Dr Olive is not happy with how Dolby Atmos is mixed

[krabapple]

While Multichannel immersive systems like Dolby Atmos are good in theory, i never heared one that sounds real to me, also because of the very narrow sweetspot.

Any format with a center channel will have a much expanded 'sweet spot' compared to stereo.-- as long as it's used As Dr. Olive implies.

Movie theaters today, especially those with Dolby Atmost sound terrible to me, so i wait for the dvd/streaming to become availeble so i can see it with my stereo setup. It just sounds better to me like that, and i actually can enjoy the movie in stead of being annoyed all the time by the terrible sound in the theatre. I totally understand what Dr. Olive means here.

I don't think you did. His complaint was the the available center channel was not used in the mix created by the Atmos mixing engineer. It was not a flaw of the theater or Atmos. It was a human's choice.

 

[krabapple]

In my experience (about 50 years) the artist sings/plays his music and that's where his job ends. I have never encountered any musician who 'intends' that his signal to be heard in any particular way by the audience. That is the job of the FOH (front of house) mix engineer. And that is why every live venue (with rare exceptions) uses mono PAs, which most assuredly has a phantom center.

You're talking about live performance, but as far a records go, I'm pretty sure some artists like to approve a final mix. And may even have been involved in making it. So they might have a say in where the guitar goes, where the keyboard goes, etc.

And even live there have been historical exceptions to the mono-only dominant paradigm. Some bands even dabbled in quad PA back in the day.

 

[krabapple]

I can confirm that the center speaker is hardly used in music recordings.

Utterly untrue. I own dozens of popular music DVDA, SACD, and DVD-V surround mixes. Virtually all of them use it. The main exceptions are re-releases of original quadraphonic mixes...and even some of *them* have derived center channel content added.

Some years ago I tested the center channel of many Jazz and classical music SACD:

And those are the exception.

 

[krabapple]

@iGude There is an easy way to guet some sound going out from the center channel.
From a stereo input signal, an AVR will use its DSP to generate a 5.0 channel.
In my case I am using Amazon music HD in DD+ and Dolby pro-logic II with center wide on an old AVR.
The result is far better than stereo.

Next step would be to find a newer AVR able to do the same from a stereo 24/96 input signal.
Did somebody succeed to find a DSP that is able to get Dolby Surround or DTS upsampler working with such an input?

? All of my Dolby PLII and newer Dolby Surround AVRs (Denon) can accept 96/24 stereo input (via HDMI) and upmix it to surround

 

[iGude]

Utterly untrue. I own dozens of popular music DVDA, SACD, and DVD-V surround mixes.

I was referring to Jazz and classical music only, but I’m happy to read that you have different experiences with other genres.
Some of the recordings I was referring to don’t even have a center channel by definition, as pointed out before. So…very true, actually.
BTW one nice thing about this forum is that somebody else’s experience is not called “utterly untrue” normally.

 

[valerianf]

? All of my Dolby PLII and newer Dolby Surround AVRs (Denon) can accept 96/24 stereo input (via HDMI) and upmix it to surround

My AVR (Yamaha RX-A700) is not able to do it with a 96/24 stereo input.
I may have to change it but will lose Dolby Pro Logic II with its adjustable center spread.

 

[NTK]

link please

Sean Olive on LinkedIn: X is where I approximately heard the main vocalist in the photo below when… | 46 comments

X is where I approximately heard the main vocalist in the photo below when an ATMOS music mixer played his mix with phantom center at a recent private event at… | 46 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

[Edit] Oops. The link is for LinkedIn, not FB.

 

[krabapple]

I was referring to Jazz and classical music only, but I’m happy to read that you have different experiences with other genres.
Some of the recordings I was referring to don’t even have a center channel by definition, as pointed out before. So…very true, actually.
BTW one nice thing about this forum is that somebody else’s experience is not called “utterly untrue” normally.

you wrote:

I can confirm that the center speaker is hardly used in music recordings. Some years ago I tested the center channel of many Jazz and classical music SACD: virtually all of them had nothing or only meaningless content on the center channel (e.g. a single percussion instrument every second).

Except, you didn't 'confirm' that 'the center speaker is hardly used in music recordings'

Hardly was a vast overstatement, to the point of it being utterly untrue that a center channel is hardly used in music recordings. What you confirmed was that many of the *classical and jazz* multichannel mixes you own, don't use their center channels, or lack one. (For the ones that completely lack a C channel, it's possible they were sourced from legacy quad mixes). The center channel is, in fact, *commonly* used in multichannel music mixes overall.


By way of other data, here are some classical releases I own that have a center channel with substantial content. Note that some of them are remixes of rather famous , best-selling recordings :

Kleiber/VPO - Beethoven 5th and 7th Symphonies , on DVDA (5.1), SACD (5.0) (these actually were sourced from 1970s quad mixes, but a Center/LFE was created from them)

Barenboim/Vienna Staatskapell - Beethoven 1st and 2nd Symphonies (DVDA 5.0)

Reiner/CSO - Bartok- Music for Strings, Percussion, Celesta/etc (SACD 3.0) (all the Reiners on this list are 'Living Stereo' 3-track recordings)

Alsop/Bournemouth Symphonie - Bartok - Miraculous Mandarin/etc (SACD 5.1)

Seattle SO - Berio/Boulez/Ravel works (LPCM 5.1)

Maurizio Pollini - Chopin - Polonaises (SACD 5.1)

Singapore SO - Debussy works (LPCM 5.1)

Seattle SO - Ives works (LPCM 5.1)

Kaplan/Weiner Phil. - Mahler 2nd Symphony (SACD 5.1)

Rattle/LA Phil - Mussorgsky/Stravinsky/Bartok works (SACD 5.1)

Reiner/CSO - Mussorgsky/Tchaikovsky/Borodin works (SACD 3.0)

Reiner/CSO - Rimsky-Korsakov/Stravinsky (SACD 3.0)

John Williams + Orchestras - Rodrigo/Villa-Lobos works (SACD 5.1)

//


And here's a couple of jazz classics with center channel content; both are 3-track recordings , Center/LFE was created for the SACDs.

Miles Davis - Kind of Blue (SACD 5.0)
Miles Davis - In A Silent Way (SACD 5.1)

 

[krabapple]

My AVR (Yamaha RX-A700) is not able to do it with a 96/24 stereo input.
I may have to change it but will lose Dolby Pro Logic II with its adjustable center spread.

Dolby Surround (DSU) has 2 settings for Center: default and Wide. IIRC Wide is equivalent to DPLII Music Center spread = 3 (i.e, the DPLII Music default)

What DSU lacks is different settings for Music, Movies, Games, and for Music, the Dimension and Panorama options.

 

[iGude]

The center channel is, in fact, *commonly* used in multichannel music mixes overall.

You did notice that this whole threat started because the center channel is not used properly in music recordings?
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?
I do understand that you find my statement too general, nevertheless the English language offers many ways to disagree in a more ASR style.

 

[iGude]

(it's possible they were sourced from legacy quad mixes)

No, they weren’t, and as I have pointed out, their creators intentionally decided to not use the center channel.

 

[krabapple]

You did notice that this whole threat started because the center channel is not used properly in music recordings?

I did. You weren't talking about 'properly' in your post. You were arguing that a silent center is normal in multichannel mixes.

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?

Dr. Olive is talking about an Atmos mixing engineer who chose not to exploit the center channel in his multichannel mixes. I entirely agree with Sean's point. It's certainly unwise to omit center channel content in a mix intended for an audience. (And even at home: not just due to its wider 'sweet spot' due to its anchoring effect; a center channel eliminates other deficits of a phantom center as well. It should be there and the user can turn that channel off it he want to)

Olive says he's been told by mixers and record companies that only the sweet spot listener matters. But that is far from claiming that a center 'is hardly used in music recordings', and Dr. Olive doesn't say that. He doesn't say who or how many or when he was told that or in what context. It might be something he's hearing recently when he asks why an Atmos mix lacks center content (btw, I own exactly one Atmos release to date, and I'll have to check to hear if it has center channel content) but it was not the standard practice in the last 23 or so years of multichannel music releases on SACD, DVDA, DVD-V, BluRay -- something that would need to be the case for 'hardly used' to be remotely true. If Olive wrote what you did, he'd be wrong for the same reason.

I do understand that you find my statement too general, nevertheless the English language offers many ways to disagree in a more ASR style.

The English language also offers large scope for precision and factual claims, which are both valued on Audio Science Review.

 

[krabapple]

No, they weren’t, and as I have pointed out, their creators intentionally decided to not use the center channel.

Noted as exceptions in my first reply. You also named two rather small labels that omitted centers. I posted counter examples from Deutsche Grammaphon, Mercury, Sony....

 

[Newman]

Olive says he's been told by mixers and record companies that only the sweet spot listener matters. But that is far from claiming that a center 'is hardly used in music recordings', and Dr. Olive doesn't say that.

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

 

[BJL]

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.

Use of the bed channels is a choice, not a requirement (except the LFE which is always the .1 channel and never an object). If you take a look at the Logic Pro atmos plug-in manual and tutorials, bed channels are suggested, and conventionally used, but one could do a mix with objects only, keeping in mind that there is a limit on the number of objects in any given track, (128 objects) and depending upon the complexity of the mix, it is possible to use up all of the available objects, (keeping in mind that a stereo object counts as two objects), in which case you would need to place some material as channel based (the bed).

Also, the atmos 3-D object viewer (panner) will rapidly become very complicated and difficult to manage & monitor, if you use dozens of objects. So there are practical reasons to use a bed for conventional pop, rock, jazz, classical recordings. But it is not a requirement, it is an aesthetic and/or pragmatic choice.

Wait.... even the .4 (height channel) is considered a bed channel in context of object based VS channel based?

The bed is 7.1, the panner for the bed channels does not provide for height or front wides, at least to my recollection. For a home system, the objects accommodate up to 9.1.6 speakers (the .1 being the LFE channel), but the bed part of the mix is no more than 7.1, and the objects will use all speakers other than the sub, including the 7 used by the bed.

Both Apple and Dolby have abundant information providing as much detail as you can stand to absorb on this topic.

 

[iGude]

You were arguing that a silent center is normal in multichannel mixes.

I wasn’t, I was arguing that the center is silent or filled with meaningless stuff like single percussion instruments. Hence, it is not enough to observe the level meter, you need to hear the center individually to notice it.

 

[krabapple]

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.

Indeed, as I inferred, it's the only explanation that makes sense, unless we assume Sean is completely clueless about the past 20 years of MCH music.

Meanwhile, iGude was citing examples from that same older MCH music as evidence that the center channel was hardly ever used.

Now he's saying it's either silent or only occupied by "meaningless stuff like single percussion instruments" -- which is also not at the usual case IME (ive been buying these remixes for all of those twnety years). On the vast majority of MCH mixes I've heard , lead vocals and/or bass are what's in the center channel. Rather meaningful stuff. (And I mentioned this too, as a reason why some artists have been reported to be leery of using a C channel. )

In the classical and jazz released I cited, the center is certainly not only 'single percusion instruments'. On the Miles releases it's Miles himself. On the orchrestral releases it tends to be some amalgam of left and right content.

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

Thanks. I found it here

 

[iGude]

Now he's saying

I said this in my first post already, and you can verify this easily. Please kindly stay with the facts.

You are so busy repeating the vey same point over and over again that you seem to have missed my point:

The controversy about if and how to use the center channel for MCH music recordings is not new but started more than twenty years ago already. It lead to the fact that there are at least three types of recordings out there:
- those that make full use of the center channel,
- those that avoid the center channel entirely, and
- those that make use of the center channel somehow but keep the lead singer / instrument in the phantom center.

I thought Dire Straits’ Brothers in Arms is of type 3 but didn’t remember correctly as pointed out by Newman.

 

[iGude]

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.

Agree, he seems to address Atmos mixes only.
The underlying controversy is more than twenty years old already though, as described above.
And this seems logic since the basic setup with L/C/R didn’t change with Atmos.

I guess it narrows down to the pros and cons of using a center channel for MCH music recordings in general, given the quality of speakers and room acoustics out there typically.

 

[Newman]

Since you have mentioned label Mercury: the 5.1 version of Dire Straits’ Brothers in Arms is of type 3 if I remember correctly, i.e. Mark‘s voice and guitar is in the L/R channels only.

Here is a clip from that recording, where I alternate between 5.1 and centre only. Vocals definitely in centre channel, with vocal reverb spread to L and R.

cheers