Streaming Atmos: Do you lose any fidelity with a Tidal Atmos stream compared to a Blu-ray Atmos?

[jimfisheye]

It really is all about caring about the music. Something I like? Of course I want the best seats in the house (Atmos)! Don't care? Well, I don't really care if I even hear it! Atmos. Mono. From the bathroom. Parking lot. All good.

On the other hand it's kind of decadent to hear something in full glory even if it's low interest. Since it was only going to be heard once anyway.

 

[sjcorne]

It is definitely great being able to hear how an Atmos mix sounds before purchasing an expensive deluxe edition just to get the Blu-Ray (it wasn’t so long ago that you had to take a chance on a big box to hear the surround mix).

Quite a few of my favorite Atmos mixes remain streaming-exclusive (Grateful Dead, Tori Amos, etc) and I’m certainly glad to have them up on Apple Music rather than non-existent.

 

[quicksrt]

I actually believe it does matter, but for different reasons.
I think the suits are watching to see if the can lose physical optical disc and just go with streaming so they no longer have to invest in physical media. Just my theory though.

I would think that they are watching the numbers and seeing if they can have streaming income while still soaking the collectors with physical releases as well.
I think we've seen the decline of CDs and the leveling off of everything else and come now to where we are as a music market. It's collectibles, limited runs until it sells out quick and another fast pressing run if need be, and priced accordingly. Look at the Rhino site, so much colored vinyl, picture discs, big box sets, surround mixes in a few formats, nice deluxe 3LP sets with outtakes and a live platter included. Lot of physical product being released - which appears limited until it ain't. But it's an exciting time for physical media in a sense.

 

[marpow]

I have all the equipment to listen to all high quality and low quality digital recordings, no analogue (record LP's) recordings in my collection.
I appreciate the push for surround sound with Tidal and my go to Apple. I have a large library of Atmos Apple recordings saved, while they are still there, sometimes they leave.
My problem, is call it placebo or whatever but when a version is both on streaming and physical, I can hear the difference and prefer the latter.
I have no regrets of my home rig, I rip everything, I read everything, standalones to box sets.
I envy people that are able to go back and forth, but I just prefer what is mine, that I know intimately, to stick with my own purchased music.
I am aware of some examples of stellar streamed ATMOS versions, American Beauty, etc, but I just can't seem to go back and forth, some kind of block I have.
My home style with my JRiver and all my zones, filtersets, volume levelling, etc just keeps me locked into my physical world.
I have spent a lot of time improving my home listening experience over the years, and have been successful in my improving ventures. The physical format (includes digital downloads from quality companies) is specifically designed for a listener such as myself and I feel it is well appreciated by me. The streaming is for the sound bars, the casual listener, headphone spatial audio listener.

There are very few people on QQ that I know, that are streaming surround only, never to buy again.

I like everything and listen to everything, but is always mood based for me. Surround in any format 4.0, 5.1, Atmos is a mood, just like jazz or rock is a mood. Sometimes with surround, I am not in the mood to listen to an immersive setting, and I go for days while preferring stereo and vice versa.

I am very appreciative for the physical format as that is for me and compliments the energy I have spent in creating the listening environment for physical and lossless downloadable media.

Not trying to sway or debate anyone, just happy to be a small part of the conversation, but to answer the question of this thread, yes, I do lose fidelity, sonic bliss, 99 out of a 100 times, streaming vs physical and so far I have not been swayed to give up buying physical discs and lossless surround downloads.

 

[MrSmithers]

Wondering if anyone has compaired a Tidal Atmos streamed cut to a Blu-ray Atmos of the same? Do you lose any fidelity while streaming?

Yes there's a big difference and the lossy DD+ stream at 768kbps sounds much worse. Quite tinny and hollow by comparison.

Of course it's far better than having no Atmos mix available at all but the point is there really is no need for the data to be compressed to that level today... The codec even allows a bitrate up to 1664 kbps and your normal Netflix video stream would be in excess of this. There's no harm in allowing for a buffer before you play content either.

When listening to a similar 1600 kbps bitrate with MPEG-H content - it's a far more acceptable level and closer match to lossless.

Hopefully someday we get a better streaming bitrate...

 

[perzon57]

Yes, I can hear the difference but it's not so much that it bother me, and tinny and hollow is nothing I hear on my modest setup. Maybe it's good not to have a super rig.

 

[ar surround]

Yes, I can hear the difference but it's not so much that it bother me, and tinny and hollow is nothing I hear on my modest setup. Maybe it's good not to have a super rig.

You are so right. That Parasound P7 preamp that you and I own is a low-fi piece of crap, just a notch below an AM transistor radio.

Not trying to sway or debate anyone, just happy to be a small part of the conversation, but to answer the question of this thread, yes, I do lose fidelity, sonic bliss, 99 out of a 100 times, streaming vs physical and so far I have not been swayed to give up buying physical discs and lossless surround downloads.

Mark, streaming compressed Atmos on a rig of your stature is heresy. I mean, you're a McIntosh man for heaven's sake.

 

[perzon57]

You are so right. That Parasound P7 preamp that you and I own is a low-fi piece of crap, just a notch below an AM transistor radio.


Mark, streaming compressed Atmos on a rig of your stature is heresy. I mean, you're a McIntosh man for heaven's sake.

Unfortunately my P7 gave up on me some years ago and I could not get it repaired Loved that pre. Now I'm driving my Halo amps from a Denon AVC.

 

[jimfisheye]

This stuff is all relative. It doesn't just sound like a little transistor radio in the corner of the room. It kind of needs to be some music you care about and you want "good seats" for to begin with. If you can A/B between lossless and lossy you will readily hear it. It's well outside of perception bias.

But maybe your friend's system or your 2nd system in the other room sounds worse still even with lossless. This will be relative like that. Or maybe akin to using the slower speed on a vcr? Having said that, there is a style of compression like that of lower bit rate mp3 with truncated high end and a compression that erases natural transients.

If it's an artist you really like or maybe even just a level of high fidelity you are used to having put effort into a system... there are just things you wouldn't do for no reason. A visual analogy might be: You would watch Wizard of Oz on a smaller color screen before a larger black and white screen. In a similar vein, you might prefer streaming 24 bit lossless stereo before lossy Atmos. It crosses the line a little where it's a little weird that this was decided to be OK.

Just casual listening and especially the ear bud and soundbar audience is none the wiser. There are some brutal tinny volume war CDs out there. There are going to be some lossy streaming Atmos mixes that end up still being a huge fidelity improvement over some of those. There's just all kinds of permutations of this stuff and at least 27 major ways to screw something up!

 

[nickleb474]

768kbps is too low for that number of channels. If they'd double the bit rate I think it would sound a lot better and probably be indistinguishable from the lossless to most people. What they're currently using is akin to 128kbps MP3.

128kbps is spread over 2 channels though. So 768kbps over 6 channels is actually akin to 256kbps over 2. IMO that is enough bitrate for transparency.

 

[sjcorne]

So 768kbps over 6 channels is actually akin to 256kbps over 2. IMO that is enough bitrate for transparency.

Sure, if you listen to DD+/JOC encoded audio in 5.1 I agree it sounds pretty good. But in 7.1.4, the rear surround and height channels extrapolated from that core 5.1 stream are full of MP3-like artifacts. Definitely not transparent versus 7.1.4 playback from a TrueHD encode, as the samples from IAA posted upthread show.

 

[Owen Smith]

128kbps is spread over 2 channels though. So 768kbps over 6 channels is actually akin to 256kbps over 2. IMO that is enough bitrate for transparency.

But it's not 6 channels, we're talking about Atmos streaming here so it's at least 10 channels, possibly more.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

But it's not 6 channels, we're talking about Atmos streaming here so it's at least 10 channels, possibly more.

It doesn't become 10 channels until it gets processed by an Atmos decoder. There are only 6 discrete channels until then.

 

[HomerJAU]

It doesn't become 10 channels until it gets processed by an Atmos decoder. There are only 6 discrete channels until then.

So it’s magic, not science?

 

[jimfisheye]

Well, there's the base data set. Then the potential full channel array to render that to via the object data. I think I said that the right way...
I think the max core data with lossy Atmos is the equivalent of 6 channels worth of audio.

The decode is going to happen in the receiving device. The full lossy Atmos is going to be broadcast. I don't know if the format scales to available bandwidth. If it would give a higher res broadcast of a quad mix than a 7.1.4 mix, for example, because the core data is divided into fewer channels. That would take effort to implement and then make higher channel mixes more 2nd class, so I bet not.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

So it’s magic, not science?

Like pulled from a hat....

 

[Owen Smith]

It doesn't become 10 channels until it gets processed by an Atmos decoder. There are only 6 discrete channels until then.

The object data still has to be held separately so that it can be removed from the base 6 channels and moved around as an object. The data for the objects doesn't materialise out of nothing.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

The object data still has to be held separately so that it can be removed from the base 6 channels and moved around as an object. The data for the objects doesn't materialise out of nothing.

Yeah I think you are correct to some degree. But does it equate to 10 individual discrete channels in size...I don't really know, but I have my doubts.

 

[ssully]

@jimfisheye has been working on a 24bit live Atmos mix recently and compared the Source vs. the TrueHD encode vs. Dolby EAC3 encode (lossy streaming Atmos):

The Atmos mlp (TrueHD) sounds like the master when I A/B. The lossy streaming version of Atmos is audibly damaged vs the master.

I quoted Jim as I trust his pro engineer hearing vs. my 67 yo ears.

The TrueHD Atmos encode is around 5000kbps vs. EAC3 JOC streaming Atmos at 768kbps. TrueHD is multiplexed into 8 channels, EAC JOC into 6 channels.

If they aren't comparing lossless vs lossy blind and level matched and at nonpathological volume, I don't trust anyone's ears.

And the 'of course it sounds worse, it's lossy' line of reasoning is just facepalm material.

 

[omnipotent1]

If they aren't comparing lossless vs lossy blind and level matched and at nonpathological volume, I don't trust anyone's ears.

And the 'of course it sounds worse, it's lossy' line of reasoning is just facepalm material.

Well some of us have actually gone through the effort done level matched DBT's and can hear the difference reliably.
Imagine that...