True HD

True if it’s an Atmos disc. It’s the Decoder (typically an AVR) that needs to do the processing/decoding without that you can’t (unless the BD player has a Dolby TrueHD Decoder and has analog outs (not that common).

I’m doing Atmos primarily from a files via a Media Player to AVR.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

True if it’s an Atmos disc. It’s the Decoder (typically an AVR) that needs to do the processing/decoding without that you can’t (unless the BD player has a Dolby TrueHD Decoder and has analog outs (not that common).

I’m doing Atmos primarily from a files via a Media Player to AVR.

And that's the rub...I would guess more streaming for the music applications...the Atmos movies could last a little longer on disc...but how much longer is anyone's guess...

 

[HomerJAU]

In a perfect world, If one were to utilize four full range floor standing speakers in a QUAD set up, there would theorectically be 6 channels of sound with no need for a sub .... as the front and rear r/l speakers would yield a perfectly rendered phantom front and rear channel.

This is exactly what the Atmos/DTS:X object codecs are doing. The 3D array of speakers (5..1.2, 7.1.4 etc) allows any specific sound (e.g instrument) to by recreated anywhere within the 3D array by ‘phantoming’ between a number of speaker, not just between adjacent speaker (the centre in Stereo) but any position. The mixer adds that info during mixing.

It’s an entirely different approach to mixing. The mixing is not to a specific speaker, it’s to a specific position in 3D space. Based on your room’s speaker configuration (number and location) the AVR will reproduce the original mixers intended sound location within your 3D speaker array.

 

[markshan]

I still stand in amazement that an announcement like this is met largely with complaints... HERE. Is it any wonder the labels don't spend more time and money on surround if this is a representation of the core market?

 

[4-earredwonder]

I still stand in amazement that an announcement like this is met largely with complaints... HERE. Is it any wonder the labels don't spend more time and money on surround if this is a representation of the core market?

I think if you 'read between the lines' a lot of us are THRILLED that a 'launch' of this magnitude is imminent ....... there's just a 'healthy dose of skepticism' that with Universal's past record this cornucopia won't last. Perhaps DOLBY's involvement will help steer a more positive...and enduring course.

 

[markshan]

I think if you 'read between the lines' a lot of us are THRILLED that a 'launch' of this magnitude is imminent ....... there's just a 'healthy dose of skepticism' that with Universal's past record this cornucopia won't last. Perhaps DOLBY's involvement will help steer a more positive...and enduring course.

I've seen people saying they must be upmixes in spite of nothing being given to indicate that. I see people complaining that they will have to be hack mixes because there aren't enough capable engineers to even undertake such a project. I see people complaining that they will have to get new gear and that they aren't 5.1. I see old quad guys complaining that they don't need no stinkin' subwoofer. I see people complaining about which multis are and aren't available (as if anything can be done about that now). I see very little excitement at this possibly wonderful development. That's not "between the lines" that's what is being stated plainly.

What do you see that I'm missing?

 

[4-earredwonder]

I've seen people saying they must be upmixes in spite of nothing being given to indicate that. I see people complaining that they will have to be hack mixes because there aren't enough capable engineers to even undertake such a project. I see people complaining that they will have to get new gear and that they aren't 5.1. I see old quad guys complaining that they don't need no stinkin' subwoofer. I see people complaining about which multis are and aren't available (as if anything can be done about that now). I see very little excitement at this possibly wonderful development. That's not "between the lines" that's what is being stated plainly.

What do you see that I'm missing?

Probably, markshan, based mostly on that diastrous 2008 fire which destroyed 500,000 master tapes ...... but what I derived from the Steve Genewick 'guided tour' of the new Capitol Records ATMOS~equipped Studio endeavor was a LOT of new ATMOS remixes minted from fresh new multitracks from current artists and not just older multis. Which, IMO, would make sense if millennials are factored in as potential customers.

I have always rallied for TOP 40 artists to be represented by fresh new surround remixes and felt the lack of current fare has relegated the format to its current status as a niche market. The Universal/Atmos endeavor has factored that ommision into its objective ......among those thousands of Atmos remixes will be NEW artists which WILL inevitably attract NEW surround enthusiasts.

And inevitably, markshan, it really doesn't matter what a few QQ posters think........ it's mostly a DONE DEAL and I, for one, cannot wait for what I hope to be the biggest surround THRUST EVER!

 

[markshan]

Well, me too. My point was only a reaction to the reception the news has received here.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

While 7.1 systems definitely have "rears," your 5.1 surrounds should be around 110°. Your ear shape shouldn't interfere!

I think your ear shape interferes with sound from every direction. There is an easy way to see this for yourself. As you listen to something simply cup your hand, or even something smaller, around your ear. Tug at your earlobe maybe. Bend your ear forward a bit. You'll easily hear the difference. How meaningful or substantial the result is, well that's much more debatable.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I think your ear shape interferes with sound from every direction. There is an easy way to see this for yourself. As you listen to something simply cup your hand, or even something smaller, around your ear. Tug at your earlobe maybe. Bend your ear forward a bit. You'll easily hear the difference. How meaningful or substantial the result is, well that's much more debatable.

Well, maybe we don't quite agree what "interfere" means, in this case. Your ears are there for a reason, presumably a good one. Intentional interference, guidance, amplification? Not sure. I wonder how the world would sound with just holes on the sides of our heads. Maybe unfocused?
My point was, if you have your surrounds set according to specs, your ear should not be directly blocking the sound wave.
I suspect that many listeners have their surrounds set way further back than intended though. More like a quad angle, perhaps.

 

[fredblue]

Well, me too. My point was only a reaction to the reception the news has received here.

tbh i've largely kept out of all the Atmos discussions at QQ, mainly because i don't have Atmos and can't see me being able to easily squeeze it into my shoebox of a room anytime soon.. but its been kinda depressing to see all the negativity towards the new Atmos music announcement, from the very people that should be lapping it up - us!

new surround music in any form can only be a good thing surely!? its a real reason to be cheerful about our surround music hobby (beyond the improbable but incredible Quad revival we're witnessing due to Vocalion etc) that the industry appears to be having another go at cracking surround music, despite previous attempts from Quad to 5.1 maybe not doing as well as the labels, manufacturers etc might've hoped in days gone by, they're giving it another go with Atmos, which has got to be something to applaud and welcome rather than rubbishing the whole venture before its even got off the ground! oh well... time will tell but even if i never go Atmos i hope for the good of surround music generally we get some great new music in the format and its a runaway success! bring on the Atmos! i'm not geared up but i'm ready!