Rolling Stones Goats Head Soup Deluxe Edition (with 5.1 & Dolby Atmos mixes!)

[quadtrade]

Oh I totally agree. I have multiple terabytes of files on maybe 10 external drives? I’m not sure of the count! That includes hundreds of conversions. Thanks to you in part. Thank you by the way. I’ve been around here since the Quadbob days. I have most if not all of my music on hard drives except for around 1000 cds. It’s that and getting everything tagged properly on my music server to play via JRIVER on my client to my AVR. I’m retiring at the end of the year, so maybe in another year I will have everything tagged properly to enjoy my digital library. Oh wait, I also have to format properly to play in my RDX.
So when you say skinny way are you suggesting selling everything once ripped?

That is what i have done to about 85%. Kept some dvda and sacd that i would play, not look at. Tape machines are gone. Most lps. Life is complicated enough these days, i just like the fact i dont have to deal with it, pack it, care for it. I can still hear it. Just makes life a lot less clustered. Can i look up some obscure fact about a certain lp. Nope. Rather grow stuff than remember stuff like that. Only so much time.!!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Another story are the height speakers, as there seems to be a bit of everything up there. Even Mick's lead vocal is on the rear height speakers most of the times, mixed with other instruments.

I'm liking the mix at regular surround level, but so far the Atmos is not impressive at all.
But definitely, I'm not missing anything on the rears as Jon and other were pointing out based on the 5.1 downmix. I have the gut feeling that the Blu-ray authoring without the DTS HD track in regular 5.1 is tricking our systems and 7.1 Atmos is not behaving properly if not played on an Atmos native setup.

That's all good info on the Atmos mix, what I'm wondering is how (or if) those heights are object projecting the imaging of band parts like Mick's vocals etc. There's certain things mix wise I'd buy into with ceiling speakers, but it'd need to be spot on perfect for what would seem appropriate for the music, in order for me to do so. But the fact you say a "bit of everything" doesn't seem to bode well, also not sure I'd want all that stuff imaged up near my ceiling if it's not properly mixed into the lower elements. So does it sound like it's object projecting or more ceiling centric?

 

[Steve Schoultz]

That is what i have done to about 85%. Kept some dvda and sacd that i would play, not look at. Tape machines are gone. Most lps. Life is complicated enough these days, i just like the fact i dont have to deal with it, pack it, care for it. I can still hear it. Just makes life a lot less clustered. Can i look up some obscure fact about a certain lp. Nope. Rather grow stuff than remember stuff like that. Only so much time.!!

You are so right on. We are very lucky to possess capabilities to access old quad and new multichannel stuff at our fingertips. We couldn’t imagine this when QQ was a new thing not that long ago. Very thankful to be part of this community.

 

[himey]

Ah, I didn't, but it is set for AUTO which I ass/u/me should handle it. Doesn't Atmos need bitstream?

Your post was about playing FLAC files so that takes Atmos out of the equation considering FLAC's can't do Atmos.

...but to answer your question, yes, Atmos processors need bitstreamed audio to do its thing.

Try changing the auto setting to pcm or bitstream when playing your 7.1 FLAC files and see if your Oppo still locks up.

 

[stereoptic]

Your post was about playing FLAC files so that takes Atmos out of the equation considering FLAC's can't do Atmos.

...but to answer your question, yes, Atmos processors need bitstreamed audio to do its thing.

Try changing the auto setting to pcm or bitstream when playing your 7.1 FLAC files and see if your Oppo still locks up.

Ah!, Thanks for that. I'm pretty sure I tried all combinations of pcm, bitstream, also playing through HDMI and the analogs out on the Oppo but I'll give it another shot.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

So the consensus on the mix appears to be folks with 7.1 Atmos systems like it, everyone else hates it.

It may appear that way to you, it's not the consensus from "everyone".
Some people don't like the mix
IMHO listening with a couple of extra speakers isn't likely to change anybody's mind.

It appears to me that there are a lot of intelligent and well-meaning folks who are confused about how Dolby integrates TrueHD 5.1 into Atmos who are creating anxiety with speculation instead of science.

...I have the gut feeling that the Blu-ray authoring without the DTS HD track in regular 5.1 is tricking our systems and 7.1 Atmos is not behaving properly if not played on an Atmos native setup.

Could someone with deeper knowledge of Atmos for home theater explain this without resorting to gut feeling?
Doesn't pass the "common sense test" for me.

How much time and trouble would it take to re-configure 7.2.4 Atmos down to 5.1 and compare?

I'm sure we can come to a consensus, with all the smart and friendly members here.
I learn something new every day from this place

 

[Daniel John]

My two cents on the mystery of this mix. I'm listening for the first time to the Atmos mix, with 5.1.4 setup. I'm on Dancing with Mr. D and I can attest that the rear speakers are not silent at all. It is true that they may benefit from a couple of dB boost, but I can clearly tell piano, I think rythm guitar and backing vocals on the rears. And the mix at floor level seems to be discreet. On the next song, piano is clearly isolated on the rear speakers and not present anywhere else.
Another story are the height speakers, as there seems to be a bit of everything up there. Even Mick's lead vocal is on the rear height speakers most of the times, mixed with other instruments.
These are just very quick impressions on first listen with ear-close-to-the-speaker method.
I'm liking the mix at regular surround level, but so far the Atmos is not impressive at all.
But definitely, I'm not missing anything on the rears as Jon and other were pointing out based on the 5.1 downmix. I have the gut feeling that the Blu-ray authoring without the DTS HD track in regular 5.1 is tricking our systems and 7.1 Atmos is not behaving properly if not played on an Atmos native setup.

Thanks for the review. Apologies but I'm a bit confused, as per what your describing it seems you're listening to the Atmos mix on an Atmos system. If you have 5.1.4 including height speakers, this is Atmos. Please clarify.

 

[beerking]

I have been listening to my copy of the Dolby Atmos album since Wednesday.

No idea why Giles has messed up the first track!!
The rest of the album gradually expands its use of my height speakers and finishes on a high with the bonus 3 tracks.
Not the most exciting mix in the world but not the worst either.

As an experiment, I have ripped the stereo CD and up mixed it using spec web.
To my ears its far better than the Dolby mix by Giles.
I did baulk when I read he is the mixer, as I'm not a fan of his underwhelming mixing techniques.

Am I going to keep this surround box set from the Stones...you betcha.

I hope we see more surround releases from the Stones.

Just not mixed by Giles.

A great album.

 

[Daniel John]

It may appear that way to you, it's not the consensus from "everyone".
Some people don't like the mix
IMHO listening with a couple of extra speakers isn't likely to change anybody's mind.

It appears to me that there are a lot of intelligent and well-meaning folks who are confused about how Dolby integrates TrueHD 5.1 into Atmos who are creating anxiety with speculation instead of science.



Could someone with deeper knowledge of Atmos for home theater explain this without resorting to gut feeling?
Doesn't pass the "common sense test" for me.

How much time and trouble would it take to re-configure 7.2.4 Atmos down to 5.1 and compare?

I'm sure we can come to a consensus, with all the smart and friendly members here.
I learn something new every day from this place

I think the issue is folks with 5.1 only systems are not just missing a couple of extra speakers, rather because these systems don't support Atmos the mix they are getting is poor. The Atmos mix should be backwards compatible from 7.1 to 5.1 and still provide a good listening experience, very disappointing that this is not the case from what I'm reading. I'm still waiting for mine GHS and I am setup for Atmos, so keeping my fingers crossed. But if the mix is shit, then nothing I can do except send it back.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I don't have this release (thankfully). Nor am I Atmos equipped, and there is plenty I do not understand about how it works.

First to be clear, there is no real 7.2 format. No format thing carries two LFE channels. You can set up a system with multiple subs, and call it 7.2 or 7.4, but its only a single LFE channel being split between the multiple subs.

All that being said, it isn't difficult at all to configure 7.1 into 5.1. Anyone familiar with Audacity can do it. I am unsure of where the Atmos signal resides as there are no separate, discrete height channels. Atmos is done using "metadata". How that metadata unlocks the height info from the remaining 8 channels is the mystery to me.

 

[César]

Thanks for the review. Apologies but I'm a bit confused, as per what your describing it seems you're listening to the Atmos mix on an Atmos system. If you have 5.1.4 including height speakers, this is Atmos. Please clarify.

Yes, it's an Atmos setup, but not a pure Atmos one, let me elaborate a bit more on that in a second.
My post perhaps is a bit confusing as I was trying to describe my listening experience first at ear-height level and then at "ceiling" level. I did that as some people were reporting strange behaviour of the Atmos mix being played on a non-Atmos setup.
Then on pure or non pure Atmos: with only one amplifier, four height speakers and wanting to run Atmos and Auro, I needed to go for the only compatible setup, that it's fine for Auro but not 100% recommended by Atmos. The trade off was to place the rear heights just on top of the rear speakers. In case of this particular mix, this may explain why Mick's lead vocal is also very prominent on the rear heights, if in Atmos it was intended to be heard slightly more towards the front of the room.

 

[César]

That's all good info on the Atmos mix, what I'm wondering is how (or if) those heights are object projecting the imaging of band parts like Mick's vocals etc. There's certain things mix wise I'd buy into with ceiling speakers, but it'd need to be spot on perfect for what would seem appropriate for the music, in order for me to do so. But the fact you say a "bit of everything" doesn't seem to bode well, also not sure I'd want all that stuff imaged up near my ceiling if it's not properly mixed into the lower elements. So does it sound like it's object projecting or more ceiling centric?

Very good question: if we forget about all shades of grey and categorize Atmos mixes either on object based (meaning that you can tell very discreet elements of the mix in the height speakers) or as you say ceiling based (mixes that try to mimic a certain listening environment or fill the full listening sphere with sound), I would say that this particular mix is more of the second category. But please take my opinion very carefully as I only listened to this album once and not until the end.
Just to give you some more examples, I considered discreet Atmos mixes REM's Automatic for the people where you an clearly tell acoustic guitar on the heights, Aelita or even Abbey Road (think of the silver hammer on the heights). Ceiling based mixes can be, for instance, Live in Prague by Hans Zimmer.

 

[Daniel John]

Yes, it's an Atmos setup, but not a pure Atmos one, let me elaborate a bit more on that in a second.
My post perhaps is a bit confusing as I was trying to describe my listening experience first at ear-height level and then at "ceiling" level. I did that as some people were reporting strange behaviour of the Atmos mix being played on a non-Atmos setup.
Then on pure or non pure Atmos: with only one amplifier, four height speakers and wanting to run Atmos and Auro, I needed to go for the only compatible setup, that it's fine for Auro but not 100% recommended by Atmos. The trade off was to place the rear heights just on top of the rear speakers. In case of this particular mix, this may explain why Mick's lead vocal is also very prominent on the rear heights, if in Atmos it was intended to be heard slightly more towards the front of the room.

I have a Sony AVR 4K STR-DN1080 and a 4K BD/SACD/DVD-A player both support Atmos but my configuration is 5.1.2 setup as far as the AVR's system settings goes. I have a typical 5.1 plus two hight speakers that sit on top of my front towers. I can set room ceiling hight for the 2 Atmos speakers and the distance etc as per the other speakers...my other speakers (front towers, rear towers and center) are all set to small to let the sub do its thing. When going to the 7.1 settings on my AVR there is no ability that I'm aware of to set height speakers only extra rear surrounds and don't think this is Atmos? So technically with a 5.1.2 it should be the same as a 7.1 Atmos setup, it's simply the way my Sony AVR interprets the Atmos config.

 

[César]

I have a Sony AVR 4K STR-DN1080 and a 4K BD/SACD/DVD-A player both support Atmos but my configuration is 5.1.2 setup as far as the AVR's system settings goes. I have a typical 5.1 plus two hight speakers that sit on top of my front towers. I can set ceiling hight and the distance etc as per the other speakers...my speakers (front towers, rear towers and center) are all set to small. When going to the 7.1 settings on my AVR there is no ability that I'm aware of to set height speakers only extra rear surrounds and don't think this is Atmos? So technically with a 5.1.2 it should be the same as a 7.1 setup, simply the way my Sony AVR interprets the Atmos config.

I've got a Marantz 7011 and it has got the capability to decode Atmos and Auro and also to configure all height speakers as such. In my case the only decision I had to take was on the physical placement of the speakers.
I re-read your post and now I think I understand what you meant. You should be able to configure the traditional 7.1 with a pair of rear back speakers and the add the height level to get a 7.1.2 system, in case you only keep the front heights. What may happen with your Sony is that it as a limit of channels and once you add the heights it does not give you the option to get more channels at ear level. Just speculating.

 

[Daniel John]

I've got a Marantz 7011 and it has got the capability to decode Atmos and Auro and also to configure all height speakers as such. In my case the only decision I had to take was on the physical placement of the speakers.
I honestly don't know what your Sony is playing in case of Atmos, you might be hearing the rear ear height channels wrongly as height fronts. Is your Sony identifying the Atmos bitstream?

So I don't yet have the new GHS release but when playing Atmos media (music/movies) the AVR detects Atmos correctly. I'm no expert, but not sure how 5.1.2 would not be the same as 7.1 (both configs have an extra set of speakers) where they are placed should not matter except to the listener....

 

[César]

So I don't yet have the new GHS release but when playing Atmos media (music/movies) the AVR detects Atmos correctly.

Just edited my previous post, I hope it addresses your concerns a bit better

 

[~dave~~wave~]

So I don't yet have the new GHS release but when playing Atmos media (music/movies) the AVR detects Atmos correctly. I'm no expert, but not sure how 5.1.2 would not be the same as 7.1 (both configs have an extra set of speakers) where they are placed should not matter except to the listener....

Do you have Abbey Road on blu ray?

 

[Daniel John]

Just edited my previous post, I hope it addresses your concerns a bit better

Thanks, still don't get it and I don't expect you or anyone here to have to explain but much appreciated regardless.

For Atmos the minumum config should be at least 7 speakers (forget the sub for now). So a 7.x is the same as 5.x.2 correct?

 

[Daniel John]

Do you have Abbey Road on blu ray?

No, not a huge Beatles fan, I'm a Stones fan. I don't have any Beatles except on vinyl.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

No, not a huge Beatles fan, I'm a Stones fan. I don't have any Beatles except on vinyl.

No problem, I'll start again.

How Do Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Atmos Differ?

While Dolby Atmos and Dolby TrueHD are two separate soundtrack formats,
Atmos data on Ultra HD Blu-ray is actually an extension to TrueHD that is folded into the bitstream to maintain backwards compatibility.

Here’s how that works:
If you play a disc with an Atmos soundtrack, the Atmos extension data is decoded by an Atmos-compatible receiver.
If your receiver isn’t Atmos compatible, the extension data is ignored and the soundtrack is decoded as regular Dolby TrueHD.


Dolby TrueHD - Wikipedia

Audio encoded using Dolby TrueHD may be transported to A/V receivers in one of three ways depending on player and/or receiver support:[4][5]

• Over 6 or 8 RCA connectors as analog audio, using the player's internal decoder and digital-to-analog converter (DAC).
• Over HDMI 1.1 (or higher) connections as 6 or 8-channel Linear PCM, using the player's decoder and the AV receiver's DAC.
• Over HDMI 1.3 (or higher) connections as the original Dolby TrueHD bitstream encapsulated in MAT[3] (Metadata-Enhanced Audio Transport) frames, with decoding and DAC both done by the AV receiver. Bitstreaming is required for full Dolby Atmos playback.[3]

All Dolby TrueHD-enabled Blu-ray Disc players are capable of decoding the Dolby TrueHD audiotrack to an arbitrary number of channels more suitable for player output.
For example, all Dolby TrueHD-capable players can create a 2-channel (stereo-compatible) mix from a 6-channel source audiotrack.