Post about Atmos benefiting audio engineers but comments are anti-Atmos

[Franck]

Rather interesting take on how this post catalyzed anti-atmos sentiments. It feels like we are in stage 2: anger

What’s your take?

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ashl...1-mjIQ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

 

[madship]

I think that change that creates good honest work for people who need it is great. That it creates something that others love and also provides income for musicians makes it even better,

Remember comments are just opinions, which are basically hemorrhoids. And, you know what they say about hemorrhoids.

 

[LB-V]

I over simplify things. The market will dictate if Atmos is worthy or not. That's regardless of Apple's "push" or what part of the market is happy or unsatisfied. So long as the profit rides on Atmos, it's here to stay, until the profit saturates and the next development is needed.

I kind of lost my interest early in the article with the author's statement:

"Apple Music’s plans to incentivize record labels and artists to mix their music with Dolby Atmos, a format that envelops listeners in sound in an attempt to mimic what a song feels like when performed in-person."

Atmos is not an attempt to mimic what a song feels like in person. That makes no sense on any level. But it's an interesting concept to form an opinion on.

 

[jimfisheye]

I'm as freelance independent as it gets and not in any industry circles. Most clients were indifferent to 5.1 before. Now that indifference comes with even more of a funny look! They all love what they hear. This has always been the case but they still walk away indifferent. You know the drill. Business is still slow in general since the pandemic too. Last time I tried, Dolby wouldn't sell me their Atmos encoder software either because I don't have an approved corporate email they recognize.

So that last bit starts people saying things. Consumers have to buy new hardware or go on a somewhat challenging software expedition. Stereo is still stereo. Sure, you maybe get remnants of a surround mix - if there was one to begin with - folded down to binaural. And that's great and well done! Only the best stereo mixes in the past had things dialed in like that. Yeah, so it's still stereo at the end and that audience is probably thinking "Wait a minute...". This is still net positive but some people aren't going to hear it.

Some of the actual 12 channel surround mixes that are using the system and pushing things are some of the most ambitious audacious mixes I've ever heard in my life! Everyone has to hear this! No one would have anything negative to say from musician to engineer to listener. (Besides maybe "How much did all this cost to do?")

I think we've won already no matter what happens next and 7.1.4 mixes are here to stay. The heavy handed stuff using Atmos as encoded copy protection to sell new hardware and going hard against independents is going to get some comments along the way. Apple is more "push away" than anything these days!

 

[AYanguas]

I over simplify things. The market will dictate if Atmos is worthy or not. That's regardless of Apple's "push" or what part of the market is happy or unsatisfied. So long as the profit rides on Atmos, it's here to stay, until the profit saturates and the next development is needed.

I kind of lost my interest early in the article with the author's statement:

"Apple Music’s plans to incentivize record labels and artists to mix their music with Dolby Atmos, a format that envelops listeners in sound in an attempt to mimic what a song feels like when performed in-person."

Atmos is not an attempt to mimic what a song feels like in person. That makes no sense on any level. But it's an interesting concept to form an opinion on.

This part in the current article describes it a little better:

"""""
“There’s nothing I can do in Atmos to make the song ‘better,’” Lawson said.
“There is no ‘better.’ I can only make it different.”

In Atmos, sounds are placed around or behind the listener rather than in front of them. This, Lawson said, is a key differentiator. Ultimately, if a listener prefers sound in front of them, they likely won’t ever opt for Atmos.
"""""

Although Lawson (or the arfticle's author) forgot the sounds coming from above.

 

[barfle]

I know I live in a bubble, isolated from the great unwashed masses of millenials who “listen to music” on wireless earbuds that seem permanently stuck in their ears. Fine by me.

My setup wasn’t built for them. It was built MY way for MY enjoyment, and the niche market I’m in way well die before I do. I can’t control that. I can only support the music and formats that bring me joy. I’ve been doing that for over 60 years, and with luck I’ll be doing that for 30 more. If I can keep my setup running, the latest release from MC Thugboi in stereo MP3 won’t make me one whit of difference.

Whether the market can support Atmos or RA360 or Whiz-Bang-Top-Superduper-97.6.42.11 isn’t my problem. Marketing can make or break almost anything new and groovy (seen wins and losses there). I’d like to see talented new artists make recordings that take me to places I haven’t been, amaze me, and make me happy, but if the format can’t make it in the market, well, I have a decent collection of music that already makes me happy. Sure, I want more (and I see more here all the time), but I’ve been around long enough to see musicians, bands, labels, manufacturers, and formats die. Some were before I thought they should, but, well, All Things Must Pass.

 

[mandrix]

Especially love that post about "audiophiles" not caring about Atmos. Oh and "everyone" listens on headphones. Well maybe your kids do, Jack, or more likely on their phones.
Well in the main that may be so, and we here are only a drop in the bucket comparatively. That's why it's important we keep buying what we like and supporting those labels and Artists that actually care about what we think. I think at this juncture it's very important we give our (financial) support whether it's Atmos or 4.0 or anything in between. Of course I can not afford everything I want, but I do best I can.

 

[madscot]

LOL at one of the negative comments “Atmos is not the future, most people listen to music on headphones”

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I'd love to see a survey with regard to how many listen to Atmos sources on soundbars and headphones!

 

[Franck]

I'd love to see a survey with regard to how many listen to Atmos sources on soundbars and headphones!

I would be curious to know the listening numbers for each version of Peter Gabriel I/O album. The Atmos version was hard to find first, and his online promo was not mentioning it first and then he started to talk about it. Was that paid by Apple, or he saw the numbers and decided to boost them?

 

[jimfisheye]

The "brochure speak" around this is just weird! That's certainly part of the negative impression. You're not listening to "Atmos". You're listening to someone's mix! It might have been a full 12 channel 7.1.2 mix put into the format or it might only be a stereo mix originally (and possibly upmixed and arguably compromised vs the unmolested stereo original). Or anything in between. If you have fewer speakers than a mix was made with, the Atmos downmix 'engine' folds it down. That's still a compromise! It might be a better downmix than past systems but that's still the compromised example.

Anyone who only listens to stereo or a movie watcher with a soundbar is going to be fuming mad when they discover their fully functional sound system needed to be replaced to decode this new thingy and it was all software spoofing and stereo still sounds exactly the same as it ever did.

So I'm shaking my head in frustration at all that. Screw it though! The mix format is here to stay. There are a handful of some of the most accomplished mixes anyone has ever heard done in the format now. This level of ambition is stunning and amazing to see happen.

 

[madscot]

The "brochure speak" around this is just weird! That's certainly part of the negative impression. You're not listening to "Atmos". You're listening to someone's mix! It might have been a full 12 channel 7.1.2 mix put into the format or it might only be a stereo mix originally (and possibly upmixed and arguably compromised vs the unmolested stereo original). Or anything in between. If you have fewer speakers than a mix was made with, the Atmos downmix 'engine' folds it down. That's still a compromise! It might be a better downmix than past systems but that's still the compromised example.

Anyone who only listens to stereo or a movie watcher with a soundbar is going to be fuming mad when they discover their fully functional sound system needed to be replaced to decode this new thingy and it was all software spoofing and stereo still sounds exactly the same as it ever did.

So I'm shaking my head in frustration at all that. Screw it though! The mix format is here to stay. There are a handful of some of the most accomplished mixes anyone has ever heard done in the format now. This level of ambition is stunning and amazing to see happen.

One of the comments “engineers havent learned to mix in atmos yet, the mixes are very thin and sound no better than stereo or surround”. There speaks an expert who has never heard a proper atmos system

 

[AYanguas]

One of the comments “engineers havent learned to mix in atmos yet, the mixes are very thin and sound no better than stereo or surround”. There speaks an expert who has never heard a proper atmos system

That comment would be completely right if he started with "some". "Some engineers..."

 

[jimfisheye]

One of the comments “engineers havent learned to mix in atmos yet, the mixes are very thin and sound no better than stereo or surround”. There speaks an expert who has never heard a proper atmos system

Or they only heard an originally stereo mix upmixed. Or it was some 'phoned in' mix from someone who doesn't really care about such things. How most "pop" is mixed nowadays. You could line up 100 random CDs and conclude all released music is garbage and the CD format is extreme lo-fi. Sampling bias is what I think I'm trying to say.

Or maybe just some weird disassociation and they actually expected a soundbar to magically reproduce the sound of a full surround speaker array just like the brochure says because it says "Atmos" and they were simply disappointed?

"Some engineers don't know how to mix."
This might be true and simply extend to 12 channel mixes. (And if you struggle with two channels to begin with...) I think most of the lo-fi pop stuff wasn't really fussed over to begin with. The new "artist" wanted to win the popularity contest. The label grabbed some songs they had on hand. Quick overdub with the new talent's vocal. Mutilate that through autotune so it sounds like the same robot voice in all the other songs. Knock the mix out that afternoon. Send it to the "mastering" guy for volume war treatment. It's not that some of the people involved didn't know. They just really didn't care!

Hell, some very highly regarded music was recorded for shit! How about Deep Purple Fireball or In Rock? Just puny mutilated distorted sound, frankly. I guess the exceptional mixes are still exceptional and something to celebrate! 2, 4, 6, or now 12 channels.

 

[AYanguas]

... the exceptional mixes are still exceptional and something to celebrate! 2, 4, 6, or now 12 channels.

I don't want to correct you, neither start any debate.

You always talk about 12 channels or 16 channels. I like better to talk about the Dolby Atmos features of 'objects' that can be any number and be located anywhere.

This way we emphasize the way mixers engineers should approach mixing in Dolby Atmos, instead of thinking about channels. Regardless of the number of speakers the user has.

 

[jimfisheye]

That's the weirdness I'm talking about!

We don't listen to a concept when we mix. We react to the sound on the speaker array we are mixing into. At the end of the day, we aren't conducting a thought exercise with mix objects. We're making a mix!

I really don't want to completely dismiss this system. It's crafty for the compromised downmix scenarios and will ultimately bring a higher level of music listening experience to the lowest common denominator. I just want to argue that mixes as an art form are still the main thing. And if you want to hear what the mix engineer heard when they made it, you set up the same speaker array. This is the main event. That the compromised examples are improved is excellent! I'm just focused on the main event.

The weird focus around the nuts and bolts of the system - the delivery of some mix elements as object data to be rendered at playback - seems more like people using music to demo their sound system instead of using their system to experience music.

 

[Franck]

That's the weirdness I'm talking about!

We don't listen to a concept when we mix. We react to the sound on the speaker array we are mixing into. At the end of the day, we aren't conducting a thought exercise with mix objects. We're making a mix!

I really don't want to completely dismiss this system. It's crafty for the compromised downmix scenarios and will ultimately bring a higher level of music listening experience to the lowest common denominator. I just want to argue that mixes as an art form are still the main thing. And if you want to hear what the mix engineer heard when they made it, you set up the same speaker array. This is the main event. That the compromised examples are improved is excellent! I'm just focused on the main event.

The weird focus around the nuts and bolts of the system - the delivery of some mix elements as object data to be rendered at playback - seems more like people using music to demo their sound system instead of using their system to experience music.

Well, the official mixing format is 7.1.4 and I think this is what Studio format Dolby certifies. So I optimize for that one (well I have a 5.1.4 studio in fact), and then I check that the stereo downmix is not bad, but I don't optimize the 7.1.4 listening experience for the goal of the stereo or any other down-mix. Even speaking of down-mix is misleading, because it si not a down-mix at all, channels are not mixed into other channels. The sound coming from the objects is re-rendered on the fly for the location of the speakers.

 

[sjcorne]

I too prefer @AYanguas' approach to speaking about it because Dolby Atmos isn't just a 'wrapper' for discrete multichannel PCM. It's not like you start with a 12-channel file, then 'convert' it to Atmos like you'd encode a raw 5.1 WAV to DTS-HD or Dolby AC-3. Your DAW feeds the Dolby Renderer during the mix process, which in turn yields an ADM BWF master. This ADM can be mapped to different sized speaker arrays (5.1.2, 7.1.4, 9.1.6, etc), but the master file format is technically "Atmos."

 

[AYanguas]

When mixer 'optimizes' or just check his mix on a 7.1.4 studio, he can miss the opportunity of locating sounds in particular locations. Yes, I'm taking about the Wides in a 9.1.4. This has been the case, mostly, of the Steven Wilson mixes.

Fortunately, there are many Atmos mixes that use the Wide locations for objects, and they reality sound very good to me. I don't know if they have Wide speakers or not in their mixing studio, but they really put objects at the Wide locations.

 

[jimfisheye]

Both 7.1.4 and 9.1.6 are technically considered reference formats by Dolby. A number of higher profile mixers landed on 7.1.4. I literally followed that. Both thinking as a producer and a consumer. And if I mean just a handful of mix engineers I happen to follow and be aware of... well, that could certainly be the case! (And I barely had room for 7.1.4. But I knew there were mixes being made on 7.1.4 rigs and that drove the decision completely.)

This isn't a zero sum game. Don't take the focus on the original mix format as a dis of the standardization that the Atmos system offers. Just don't forget that hearing what the engineer heard on a similar system dialed in well enough is a thing!

Haha. You 9.1.6 and above folks? You need to be aware that you have a bigger setup than most studios and there are truly only a handful of mixes out there that fully utilize your system. You're just gonna have to put up with a lot of 7.1.4 mixes like us plebes.