• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Spatial Audio -- warning from a producer/engineer

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,530
Likes
1,485
Location
Vancouver
For me its like colorizing old movies. The director, dop, costumes, set dec, all knew it was in black and white and thats what they created for. For someone to come along 40 years later, take there art and decide that black and white dress should be red just seems wrong. Likewise everyone new they were recording in stereo and thats what the song was built for. And now some dumb ass at apple is deciding what Roger Waters and Peter Gabriel would do. Why dont we colorize Picassos Guernica while were at it.
 
OP
A

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
For me its like colorizing old movies. The director, dop, costumes, set dec, all knew it was in black and white and thats what they created for.

I would not assume that the film crews specifically exploited the fact that the film is black and white, and did something on purpose due to that fact. Those were simpler times, movies were not made by committees who applied a process to ensure that the movie appeals to the last % of the population, and would not be cancelled by the mob on social media.

For someone to come along 40 years later, take there art and decide that black and white dress should be red just seems wrong. Likewise everyone new they were recording in stereo and thats what the song was built for. And now some dumb ass at apple is deciding what Roger Waters and Peter Gabriel would do. Why dont we colorize Picassos Guernica while were at it.

I agree in principle, movie colourisation, just like remastering music -- stereo to stereo, or stereo to Atmos -- can be done badly, but does not have to be wrong or terrible, and can be a step up in artistic and technical quality, especially when either the artists or the original production crew is available to perform or consult on the process. MFSL reissues of Pink Floyd were definitely a step forward for the albums involved, thanks to Alan Parsons involvement.

The problem here is that the job is allegedly rushed and done without due diligence, at a price point and imposed turn around deadlines.
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,823
Likes
4,519
Likewise everyone new they were recording in stereo and thats what the song was built for.

Define “stereo.”

How would you characterize, e.g. the Reiner/CSO performances recorded in “stereo” as the format was intended to be (3-channel LCR)before it had to bow to the reality of the day’s primitive distribution technology (crammed down to 2 channel).
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
942
Location
USA
The stereo version of that old Marvin Gaye tune sounded to me like distortion, compression and even some reverb had all been added. The Atmos version sounded better to me, only because it sounded cleaner. I think the demo is rigged. The Atmos version sounds better, but not because of Atmos. It sounds better because it's been cleaned up whereas the stereo version comes from some completely different copy that hasn't been cleaned up, and likely has been distorted in various ways. This kind of demo is almost guaranteed to be rigged. Why wouldn't they do this kind of thing? Is anyone watching over their shoulders to make certain that they created the Atmos version from the stereo version and that the Atmos version wasn't given any special treatment as compared to the routine Atmos conversion of other material?

By the way, I couldn't stand listening to that narrator guy, or whatever he's referred to. His voice sounded whiny and wimpy, and he ran words togetherlikeeverythingwasallonelongword. Why would they do something like this and not hire someone with a good speaking voice?

I haven't much liked anything that Apple has done in a very long time. In fact the only thing they've ever done that I much liked was when they ditched their old operating system and adopted a variant of UNIX. That was a great move, but there still way too much stuff in Mac OS that is carried over from that ridiculous softcontraption that Jobs first introduced back in the mid-early eighties. And as far as I'm concerned most all of their application software, including iTunes, is grotesque.

I do not believe in synthesizing extra tracks from a two-track recording. A regular stereo recording made years ago does not contain any information that corresponds to an additional, reflected-off-the-ceiling track. You cannot create something from nothing. If the process by which the off-the-ceiling tracks are being created is any different from what could otherwise be synthesized within the playback equipment, then it is necessarily a creative process. To me, it isn't much different from someone taking an old original painting and painting over it with their own personal touches, to make it look more the way they think it should look. I don't really see any difference. But it is very much the sort of thing that Apple would do, in cahoots with some other company. (Shhhh ... don't anyone mention Beats.) It makes me sad to think that all those sheep-people who are perpetually crowded into the Apple store at the mall are now going to start listening to music that has been modified, no longer the same as the original, and they are going to think of it as an improvement, because some of it is intentionally reflected off the ceiling. Very, very sad. Somehow, the idea of people preferring to listen to old-style amplifiers that add distortion that they think equates to "better" sound quality doesn't seem as bad as did up until several minutes ago. I think maybe I'm going to patent a process that will detect the main tempo of recorded music and add cowbell. Instead of it being a preset amount, it will have a control to let the listener add cowbell to suit their personal taste.
 

Studio Guy

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
31
Likes
30
As a studio engineer and as someone who spent 15 years on stage with a band, it is incomprehensible to me why one would want to feel like they are in the middle of (surrounded by, if you will) a band. The stage is THE worst listening position in the club. For listening enjoyment I would much rather be in the audience listening to the front of house speakers anytime. Just my humble opinion.
 

trl

Major Contributor
King of Mods
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,967
Likes
2,523
Location
Iasi, RO
As long as we can disable the Dolby Atmos if we don't like it and the output sound will be identical with the one from...let's say Tidal/Qubuz I don't see the problem. Anyone thinks to a track that needs compared without/Atmos in Apple vs. Tidal?
 

dougi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
845
Likes
763
Location
ACT, Australia
Well, duh..,

It wasn't 3D.

Analogous to 2 channel, stereo, or stereoscopic, to perhaps use the proper term.

(I get to be wrong)
You are correct. In proper 3D your eye focuses at different distances for things closer or further away. With 3D "TV" it is a fixed plane and hence stereoscopic. It is also why some people suffer physiological effects as it is not "normal" to them and why it was not recommended for developing brains.
 

Putter

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
493
Likes
771
Location
Albany, NY USA
As a studio engineer and as someone who spent 15 years on stage with a band, it is incomprehensible to me why one would want to feel like they are in the middle of (surrounded by, if you will) a band. The stage is THE worst listening position in the club. For listening enjoyment I would much rather be in the audience listening to the front of house speakers anytime. Just my humble opinion.

While your comment is somewhat OT (as is my reply), this is a comment I've often seen about surround sound recordings and it is not usually the case that the surround recording puts you in the middle of the band. Typically what is done is the stereo image is spread out somewhat and some of the reverberation comes from the rear. The only exception I can recall was some of the Blu Ray remasterings of the Who, Quadrophenia comes to mind.
 
Last edited:

bluefuzz

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
1,043
Likes
1,774
can be a step up in artistic and technical quality, especially when either the artists or the original production crew is available to perform or consult on the process. MFSL reissues of Pink Floyd were definitely a step forward for the albums involved, thanks to Alan Parsons involvement.

A seventy year old artist in the twilight of his career is not going to make the same artistic choices as he did as a twenty year old. For recordings made 40 or 50 years ago its therefore pretty much irrelevant that the original artist is involved or not. They are quite literally different people. I daresay twenty-something Waters or Gilmore would cringe at what their seventy-something selves have allowed to happen to their recordings.

None of the members of Pink Floyd have done much of interest since the early 80s (many would say they stopped being interesting long before DSOTM) other than rehash their 'classic' back catalogue in one way or another. Yet another 'remaster' - 3D or not - is by no means any kind of artistic step forward in my book. Just another brick in the investment portfolio. 'That was then and this is now' as Bob once said.

I'd much rather listen to something like Art Bears 'Revisited' or Can's 'Sacrelige' where veteran proggies mangle their back catalogue in far more artistically interesting ways ...
 
OP
A

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
A seventy year old artist in the twilight of his career is not going to make the same artistic choices as he did as a twenty year old. For recordings made 40 or 50 years ago its therefore pretty much irrelevant that the original artist is involved or not. They are quite literally different people. I daresay twenty-something Waters or Gilmore would cringe at what their seventy-something selves have allowed to happen to their recordings.

It is true that people change all the time. It is true that a 70+ version of Waters will make different artistic choices compared to the 30 year old version. But, does it matter? Will the choices of the older versions of ourselves going to be guaranteed to be worse, rather than just... different and possibly better?

There is no single metric to compare one artistic choice vs the next, this is the very fabric of being "artistic".

In fact, there are counterexamples to this claim. It is widely known that the best mixing/audio engineers are in their later career years, so much so that their hearing is much impaired compared to the 20-30 year olds. However, they are apparently still better at mixing than their younger selves.

None of the members of Pink Floyd have done much of interest since the early 80s (many would say they stopped being interesting long before DSOTM) other than rehash their 'classic' back catalogue in one way or another. Yet another 'remaster' - 3D or not - is by no means any kind of artistic step forward in my book. Just another brick in the investment portfolio. 'That was then and this is now' as Bob once said.

These are subjective opinions I do not fully agree with. While '73-'79 were Pink Floyd's best years, the band and its individual members continued to be creative and inspire their fans well into the '80s, my opinion of course.

I'd much rather listen to something like Art Bears 'Revisited' or Can's 'Sacrelige' where veteran proggies mangle their back catalogue in far more artistically interesting ways ...

I am not familiar with these artists, perhaps something I should explore if they are even remotely related to Pink Floyd. :)
 

bluefuzz

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
1,043
Likes
1,774
Will the choices of the older versions of ourselves going to be guaranteed to be worse, rather than just... different and possibly better?
Well, you did argue that the new 3D mixes were a 'step up' from other mixes partly because (some of) the original personnel were involved. The point is will the 70+ version make more 'authentic' remixes/remasters of higher artistic worth than some 3rd party who is perhaps more artistically in tune with the vintage vibe? I think not necessarily.

I am not familiar with these artists, perhaps something I should explore if they are even remotely related to Pink Floyd.
You like Floyd and haven't heard of Can or Art Bears? I'm shocked! ;-)

They were certainly all lumped under the 70's 'progressive rock' banner although admittedly at very different ends. Art Bears were the continuation of Henry Cow with Dagmar Krause, Chris Cutler and Fred Frith - originally associated with the likes of Soft Machine, Gong, Matching Mole and the Canterbury crowd. Obviously closely related to early Floyd. Can were (arguably) the most interesting of the German 'krautrock' bands, again originally inspired in part by early Floyd. Start with 'Future Days', released around the same time as DSOTM in '73, and work your way out from there. Can's 'Future Days' is, IMHO, one of the greatest records ever made – and certainly my favourite from 1973 ... ;-)
 
OP
A

Ata

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
388
Likes
333
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Well, you did argue that the new 3D mixes were a 'step up' from other mixes partly because (some of) the original personnel were involved. The point is will the 70+ version make more 'authentic' remixes/remasters of higher artistic worth than some 3rd party who is perhaps more artistically in tune with the vintage vibe? I think not necessarily.

No, I did not say that. I said remixes can be done well or even better than the original, and gave a counterexample which is well known.

You like Floyd and haven't heard of Can or Art Bears? I'm shocked! ;-)

They were certainly all lumped under the 70's 'progressive rock' banner although admittedly at very different ends. Art Bears were the continuation of Henry Cow with Dagmar Krause, Chris Cutler and Fred Frith - originally associated with the likes of Soft Machine, Gong, Matching Mole and the Canterbury crowd. Obviously closely related to early Floyd. Can were (arguably) the most interesting of the German 'krautrock' bands, again originally inspired in part by early Floyd. Start with 'Future Days', released around the same time as DSOTM in '73, and work your way out from there. Can's 'Future Days' is, IMHO, one of the greatest records ever made – and certainly my favourite from 1973 ... ;-)

You, sir, just beat the AI of Roon, Tidal and Qobuz, which never suggested those artists despite me playing a lot of Pink Floyd! :)
 

bluefuzz

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
1,043
Likes
1,774
No, I did not say that.
You said in post #22 of this thread:
MFSL reissues of Pink Floyd were definitely a step forward for the albums involved, thanks to Alan Parsons involvement.
I rest my case. ;-)
You, sir, just beat the AI of Roon, Tidal and Qobuz, which never suggested those artists despite me playing a lot of Pink Floyd!
You've obviously not been listening to the right Pink Floyd albums ... ;-)

Actually, if you only listen to post-DSOTM Floyd, I can understand why the algorithms don't suggest stuff like Can. Also Spotify rarely seems to recommend 'foreign' - i.e. non-UK/US - artists unless you specifically like and listen to a few. Add some Can and Cluster tracks to your library and I'm sure you'll get all sorts of interesting kraut-prog goodness recommended.

But I fear we are moving a bit far off topic ...
 

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,530
Likes
1,485
Location
Vancouver
I would not assume that the film crews specifically exploited the fact that the film is black and white, and did something on purpose due to that fact. Those were simpler times, movies were not made by committees who applied a process to ensure that the movie appeals to the last % of the population, and would not be cancelled by the mob on social media.



I agree in principle, movie colourisation, just like remastering music -- stereo to stereo, or stereo to Atmos -- can be done badly, but does not have to be wrong or terrible, and can be a step up in artistic and technical quality, especially when either the artists or the original production crew is available to perform or consult on the process. MFSL reissues of Pink Floyd were definitely a step forward for the albums involved, thanks to Alan Parsons involvement.

The problem here is that the job is allegedly rushed and done without due diligence, at a price point and imposed turn around deadlines.

Of course they new what black and white did to the picture and used it. Simpler times doesnt mean simpler people.
 

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,530
Likes
1,485
Location
Vancouver
A seventy year old artist in the twilight of his career is not going to make the same artistic choices as he did as a twenty year old. For recordings made 40 or 50 years ago its therefore pretty much irrelevant that the original artist is involved or not. They are quite literally different people. I daresay twenty-something Waters or Gilmore would cringe at what their seventy-something selves have allowed to happen to their recordings.

None of the members of Pink Floyd have done much of interest since the early 80s (many would say they stopped being interesting long before DSOTM) other than rehash their 'classic' back catalogue in one way or another. Yet another 'remaster' - 3D or not - is by no means any kind of artistic step forward in my book. Just another brick in the investment portfolio. 'That was then and this is now' as Bob once said.

I'd much rather listen to something like Art Bears 'Revisited' or Can's 'Sacrelige' where veteran proggies mangle their back catalogue in far more artistically interesting ways ...


So yould rather have some dumb ass at apple remix a Floyd album then an old Roger Waters? Who would probably say "why are you f ing with my art"
 

bluefuzz

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
1,043
Likes
1,774
So yould rather have some dumb ass at apple remix a Floyd album then an old Roger Waters?
I doubt anyone at Apple is remixing anything. They are just buying it from the record companies. But that's not what I said as should be obvious.

My point (if it was not plain) is that there is nothing artistically interesting about remixing 50 year old albums in some toytown 3D format regardless of whether the original artist is involved or not.
 

Billy Budapest

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,812
Likes
2,685
It seems the quality of Spatial Audio (and multi-channel Dolby Atmos music obtained via various streaming services) might be questionable, at least for some time, while the technology is bootstrapping itself...

Reference -- a producer/engineer shared the following:

“I just want to try and alert you to the potential seismic scam happening with this Atmos roll out. Atmos catalog remixing is being done by the truckload in a handful of Nashville, LA, and NYC rooms right now and has been for a couple of years, and almost none of it is being overseen or approved by the artist or original producer or mixer. And these versions- according to Apple- will be the new standard versions, superseding the original versions, now designated by Apple to the dustbin of history.

I have heard some Atmos mixes which were indeed an improvement. However, most are not. And I would like to steer you toward this demo from Apple to get a sense of their mindset

https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/introducing-spatial-audio/pl.af1ad34ef38543dd8bcdfc11356bd00e

In the rush to make content for Apple, labels are jamming this crap out with little QC and -again- almost no input from artists. This format has real potential but if they continue to try and tell us that shit like this ‘new’ version of ‘What’s Going On’ is better than then original, then it will be seen as a counterfeit and a fraud, and will go the way of the Home Pod. I know how you feel about catalog being remixed and this has potential to be a worst case scenario.”

And then my inbox filled up with more, and iMessage started to ring from other professional engineers."

Full post:

https://lefsetz.com/wordpress/2021/06/11/spatial-audio/

Great, another anonymous Chicken Little. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

This unnamed producer/engineer guy seems to have more of a bone to pick with Apple than with “spatial audio” and like most Apple-bashing, it’s rather infantile.

Apple is not designating stereo or mono tracks to the “dustbin of history.” They are doing quite the contrary, and are upgrading them to lossless hi-res.

As for “going the way of the HomePod,” that doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. Apple has discontinued the original HomePod , but it did so in favor of the new HomePod mini and a rumored HomePod 2.0.

Anyway, I listened to the What’s Going On demo. I prefer the original, glorious mono single mix to all others. That being said, my second choice would be the mono fold down that starts off the demo. Both the stereo and spatial audio versions are “meh.”
 

bt3

Active Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
132
Likes
115
When Peter Jackson’s version of ‘Let It Be‘ releases, will be on it. I may be a classical and Jazz man first and foremost, but what he and his team have done with those old film reels visually and sound-wise appears a revelation over the original version.
 
Last edited:

Studio Guy

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
31
Likes
30
While your comment is somewhat OT (as is my reply), this is a comment I've often seen about surround sound recordings and it is not usually the case that the surround recording puts you in the middle of the band. Typically what is done is the stereo image is spread out somewhat and some of the reverberation comes from the rear. The only exception I can recall was some of the recording of the Who, Quadrophenia comes to mind.
Then, in my opinion, that makes it an even worse listening situation, knowing what I know about how sound, time and space are perceived by our ears.
 

Putter

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
493
Likes
771
Location
Albany, NY USA
Then, in my opinion, that makes it an even worse listening situation, knowing what I know about how sound, time and space are perceived by our ears.

Sorry but at the end of the day that is one man's opinion along with an appeal to authority.
 
Top Bottom