Is It Atmos?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

humprof

Junior Senior
QQ Supporter
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
6,300
Location
NoCal
I'm still occasionally mystified by what both producers and mixers--never mind record labels and ill-informed music writers--mean when they talk about "mixing for Atmos."

For instance: take this article from Stereophile about the San Francisco Symphony's recent recording of Henry Brant's "Ice Field": Brant's piece would seem to be uniquely well suited for Atmos, with instruments literally placed all around the concert hall and reaching the listener's ear from all directions. And indeed, says engineer Jack Vad: "We just couldn't get it to work in 5.1, 7.1, or 2-channel—it was a mess. The only way this recording has worked musically for us is in an Atmos presentation." Only the recording they released--and Stereophile's writer just can't get over how cool he thinks this is--doesn't require any special playback equipment other than an ordinary pair of stereo headphones. Well, that's because the recording is not Atmos; it's binaural!

So I don't get it. I mean, I think I understand that when you're mixing in Atmos, you can encode the master instrument-placement metadata using a binaural rendering mode (see Section 16) for purposes of Dolby AC-4 "immersive stereo" playback (or, in some cases, for in-studio monitoring). Engineers: tell me if I've got that wrong, or if I'm expressing it wrong. But why would you go to all the trouble of mixing something in Atmos if "immersive" or binaural stereo is the only format you're going to release it in? Why not release it in Atmos, fer godssakes!

By the way: if you've got Amazon Prime Music, you can stream this binaural version of "Ice Field" in 320k mp3 (presumably Amazon HD streams it at a higher bitrate). It's also available to purchase in 48/24 FLAC from all the hi-res providers. Cheapest I've seen it is $5.99 on Qobuz. It's a great piece. But it's not in Atmos.
 
Last edited:
says engineer Jack Vad: "We just couldn't get it to work in 5.1, 7.1, or 2-channel—it was a mess. The only way this recording has worked musically for us is in an Atmos presentation."

oh oh....bullshit alert!!!

I honestly can't tell if they're bullshitting or if they're genuinely confused about what they're doing. Jack Vad has produced plenty of great-sounding multichannel recordings for MTT & the SFSO, so he should know better. But why advertise something as Atmos when it's not?

Dolby itself seems to be encouraging this confusion by releasing all kinds of psychoacoustically "immersive" crap for Alexa--not that different from Sony's 360 Reality Audio--and calling it "Atmos." In fact, in this video (which is embedded in the SFS Media page for "Ice Field"), Dolby gives the impression that that's just what Atmos is--prompting one commenter to ask: "so Dolby Atmos is binaural audio with trademark?"
 
Last edited:
I honestly can't tell if they're bullshitting or if they're genuinely confused about what they're doing. Jack Vad has produced plenty of great-sounding multichannel recordings for MTT & the SFSO, so he should know better. But why advertise something as Atmos when it's not? Dolby itself seems to be encouraging this confusion by releasing all kinds of psychoacoustically "immersive" crap for Alexa--not that different from Sony's 360 Reality Audio--and calling it "Atmos."
Here is my two penneth

I reckon they are being paid handsomely to produce whatever and call it an Atmos release.
Yep cynical to think like that but plenty of examples of drug manufacturers claiming black is white and getting er...respected boffins to support them.

I fear this Atmos terminology is being used purely for marketing reasons with no surround content at all, in any release.
How can it, when its designed to be played through non surround equipment or streaming.

Please, Please let me be wrong.
 
It's a binaural recording, mixed on headphones, from what I've heard.
Haven't looked at the Stereophile article to see if they are claiming otherwise.
 
says engineer Jack Vad: "We just couldn't get it to work in 5.1, 7.1, or 2-channel—it was a mess. The only way this recording has worked musically for us is in an Atmos presentation."

oh oh....bullshit alert!!!

I'm not equipped for ATMOS and really have no plans to but I always read the movie reviews at Blu Ray.com with a keen interest in the surround aspect of the discs. Seems Disney is a major ATMOS offender with 90% of their 'efforts receiving low marks and of course some are 'reference quality ....' actually few and far between

BTW, I'm sure we're all wondering if Steve Wilson will ever remix for ATMOS. Now, that would be interesting!

And how long before Dark Side of the Moon receives an ATMOS remix?
 
Last edited:
It's a binaural recording, mixed on headphones, from what I've heard.
Haven't looked at the Stereophile article to see if they are claiming otherwise.

They are, yeah: in Stereophile, on the SFS Media page touting the album, on the distributor's page for the album--pretty much everywhere. (Although the digital track itself is titled "Ice Field (Binaural Edition).") In the promotional film below, you can see that they do indeed seem to be mixing in Atmos (even though the piece wasn't recorded specifically with Atmos in mind), and at 5:50 Vad marvels at their ability to do "not only an Atmos production but also a binaural representation of it" (my emphasis). So again, my question: why are they muddying the waters? If they prepared a true Atmos version, then why are they selling the "binaural representation of it" and calling it Atmos, rather than giving us the real hot item?

 
Last edited:
It's a binaural recording, mixed on headphones, from what I've heard.
It was recorded in ATMOS but it has not (yet) been released in that format but only released so far in the binaural rendering.
So I don't get it. I mean, I think I understand that when you're mixing in Atmos, you can encode the master instrument-placement metadata using a binaural rendering mode (see Section 16) for purposes of Dolby AC-4 "immersive stereo" playback (or, in some cases, for in-studio monitoring). Engineers: tell me if I've got that wrong, or if I'm expressing it wrong. But why would you go to all the trouble of mixing something in Atmos if "immersive" or binaural stereo is the only format you're going to release it in? Why not release it in Atmos, fer godssakes!
At the recent AES-NY, I had the opportunity to experience it in full ATMOS and it was spectacular. I hope so.
 
Back
Top