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

[sal]

...could be delivered in a better distribution format in the future.

Here in lies a problem I think. The distribution format is already set...TCP/IP - streaming over the internet. The distributor is going to throttle this as they look to squeeze as much bandwidth out of their service as possible.

{edit} The same distributors are already giving us "4k" video aren't they? They are, and it's highly compressed, and it is noticeable. Atmos music will be relegated to a niche market and then it will disappear. Just like the 3D TVs they threw at us a few years ago

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've not seen any streaming 4k yet. My gear is all 2k. One thing I've wondered given the extreme compression of streaming 4 K is whether 4k so compressed looks better than a lesser compressed 2k would all things considered. 2k streaming as it is looks pathetic with all the artifacts compared to watching a bluray disc from a bluray player.

 

[sal]

I've not seen any streaming 4k yet. My gear is all 2k. One thing I've wondered given the extreme compression of streaming 4 K is whether 4k so compressed looks better than a lesser compressed 2k would all things considered. 2k streaming as it is looks pathetic with all the artifacts compared to watching a bluray disc from a bluray player.

it is better than standard HD, but the compression algorithms still have the same issues.

But more on point to the OP- when will these guys learn? You can mess with my HT system all you want, but don’t touch my stereo!

 

[chelgrian]

I've not seen any streaming 4k yet. My gear is all 2k. One thing I've wondered given the extreme compression of streaming 4 K is whether 4k so compressed looks better than a lesser compressed 2k would all things considered. 2k streaming as it is looks pathetic with all the artifacts compared to watching a bluray disc from a bluray player.

4k streaming is generally in H265 at about 16Mbit/s with an Atmos soundtrack at about 768Kbit/s. In what I've watched it's much better than 2k in H264.

If you go looking there will be artefacts compared to UHD Blu-ray which has a total bitrate budget of between 72Mbit/s and 144Mbit/s depending on number of layers.

 

[Soundmixer]

Theatrical Atmos actually is delivered as a (up to) 128 channel broadcast WAV file plus metadata. The file contains up one or more 9.1 'bed' tracks plus object tracks and the placement metadata. The theatrical renderer then renders the objects based on the speaker layout in the theatre in real-time."

The theatrical version of Atmos uses a 9.1 bed (channels) and can handle up to 118 objects.


"Both formats can encode up to (I think) 14 channels plus the metadata stream. Again there is a 9.1 bed then In order to fit a quart in to a pint pot with the remaining 4 channels the encoding groups objects together and mixes them in to a single delivery channel which is then steered to where it's needed by metadata."

Actually, home Atmos works far differently than theatrical Atmos because of the limitations in bandwidth and storage space. Home Atmos has only one bed channel (the LFE) and uses 12-16 dynamic "clusters" to form aggregate objects, which are then panned into place. This is called spatial encoding, and it is necessary to compress the theatrical 9.1 bed + 118 objects down to a single bed and a specific number of dynamic clusters.

"Compared to delivering 2nd order ambisonic B format, which would need 9 channels, it's a staggeringly inefficient and inaccurate way to deliver a 3D sound field the only redeeming feature is the DSP needs to render it are far lower than required for an Ambisonic format."

Comparing Ambisonic B format to Atmos is comparing apples and pears. Ambisonics is a recording encode/decode system, and Atmos is purely a mixing system. The Atmos workflow is very specific to film soundtracks but has the flexibility to be used for music as well. However, it is not a recording process. Ambisonics does not have an established film soundtrack workflow, so while it may be more efficient overall, it is not an established efficient workflow for film audio post-production. Also, the home version of Atmos does not have a renderer. You have to tell the system how many speakers there are and where they are placed, and the metadata within the system does the work. The theatrical version of Atmos DOES have a renderer, as it is handling FAR more speakers in a much larger space. Ambisonics is limited to 9 channels of audio information which does not include overheads as far as I know.

 

[bluefuzz]

when something happens off to the side or behind, surround places the sound there, which creates a more realistic and immersive effect.

Perhaps, if the effects were actually realistic, I would find them less distracting. Too often, when someone shuts a car door stage right it sounds like a small atomic bomb going off. A mosquito flies past the leading lady's left ear and it is as if the massed pipes of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards have acquired autonomous flight. My world doesn't sound like that.

its as antiquated as watching a movie on a black and white TV

There are film makers who choose black and white for artistic reasons. There's nothing antiquated about it. That's like saying a pencil drawing is antiquated because oil paint was invented.

Much of what makes any art form engaging are the limitations imposed by the chosen medium. 2D film and 2D (i.e. stereo) sound are natural companions. I find forcing 3D effects into a 2D film medium analogous to a childs popup book. Engaging for a two-year-old but tiresome if you've actually learned to read ...

 

[Dimifoot]

It's all about money.
Proper Atmos setups are expensive, and space demanding. Property is also a matter of money: if you need dedicated rooms, you have to pay for them.
There are many Atmos setups in living rooms, but usually not well implemented.

I would actually like to know, if this info is available, what is the market share of AV receivers today, compared to 2-channel integrated dac/amps (and separates). I will not be surprised if the AV gear has a much bigger market share in living rooms.

And I am quite confident that the dominant format in 2021 is Mono, not Stereo, with millions of soundbars of various sizes being sold around the world.

Thats the financial view.

In terms of reproduction and enjoyment, there is no comparison, Immersive is much better than stereo. And the magnitude of improvement from Stereo to Immersive is much bigger than from Mono to Stereo.

 

[Bear123]

Perhaps, if the effects were actually realistic, I would find them less distracting. Too often, when someone shuts a car door stage right it sounds like a small atomic bomb going off. A mosquito flies past the leading lady's left ear and it is as if the massed pipes of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards have acquired autonomous flight. My world doesn't sound like that.

Hahahaha this literally made me laugh out loud as I sit drinking my morning coffee!!!

 

[Frank Dernie]

It's all about money.
Proper Atmos setups are expensive, and space demanding. Property is also a matter of money: if you need dedicated rooms, you have to pay for them.
There are many Atmos setups in living rooms, but usually not well implemented.

I would actually like to know, if this info is available, what is the market share of AV receivers today, compared to 2-channel integrated dac/amps (and separates). I will not be surprised if the AV gear has a much bigger market share in living rooms.

And I am quite confident that the dominant format in 2021 is Mono, not Stereo, with millions of soundbars of various sizes being sold around the world.

Thats the financial view.

In terms of reproduction and enjoyment, there is no comparison, Immersive is much better than stereo. And the magnitude of improvement from Stereo to Immersive is much bigger than from Mono to Stereo.

It probably varies a lot from country to country.
I would be shocked if here in the UK there are many AV receivers, for example and I, personally, know only a few people using mono wireless speakers and I don't know anybody with a soundbar!

I have quite a good surround system but rarely use it since for most recordings I own it doesn't seem to me to be any better than stereo and the Marantz pre-pro I bought for films seems particularly obtuse for selection of anything other than stereo for music and "whatever is on the disc" for films.
its "smart select" sound mode is anything but smart.

 

[Bear123]

It's all about money.
Proper Atmos setups are expensive, and space demanding. Property is also a matter of money: if you need dedicated rooms, you have to pay for them.
There are many Atmos setups in living rooms, but usually not well implemented.

I would actually like to know, if this info is available, what is the market share of AV receivers today, compared to 2-channel integrated dac/amps (and separates). I will not be surprised if the AV gear has a much bigger market share in living rooms.

And I am quite confident that the dominant format in 2021 is Mono, not Stereo, with millions of soundbars of various sizes being sold around the world.

Thats the financial view.

In terms of reproduction and enjoyment, there is no comparison, Immersive is much better than stereo. And the magnitude of improvement from Stereo to Immersive is much bigger than from Mono to Stereo.

I see a lot of poorly implemented Atmos as well. The whole idea of upfiring modules is the same as trying to get surround sound from a sound bar with no surround speakers, imo. Maybe it does a little something, but nothing like intended. One of the issue I see is that as you said, many folks have AVR's in their living rooms for movies/tv/music. Hanging boxes on the ceiling is a no go for many, and it's not even WAF, its just that at some point it looks like crap to anyone. For me personally, even surround speakers on stands looked atrocious in my room so I went with in walls for surround. Proper installation in ceiling is quite the PITA and possibly costly, although that's how I would do it if I were going to. Alas, I'm moving in a year, then probably renting for a year before I buy again, so no Atmos in my near future, even if it were important enough for me to invest in it. I feel like Im getting 95% of the immersiveness from 5 channels, although this is from not having experienced it so maybe Im off here.

 

[chelgrian]

The theatrical version of Atmos uses a 9.1 bed (channels) and can handle up to 118 objects.

That's what I said 9.1 + 118 = 128. Actually it can only do that at 48KHz at 96KHz it's limited to 9.1 + 54 = 64.

Actually, home Atmos works far differently than theatrical Atmos because of the limitations in bandwidth and storage space. Home Atmos has only one bed channel (the LFE) and uses 12-16 dynamic "clusters" to form aggregate objects, which are then panned into place. This is called spatial encoding, and it is necessary to compress the theatrical 9.1 bed + 118 objects down to a single bed and a specific number of dynamic clusters.

This feels like it comes from

https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-home-theater.pdf

which states

'In the case of the home theater, every sound in the mix is represented as an audio object.

However given the backwards compatibility constraints and the fact that it has to deliver the premixed stem in some form I suspect this is arguing semantics and it's something silly like the channels for a single (up to) 9.1 bed are technically delivered as objects panned to the location of the speakers and then take part in the clustering.

Comparing Ambisonic B format to Atmos is comparing apples and pears. Ambisonics is a recording encode/decode system, and Atmos is purely a mixing system.

This is just the messaging that Dolby is giving. Ambisonics is being used for delivery by FaceBook and YouTube and for that the mixing is done in ambisonics. Conversely Atmos is a mixing plus delivery system with relatively static speaker layout expected to be used.

Also, the home version of Atmos does not have a renderer.

The terminology is overloaded it certain does have object audio rendering during decode see the figure on page 11 of the PDF I referenced above. It obviously doesn't have a separate theatrical renderer or anything like the Dolby RMU used for mixing.

Ambisonics is limited to 9 channels of audio information which does not include overheads as far as I know.

Ambisonics does not work like that. B format can be encoded in a minimum of 4 channels (first order) and the highest anyone reasonably uses is 7th order encoded in 64 channels. Each order of ambisonics encodes an entire 3D sound field with increasing spatial resolution as the order of the ambisonic encoding increases. B format must be decoded to be played back and the decoding can synthesise speakers anywhere in the sound field.

The maths required for generating the speaker output from B format is somewhat hairy and until relatively recently the easiest was concentric stacked rings of speakers which necessarily left a directly overhead hole. However the maths and DSP power have caught up and full sphere systems are now possible.

 

[Mnyb]

Hm interesting been down the DVDA hole with my Meridian system . So yes multichannel music is superior when it actually exist ,which practically it does not . (I have some >100 DVDA discs and that probably a significant portion on whatever was released in the format many of them aren't even multichannel that's an even smaller subset )

It's going to be the usual chicken and egg situation which ends in no content and another dead format .

No one wants to make expensive productions when there's practically no audience due to the rarity of systems with more than 1 speaker .

 

[Dimifoot]

which ends in no content

https://www.hraudio.net/search.php?format=10&keywords=bach

I have selected Bach, in random. I got more than 500 multichannel/immersive discs as a result.

https://www.hraudio.net/search.php?format=10&keywords=beethoven
About 400 with Beethoven

You get the picture?
And there are lots of new recordings every year. And many re-issues/ remixes in Immersive formats.

There is no way I will live long enough to listen to them all. And in the meanwhile I also enjoy 2 channel music up-mixed with Auro 3D (Auromatic). For me, there is no reason that 9 of my 11 speakers should be silent.

This argument reminds me of the one against UHD films. Not enough content, so no need for an UHD projector/TV
Previously, 15 years ago it was used for HD/1080 films. I am sure there were people using it 70 years ago against Stereo. No content, so no need, Mono is enough.

Is it?

 

[Mnyb]

Well see, PM me when 10% off all music releases comes in Atmos, then I buy the hardware

Some classical releases yes but i do like more mainstream stuff and Jazz and Blues Pop rock singer songwriter etc .

I don't want to specially seek out these recordings . I want to select the artist and music first .
That was what i saw with SACD and DVDA only a fraction of all music was there and most releases where basically fakes . Do you think it's going to be different this time around ?

I'm also a little burned by "audiophile record companies" putting the cart before the horse.

 

[maverickronin]

https://www.hraudio.net/search.php?format=10&keywords=bach

I have selected Bach, in random. I got more than 500 multichannel/immersive discs as a result.

https://www.hraudio.net/search.php?format=10&keywords=beethoven
About 400 with Beethoven

Classical is basically the only genre where multichannel has any market penetration. If that fits you tastes then great. If not, then they may as well not exist because...

I don't want to specially seek out these recordings . I want to select the artist and music first .

Personally, I don't remember ever seeing a multichannel version of something I was already looking for. Some probably do exist, but I just never saw them of the market segmentation.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

It's all about money.
Proper Atmos setups are expensive, and space demanding. Property is also a matter of money: if you need dedicated rooms, you have to pay for them.
There are many Atmos setups in living rooms, but usually not well implemented.

I would actually like to know, if this info is available, what is the market share of AV receivers today, compared to 2-channel integrated dac/amps (and separates). I will not be surprised if the AV gear has a much bigger market share in living rooms.

And I am quite confident that the dominant format in 2021 is Mono, not Stereo, with millions of soundbars of various sizes being sold around the world.

Thats the financial view.

In terms of reproduction and enjoyment, there is no comparison, Immersive is much better than stereo. And the magnitude of improvement from Stereo to Immersive is much bigger than from Mono to Stereo.

Yes and no. For sure, the 70s were not ready for a proper Quad setup with most people just buying there first stereo stuff, if any.
Now, you have the Stereophile that invested 10k per channel for two and does the math for a minimum of 5 channels, not acknowledging that 10k was an overkill and that 1k for a single Multichannel is good enough for a similar experience as spreading the sound reduces the demand in single channel performance. And you have of course the many people that can and will not spend 1k per channel and hence give up, not knowing that even 0.1k per channel times 9 gives a tremendous experience beating the said 10k per channel.

 

[geronimo1958]

LOL.

 

[jonfitch]

The majority of music is listened to on ear buds and car sound systems, which last time I checked were stereo. It's unlikely anything more than a tiny sliver of music production goes beyond 2 channel for a long time.

 

[Mnyb]

The majority of music is listened to on ear buds and car sound systems, which last time I checked were stereo. It's unlikely anything more than a tiny sliver of music production goes beyond 2 channel for a long time.

If we permit ourself with unlimited optimism ( like the spirit of this tread before people like me rained on the parade )

In future where bandwidth and storage is just a minor issue .

One could envision future audio formats that unpacked and dowmixed to suite the situation so you have the same stream/file everywhere . But when you are on the bus with your phone you get a dynamic compressed 2ch mix but when curing up the same track in your home theater you get some glorious multichannel and nice dynamics and everything in between soundbar 2ch hifi etc etc.

What’s not going to work really well is having consumers buying 25 versions of the same thing on different media so some kind of automation is needed

I would not be surprised if something like this already exist , but it’s the implementation that is the hurdle.

 

[Mnyb]

If we permit ourself with unlimited optimism ( like the spirit of this tread before people like me rained on the parade )

In future where bandwidth and storage is just a minor issue .

One could envision future audio formats that unpacked and dowmixed to suite the situation so you have the same stream/file everywhere . But when you are on the bus with your phone you get a dynamic compressed 2ch mix but when curing up the same track in your home theater you get some glorious multichannel and nice dynamics and everything in between soundbar 2ch hifi etc etc.

What’s not going to work really well is having consumers buying 25 versions of the same thing on different media so some kind of automation is needed

I would not be surprised if something like this already exist , but it’s the implementation that is the hurdle.

In a streaming only future it could work a bit like YouTube does today but your device report back it’s capacity to the servers and you get a suitable stream.