-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Dr Olive is not happy with how Dolby Atmos is mixed
- Thread starter sarumbear
- Start date
Why would the Dolby Theater have a fantom center?
- Thread Starter
- #3
Compatibly with stereo?
You’d think that out of 215 speakers, 1 could do center duty
Stereo compatible would make sense if it was a stereo soundtracks, but clearly it was not. Maybe they auditioned the stereo downmix? Then I can’t really blame it being shit when played in a room that was not meant for it.
D
Deleted member 21114
Guest
There is more detail in Dr Olive's twitter thread.
"But the majority of mixers seem to prefer phantom, and the labels are mandating it."
I believe the stereo ~4KHz HRTF null might have something to do with it.
"But the majority of mixers seem to prefer phantom, and the labels are mandating it."
I believe the stereo ~4KHz HRTF null might have something to do with it.
Newman
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 5,023
- Likes
- 7,061
The theatre would have a discrete centre, but the content being played isn't using it, because the mixer mixed to a phantom centre.
Dr Olive posted similar content on FB:-
Sean Olive on FB, 21/5/23: "Dear ATMOS mixers: please give me a real center channel vocalist. My center channel is up to the task and I have it at the right height. I appreciate the stable localization, low coloration, better intelligibility, and freedom to move out of the sweet spot. I sometimes have friends over who also appreciate hearing proper spatial audio without having to sit in my lap. Thank you."
Sean Olive on FB, 22/5/23: "X (way off stage) is where I approximately heard the main vocalist at Dolby Theater HQ in San Francisco when a mixer played his ATMOS mix with phantom center. When I asked him (the mixer) if that is what the artist intended he said he doesn't mix for people sitting outside the sweet spot. Apparently the 100+ other people in the audience not sitting in the sweet spot don't matter. Only a select few who arrived early and knew where to sit heard what the artist intended. …The people on the stage that day repeated the claim that atmos translates what they hear in the studio to outside the studio no matter the playback setup or space. Consumers hear what the artist intended.
"But the phantom center only guarantees that 1 person sitting in the correct seat will hear what the artist intended. The rest will hear a distortion of their intent. What I am repeatedly told by mixers and record labels is that consumers not sitting in the sweet spot don't matter.
"So we are essentially listening to an enhanced version of 75 year old technology called stereo because of archaic mixing practices mandated by record labels. Maybe call it ATMOS Stereo with Ambience?"
[edit: please note that Dr Olive is referring to music mixes to Atmos, hence both his posts mention "the vocalist". It is not a generic criticism of all Atmos AV soundtracks or of the format itself.]
Last edited:
Ah, so the reality is even more stupid than I could imagine
Although… With Atmos, when everything is a virtual object in 3D space, every speaker should be “phantom”. It just shows that the virtual object thing is mostly a marketing gimmick and that mixes are still done on discrete channels.
valerianf
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Is Atmos a real progress when discrete speakers are used (i.e. 5.1) at the specified placement?
Actually the so called 'bed' channels are not objects. The classic 7.1 configuration for example doesn't use any object coding.
I’m well aware. That is the whole contention point. I’d love to know how much the object channels are actually get used? I bet it’s not a whole lot. The whole point of sound objects in 3D space is so you don’t have to worry about channels or speaker configurations.
Still, why would one refuse to add a center channel? It’s beyond stupid!
Last edited:
It’s worse, because most people, especially in a domestic setup don’t have the speakers setup at the exact positions they are meant to be. And since most AVR/AVPs only ask for distances there is no real remapping in 3D space to correct for this. A few bands do seem to do this though. Yamaha for instance measures the speaker layout in angle and height and then projects all the channels to the real physical layout.
Sadly there are no objective tests or reviews (that I’m aware of) out there that show that this actually makes a big difference.
Ah, so the reality is even more stupid than I could imagine
Old habbits die hard, but i have personally heard many songs on Apple music with a dedicated center. it's not like 100% thing for sure.
I think the habbit of not mixing just for the sweet spot is going to take a LONG time to die out.
the bit-rate for the objects is horrendously low, which is a huge deterrent to what you can do with them in music.
Newman
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 5,023
- Likes
- 7,061
You are entitled to make jokes! 
After all, it is a pity that tech advances, with real potential to progress the experience, are often incompetently utilised.
Still, we live for the good ones, right? With so many horrible stereo mixes and masters out there, one can hardly stand on a pedestal and take pot shots at Atmos.
cheers
After all, it is a pity that tech advances, with real potential to progress the experience, are often incompetently utilised.
Still, we live for the good ones, right? With so many horrible stereo mixes and masters out there, one can hardly stand on a pedestal and take pot shots at Atmos.
cheers
Last edited:
The shots are at the mixer, not the technology
"Someone" was talking about objects, so we're talking about info outside the 7.1.4 bed channels.
Trouble Maker
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Wow, I had no idea they did that. It seems like a bad concept form the get go. Why not do everything object based? This would even (especially) help people that aren't doing height channels. I would guess the typical room with a 5.1 setup has much worse speaker placement than someone adding height channels. The audience/customer base would have been much larger too. This is the kind of product that happens when nobody thinks about the customer when making it.
Wait.... even the .4 (height channel) is considered a bed channel in context of object based VS channel based?
If someone has some good reading on this, I'd love a link.
