Dr Olive is not happy with how Dolby Atmos is mixed

[iGude]

Here is a clip from that recording

Thank you for that, obviously I remembered that wrongly (and I’m not able to check currently).
I will mark it accordingly in my post.

 

[Sean Olive]

Post #5 quotes Dr Olive on Twitter saying that record companies are mandating the use of a phantom centre channel on Atmos mixes.

That would be very concerning, if he is stating a verifiable fact and not just an impression he is getting from finding so many Atmos music mixes using phantom centre. I wish @Sean Olive would enter this conversation and fill us in so we don’t have to resort to conjecture.

I do agree with you that he seems to be talking about Atmos mixes of music, and not all MCH music over the past 20 years.

PS you asked me for a link to Dr Olive’s FB comments that I quoted, but I can’t find how to find a link reference from within the FB app. I suggest you open FB and search for Sean Olive and look at his posts approx 5 days ago.

cheers

It's in section 3.2 of the UMG atmos mixing guidelines. AN Atmos mixer sent me this and told me he had mixes rejected by their QA department for too much vocal in the center. Sony 360 apparently has similar guidelines.

And yes: I lived through this "fear of the center channe" l in the 1990s when DTS 5.1 music came out. In cars we deal with this using an upmixer to extract a center.

http://www.umghelpguides.com/guides/dolby-atmos-music/#anchor-3-2

 

[Newman]

It's in section 3.2 of the UMG atmos mixing guidelines. AN Atmos mixer sent me this and told me he had mixes rejected by their QA department for too much vocal in the center. Sony 360 apparently has similar guidelines.

And yes: I lived through this "fear of the center channe" l in the 1990s when DTS 5.1 music came out. In cars we deal with this using an upmixer to extract a center.

http://www.umghelpguides.com/guides/dolby-atmos-music/#anchor-3-2

Thank you Sean for replying, and may I say, that’s outrageous!

cheers

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

And you did notice that this point wasn’t brought up by me, but by scientists that are considered among the most knowledgeable in their area?

Theory is not the same as practice...

Surrounds and LFEs are weak links in any theater system. If you rely on them too much you are asking for extra translation problems from theater to theater. Also, surrounds are typically not full frequency speakers except in Atmos installations, where bass management is used to reproduce the lows.
interesting discussion

 

[Jon AA]

Also, surrounds are typically not full frequency speakers except in Atmos installations, where bass management is used to reproduce the lows.

Uhm, the surrounds are bass managed in virtually every theater. Even low end 5.1 AVRs do this by default (even if you don't have a sub)--you need to go out of your way to specifically set them not to be bass managed.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Uhm, the surrounds are bass managed in virtually every theater. Even low end 5.1 AVRs do this by default (even if you don't have a sub)--you need to go out of your way to specifically set them not to be bass managed.

The point is the LFE being the weak link. Mixing music using the LFE is not recommended.

 

[sarumbear]

Movies ARE different. All of them are surround now. But there is often a teenager paid minimum wage operating the equipment.

That teenager cannot do any adjustment as every setting is locked with a key. They just press play...

 

[Jon AA]

The point is the LFE being the weak link. Mixing music using the LFE is not recommended.

LFE and Bass Management are not the same thing. I was specifically addressing the statement about surrounds--the guy you quoted was saying it's OK to use surrounds in an Atmos theater because the surrounds would be bass managed. I was merely pointing out in pretty much any setup that has surround speakers, they will be bass managed.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

LFE and Bass Management are not the same thing. I was specifically addressing the statement about surrounds--the guy you quoted was saying it's OK to use surrounds in an Atmos theater because the surrounds would be bass managed. I was merely pointing out in pretty much any setup that has surround speakers, they will be bass managed.

Did I say that LFE and bass management were the same thing?
Ofcourse you can talk about anything you want, but my comment was about the topic of this thread and the claim, that it was lazyness or incompetence that the center channel was not used more heavily for music.

 

[krabapple]

Theory is not the same as practice...

Surrounds and LFEs are weak links in any theater system. If you rely on them too much you are asking for extra translation problems from theater to theater. Also, surrounds are typically not full frequency speakers except in Atmos installations, where bass management is used to reproduce the lows.
interesting discussion

But this discussion is about the Center.

It's in section 3.2 of the UMG atmos mixing guidelines. AN Atmos mixer sent me this and told me he had mixes rejected by their QA department for too much vocal in the center. Sony 360 apparently has similar guidelines.

And yes: I lived through this "fear of the center channe" l in the 1990s when DTS 5.1 music came out. In cars we deal with this using an upmixer to extract a center.

http://www.umghelpguides.com/guides/dolby-atmos-music/#anchor-3-2

If you mean DTS-CD, that niche music product relied on repurposing legacy quad mixes, and was pretty much obsoleted by DVD, DVDA, and SACD featuring new multichannel mixes (as well as repurposed quads). Thus from 2000 to now, the center has been used in multichannel mixes far more often than not, typically for a lead vocal/instrument on pop/rock releases.

UMG's Atmos guidelines represent a different and foolish tack.

 

[Sean Olive]

But this discussion is about the Center.



If you mean DTS-CD, that niche music product relied on repurposing legacy quad mixes, and was pretty much obsoleted by DVD, DVDA, and SACD featuring new multichannel mixes (as well as repurposed quads). Thus from 2000 to now, the center has been used in multichannel mixes far more often than not, typically for a lead vocal/instrument on pop/rock releases.

UMG's Atmos guidelines represent a different and foolish tack.

My experience so far is the opposite. The majority of pop atmos music has little or no center channel. Some is panned to all three front channels but usually less to the center. When you move out of the sweet spot the vocal collapses to the. nearest speaker or somewhere between it and the center.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

But this discussion is about the Center.

If a mixer cannot rely to use the LFE channel as reliable translating mechanism for the bass in the music, he is forced to use the fullrange main channels.
But if the main front channels have to be used, then the question arises, how will setups sound, especially home setups, that use a center speaker.
A different center speaker may sound different from LR. This may not be a huge problem for movies, because dialogue is mostly isolated in the center and atmos and music mostly are in the other speakers. So there is less overlap and dependency.

But with music mixed in stereo everything is built around the voice and the voice is phantom center. As I understand it, the balance of the whole stereo mix, every single track in the song, is crafted and made in relation of the voice, the main instrument.
Now if the voice was simply remixed to a dedicated center channel, and if the center sounds sightly different from LR, the whole mix may fall apart. And this can't be known in advance.

To me it seems logical, if the movie mixers want to make sure, that the most important instrument of a song, the voice, translates correctly and therefore the stereo mix keeps its cohesion, they will try to refrain from re-mixing too much into the center, if the original music track was mixed in stereo.

If I think about certain elements, like pads or strings in stereo mixes, I wonder, if it was even possible to use certain standard stereo panning and mixing techniques and apply them to a 7.1 mix with the voice panned to the dedicated center. It may sound very strange, if the voice was solo in the center, while the pads are in LR and surround. So it may be necessary to mix elements from LR, which were automatically phantom center in the stereo mix, additionally into the dedicated center channel with unpredictable consequences, if the center was sounding differently.

 

[krabapple]

My experience so far is the opposite. The majority of pop atmos music has little or no center channel.

But I wasn't referring to Atmos mixes, of which I've heard very few (always downmixed to 5.1). I accept your report that UMG is favoring 'centerless' mixes for Atmos, and consider that practice to be stupid for the very reasons you cite.

I was referring to the ~20 years of consumer multichannel mixes releases on digital that preceded (and overlapped) the rollout of Atmos mixes. That's thousands of releases since the year 2000. I own a big bunch of them, including many of the most famous/popular. Classics rock and pop albums from artists like Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Beck, the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Steely Dan, Queen, Neil Young, Talking Heads, Depeche Mode, Metallica, Elton John, Deep Purple, the Flaming Lips, Peter Gabriel, all the major prog rock acts, a live set or two from Led Zeppelin, a bit of Britney Spears.... the list goes on. Plus some new or renowned classical recordings, and a smattering of famous jazz records.

These have mostly been 5.1 remixes from the original multitracks; a subset are repurposed 4.0 'quad' mixes from the 1970s; and there are some 5.0 mixes out there too. They were released on DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD, and BluRay media. For rock and pop the 5.x mixes have typically used the center channel, and typically used it for lead vocals alone, lead vocals+bass, or lead instruments. On classical 5.1 releases there's been a variety of uses for the center. I'm less familiar with the gamut of jazz 5.1 releases, but I have a few classics that were originally recorded on analog 3-track and thus have prominent 'lead' center channel content in 5.1 or 5.0.

I've also participated on a surround music forum for many years, and would certainly have heard about it if most releases that I *don't* own weren't using the center.

I was responding to a poster who, having read your report about Atmos mixes abjuring use of a center, claimed that the center historically wasn't used in multichannel mixes. Which simply isn't true for the two decades of digital MCH history leading up to Atmos.

Some is panned to all three front channels but usually less to the center. When you move out of the sweet spot the vocal collapses to the. nearest speaker or somewhere between it and the center.

The one Atmos disc I've checked by ear, Bob Dylan's 'Time out of Mind" , has Bob's vocal (though not only the vocal) in the center and the l/r. I haven't compared the levels per channel.

 

[krabapple]

If a mixer cannot rely to use the LFE channel as reliable translating mechanism for the bass in the music, he is forced to use the fullrange main channels.
But if the main front channels have to be used, then the question arises, how will setups sound, especially home setups, that use a center speaker.
A different center speaker may sound different from LR. This may not be a huge problem for movies, because dialogue is mostly isolated in the center and atmos and music mostly are in the other speakers. So there is less overlap and dependency.

But with music mixed in stereo everything is built around the voice and the voice is phantom center. As I understand it, the balance of the whole stereo mix, every single track in the song, is crafted and made in relation of the voice, the main instrument.
Now if the voice was simply remixed to a dedicated center channel, and if the center sounds sightly different from LR, the whole mix may fall apart. And this can't be known in advance.

You seem to be relying on theory rather than what's actually been released over the past two-plus decades.

 

[dasdoing]

People have indeed become accustomed to the imprecise phantom center. It's the phase differences that cause it to spread out. Many people reject DRC with phase correction for that reason, as it makes the phantom center sound like an actual center.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

You seem to be relying on theory rather than what's actually been released over the past two-plus decades.

I guess you know about the DTS HD-master supermega hi-res releases for the consumer market? It was almost a hype. Do you really believe, that the base were not the normal 48k files for the theatrical release? It's just encoded with a different spec. Even today for streaming, the minimum specs for the stems are 48k and ofcourse the spec that is least demanding is preferred by the production studios, because higher sampling rates mean much higher CPU demand, potential problems of intermodulation distortion, incompatibility with old plugins, you get it.
The consumer market is served what is selling, but specs do not necessarily refelct the production specs.

The same happens with releases for the consumer market regarding surround formats.
Just put yourself in the shoes of a music distributor/publisher:
A new format is penetrating the market. Consumers cry for more content. But all you have is in good old stereo. But you could sell many of your artists again, some of them even dead, if you would release them in the new format. And you could even demand a great premium on the price.
All you have to do, is ask a studio to upmix it and yuo can sell it as surround or Atmos mix, or wouldn't you do it, and tell consumers, that no new mix will be made, because it would cost too much and that instead they could set up their systems for using an upmixer handling 2.0 material extremely well?

Ofcourse you wouldn't. But if you would tell the business damaging truth, you would have the golden ears immediately complaining, that they want their little noise making height speakers being used to their full extent...
Surely you would go the way to give the golden eared masses what they are shouting for in their untreated rooms with 20 speakers...

I was talking about the production side for a theatrical release, where you can't simply put something from a phantom center into the dedicated center channel.

 

[iGude]

But I wasn't referring to Atmos mixes, of which I've heard very few (always downmixed to 5.1). I accept your report that UMG is favoring 'centerless' mixes for Atmos, and consider that practice to be stupid for the very reasons you cite.

I was referring to the ~20 years of consumer multichannel mixes releases on digital that preceded (and overlapped) the rollout of Atmos mixes. That's thousands of releases since the year 2000. I own a big bunch of them, including many of the most famous/popular. Classics rock and pop albums from artists like Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Beck, the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Steely Dan, Queen, Neil Young, Talking Heads, Depeche Mode, Metallica, Elton John, Deep Purple, the Flaming Lips, Peter Gabriel, all the major prog rock acts, a live set or two from Led Zeppelin, a bit of Britney Spears.... the list goes on. Plus some new or renowned classical recordings, and a smattering of famous jazz records.

These have mostly been 5.1 remixes from the original multitracks; a subset are repurposed 4.0 'quad' mixes from the 1970s; and there are some 5.0 mixes out there too. They were released on DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD, and BluRay media. For rock and pop the 5.x mixes have typically used the center channel, and typically used it for lead vocals alone, lead vocals+bass, or lead instruments. On classical 5.1 releases there's been a variety of uses for the center. I'm less familiar with the gamut of jazz 5.1 releases, but I have a few classics that were originally recorded on analog 3-track and thus have prominent 'lead' center channel content in 5.1 or 5.0.

I've also participated on a surround music forum for many years, and would certainly have heard about it if most releases that I *don't* own weren't using the center.

I was responding to a poster who, having read your report about Atmos mixes abjuring use of a center, claimed that the center historically wasn't used in multichannel mixes. Which simply isn't true for the two decades of digital MCH history leading up to Atmos.






The one Atmos disc I've checked by ear, Bob Dylan's 'Time out of Mind" , has Bob's vocal (though not only the vocal) in the center and the l/r. I haven't compared the levels per channel.

In light of all feedback, both comments „center channel is hardly used“ as well as „center channel is commonly used“ are equally wrong since both are too general.

 

[krabapple]

In light of all feedback, both comments „center channel is hardly used“ as well as „center channel is commonly used“ are equally wrong since both are too general.

The former will only be 'right', and the latter 'wrong', when center-less Atmos album releases proportionally swamp the numbers of DVD-V, DVD-A , SACD and 5.1 BluRay releases that have come out since 2000. Those really do tend to populate the center channel.

And I note too that the center of channel of the one recent, rather high profile, Atmos release I've checked (auditioned as a 5.1 bed mix) ....is used. As it reportedly is an another high profile Atmos mix (auditioned as Atmos).

 

[krabapple]

I guess you know about the DTS HD-master supermega hi-res releases for the consumer market? It was almost a hype. Do you really believe, that the base were not the normal 48k files for the theatrical release? It's just encoded with a different spec. Even today for streaming, the minimum specs for the stems are 48k and ofcourse the spec that is least demanding is preferred by the production studios, because higher sampling rates mean much higher CPU demand, potential problems of intermodulation distortion, incompatibility with old plugins, you get it.
The consumer market is served what is selling, but specs do not necessarily refelct the production specs.

The same happens with releases for the consumer market regarding surround formats.
Just put yourself in the shoes of a music distributor/publisher:
A new format is penetrating the market. Consumers cry for more content. But all you have is in good old stereo. But you could sell many of your artists again, some of them even dead, if you would release them in the new format. And you could even demand a great premium on the price.
All you have to do, is ask a studio to upmix it and yuo can sell it as surround or Atmos mix, or wouldn't you do it, and tell consumers, that no new mix will be made, because it would cost too much and that instead they could set up their systems for using an upmixer handling 2.0 material extremely well?

Ofcourse you wouldn't. But if you would tell the business damaging truth, you would have the golden ears immediately complaining, that they want their little noise making height speakers being used to their full extent...
Surely you would go the way to give the golden eared masses what they are shouting for in their untreated rooms with 20 speakers...

I was talking about the production side for a theatrical release, where you can't simply put something from a phantom center into the dedicated center channel.

I don't really know for sure what you are tilting against at this point. We aren't talking about theater sound.

The topic was: the exploitation of a center channel in consumer 5.1 music mixes. Which has been common practice for over 20 years now. Over that span of time Center content has been created new from multitrack recordings; or, when the source is an old quad master, derived from front L/R tracks; or, when the source was an old 3-track recording (certain legacy classical and jazz sources), it is the center track. Releases (again typically from old quad masters) may also lack any center content.

I do own 5.1 surround mixes -- usually sourced from old quad sources -- where the center does indeed seem to simply be the common L/R content, i.e., what would be the phantom center. But I own a great many more where the content is unique to the center. The benefits of a true center channel remain in either case. (an 'anchored center" , which is one of those benefits, is a greater benefit for multilistener home theaters, than a solitary listener always at the MLP, of course)

 

[Andysu]

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.

except mine of course
no phantom here unless i wanted it and it can do a bit more , hey its basic stereo overhead discrete height zones ,
pro-logic LCR well just the same when i shared an 1989 idea in 1998 with uk to dolby labs new york . 30 mins on the phone , the guy eric was far too more interested then they use my idea without my permission , cheeky dolby buggers

so i had i had idea use pro-logic for stereo surrounds a yamaha DSR70pro connected to millennium dts decoder with goldeneye THX dts laserdisc x2 speakers for surrounds each sidewall and x5 of the same on the back wall and that was 1998 , could have had it up and running 1997 but landed last projectionist job with warner bros and took off for while

later , many no years later atmos , i have the same idea again and it seems to work
plus some atmos mixes have rare anti reversed polarity mixed into one movie that i noticed with , " baby driver " so sound here moves from floor to common typical middle to overhead ceiling