Stereophile's Jim Austin Says Streaming Atmos Sucks

[Sal1950]

The audience with Atmos capable systems may end up outnumbering the audiophile market that only cares about great stereo setups.

That wouldn't take much. LOL
OTOH, they may have already outnumbered them. New soundbars, sono's, and other like offerings are already being
sold like hotcakes so it's hard to quantify. Not that they offer anything in the way of sound quality, but Joe Sixpack thinks
they do, so this marketing strenght may just guarantee immersive audios success in the way that Quad or even 5.1 couldn't do
on it's own.
The futures so bright and all the rest.

What people are adding is Atmos sound bars, very few people are adding discrete 7.1.4 systems.

You beat me to it.

 

[Sal1950]

What "ulterior motives" could I have beyond that?

Why poison a conversation by constantly looking for "ulterior motives?"

Yea, and I fell off the turnip truck just last night. LOL
Any regular here knows damn well why.
In a battle of wits, seems you've arrived unarmed. ROTF

 

[Newman]

What people are adding is Atmos sound bars, very few people are adding discrete 7.1.4 systems.

So you are saying, sales of AVRs are really really low? And by implication, sales of 2-channel amps (with room-filling power, not microboxes with wallwarts), are relatively really high?

You sure you got that right? When I drop into the general AV/entertainment stores, I always see numerous AVRs but precious few full size 2CH amps. (PS I know you spoke about sound bars not 2CH amps, but the background to your comment was that discrete MCH is small fry in relation to 2CH.)

I’m not sure it’s even relevant anyways, (just like Matt’s implication that surround systems don’t make great 2CH systems, which makes the rest of his post irrelevant) since sales volumes are always going to primarily reflect the demands of people with little interest in sound quality.

 

[Brian Hall]

What people are adding is Atmos sound bars, very few people are adding discrete 7.1.4 systems.

The way the vast majority of people are likely to experience Atmos is via a binaural render to headphones. The problem is that the way this is currently done going via EAC3+JOC first is frankly a bad joke technically.

Discrete system here. Atmos movies sound great, especially from a 4k blu-ray disc. Atmos does improve movies. Some Atmos music sounds good if it fits having sounds all around you like some Pink Floyd songs. Most Atmos music I've listened to gives the same effect as playing regular stereo music with the AVR set to multichannel stereo.

 

[Ken1951]

Yea, and I fell off the turnip truck just last night. LOL
Any regular here knows damn well why.
In a battle of wits, seems you've arrived unarmed. ROTF

@Sal1950 you're just wasting your time debating/talking with this dude, just do what I did ages ago and engage the ignore function. Saves pixels and energy, plus you know what he's going to say anyway.

 

[Newman]

Darko is, IMO, making some good points here:

Mr D Darko has never, and never will, make the slightest positive contribution to a discussion that draws on, or progresses, audio science.

Conversely, he has made many, and will continue to make, contributions that propagate the myths, madness, snake oil, and disinformation campaigns that mislead newcomers and gullible types into spending wastefully and ineffectively, thinking they are getting audibly better sound waves when they are not.

Linking ASR discussions to cherry-picked possibly-true statements of his, accompanied by your words along the lines of ‘look how wise he is’, is among the worst and most corrosive contributions that anyone can bring into this forum.

I request that you reconsider this sort of anti-science behaviour here. It only makes you look like a bad egg.

 

[Sal1950]

Most Atmos music I've listened to gives the same effect as playing regular stereo music with the AVR set to multichannel stereo.

You still have me confused there Brian, what are you listening to. Sure some Atmos mixes have been done by just adding some ambience to the surrounds from an old stereo master. In the beginning a ton of stereo mixes were done on the "cheap" from mono masters like that too. But the vast majority that pull that crap get nailed by the surround enthusiasts like myself and all
the guys at QQ. By far the recordings that make aggressive use of the discreet channels dominate todays releases.

 

[Axo1989]

Almost every album I care about was recorded in stereo. And I like stereo reproduction much better than mono. It would therefore be irrational for me to go to mono.

Reductio ad absurdum was worth a try though.

People. Different.

I might not be alone in wondering from time to time at the longevity of certain long-running tennis matches on the forum. Of course I've followed along and participated in a number of them so that's no criticism.

But analysing them in terms of the content maybe isn't the explanation. The challenge of people being different maybe is. Difference certainly riles up some folks. Early childhood training perhaps: "one of these things does not belong" ...

 

[MattHooper]

Yea, and I fell off the turnip truck just last night. LOL
Any regular here knows damn well why.
In a battle of wits, seems you've arrived unarmed. ROTF

No surprise. I take you at your word Sal. I wish you could extend that in my direction.

(just like Matt’s implication that surround systems don’t make great 2CH systems, which makes the rest of his post irrelevant)

Misleading, Newman, and you have read my previous posts on the subject so you should know better. I've said that a well implemented surround system can sound fantastic and in ways better than 2 channel, and of course a well implemented surround system can also make for a great 2 channel system, when run in stereo.

Oops...my post just got relevant again.

@Sal1950 you're just wasting your time debating/talking with this dude, just do what I did ages ago and engage the ignore function. Saves pixels and energy, plus you know what he's going to say anyway.

I appreciate that Ken1951 has saved us the interactions. I infer from his tone it's probably for the best.

 

[MattHooper]

Reductio ad absurdum was worth a try though.

Maybe not in the wrong hands, though. Ends up just "absurdum."

I might not be alone in wondering from time to time at the longevity of certain long-running tennis matches on the forum. Of course I've followed along and participated in a number of them so that's no criticism.

It's sumthin' ta do....

But analysing them in terms of the content maybe isn't the explanation. The challenge of people being different maybe is. Difference certainly riles up some folks. Early childhood training perhaps: "one of these things does not belong" ...

It's fascinating. I have voiced no issue whatsoever with Sal or Newman's enjoyment of surround...more power to them...but if you don't share their level of enthusiasm and voice different preferences, then it's...He's denigrating surround sound! This must not stand! It must be due to ulterior motives!

There is a certain bizarreness to this lopsidedness that is intriguing when on view.

 

[Axo1989]

Another way to look at it is that more and more people will be adding Atmos capable systems for streaming movies. Since there will already be a target audience with Atmos systems, why not try to sell them Atmos music?

The audience with Atmos capable systems may end up outnumbering the audiophile market that only cares about great stereo setups.

Given that spatial audio binaural downmix to headphones etc is Atrmos, I'd say we passed that threshold already. And Apple and others are already selling/streaming music mixed via Atmos (albeit compressed, which I'm not sure is an issue).

I know that's not what you meant exactly, but the only way I'm listening to Atmos currently. I often prefer it on headphones, and almost always prefer it for AV sound. Does that make me more likely to start adding amp channels and speakers to the listening room? Yes, at least marginally. I replaced a broken stereo DAC with an eight channel model with that in mind. But 4-5 years ago and no channel proliferation downstream yet. Lots of things on the to-do list before that happens.

 

[Axo1989]

It's fascinating. I have voiced no issue whatsoever with Sal or Newman's enjoyment of surround...more power to them...but if you don't share their level of enthusiasm and voice different preferences, then it's...He's denigrating surround sound! This must not stand! It must be due to ulterior motives!

The odd thing is that you actually have a surround system, and enjoy it. And while you have a vinyl rig, you also have digital sources. And you listen to all of them. The issue appears to be an uncontrollable reflex to sanction diversity. I've never really got that part. That's why I think it's an emotional thing, more than a rational thing.

 

[MattHooper]

The odd thing is that you actually have a surround system, and enjoy it.

Yup. I put lots of effort in to my surround system, and I used some of my favourite all time loudspeakers. I remain utterly thrilled with my surround system for movies and music. Not to mention, for goodness sake, my own work is mixed in surround, including atmos! But, this is not "pure enough" or hewing to a preferred viewpoint, apparently in some folks worldview.

And while you have a vinyl rig, you also have digital sources. And you listen to all of them. The issue appears to be an uncontrollable reflex to sanction diversity. I've never really got that part. That's why I think it's an emotional thing, more than a rational thing.

Admittedly, as much as I wish to resist the temptation...a very tempting hypothesis. There seems some bias effect happening that causes a lot of dodging and weaving around anything I write that doesn't support this strange anti-surround sound characterization they keep ascribing to me. (Not to mention the wiley-subjectivist-in-sheep's-clothing fears).

 

[Brian Hall]

You still have me confused there Brian, what are you listening to. Sure some Atmos mixes have been done by just adding some ambience to the surrounds from an old stereo master. In the beginning a ton of stereo mixes were done on the "cheap" from mono masters like that too. But the vast majority that pull that crap get nailed by the surround enthusiasts like myself and all
the guys at QQ. By far the recordings that make aggressive use of the discreet channels dominate todays releases.

I haven't actively searched for much Atmos music. I see them on Amazon Music. I haven't tried them on headphones. The most obvious difference I have heard is something like panning a violin note from side to side during the bowing or moving it up and over. It sounds different, but it isn't something that makes me want to listen to it. Another thing I have heard is different parts of the drum set all around me. I guess simulating what a drummer hears when playing. It is different, but not something I am wowed by or want to seek out.

Others just put the guitar to the far left or maybe back left and the bass front right and vocals above me. I don't think most have figured out a good reason to use Atmos in a way that actually improves the experience.

If you can recommend of a couple of albums that do a better job, I will check them out. So far, mostly disappointed in what I've heard. The only one that has kind of impressed me was the Atmos version of Dark Side of the Moon.

 

[quattro98]

I think that most Atmos music is probably experienced through Apple Airpods. Apple has a fair amount of surround music and this is how most people listen.

In terms of the Darko & Audio Unleashed discussion, I think it depends on whether you have a dedicated music system or also watch movies & shows in a single system. If the latter, the option to listen to multichannel music doesn't require making a whole new system.

 

[Brian Hall]

You still have me confused there Brian, what are you listening to. Sure some Atmos mixes have been done by just adding some ambience to the surrounds from an old stereo master. In the beginning a ton of stereo mixes were done on the "cheap" from mono masters like that too. But the vast majority that pull that crap get nailed by the surround enthusiasts like myself and all
the guys at QQ. By far the recordings that make aggressive use of the discreet channels dominate todays releases.

Ok, I get it now.

Just listened to several songs on Amazon's Best of Dolby Atmos playlist on the discrete Atmos speakers. They sound more alive. Most have a much wider soundstage that makes sense. Singers in front of my speakers, drums behind them a bit. Reverb or echos that sounded right. I think some of them really have it figured out. I've never listened to Billie Ellish before. There were two of her songs on there that made sense in Atmos. Also had a different bass effect. It sounded like deep bass notes were coming out of a speaker that was 6 foot wide and 3 feet tall in front of me. Not coming from a point source like a normal bass amp.

More alive is what stands out to most of what I heard. Rihanna singing "Lift Me Up" stood out. More alive and real than reality. I'm impressed and will be listening to more.

 

[MattHooper]

There is this myth that you are hearing what the artists heard is good. In minimalist recordings this myth is you'll hear what the audience heard. Yet the artists don't know what they audience heard. They were in amongst other musicians. In more artificial recordings they hear what it all sounded like over some studio gear and may have intentions. What artists hear is there own performance, how they played, was it slow or fast, was it clean, was there a mistake, it fit with what the other musicians were doing. All important, but well detached from any fidelity concern. If the most basic levels of fidelity let them hear themselves they are good with it. Yet them hearing themself is nothing like how you hear it and I don't mean the fidelity.

Going back to this post: This is certainly speaking to something very true in so many cases: That many musicians, especially traditionally, would have been most concerned with their performances, and the band's performance. They wouldn't be listening so much as producers or engineers.

On the other hand, we shouldn't forget that even back in the 60's and especially 70's onward, there were musicians and bands involved in some of the more artistic decisions in mixing and production of the recordings.

More pertinent is that today we have so many musicians "in their bedroom" creating their own music, so not just playing but recording/producing/mixing their own products. And a lot of today's sound is real "studio rat" stuff, so it really is about putting together the specific sound of the recording, vs just concentrating on playing an instrument or just the performance. Every indie musician I know who is trying to put product out is doing a lot of the recording/mixing/production themselves on whatever set ups they can afford or rent.

Finneas on Producing Billie Eilish’s Hit Album in his Bedroom

By Steve Harvey. Finneas O’Connell—Billie Eilish's co-writer, producer, older brother and an artist in his own right—discusses recording her debut at home.

www.mixonline.com

 

[Newman]

…The issue appears to be an uncontrollable reflex to sanction diversity. I've never really got that part. That's why I think it's an emotional thing, more than a rational thing.

Firstly, I think you are imagining it.

Secondly, you might want to look up the definitions of 'sanction' because it can mean the opposite of what I think you intended.

Cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Firstly, I think you are imagining it.

Secondly, you might want to look up the definitions of 'sanction' because it can mean the opposite of what I think you intended.

Cheers

sanc·tion

noun
noun: sanction; plural noun: sanctions

1. 
   a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule.

Axo is quite literate and the meaning was obvious in the sentence.

And Axo is correct: Someone like me can explain until blue in the face how much I enjoy my surround system and digital sources, but if I also express my enthusiasm for 2 channel (and records) then up goes the bat signal for you and Sal especially to swoop in and try to contain such enthusiasm. "You clearly don't care about listening to music in the best possible formats!" With continued explicit or implicit judgments about being some anti-progress Luddite. When in fact I put much effort in to my surround system, have a wonderful digital front end, and simply enjoy various formats.

 

[Axo1989]

Firstly, I think you are imagining it.

Secondly, you might want to look up the definitions of 'sanction' because it can mean the opposite of what I think you intended.

You said it yourself: definitions, plural. So "sanction" is one of those strange English words that "can" mean two somewhat opposite things. Look, I've certainly read someone write "sanction" and momentarily thought, wtf? Therein lies the challenge: can we infer intended meaning from context, or will the uncontrollable reflex to declare other people wrong get in the way?