• 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!

An audio engineer explains why Dolby Atmos Music is “definitely going to supersede stereo”

-Matt-

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
675
Likes
551
As I understand it you have Bed level speakers and you have Object level speakers. Bed level speakers are anchored to the horizontal plane and are expected to be placed on the ground and ear level while seated. Object level speakers are placed above and can be moved from the top front to top side and top back. There is also an option to do Objects directly overhead and slightly to the side in rows. Bed lever speakers get direct channel information while object channels get shared ambiance and Spacial queues and are not fixed in place. This is just my rudimentary understanding. So a 5.x.x is an option for home theater setup for smaller rooms that can not accommodate more bed channels.

I don't think this is quite correct...
You have the bed level speakers and you have height speakers. Sounds can either be played through the discrete bed channels or can be defined as objects. Here is the point of difference: I think sound objects can be placed anywhere in 3d, and therefore panned between the bed layer speakers just as easily as to the height channels. (Or even from the bed layer up into the heights).


I understand, but from the interview it seemed like the positional information of individual objects is only relevant once you’re beyond 7.1.2. And they’re included in the mix of the main channels otherwise.

This isn't quite what was said in the video either. The point was that to have the ability to pan height objects forwards and backwars as well as left and right you need at least 4 height speakers.

So 5.1.4 is the minimum for a good Atmos effect.
Obviously 7.1.4 is preferred and this is probably the default for mixing.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
you guys keep posting about Atmos doing 'stereo miracles'. Is there any proof or trace of that 'Atmos stereo magic' anywhere? Any documentation, any examples .. anyfreakinthing ...

You must be mistaking me for some other guys. I haven't even heard an Atmos track much less used anything like the term 'Atmos magic'. All I'm doing is wondering where the presented waveform difference between a standard issue stereo track and an 'Atmos' one (a downmix, reportedly) came from. Just as you seem to be.

If it is actually a downmix of a surround mix, then a simple reason for the expanded dynamic range would be that the surround mix is not highly compressed either. That can be easily checked. If the surround mix is notably stepped on, then things get interesting....

Whatever the case it would interesting to know if this downmixing is an automated process or a human-directed one. There is precedent in early DVD-A discs that had no 'dedicated' stereo mixes, but had a 'designed' downmix encoded on them for stereo playback.

Going further out into speculation, if it's not actually derived from the surround mix , and thus not a downmix, but rather something akin to an 'easter egg' embedded in the Atmos stream... either a new dedicated stereo mix with high DR from original multitracks, or a new high DR remaster from original stereo master tapes -- that would be strange and interesting. But I've read no evidence of that.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,050
I don't think this is quite correct...
You have the bed level speakers and you have height speakers. Sounds can either be played through the discrete bed channels or can be defined as objects. Here is the point of difference: I think sound objects can be placed anywhere in 3d, and therefore panned between the bed layer speakers just as easily as to the height channels. (Or even from the bed layer up into the heights).




This isn't quite what was said in the video either. The point was that to have the ability to pan height objects forwards and backwars as well as left and right you need at least 4 height speakers.

So 5.1.4 is the minimum for a good Atmos effect.
Obviously 7.1.4 is preferred and this is probably the default for mixing.
A year or so ago I looked thru the documentation from Dolby and what you are saying was my conclusion. 2 height speakers gives some height, but for real object oriented effect control to place sources anywhere you need 4 height speakers. So 5.1.4 was the minimum for full effect.

My memory was bad. Dolby has different standards for movie theaters and nearfield Home theaters.

Their suggestion for mixing studios for nearfield HT is to mix to 7.1.2 and during playback any other channels will be up or down mixed by the Atmos system as needed. Dolby then has suggestions for 7.1.2, 7.1.4, 7.1.6, 9.1.4 and 9.1.6 speaker layouts. Specific angles for the overheads vs listening position are important for upmixing to work well apparently.
 
Last edited:

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
I don't see how height speaks could place sources 'anywhere' in the horizontal plane.

For 5.x for example it's notoriously hard to get precise , consistent 'side' imaging and levels ,i.e., between left front and left rear or right front and right rear. A circular panned test signal can reveal this.

Does the addition of heights claim to address that?
 
OP
AdamG

AdamG

Proving your point makes it “Science”.
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,636
Likes
14,918
Location
Reality
I don't think this is quite correct...
You have the bed level speakers and you have height speakers. Sounds can either be played through the discrete bed channels or can be defined as objects. Here is the point of difference: I think sound objects can be placed anywhere in 3d, and therefore panned between the bed layer speakers just as easily as to the height channels. (Or even from the bed layer up into the heights).




This isn't quite what was said in the video either. The point was that to have the ability to pan height objects forwards and backwars as well as left and right you need at least 4 height speakers.

So 5.1.4 is the minimum for a good Atmos effect.
Obviously 7.1.4 is preferred and this is probably the default for mixing.
This is taken directly from Dolby website. Scroll down a page or so and you will see the 2 channel configuration options. Does anybody even look or read links provided. I previously provided this link above in post #397. Here it is again for convenience: ;)

 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
Thanks, I hadn't bothered to look past 5.x ;>

It's odd that Dolby refers to 'virtual speakers' for the most minimal 2.1 setup. No other explanations or details offered. But seems to suggest you can 'hear' something Atmos even with just 2.1 channels.
 

JoachimStrobel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
518
Likes
303
Location
Germany
I understand that Atmos object are embedded into a traditional 7 channel bed, sone data reduced Dolby stuff. That could easily be extracted and played on any 5 or 7 channel system. That would be enough for me. All these Atmos files in 5 channels sound without having to pay for an Atmos AVR. Licence regulations prohibit that, so one needs an Atmos rig to play Atmos files even if they contain no musical objects, like most pre 70’s Jazz. I am not sure what an musical object is. Drums in 3D Space, a trumpet hanging up left? Is ambience coming from the heigh channels a “object”? Or are objects helicopters and bullets but no musical stuff? Would be great to get a better understanding of this.
 
OP
AdamG

AdamG

Proving your point makes it “Science”.
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,636
Likes
14,918
Location
Reality
Thanks, I hadn't bothered to look past 5.x ;>

It's odd that Dolby refers to 'virtual speakers' for the most minimal 2.1 setup. No other explanations or details offered. But seems to suggest you can 'hear' something Atmos even with just 2.1 channels.
I don’t know anything for certain except what I have gleaned from Dolby website and some presentations vids. The 2 channel stuff is new to me as well. But if this new 2 channel Atmos is about restoring the dynamic range of the audio content then I’m all in. Since I watched that video above by @theREALdotnet (linked below) I have been streaming Atmos out to two channels and it does seem to be less compresssed and dynamic. How much of this impression is expectation bias? But the graphs presented in the below video seem to be legitimate and to me they indicate that a new uncrushed master is used or created.

I did read and post about a new AI algorithm program that supposedly can take any master recording and separate each instrument and singer and create a new individual master of just that sound signature. It can then use these individual new tracks to create a new multichannel recording that is Atmos/DTS:X/IMAX compatible/ready. I will try to find this post and link it here. Maybe we’re starting to see/hear some of the results of this AI’s products? And I could be completely wrong about that. :p


On edit: Article about AI mentioned above:

 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,050
Oh, and just to muddy the waters, the new ATSC 3.0 standard will use Dolby AC4 which contains 7.1.4 channels of object oriented audio. That is why I love Dolby so much. :rolleyes:

Unless it is already changed, the nearfield HT version of Atmos tops out at 9.1.24 upmixing. That is what I want to hear, and see someone with the full 24 height channels.

There have been a few revisions of this document. This one is 2018, maybe there is a newer one. They show 2.1.2 and 3.1.2 systems among the possibilities.


They however don't show 1.1.2 or 1.1.1 speaker arrangements. Maybe if you just had a floor to ceiling single MBL omni you get envelopment with one speaker and place all your objects everywhere in the room. Infinite virtual channels. The vertical soundbar.
 
Last edited:

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
He needs a active demonstration. Show him what all that gear is for. :D
I used to have a killer home theater system decades ago (5.1) The sub would lift the drop ceiling panels in my basement theater room. It was over the top crazy good. It would play cinema level audio at hearing damage levels. But I had three problems. 1. It scared the cats really bad. 2. The wife kept hollering "turn it down" from upstairs and 3. People walking in the street in front of my house wondered what was happening? Possible alien invasion? It was a scary system. But for every day real use my sound bar is rocking. It really is that good. Crystal clear vocals, great ATMOS effects and all around amazing. Music? It does music very well. I don't know how they are ever going to make a "better" sound bar than they have now. We will see.......those engineers keep doing amazing things with sound.
 

napfkuchen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
295
Likes
397
Location
Germany
My living room fits the Auro3D speaker setup so I went for a compatible surround-receiver and 5.1.4 speakers. Bought a bunch of bluray-discs and I'm interested in experiencing 3D-music (especially electronic music like Yello which is already impressive in stereo). Unfortunately still two months to go ... ;)
 
OP
AdamG

AdamG

Proving your point makes it “Science”.
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
4,636
Likes
14,918
Location
Reality
My living room fits the Auro3D speaker setup so I went for a compatible surround-receiver and 5.1.4 speakers. Bought a bunch of bluray-discs and I'm interested in experiencing 3D-music (especially electronic music like Yello which is already impressive in stereo). Unfortunately still two months to go ... ;)
If you love Music, you’re going to want to get your hands on this: The Performers and the Music is sublime.

Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague [Blu-ray] https://a.co/d/izEQ1kC
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
The Performers and the Music is sublime.

Especially the performers. It's like a pop music video but with better music. The camera spends all it's time focusing on the female musicians playing their instruments as seductively as possible.

Not that I'm complaining, just laughing.
 

napfkuchen

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
295
Likes
397
Location
Germany
If you love Music, you’re going to want to get your hands on this: The Performers and the Music is sublime.

Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague [Blu-ray] https://a.co/d/izEQ1kC
Yep, got it :)

also ...
Michael Jackson - This is it
Adele - Live At The Royal Albert Hall
Tiesto - Copenhagen/Elements of Life Wold Tour
Silbermond - Laut gedacht Live
Yello - Point
Bring Me The Horizon - Live At Wembley Arena
Anathema - The Optimist
Porcupine Tree – Closure/Continuation
Steven Wilson - The Future Bites
Schiller - Epic - Deluxe Edition
Unheilig - Lichter der Stadt Live

For now that's enough, instead of buying additional blurays I'll also try out Apple Music.
And then there are those limited edition releases I probably will never get my hands on (Genesis - Invisible Touch SACD, Kraftwerk - 3D, etc.) ... too pricey for my taste.
 

danadam

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
956
Likes
1,496
Then why don’t they? What’s holding them back?
Er... because they don't want to?
Or do you really think, that there was some technical obstacle preventing them from doing that, and only now Dolby has solved it? Not really. The merit (for stereo) of atmos is, that it managed to force (or trick) them into not squashing things :)

But yeah, it seems that even audio engineers treat it like a revelation. It's hard not to start facepalming, when this one says atmos gives him the opportunity to explore dynamics. No, you could always do that, you just didn't want to.

And if we already stoop to the level of judging tracks by their waveforms, here are equally fine-looking ones and no Atmos was required:
  1. David Gilmour - Rattle That Lock (youtube)
  2. Paper Motion - Arouse (youtube)
waveform.png
 

IPunchCholla

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
1,102
Likes
1,383
This is taken directly from Dolby website. Scroll down a page or so and you will see the 2 channel configuration options. Does anybody even look or read links provided. I previously provided this link above in post #397. Here it is again for convenience: ;)

So what exactly do you get for the 2.1 virtual speaker setup? Is there any object information? Height information? The pic in the PDF seems to imply it is lobbing sound at you? What makes them virtual speakers? It would be nice if they included actual technical info on what you can expect to hear from each setup. And how to deal with non-symmetrical rooms.
 

-Matt-

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
675
Likes
551
This isn't quite what was said in the video either. The point was that to have the ability to pan height objects forwards and backwars as well as left and right you need at least 4 height speakers.

So 5.1.4 is the minimum for a good Atmos effect.
Obviously 7.1.4 is preferred and this is probably the default for mixing.

This is taken directly from Dolby website. Scroll down a page or so and you will see the 2 channel configuration options. Does anybody even look or read links provided. I previously provided this link above in post #397. Here it is again for convenience: ;)


I am fully aware that you can use 2 height channels. Does anyone actually read what is written!

I was trying to correct the record on what was said in the Audioholics video posted above. @abdo123 stated...

You don't really get to ''Objects'' territory till you go above 7.1.2. The below 2 hour interview is WELL worth the time.

... They initially said this in the video, but then Gene clarified that it was the 4 height channels that made the difference for Atmos objects, and that 5.1 bed layer would be fine.

They did reitterate that 7.1.4 was the default gold standard to aim for.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Er... because they don't want to?
Or do you really think, that there was some technical obstacle preventing them from doing that, and only now Dolby has solved it? Not really. The merit (for stereo) of atmos is, that it managed to force (or trick) them into not squashing things :)

But yeah, it seems that even audio engineers treat it like a revelation. It's hard not to start facepalming, when this one says atmos gives him the opportunity to explore dynamics. No, you could always do that, you just didn't want to.

And if we already stoop to the level of judging tracks by their waveforms, here are equally fine-looking ones and no Atmos was required:
  1. David Gilmour - Rattle That Lock (youtube)
  2. Paper Motion - Arouse (youtube)
View attachment 247368

Consider Dolby Atmos like Government subsidies, it allows them to explore Dynamics because they couldn’t afford to before.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
You must be mistaking me for some other guys. I haven't even heard an Atmos track much less used anything like the term 'Atmos magic'. All I'm doing is wondering where the presented waveform difference between a standard issue stereo track and an 'Atmos' one (a downmix, reportedly) came from. Just as you seem to be.

If it is actually a downmix of a surround mix, then a simple reason for the expanded dynamic range would be that the surround mix is not highly compressed either. That can be easily checked. If the surround mix is notably stepped on, then things get interesting....

Whatever the case it would interesting to know if this downmixing is an automated process or a human-directed one. There is precedent in early DVD-A discs that had no 'dedicated' stereo mixes, but had a 'designed' downmix encoded on them for stereo playback.

Going further out into speculation, if it's not actually derived from the surround mix , and thus not a downmix, but rather something akin to an 'easter egg' embedded in the Atmos stream... either a new dedicated stereo mix with high DR from original multitracks, or a new high DR remaster from original stereo master tapes -- that would be strange and interesting. But I've read no evidence of that.

Dolby Atmos music has a -18 or -20 LUFS limit built into the enocder. Modern music is typically mixed at -8 LUFS.
 

JoachimStrobel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
518
Likes
303
Location
Germany
Looked through Apple Music for Atmos. There are superb mixes. I canceled my Tidal subscription as their Atmos sound like Dolby Analog. I guess it will be the same for Quobuz once they start Atmos. I guess Roon does not support Atmos as they know that if people like Atmos they will go for Apple Music. Tough times ahead for Roon and the smaller streaming companies.
 
Top Bottom