• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,313
Location
UK
OP
sarumbear

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,313
Location
UK

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,223
Likes
17,800
Location
Netherlands
Compatibly with stereo?
The theatre is equipped with Dolby Atmos® cinema sound playback—the most natural, lifelike sensory experience available in a cinema. Complete with 215 individually powered loudspeakers, the Dolby Theatre features one of the most sophisticated sound systems in the world.
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.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,210
Why would the Dolby Theater have a fantom center?
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:

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,223
Likes
17,800
Location
Netherlands
The theatre would have a discrete centre, but the content being played isn't using it, because the mixer mixed to a phantom centre.
Ah, so the reality is even more stupid than I could imagine :facepalm:

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
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
691
Likes
442
Location
Los Angeles
Is Atmos a real progress when discrete speakers are used (i.e. 5.1) at the specified placement?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
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.
Actually the so called 'bed' channels are not objects. The classic 7.1 configuration for example doesn't use any object coding.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,223
Likes
17,800
Location
Netherlands
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:

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,223
Likes
17,800
Location
Netherlands
Is Atmos a real progress when discrete speakers are used (i.e. 5.1) at the specified placement?
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.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Ah, so the reality is even more stupid than I could imagine :facepalm:.

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.
 

beeface

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
321
Likes
773
lol. Imagine the centre channel not being used for dialogue for TVs and movies
 

beeface

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
321
Likes
773
audio playback peaked with mono. stereo should never have existed. we should have stopped at three channels

only kinda kidding
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,210
You are entitled to make jokes! :cool::cool:

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:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,210
Well someone said the bitrates are so low that music cannot sound like quality.
 

Trouble Maker

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
676
Likes
709
Location
Columbus, Ohio, US
Actually the so called 'bed' channels are not objects. The classic 7.1 configuration for example doesn't use any object coding.
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.
"Someone" was talking about objects, so we're talking about info outside the 7.1.4 bed channels.
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. :)
 
Top Bottom