-
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!
Is Dolby Atmos the Future of Music or a Complicated Fad?
- Thread starter Naaalaaa
- Start date
I play music on my PC, have a professional multichannel DAC and active speakers. As long as i am forced to buy an additional, technically not only completely unnecessary, but deteriorating device (AVR) for outrageously excessive prices and wasting ressources, just because Atmos decoding via software on a PC is artificially prevented to maximize profits, i am a staunch opponent of playing along this disgusting game.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2023
- Messages
- 802
- Likes
- 1,286
probably both, I have full 7.1.4 atmos system which I don't really use, as it's in my studio and no client even knows what it is about and why should they pay more for it. For pop music it's a standard at this point, though for how long it's hard to say and I don't work with pop music. When it's done well from the production side and when listened on discrete system (speakers properly placed in a room) it's amazing and a real step forward, on headphones it sounds like cr*p every time. Whenever I'm able to show someone some good recordings on my system they're amazed, but then almost no one listen to it this way, so I'm selling my setup later this year and if any client would want atmos mix in the future, I will just do it on headphones.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,545
- Likes
- 15,607
Exactly. I'll take it on trust that a well done MCH recording played back on a good MCH system can be a great experience.
But I (like I suspect the vast majority of music consumers) am a headphones /lifestyle speaker /car listener and can't imagine a world where I would want, could afford or would be prepared to accommodate a full system. For me file as a niche and expensive market. Not sure I would go as far as "complicated fad".
The worst scenario would be for people to invest in atmos set ups in a major way and at the point where it becomes mainstream they yank the rug away and move onto the next (not backwards compatible) format. Not like we haven't seen that before!
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2023
- Messages
- 802
- Likes
- 1,286
The only way it could go mainstream, besides of headphones, is where it already works with movies, so soundbars and soundbar based systems with additional speakers, like Sonos. But for that it would need to be available on Youtube and Spotify, however there's not even 5.1 sound available on Youtube and not even lossless stereo on Spotify, so yeah
Andysu
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2019
- Messages
- 3,515
- Likes
- 1,838
hard,y now play dolby atmos anymore its rubbish its fake gimmick its not 3d sound immersive ,it has no discrete multi below surround , just the same common speaker layout with speakers , not " atmos speakers " just speakers on the ceiling and that has already been done in other cinemas of the past only difference its discrete now only its boring format that i have gotten tired of listening to it , no discrete below surround mo more buying the rubbish atmos content
For stereo and headphones, and perhaps music in general, yes, maybe a bit of a fad...
But for multichannel (and movies especially) it is just the latest iteration of Dolby Surround which has been the main standard for decades.
Whilst there have been different versions over the years these have been mostly somewhat backwards compatible. I don't think there is any chance that some flavour of Dolby Surround isn't standard for movies.
In many households the main (or only) device for playing audio will be the TV/soundbar, so it makes sense that movie and music audio reproduction equipment and standards should converge.
IMHO there are several potential benefits (even for stereo music):
Music production is in dire need of standardisation (i.e. defined reference levels to put an end to loudness wars).
Below-plane surround channels are not likely to be wanted by many, so perhaps not correct to criticise Atmos on that particular front. However, it would be nice if future versions (of AVR hardware?) allowed all speaker positions to be specified by the user during setup (i.e. horizontal and vertical angle from MLP as well as distance). This would allow proper calculation of sound channels from audio metadata, rather than pre-defined locations for speakers. I thought this was one of the main features of Trinnov, but perhaps it still has some limitations?
But for multichannel (and movies especially) it is just the latest iteration of Dolby Surround which has been the main standard for decades.
Whilst there have been different versions over the years these have been mostly somewhat backwards compatible. I don't think there is any chance that some flavour of Dolby Surround isn't standard for movies.
In many households the main (or only) device for playing audio will be the TV/soundbar, so it makes sense that movie and music audio reproduction equipment and standards should converge.
IMHO there are several potential benefits (even for stereo music):
Music production is in dire need of standardisation (i.e. defined reference levels to put an end to loudness wars).
Below-plane surround channels are not likely to be wanted by many, so perhaps not correct to criticise Atmos on that particular front. However, it would be nice if future versions (of AVR hardware?) allowed all speaker positions to be specified by the user during setup (i.e. horizontal and vertical angle from MLP as well as distance). This would allow proper calculation of sound channels from audio metadata, rather than pre-defined locations for speakers. I thought this was one of the main features of Trinnov, but perhaps it still has some limitations?
Last edited:
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,211
- Likes
- 1,621
I would agree because: money. There is a lot of it and those who can afford the gear and room will have access to these immersive formats. Those who can't will listen to stereo.
The majority of music produced today is still 2 channel stereo.
- Thread Starter
- #9
I've heard some amazing atmos mixes so I think the tech has potential but the fact that some people and even experts claim that you only really get to appreciate atmos if you have the right speaker setup which involves more than just buying speakers but calibrating and positioning them properly is outrageous for me. It reeks of "i just want you to spend more" kind of thing
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2023
- Messages
- 802
- Likes
- 1,286
Ok, but how's that any different than stereo?
By about 5.5x!
(2 vs 11 speakers)
But the point is correct, you could spend just as much, if not more, on fancy stereo stuff.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2023
- Messages
- 802
- Likes
- 1,286
By about 5.5x!
(2 vs 11 speakers)
But the point is correct, you could spend just as much, if not more, on fancy stereo stuff.
As far as speakers go then sure, but the atmos setups are usually double use. Stereo setups often are expensive on the other end, amps, DACs, CD player, SACD, turntable, phono preamp, I'm afraid to mention cables... I mean even on a different level, to have proper stereophonic effect one need check many boxes and if it's 2.1 or 2.2 room corrected system then it's about the same level of tinkering anyway. Stereo in headphones is as bad as binauralized atmos
On Amazon music streaming ATMOS songs is limited to 16bit 48khz while UHD stereo offers up to 24bit 192khz. As a stereo listener guess which I prefer...
Given that the difference between 16bit 48kHz and 24bit 192kHz is likely inaudible here is a hypothetical question for you...
Which would you prefer:
24bit 192kHz mono
or
16bit 48kHz stereo?
(The point is, the extra channels more than make up for the difference).
Justdafactsmaam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,282
- Likes
- 980
Neither. To dismiss it as a fad is to ignore all the effort put into developing and promoting it. But it ain’t the future. It’s neither good enough to be the future for those who seek state of the art nor is it easy and cheap enough to conquer the mainstream market
I think many complain about Atmos because...
1) They are familiar with and expect the original (stereo) mix.
2) The producer tries to do something a bit different to take advantage of the multichannel format.
3) The Atmos workflow attempts to auto-generate stereo mixes from the new multichannel version.
So traditionalists get double disappointment - the remix differs from the original and it hasn't been optimised for stereo playback (by a human) like the original was.
But ideally, for new music, the original should be the multichannel version from the outset. Then the Atmos stereo mix will just be the only stereo mix; suitable for listening if no multichannel equipment is available but not the listening reference or artist's intended version.
Edit to add...
4) Artists have been slow to take advantage of the possibilities offered by multichannel audio. (Perhaps most never will
).
1) They are familiar with and expect the original (stereo) mix.
2) The producer tries to do something a bit different to take advantage of the multichannel format.
3) The Atmos workflow attempts to auto-generate stereo mixes from the new multichannel version.
So traditionalists get double disappointment - the remix differs from the original and it hasn't been optimised for stereo playback (by a human) like the original was.
But ideally, for new music, the original should be the multichannel version from the outset. Then the Atmos stereo mix will just be the only stereo mix; suitable for listening if no multichannel equipment is available but not the listening reference or artist's intended version.
Edit to add...
4) Artists have been slow to take advantage of the possibilities offered by multichannel audio. (Perhaps most never will
).
Last edited:
Robin L
Master Contributor
"However, the high costs and complex installation requirements make it an elitist pursuit, distancing the average music lover from its benefits."
And that, in a nutshell, is why Atmos can never go mainstream. Same applied for Quad and 5.1/7.1 surround.
Back around 2010, I started to notice surround gear showing up at thrift stores. I suspect that the space the gear took up was just too much for a lot of people, who decided that a soundbar was a better solution. In fact, I managed to get my dedicated 5.1 system from a thrift store, finding a matched set of speakers, a SACD player and a 7.1 AVR for next to nothing. I had to get rid of most of those speakers because when I moved, the new place we moved into simply didn't have enough room for the speakers. This sort of thing is amplified with Atmos.
And that, in a nutshell, is why Atmos can never go mainstream. Same applied for Quad and 5.1/7.1 surround.
Back around 2010, I started to notice surround gear showing up at thrift stores. I suspect that the space the gear took up was just too much for a lot of people, who decided that a soundbar was a better solution. In fact, I managed to get my dedicated 5.1 system from a thrift store, finding a matched set of speakers, a SACD player and a 7.1 AVR for next to nothing. I had to get rid of most of those speakers because when I moved, the new place we moved into simply didn't have enough room for the speakers. This sort of thing is amplified with Atmos.
I agree that building a full multichannel Atmos system (with high costs and complex installation) is something of an elitist pursuit.
...But the way that Atmos has been designed is that it attempts to render the audio in the best possible way for the given playback equipment (be that headphones, soundbar or home cinema).
So I disagree with the second part of your comment...
In fact Atmos is intended to allow all levels of playback equipment to make the best showing of the source material - helping the average music lover. This is exactly why it could go mainstream.
Robin L
Master Contributor
The second half of the comment is from the article cited. I don't have any experience with Atmos, do have experience with 5.1 surround. Maybe Atmos helps with standard playback, maybe it doesn't. Intent is not the same as realization. However, the majority of my recordings are older recordings of classical music and for Atmos to be applied to those recordings requires artificial manipulation of what are originally monaural or stereo sources. My experience with good recording/reproduction of classical titles is that the sense of hall ambience and realism is about the same for standard reproduction and surround. I remember hearing a choral recording played back via a pair of Spica TC-50s with a great sense of the "up" dimension and hall reproduction.
