Dr Olive is not happy with how Dolby Atmos is mixed

[iGude]

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.

The notion that the center channel was used in line with our and Dr. Olive’s expectation after 2000, and that this has changed only now with Atmos is illogical and incorrect:

„In the arena of surround sound mixing, there is probably no area that prompts more debate than the use (or abuse) of the center channel. […] For these reasons, most surround sound music mixers treat the center channel with caution, rarely if ever using it to carry any mix components exclusively. Instead, those instruments routed to the center channel [….] are also generally routed to other speakers as well.“

Excerpt from the Recommendations For Surround Sound Production from The Recording Academy‘s Producers & Engineers Wing, published in 2004.

 

[iGude]

Those really do tend to populate the center channel.

Since you put it like it was a general trend, do you have any references for this trend?

 

[krabapple]

The notion that the center channel was used in line with our and Dr. Olive’s expectation after 2000, and that this has changed only now with Atmos is illogical and incorrect:

„In the arena of surround sound mixing, there is probably no area that prompts more debate than the use (or abuse) of the center channel. […] For these reasons, most surround sound music mixers treat the center channel with caution, rarely if ever using it to carry any mix components exclusively. Instead, those instruments routed to the center channel [….] are also generally routed to other speakers as well.“

Excerpt from the Recommendations For Surround Sound Production from The Recording Academy‘s Producers & Engineers Wing, published in 2004.

Your initial premise --and Sean's initial reports re: Atmos -- was that the center speaker is 'hardly used in music recordings'. Which is not what your 2004 document says.

And NB again: the benefits of center channel versus a phantom center are still realized if C content is shared in other channels. This argues against NOT using the center at all.

It's illuminating to quote *more* of your source. I will add emphasis and notes:

"[the C channel's] primary function is to provide hard center anchoring for key components (such as dialog in film postproduction, or lead vocals or solo instruments in music applications) with greater stability than phantom centering, and without any of the comb filtering problems that occur with phantom centers. [as noted by me before and above]

However, too much reliance on the center channel alone can be problematic due to the fact that the center speaker in many home theater systems is smaller than the main left and right speakers. As a result, signals routed to the center channel alone can be severely compromised in terms of their frequency spectrum during playback. [The age of the text shows here. In 2004 it may have been that center channel speakers were routinely far more bandwidth-limited than front left and right-- though that was not true of my setup even then. And since then?] (Some consumer surround sound systems don't provide a center speaker at all [another dated observation] ; however, most consumer receivers provide an option to route center channel information at equal level to the left and right speakers if no center speaker is connected.)

Another problem stems from the fact that most playback systems — even the most rudimentary consumer systems — allow each channel to be heard in isolation. Placing a lead vocal "naked" in the center channel, without other instrumentation to help mask poorly intonated notes, "auto-tuning" glitches, or bad drop-ins, can therefore potentially expose weaknesses in a performance and consequently incur the wrath of the recording artist and record label. [This is a concern I mentioned already, early on in debating you; it does not preclude use of the C, it simply notes that the vocals might not be *unaccompanied* in the C -- though sometimes they in fact are]

For these reasons, most surround sound music mixers treat the center channel with caution, rarely if ever using it to carry any mix components exclusively. Instead, those instruments routed to the center channel (most often lead vocal, bass, snare drum, kick drum and/or instrument solos) are also generally routed to other speakers as well. [this is vague, and the situation actually varies quite a bit. This can mean e.g., that the center might indeed carry *only* vocals/lead, but that they are also present in L/R -- meaning it's still easy for a user to 'solo' the vocals/lead; or it can mean that the center carries vocals + other elements, variously shared or not with L/R; or it can mean center simply duplicates all L/R content; it of course also means that 'rarely', the C may be the only channel carrying lead vocal/instrument. Finally it can also mean any of these uses, varying from track to track on the same release. See * below for examples from my collection] Placing selected instruments in the center channel and one or both front speakers helps emphasize their sound within the front wall and also aids in localization if the listener moves around the room. Conversely, creating a virtual triangle by placing selected instruments in the center channel and one or both rear speakers can yield an interesting psychoacoustic effect where the sound appears to come out into the room, closer to the listener. However, care must be taken to decorrelate such signals in each speaker (most often, by slightly altering equalization, delay times or pitch — see section 4.7); otherwise, masking and/or phase cancellation problems can occur

NB in the examples below, and in the many discs I do *not* include because the C simply duplicates front channel content, the center obviously *is used*. There were a very few cases where the C content was extremely low-level, but typically not. Where the C is *not used at all* -- completely silent or missing -- it's when the sources were 4 channel masters. As I said before.


*Examples -- reported from a single track except as noted:
on 'Blonde on Blonde' (2003 SACD), lead vocals are overwhelmingly in the center, faintly present in front L/R, sounding like bleed-through, while the band is shared across front L/R/C;
contrast to Blood On the Tracks (2004 SACD), which simply duplicates L/R content in the C, vocals and all, at a lower level;
Britney Spears In the Zone (2004 DVD-A) has instrumental C content that is sometimes shared in L/R, sometimes exclusive to C ;
Caravan In the Land of Grey and Pink (2011 DVD) the C contains only lead vocal, but that vocal is also shared in L/R
Chicago Chicago II (2003 DVD-A) C contains only vocals and bass, or bass and lead guitar; shared with L/R;
David Bowie Ziggy Stardust (2003 SACD) , C contains only vocals, which are also shared; ditto Heathen (2002 SACD)
Elton John Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (2003 SACD), C contains only vocals, which are also shared; ditto other early 70s EJ SACDs
ELP Brain Salad Surgery (2000 DVD-A) bass and vocals are much stronger in C than other channels, though this varies by track
Gentle Giant Free Hand (2021 BluRay) vocals and some instrumental parts in C ; fainter share in L/R
Genesis The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (2007 SACD) C contains main vocal, shared in L/R; ditto other Genesis
King Crimson In the Court of the Crimson King (2009 DVD-A) mainly vocals in C, faintly shared in L/R; on the later BluRay remix (2019), louder in L/.R than before
King Crimson Discipline ( 2011 DVD-A) vocals in C, very faintly shared in L/R
Led Zeppelin How the West Was Won (2003 DVD-A ) C contains 'dry' vocals, and band; L/R contain 'wet'
Miles Davis Kind of Blue (2002 SACD) trumpet is loudest in C, with band backing; fainter in L/R
Neil Young Harvest (2002 DVD-A) This one is all over the place. On several tracks the C shares vocals mainly with rear L/R.
NIN Downward Spiral (2004 DualDisc) C content usually shared with L/R, but sometimes contains unique content
Peter Gabriel Up (2003 SACD) mainly vocal in C, shared in L/R
Pink Floyd Meddle (2016 DVD-A) mainly vocal in C, shared in L/R
Pink Floyd Animals (2022 BluRay) C only contains instruments shared with L/R, no vocals
Queen Night at the Opera (2002 DVD-A) C contains vocal,bass, drums only, shared with L/R
Robert Fripp Exposure (2016 DVD-A) C contains vocal only; shared with L/R
Rush Fly By Night (2011 DVD-A) vocal is the most prominent element in C, shared with L/R; ditto other Rush releases
Steely Dan Gaucho (2003 SACD, DVD-A) C contains vocal, bass, drums only, shared on L/R; ditto other Steely Dan releases
Steven Wilson The Raven Who Refused to Sing (2013 BluRay) vocals predominantly in C , faintly in L/R; C also contains some unique musical elements
T. Rex Electric Warrior (2004 DVD-A) C contains only vocal; shared with L/R
Talking Heads Speaking In Tongues (2006 DualDisc) C shares everything *except* bass
The Beatles Sgt Pepper's (2017 BluRay) vocals predominantly in C, shares some other instruments *except* bass
The Beatles White Album (2018 BluRay) vocals predominantly in C
The Beatles Abbey Road (2019 BluRay) vocals predominantly in C (on 'Come Together' they are almost exclusively in C, extremely faint in L/R)
Flaming Lips Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots (2003 DVD-A) C often contains just vocals, which are shared with L/R; also contains effects, musical parts
Jimi Hen drix Expereience Electric Ladyland (2018 BluRay) C often contains just vocals, which are shared with L/R
The Who Tommy (2004 DVD-A) C often contains just vocals, which are shared with L/R
The Who Quadrophenia (2014 BluRay) C contains 'dry' vocals, L/R have 'wet'
Van Morrison Moondance (2013 BluRay) C contains 'dry' vocals and lead instruments, L/R have 'wet'
XTC Oranges & Lemons ( 2015 DVD-A) C contains main vocal, fainter in L/R
Yes Fragile (2015 BluRay) C is mostly lead vocals, shared with L/R
Yes Close to the Edge (2013 BluRay) C contains main vocals and some instrumental, very faintly shared in L/R
Yes Tales from Topographic Oceans (2016 BluRay) C contains all sorts of things, variously shared or not. Often carries dry lead vocal, but rarely if ever bass
Yes Relayer (2017 Bluray) C carries vocals and lead instruments , often shared, sometimes not, rarely if ever bass






Discs where major Center content is not shared with front L/R channels, on at least some tracks
lead vocals backed with certain instruments on Bob Marley Legend (2014 BluRay)
lead vocal on ELP Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Tarkus (2012 DVD-A), Trilogy (2015 DVD-A)
trumpet on Miles Davis In A Silent Way (2002 SACD)
vocals and other elements on Tears for Fears Songs from the Big Chair (2014 BluRay)
vocals on Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore East (2014 BluRay)
vocals and lead instruments on Yes The Yes Album (2014 BluRay)
vocal on Beatles Abbey Road (2019 BluRay, see above)
vocal on Neil Young, Harvest (2002 DVD-A, see above)

 

[iGude]

Your initial premise --and Sean's initial reports re: Atmos -- was that the center speaker is 'hardly used in music recordings'. Which is not what your 2004 document says.

And NB again: the benefits of center channel versus a phantom center are still realized if C content is shared in other channels. This argues against NOT using the center at all.

The quote from Dr. Olive, that started the thread, refers to the known benefits of a center channel (no acoustic crosstalk, better speech intelligibility and stable localization no matter where you sit).

These benefits are gone or greatly diminished when the center content is divided upon other channels. Hence, in context of this thread, recordings with center content being shared with other channels count as bad examples, i.e they don’t count at all.

The majority of recordings that you have listed fall into this category, and both old and new mixing guidelines recommend exactly this. Hence, we are back to square one:
The center channel is hardly used as expected by Dr. Olive - and me and many others - and with above mentioned benefits. This is also the reason why Dr. Olive disagrees with you.

And this is the case since the upcoming of multichannel music recordings, as shown.

 

[Newman]

@Sean Olive has posted on FB some Atmos mixing guidelines that caution against using stereo methods in the new paradigm, with his comment, “I bought two books on Mixing Dolby ATMOS in Protools and Logic Pro written by Edgar Rothermich who has 20 years of mixing experience and is an adjunct professor at Loyola Marymount in LA. Edgar is a graduate of the prestigious Berlin Insitite of Technology Tonmeister program where they train recording engineers in music, science and technology.

“The best advice I’ve read on ATMOS mixing so far is on page 100 where he says, "Leave your stereo mixing techniques behind". Amen.

“He says avoid using stereo objects and the size parameter for objects as it creates phantom images by sending the object to multiple speakers and destroys the spatial precision. A phantom center does essentially the same thing. German Tonmeisters are the best.”

Cheers

 

[CtheArgie]

@Newman , saw the post. He doesn’t allow comments on his FB, but he sometimes posts really interesting stuff! Wish he made room for ASR guys, @Sean Olive .

 

[Newman]

There are certain risks associated with allowing public comments on your FB page, LOL.

 

[Newman]

I have also noticed the repeated use by Dr Olive of the word ATMOS in ALLCAPS, so I thought maybe that’s how Dolby means it to be written, in which case I will do it too. I also thought maybe it’s an acronym.

So I looked on the Dolby website. They write it as Atmos. So that’s how I will write it. And I assume it’s not an acronym but simply a reference to ‘atmospheric’ sound.

cheers

 

[Sean Olive]

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.

No it's not 100%. I've found some example that use it well. I don't have list of them but they exist -- Recently U of Hudderfield did a survey of 100 Commercial Pop Atmos music tracks and measured the average level of each channel. The center level is the lowest only after the LFE which is often not used because the lowpass filters on the renderers is inconsistent.

E-library page - AES

AES E-Library ← Back to search

t.co

 

[krabapple]

No it's not 100%. I've found some example that use it well. I don't have list of them but they exist -- Recently U of Hudderfield did a survey of 100 Commercial Pop Atmos music tracks and measured the average level of each channel. The center is only lower than the LFE .

E-library page - AES

AES E-Library ← Back to search

t.co

View attachment 405764

I think you mean, the only channel lower than the Center is the LFE? [EDIT: Sean has corrected it]

 

[Chrispy]

I think you mean, the only channel lower than the Center is the LFE?

Think he's talking general spl levels. Center generally does get the most action outside of subs....

 

[krabapple]

Think he's talking general spl levels. Center generally does get the most action outside of subs....

I'm just reading the graph. Each vertical is a channel on the X axis. The graph shows that the channel with the lowest Y value is the LFE. The next lowest is Center. [EDIT: Sean has corrected his post]

 

[Chrispy]

I'm just reading the graph. Each vertical is a channel on the X axis. The graph shows that the channel with the lowest Y value is the LFE. The next lowest is Center.

I did ignore the visual. Will check that out.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

No it's not 100%. I've found some example that use it well. I don't have list of them but they exist -- Recently U of Hudderfield did a survey of 100 Commercial Pop Atmos music tracks and measured the average level of each channel. The center is only lower than the LFE .

E-library page - AES

AES E-Library ← Back to search

t.co

View attachment 405764

I don't understand this quantitative argumentation, because it ignores the differences between the necessities of (Atmos) theatrical mixes vs consumer mixes.
For example the reason the LFE channel in theatres cannot be used for managed bass because the translation is not guaranteed. In theatres all the channels are fullrange plus the LFE.
Stereo mixes are also LR fullrange.
To make stereo mixes work in theatres, the mid-channel cannot simply be put on the center channel, because the mix in theatres would fall apart.
Therefore only a certain amount is mixed into the center channel.

Also the LFE is not a bass channel but an idependent channel for additional bass effects and not bass in general. Theatrical mixes have fullrange center.
Only in consumer systems there is not a dedicated LFE channel, but the bass is summed with the LFE channel together.

Dolby Atmos was from the beginning a technically and psychoacoustically totally inferior system, but was quickly pushed into the market, to defeat the much better Auro system, which was gaining ground quickly.
Now with the worse system having won, there are so many problems. For example that Atmos music mixes for streaming services are are demanded, but music is mixed in stereo and will never be mixed in surround or immersive, because a new mix from the ground up does not pay, and also the compatibility with stereo or mono systems could not be guaranteed, if it would be mixed in full reliance on an immersive layout.

Instead of lamenting now, it would have been better, if not everyone back then would have applauded the monopol, but argued for the technically and sonically much better Auro system. Then all the problems would not exist. Auro theatrical and consumer mixes down to stereo would be consistent and translate well. But Atmos consumer being different from Atmos theatrical can simply not guarantee translation quality.
Therefore the channels beyond 2.0 can only be used with great care. And the mastering problems are huge.

 

[amirm]

I don't understand this quantitative argumentation, because it ignores the differences between the necessities of theatrical mixes.

Study is about music, not movies.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Study is about music, not movies.

Reading means understanding.

 

[Sean Olive]

I think you mean, the only channel lower than the Center is the LFE?

I think you mean, the only channel lower than the Center is the LFE?

Yes. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Sean Olive]

No it's not 100%. I've found some example that use it well. I don't have list of them but they exist -- Recently U of Hudderfield did a survey of 100 Commercial Pop Atmos music tracks and measured the average level of each channel. The center level is the lowest only after the LFE which is often not used because the lowpass filters on the renderers is inconsistent.

E-library page - AES

AES E-Library ← Back to search

t.co

View attachment 405764

After reading that AES paper that shows the center channel is barely used for Atmos music mixes I've decided you can save some money when choosing a center channel depending on if you watch Atmos films versus listen to Atmos music.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

Yeah. Too bad Dolby sells the the right speaker to customers claiming it was technically suffient as a full LR stand-in (even more outrageous are the Dolby certified height reflection speakers) and then it is criticized we cannot utilize the center channel...

Where was the outcry from you, or the SAE, when Dolby promoted the embarassing idiocy of reflexion speakers, only to be able to penetrate the market and gain market share, by gullible consumers?

Atmos is a conceptually wrong system, totally ignoring human psychoacoustics, but was successfully placed in the market by the full weight of the quasi-monopoly and outrageous nonsensical PR promises and now, the same people that allowed that to happen, complain that mixes are not using all "available" channels to their full extent?
That's not OK!

 

[Sean Olive]

Yeah. Too bad Dolby sells the the right speaker to customers claiming it was technically suffient as a full LR stand-in (even more outrageous are the Dolby certified height reflection speakers) and then it is criticized we cannot utilize the center channel...

Where was the outcry from you, or the SAE, when Dolby promoted the embarassing idiocy of reflexion speakers, only to be able to penetrate the market and gain market share, by gullible consumers?

Atmos is a conceptually wrong system, totally ignoring human psychoacoustics, but was successfully placed in the market by the full weight of the quasi-monopoly and outrageous nonsensical PR promises and now, the same people that allowed that to happen, complain that mixes are not using all "available" channels to their full extent?
That's not OK!

We make no claims that a virtual or reflection based surrounds replace actual speakers. I am editing the 4th edition of Toole’s Sound Reproduction Book and I can’t remember the exact term he uses to describe them but it would not be approved by marketing. The reality is that spraying sound off the walls or ceiling may be better than none at all , at least for many people. But it will never be as good as actual speakers.

I would not give equivalency to center and height channels. A center channel is much more important than a height channel which is mostly used for reverb, a special effect or a flyover.

I am critical of the mixing practices not the format or the loudspeaker choice which at least I and consumers have some control over. You don’t have to purchase a sound bar with virtual heights. You can buy 5.2 actual loudspeakers and place them appropriately.

But there isn’t much you can do if the recordings are not optimal to begin with. We don’t have control over that except not to listen to them.

Also if you think I or any company has input or influence over what technology Dolby invents you are delusional. When Dolby decides a format the rest are likely to fail. Look at the market now for immersive formats. Where are DTS, Auro3D, Sony 360, MPEG-H in terms of marketshare vs Dolby? It’s not always about which format is technically the best. It’s about who has the most influence in brand, marketing and power within the film, television and music ecosystem. If you control the content format then you are better able to dictate what hardware and license is required to play it back.