Dolby Atmos® FAQ

[AYanguas]

Ok needed are the master tapes. But why are referring many users from this forum to the quad releases forty years ago? Only because they are member a long time of this forum?
And I must confess I had never heard before about Quad, only now in this last years because of Dolby Atmos. Listening to surround I do for about 15 years.

Quad mixing (only 4 speakers 4.0) was done for many releases about the first half of 1970's. They were released under different formats (either matrixed encoded in two stereo channels or discrete 4 channels) using different kind of media: Quadraphonic Vinyls, 8-track cartridges, 4 track reel to reel tapes.

Artistically, some quads were not so good, nor balanced immersive, but some many others were really good, immersive and/or discrete.

The problem with modern equipment is that almost none of us are able to play the old media, if available. Not having the right decoders, No tape machines, etc.

That's why we talk sometimes that is very interesting that some labels do transfer and release the old authentic Quad mixes from the 1970's to modern media like DVD/Bluy-ray that can be played on almost everybody modern Surround Equipment. Of course, the Quad mix engaging only 4 speakers, No Center, No LFE in a typical 5.1 system.

Even, some few Quad mixes have been released now using Dolby Atmos (as the vehicle) in streaming platforms like Tidal or Apple Music. Again, with only content for the four speakers.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Nice to hear this explanation many thanks.

Many of those quad releases are well worth seeking out. They can often produce a better surround experience than many Atmos mixes can.

 

[par4ken]

I can not find my answer on what is in my mind. When I read this forum every time I see members talking about quad audio releases in the past, and if the masters tape still exist, because that’s is a requirement? To get in these days a Dolby Atmos mix of that release. Why is that so important?

That is because the Quad releases were often so, so good! Many modern mixes are not immersive enough for many of us. Give me the quad mix first! They were much less encumbered by "mixing rules" so were more creative and not afraid to try "new things"! Modern mixes often just put ambience in the rear.

 

[himey]

That is because the Quad releases were often so, so good! Many modern mixes are not immersive enough for many of us. Give me the quad mix first! They were much less encumbered by "mixing rules" so were more creative and not afraid to try "new things"! Modern mixes often just put ambience in the rear.

I have been more impressed with Atmos mixes than I ever was with Quad. Both formats have their share of duds, but the best Atmos mixes are far more impressive than the best quads. The one exception is the A Space In Time quad mix. As great as TDSOTM quad mix is, the Atmos mix is better.

 

[mandrix]

My senior project in college was to invent dirt.

It was a success!

 

[Sal1950]

I have been more impressed with Atmos mixes than I ever was with Quad. Both formats have their share of duds, but the best Atmos mixes are far more impressive than the best quads. The one exception is the A Space In Time quad mix. As great as TDSOTM quad mix is, the Atmos mix is better.

It's all in the SQ of the mix.
I mostly prefer a mix with active surround channels and when all else is equal, I love the extra dimensionality a Atmos mix is capable of. For 40+ years, good Quad recordings have been the joy
of my listening experience. 5.1 added really nothing extra there, helping only to cement the dialog to the center on movies. But the height information added by Atmos gives the artist and engineers an
extra 3D effect to add to his audio painting.

 

[AYanguas]

My question was about the claim that a quad source is upmixed by 'Atmos Upmixing'. As far as I know, 'Atmos Upmixing" is just DSU for an Atmos speaker configuration, and as in my experience DSU does NOT upmix 3.0 or 4.0 to more channels, I was wondering if my knowledge is incorrect.

(Also, my 4.0 mixes all now have a silent C channel, so, it would be hard to tell if they are actually upmixed. If anyone else has used DSU to upmix 4.0 to 5.x or 7.x, I'd like to know)

In my Denon , DSU do upmix a 4.0 source (multichannel input FLAC 4.0). It sends content to the surround backs and also to the Sides and Tops. Curiously, it does not send any content to the Center, at least in a quick test I did.

If the Quad mix is contained in a 5.1 format, such as DTS, with Center and LFE silent, then DSU will act as upmixing 5.1. With some restrictions, I think to remember, DTS do not have the option of DTS + DSU, but it has DTS+Auro3D.

At the begining I was eager of listening as much as speakers as possible, and I did always engage the DSU option for 4.0 or 5.1 sources. But now, I really prefer to leave it as the original surround, without upmixing, because it sounds much clearer. The DSU upmix, although it can add a little immersion, it usually blur the sound, and sometimes you lose a little discrete.

But for Stereo sources, I use always DSU or Auro-3D.

 

[mandrix]

I don't need no stinkin' upmixing. Never sounds all that good to me.
I always turn it off if the option exists.
Was kind of cool in the days of the old Quad AVR's for stereo sources.
Note that I know a lot of people like their Auro3D upmixing, I don't have that capability so an unknown to myself.

 

[Sal1950]

Choice, it's a beautiful thing.
Just to be clear, my Denon X4700H can handle straight quad files in one of 8 or more ways
Selected as Pure or Pure Direct they will be passed along to the 4 channels without any modifications.

They can be selected as "Multi Channel In" which will activate Audyssey and it's DRC of base management for your subwoofers if you should have them and all the rest.

You can then also chose any one of the upsampling options from Dolby, DTS, Auro3D or 2D, Multichannel Stereo, etc, etc, etc. It can get a bit overwhelming. For me I mostly chose"Multi Channel In" for straight quad + the Audyessy DRC management of my speakers and 2 subwoofers.
YMMV

 

[mandrix]

After a long winded explanation, I decided to delete and shelve it for one thought:
However one likes to listen to music, whether it's out of an old radio or a 200K system, is fine with me.
But I still don't need no stinkin' AVR upmixes! lol. Choice is good indeed.

 

[MidiMagic]

I want to hear the music as it was intended to be played. I want to be able to play it in the system it was recorded in - DY, DQ, EV, QS, SQ, DS and others.

But I also like to do ambience recovery from live recordings.

This is why I want all of the old systems too. But equipment makers don't want us to play our old recordings correctly. They want us to buy new copies of the recordings to play on the new equipment, or they want us to listen to fake upmixes.

 

[barfle]

Sometimes, the “producer’s intention” is a dud, or perhaps just unpleasant to my ears. So it’s (again, sometimes) nice to have an opportunity to fiddle with stuff. Sure, when I first listen to something, I play it straight, but maybe it needs some of those screechy (by the producer’s intent) guitars need to be toned back a touch, or the mids brought forward a bit more, or maybe it needs to go to 11.

 

[mrcond]

Choice, it's a beautiful thing.
Just to be clear, my Denon X4700H can handle straight quad files in one of 8 or more ways
Selected as Pure or Pure Direct they will be passed along to the 4 channels without any modifications.

They can be selected as "Multi Channel In" which will activate Audyssey and it's DRC of base management for your subwoofers if you should have them and all the rest.

You can then also chose any one of the upsampling options from Dolby, DTS, Auro3D or 2D, Multichannel Stereo, etc, etc, etc. It can get a bit overwhelming. For me I mostly chose"Multi Channel In" for straight quad + the Audyessy DRC management of my speakers and 2 subwoofers.
YMMV

I use "Direct" mode almost exclusively as that delivers the best sound to me in my room. My room is sort of "dead" sounding so not a lot of reverb to tame so I have not found Audyssey to be beneficial. Even in Direct mode, you can still do some degree of bass management by setting the crossovers for your speakers manually. In my dual subwoofer setup, I have Subwoofer Mode set to "LFE+Main", the the front speakers set to "Large" with crossover set to 40 Hz, and the rest of my speakers set to "Small" with crossover at 80 Hz. I believe this means there may be some doubling of very low frequencies between the front speakers and the subs, but after much tweaking I like how it sounds, the bass is nice and deep and tight on all kinds of recordings, and the results look reasonably good when measured with REW and a UMIK-1 mic.

Sorry if this strays off topic - not specifically Atmos-related, so mods, feel free to move this to an appropriate thread if necessary.

 

[Tres Discrete]

My senior project in college was to invent dirt.

Oh, yeah young fella? My senior project in college was to invent senior projects

 

[mandrix]

I use "Direct" mode almost exclusively as that delivers the best sound to me in my room. My room is sort of "dead" sounding so not a lot of reverb to tame so I have not found Audyssey to be beneficial. Even in Direct mode, you can still do some degree of bass management by setting the crossovers for your speakers manually. In my dual subwoofer setup, I have Subwoofer Mode set to "LFE+Main", the the front speakers set to "Large" with crossover set to 40 Hz, and the rest of my speakers set to "Small" with crossover at 80 Hz. I believe this means there may be some doubling of very low frequencies between the front speakers and the subs, but after much tweaking I like how it sounds, the bass is nice and deep and tight on all kinds of recordings, and the results look reasonably good when measured with REW and a UMIK-1 mic.

Sorry if this strays off topic - not specifically Atmos-related, so mods, feel free to move this to an appropriate thread if necessary.

I use Direct mode exclusively as well. My corner speakers are identical, but Dirac Live sets the fronts at 40 Hz and the rears at 60 Hz. Works out, though. I use a sub as well. The Queen size bed is my "bouncy sound" absorber. LOL!

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

....For the folks who haven't the care or don't feel a need to understand Atmos technically, I agree it's just a word with a myriad of connotations.

I would say that describes most people & that's why I said what I said. Everyone basically knows what a 5.1 mix is and that you need a 5.1 system to hear it as it was intended.

I think I understand what the intent is here, but not sure why or how others listen to, or perceive Atmos is important or why it would draw our ire?

Apologies if I missed your point. I do have a hard time understanding a general criticism of Atmos when it is currently driving a surge of multi-channel listening opportunities...it's an extraordinary time for surround sound...

As much as the surround-sound community might love the latest surge in Atmos streaming, the vast majority of people who do stream music and encounter Atmos mixes don't really "get it", don't have the proper system to fully appreciate it, and I have increasingly seen a growing disdain amongst professional mixers who feel that the push from Apple and the industry to mass-produce Atmos mixes now is illogical and unjustifiably expensive, ...& is partly the reason for many of the low-effort Atmos mixes. The industry is pushing quantity over quality and in my opinion that will ultimately end up hurting the all-encompassing brand of "Atmos".

In my opinion, if "Atmos" hadn't became this buzzword that has a "myriad of connotations" and ultimately ended up being streamed through headphones more often than surround systems, then perhaps we would see less quantity but more quality surround mixes.

 

[mandrix]

I would say that describes most people & that's why I said what I said. Everyone basically knows what a 5.1 mix is and that you need a 5.1 system to hear it as it was intended.


As much as the surround-sound community might love the latest surge in Atmos streaming, the vast majority of people who do stream music and encounter Atmos mixes don't really "get it", don't have the proper system to fully appreciate it, and I have increasingly seen a growing disdain amongst professional mixers who feel that the push from Apple and the industry to mass-produce Atmos mixes now is illogical and unjustifiably expensive, ...& is partly the reason for many of the low-effort Atmos mixes. The industry is pushing quantity over quality and in my opinion that will ultimately end up hurting the all-encompassing brand of "Atmos".

In my opinion, if "Atmos" hadn't became this buzzword that has a "myriad of connotations" and ultimately ended up being streamed through headphones more often than surround systems, then perhaps we would see less quantity but more quality surround mixes.

In the streaming world, this is true. Fortunately we have good mixers turning out Atmos BD's. If we're lucky, we get something on the streamers like the Grateful Dead's live EU tour, which was pretty damn good. IMO.

Has this community ever been, from it's inception, about the majority? I think not.
Not criticizing your points, I get it my friend.
In the end, I say give me well mixed Atmos from the likes of Wilson, Soord, et al and I'm pretty happy. The streamers will rise or fall on their own merits.

 

[sjcorne]

In my opinion, if "Atmos" hadn't became this buzzword that has a "myriad of connotations" and ultimately ended up being streamed through headphones more often than surround systems, then perhaps we would see less quantity but more quality surround mixes.

If headphone compatibility wasn't part of the spec, you would not see any major label support for this initiative.

 

[Sal1950]

If headphone compatibility wasn't part of the spec, you would not see any major label support for this initiative.

Very true, that's what the major propelling force is. But it's the main form of listening by the younger generations.
Just like music productions since the beginning of time, the majority are constrained by costs. Some are great, incredible even, but mostly compromised in some way and could be better. So I find it very hard to criticize most anything going on in the streaming world or whatever. We're getting as many new multich releases in a month are we were in a decade, ten years ago.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Applaud the really great stuff and mostly ignore the mediocrity, there's really nothing new there anyway.

 

[ssully]

In my Denon , DSU do upmix a 4.0 source (multichannel input FLAC 4.0). It sends content to the surround backs and also to the Sides and Tops. Curiously, it does not send any content to the Center, at least in a quick test I did.

Could you check a few things?

First, play a few true 4.0 (no silent channels) source, without DSU. Does your Denon show 'stereo' or 'Mch In'? (or you can press the 'info' button on the remote, and see which input channels are active).

Please let me know what 4.0 tracks you played, so I can try to replicate

Last, can you tell me what model # your DenonAVR is, and/or how old it is?

If the Quad mix is contained in a 5.1 format, such as DTS, with Center and LFE silent, then DSU will act as upmixing 5.1. With some restrictions, I think to remember, DTS do not have the option of DTS + DSU, but it has DTS+Auro3D.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In my experience 4.0 audio in a 5.1 container (i.e., having only silence in C and LFE tracks) will simply play silence from the C and LFE (unless bass management is on, in which case 4 channels of bass is routed to the 'subwoofer' out). It can only be 'upmixed' by DSU to added back/side speakers, e.g. to 7.0

What I *do* observe is that my current Denon sees 4.0 as 2.0**, in which case turning DSU 'on' produces 'upmixed' output from all 5 main channels, just as it would for any stereo source. Doesn't sound good, though.

None of the 3.0 tracks I own (Mercury Living Presence) will play as true 3.0. There are seen/played as 'stereo' unless I add 'silent' LFE/back channels.

I'm using a AVRX3300W, all tracks are ripped from discs, and played via foobar2k/WASAPI/HDMI.


**unless the two rear channels are formatted as 'SL and SR' rather than 'BL' and 'BL'. Then the Denon does see a 4 channel 'Mch In' signal, and DSU can be activated on top of it. Unfortunately I have so far only found a single, unofficial, quad release that uses SL/SR rather than BL/BR formatting.