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

[AdamG]

When done right the sound is sublime! Movie soundtrack Music is especially delightful when your not expecting it. It can be refreshing to change up the way you experience Music. I still listen to majority of Music in 2 channel mode. I don’t see why both formats can not coexist. Upmixing is another way to get a taste and can be done to any 2 channel mix. Results vary, but exploring is fun.

 

[richard12511]

I can understand the appeal of surround formats for music, but I can't see any benefit for movies as long as they're on a single screen in front. I find the disconnect between the visual and the audio disturbing. If screens wrapped all around, including height, then fine, the sound field and visual field would match, but with current technology of a small screen and wide surround sound doesn't work for me.

So, I don't get what Atmos is trying to do unless they do the same for pictures as for sound.

S

Really interesting point. Logically, what you say makes total sense, but for some reason my brain tells me the opposite. Surround sound makes the movie infinitely more realistic to my brain for some reason. I actually have difficulty getting into movies without surround sound.

There is that weird 2d vs 3D disconnect, I agree, but my brain still prefers it that way for some reason. Thinking about it, I think it’s because my brain sees the camera as my eyes, and just like in real life, I can only see in one direction at a time, but I’m constantly hearing in 360. In real life, if I’m looking north, and a helicopter is coming up behind be from the south, I’ll hear the sound behind me first, then above me, and then in front of me. I won’t see the helicopter though until it’s in front of me. With surround sound and heights, the sound/visual is reproduced very similar to how it happens in real life(but no periphery). With just stereo, though, I mainly just hear the helicopter in front of me, but then my eyes see it pass me from behind, which is a dead giveaway for my brain that this is fake, as the sound conflicts with what my eyes see.

 

[richard12511]

Most of the people I know consider the cost and mess associated with more than 2 speakers to be an unacceptable sacrifice to make for a not-big-enough improvement, So despite its evident benefits multi channel will remain a minority interest for music IMO, and a small minority at that.

This is imo, the core issue, and why Atmos will never take off. Well done Atmos/Auro does sound a little bit better and more realistic, but stereo gets you 90% of the way there with 80% less clutter.

 

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

When done right the sound is sublime! Movie soundtrack Music is especially delightful when your not expecting it. It can be refreshing to change up the way you experience Music. I still listen to majority of Music in 2 channel mode. I don’t see why both formats can coexist. Upmixing is another way to get a taste and can be done to any 2 channel mix. Results vary, but exploring is fun.

Funny, I don't see why both formats CANNOT coexist

My 3 channel reference system consists of 3 identical speakers

For It can be easily switched to a 2 channel stereo system for source material that "wanders" from left to right as any stereo speakers should be able to do

It can be used in a Dolby compatible 3 channel system, or a 5 / 7 / 9 or even 128 channel system when adding additional speakers

But, when listening to music where the image does not wander from left to right to left, it remains in reference mode to eliminate all crosstalk and comb filtering produced by the interference patterns associated with 2 speaker stereo systems that reproduce mono information in more than one location

There is no 3.1 or 5.1 or 7.1 etc as the lowest bass frequencies are reproduce in the speakers themselves, not a separate subwoofer

It can produce lower distortion that a Dolby system, or the same amount of distortion if that is what you are looking for

It can even give you as much distortion as a regular 2 channel stereo system if you like

It is indeed, the Reference Standard!

 

[richard12511]

This! I too find 3D movie effects simply annoying and distracting. The action is on a screen in front of me, so why should the sounds come from behind or above me? Its just effects for the sake of effects.

Because that's how it is in real life. If a grenade goes off behind you in real life, you won't see it(ie it's not on screen), but you will still hear it behind you. Hearing a grenade go off in front of me, despite seeing on screen that no grenade went off in front of me, really takes me out of the illusion. Then the camera turns around and shows you the explosion was behind you, but wait, I just heard it come from in front of me???

 

[AdamG]

Funny, I don't see why both formats CANNOT coexist

My 3 channel reference system consists of 3 identical speakers

For It can be easily switched to a 2 channel stereo system for source material that "wanders" from left to right as any stereo speakers should be able to do

It can be used in a Dolby compatible 3 channel system, or a 5 / 7 / 9 or even 128 channel system when adding additional speakers

But, when listening to music where the image does not wander from left to right to left, it remains in reference mode to eliminate all crosstalk and comb filtering produced by the interference patterns associated with 2 speaker stereo systems that reproduce mono information in more than one location

There is no 3.1 or 5.1 or 7.1 etc as the lowest bass frequencies are reproduce in the speakers themselves, not a separate subwoofer

It can produce lower distortion that a Dolby system, or the same amount of distortion if that is what you are looking for

It can even give you as much distortion as a regular 2 channel stereo system if you like

It is indeed, the Reference Standard!

Typo, I meant to type/say “I don’t see why both formats can not coexist”.

 

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

Because that's how it is in real life. If a grenade goes off behind you in real life, you won't see it(ie it's not on screen), but you will still hear it behind you. Hearing a grenade go off in front of me, despite being able to see that no grenade went off in front of me really takes me out of the illusion. Then the camera turns around and shows you the explosion was behind you, but I just heard it come from in front of me???

But if the sound behind you requires full range identical speakers to reproduce with the lowest possible distortion, you will be spending several million dollars on a 128 channel full range system that can only fit in a football field

This is why ambient surround sounds "usually" require only a limited frequency response and in most cases a smaller speaker

The main source of sound is the front speakers and should be treated as such

 

[richard12511]

Perhaps ironically for Dolby, word on the street is that Auro actually has the best upmixer.

I certainly prefer the Auro upmixer to the Dolby one. Oddly, I don't like instruments and voices coming from behind me(stage performance bias?). Auro is much more subtle, and really just plays delayed reverb in the surrounds and heights. The effect is that the imaging remains the same, and the only thing that really happens is that the soundstage expands a little horizontally and a moderate amount vertically. You can get a similar effect by going to wider dispersion speakers. However, wider dispersion speakers come with the downside of blurring the imaging a bit(ime), and don't really expand the stage vertically much.

I also like that you can control the strength of the effect(0-16). I tend to prefer 6-7. You can also adjust the room size, which effects how delayed the reverb will be. For symphonic music, you can set it to "Large" and it will delay the reverb longer to simulate a bigger listening space. I use "Small" for most pop/rock music, which simulates the reverb of them being in the room with you. "Medium" kinda simulates a small public space(like a Jazz bar).

 

[Putter]

A grand piano is no exactly point source. How does Atmos handle that? Can an instrument consist of multiple points? Like putting 3 mics around and into the piano and then call this three close point sources? Same for the drums: one point source for each single percussion instrument?

Frankly I find what they do to a solo piano in stereo disturbing which is to spread it around the stereo image, the bass notes on the left side and the high notes on the right with midrange in the middle. However I could see having the piano have some sense of space with a certain amount of reverberation and 'room' sound from the surround speakers.

 

[richard12511]

But if the sound behind you requires full range identical speakers to reproduce with the lowest possible distortion, you will be spending several million dollars on a 128 channel full range system that can only fit in a football field

This is why ambient surround sounds "usually" require only a limited frequency response and in most cases a smaller speaker

The main source of sound is the front speakers and should be treated as such

Not really, I have 4 subs scattered about the room, and I can't localize the bass part of the grenade at all. Since I can't localize the bass, to make the sound sound like it's coming from behind me, all the surround speaker needs to do is reproduce the sounds of the grenade above 100Hz, and my Genelec 8030c are perfectly capable of that. It doesn't need to be full range at all, since we can't really localize anything below ~200Hz. When a grenade goes off behind me, it really does sound like it's going off behind me. I certainly didn't spend millions of dollars, and I certainly don't have full range speakers all around me.

 

[richard12511]

There are film makers who choose black and white for artistic reasons.

And it ruins it for me . Definitely a weird personal bias, but I can't help it. There are legit great movies(ex: 'The Lighthouse') that I can't watch because the black and white just takes me out right away. Only one I sat through(and loved) was Schindler's list, though I would love it so much more in color. Many would disagree, though.

BTW, I agree with you about the overdramatic movie surround noises haha.

 

[richard12511]

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.

This has been my experience, too. If I want multi-channel music I have to seek it out specifically.

 

[richard12511]

Dolby Atmos:
The blind leading the blind

Big and impressive, but not high fidelity

When you close your eyes and an actual person is talking to you 12 feet in front and 6 feet to the left, you don't need to see them to point directly at them and guess the distance

You can't do that with a pair of JBL speakers with waveguide tweeters giving you that amazing ghost center image
You can't do that with a pair of big planar dipoles or bipoles either
and you can't do that with 128 speakers all over the room

What you get is big and impressive sound but not accuracy

can you close your eyes and point directly at the singer ?
The guitar ?
The piano ?
The whatever ?

No, the placement is muddled by the bigness and the destructive interference by the opposing speaker

https://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/FixingThePhantomCenter.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/video/214989/Wave-interference-overview-sound-waves

You are not looking for accuracy
You're looking for big and impressive

I was building reference 3 channel speakers for stereo recordings longer than Dolby or anyone else that I am aware of

I build for accuracy

I have JBL's as well, but when I close my eyes, I must wave my hand around in a circular fashion to describe the general area of an instrument or singer when listening to them

They are impressive, but not realistic sounding

I agree with you that even 11 channel music still doesn't sound like the real thing(ie it's not accurate or high fidelity). It still sounds more accurate than stereo, though, which is why it still has at least some value. Just because a technology can't recreate the real thing accurately doesn't mean we should give up on it. It's nowhere close to the real thing, but it's closer to it than stereo is, which is why I use it.

I agree that it will never take off, though. It's just not worth the hassle and expense. My mains are much better than my surrounds and heights, and on their own they get me 90% of the way there. Still not quite as good, but almost, with 1/5th the clutter. I only do 11 channels because I live alone and don't care about aesthetics. If I had a partner, I'd probably ditch all the surrounds and go back to 2.1, and I'd be perfectly satisfied.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

You can record an instrument anechoically inside a spherical array of mics and then use a spherical speaker array to reproduce the recording.

As instruments go, trumpet is actually quite directional across the spectrum but string instruments radiate in all directions:

Looks fantastic. Is there a way that Atmos or any other Mch system could reproduce or at least use such a microphone setup?

 

[tuga]

Looks fantastic. Is there a way that Atmos or any other Mch system could reproduce or at least use such a microphone setup?

You'be looking at something different, perhaps record with an Eigenmike and lisnten in a spherical array of speakers with as many channels:

 

[chelgrian]

This is imo, the core issue, and why Atmos will never take off. Well done Atmos/Auro does sound a little bit better and more realistic, but stereo gets you 90% of the way there with 80% less clutter.

What is bizarre is the attitude of both Dolby and some proponents of Atmos on the creation side.

I was trying to explain on a pro audio forum why creating and distributing Atmos for music is painful and expensive for no additional revenue and I was called 'entitled' for suggesting that Dolby might want to do something about that.

The thing is that on the film side Dolby has brand recognition and there is a financial upside for distributing in Dolby formats so Dolby can run both ends and extract revenue from both for creation and distribution of the format.

This pull simply doesn't exist on the music side.

Personally I not going to spend my cash promoting their format when there is no financial payoff vs distributing in stereo.

 

[Thunder22]

Bottom line is... It all depends on who/how the sound gets mastered and mixed. Sound engineers are like any other group of people. A couple of winners and a whole bunch of losers. We have all heard sub par 5.1/stereo mixes. Example, I've been watching Game of Thrones on Blu-Ray and the surround sound is terrible. Every time a door shuts (which is often) it sounds like an asteroid is hitting the earth. The whole mix is very distracting.

If stereo, DD, DTS, or Atmos is done well it can be sensational; if it is not then, it is not. If Atmos wants to truly take off Dolby should come up with some kind of quality control standard. I for one would love to see multi-channel music take off across the board, but I will not hold my breath.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

Atmos or Mch simply needs a streaming channel - or a Qobuz/Tidal add-on for xx€.

 

[isolar8001]

Hmmm. Anyone else here old enough to remember the failed Quadraphonic systems?

I Am....Yey !! First Post Here.....Great Place !!

 

[AdamG]

I Am....Yey !! First Post Here.....Great Place !!

Welcome to ASR!