Is music mixed in Atmos genuine musical creativity, or just cheap gimmickry?

[DanielT]

What do you think? Let me elaborate.

I visited a friend in Gothenburg this past weekend. We went to a nice progg festival—live music at its best (especially the last two bands). But back to the topic at hand: we listened to Atmos recordings at his place. It was impressive, I have to say, but our discussion about its merits touched on the issue of gimmickry versus genuine artistic expression. My friend said: "Sometimes I feel like effects are thrown in—like snare drums in the rear speakers popping up now and then—just for the sake of the effect; it can actually become annoying if you focus on it. But that’s only sometimes; often, I find the sense of spaciousness really good".

Naturally, once he’d mentioned it, I couldn't help but think about it while listening. But is it really something to get annoyed about? Isn't it just artistic creation—music meant to be heard, not over-analyzed?

I mean, I didn't create the music myself, and you could just as easily make nitpicky comments about two-channel recordings, yet nobody complains about that.

A photo of the entertaining band: Kräm, who played last at the festival:

 

[Cote Dazur]

But is it really something to get annoyed about? Isn't it just artistic creation

Very interesting question, but then what about up mixing stereo, is that also to be considered "artistic creation."?

 

[Axo1989]

I think the answer to the question is yes.

 

[DanielT]

Very interesting question, but then what about up mixing stereo, is that also to be considered "artistic creation."?

Maybe, I don't know.

I think the answer to the question is yes.

Once my friend had planted those thoughts in my head, it became almost impossible for me not to notice the effects and simply listen to the music.

 

[SSS]

Very interesting question, but then what about up mixing stereo, is that also to be considered "artistic creation."?

Of course it is. Recording studio mixing is a creative process to get the right intended sound which the artists want to have.

 

[SSS]

Since I don't have an Atmos reproducing system it a hell to listen when Atmos is heard with a stereo system at TV.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Recording studio mixing is a creative process

It absolutely is, but it is not what I am asking, I am talking about the up mixing stereo done by the AVR or other electronic device changing a stereo file into a multi channel mix with an Algorithms that analyze the left and right stereo channels to extract frequencies, phase differences, and directional cues.

 

[SSS]

It absolutely is, but it is not what I am asking, I am talking about the up mixing stereo done by the AVR or other electronic device changing a stereo file into a multi channel mix with an Algorithms that analyze the left and right stereo channels to extract frequencies, phase differences, and directional cues.

Ah, OK, was not aware of this. Then the whole process of upmixing is deterministic and not creative art.

 

[DanielT]

Of course it is. Recording studio mixing is a creative process to get the right intended sound which the artists want to have.

That is certainly true. I know that—since one isn't the creator oneself—anything said can be dismissed as artistic license, but if you put on the hat of an art critic. An art critic can offer—hopefully good and sensible—criticism (and praise) of a creative work on its own merits.

I don't know if one can generalize about all Atmos recordings. It might be best to take it piece by piece.

 

[Mort]

Stereo can sound like a gimmick if done poorly too. It just depends.

 

[Redacted]

Unless the original recording was made with the explicit aim of surround feel, re-processing a stereo master would be a gimmick in my book. Doesn't mean it's not nice to listen to..
You could go back back to the original multi-track files or tapes and make a new multi-channel mix, but I suspect in an ideal world, the multi-tracks might have been recorded differently - drums, vocals, or anything miced really.

 

[sergeauckland]

I will accept/understand Atmos when live concerts are in surround, with different musicians in different parts of the venue, some up high above the audience, and some behind etc etc. Until then, it's a gimmick.

As one of the now few who actually listens to Quadraphonic LPs, I find that all Rock/Pop surround recordings are gimmicky, there being no good reason for the snares to be at the back or whatever. Equally, with classical symphonic recordings, there was some attempt to encode hall ambiance in the rear channels, but frankly, there's so little there as to be somewhat pointless.

The only exception I can think of, is Monteverdi's Vespers which were written to be performed by separate choirs and instruments, each separately located around the cathedral performed in.

Atmos for films I equally find something of a nonsense, as having the sound all around, but the pictures only in front is a distraction. It might work if there's surround vision as well as surround sound.

S.

 

[mhardy6647]

I can only offer my opinion.
Multichannel audio reproduction = gimmick.
Since "quad".
1) It has yet to catch on in a massmarket way for audio reproduction (although multichannel found a niche of no mean dimensions in 'home theater').
2) The format has never become standardized.

Say what you will about stereo, its [edit: fixed my grammatical/typographic gaffes] adoption has been widespread (pun semi-intended) since the late 1950s.

 

[mhardy6647]

Stereo can sound like a gimmick if done poorly too. It just depends.

Indeed, and it was a thing in the early days.

Like throwin' spaghetti at the wall...
I'm sure that some boutique 1950s or early 1960s label must have produced and marketed ping-pong bagpipes, trombone, and/or accordion albums.
But, please, in the name of all things sacred, don't search for 'em on Google.

PS The Beatles' Capitol stereo abominations don't really count though... do they?
They weren't artist approved, as we say nowadays.
PPS I do have a copy of that bongo album here.
(not that I'd admit that to just anybody)

 

[napfkuchen]

It always depends on the production, of course, but I usually prefer Dolby Atmos / Auro3D because individual voices/instruments/effects are much more distinct. In addition, sound objects move through the space. It all feels a bit gimmicky (a term with positive connotations for me), and it might therefore be best suited to electronic music, but Atmos was the reason for me to listen to music genres that aren't usually my thing (e.g., classical music, R&B).

Atmos for films I equally find something of a nonsense, as having the sound all around, but the pictures only in front is a distraction. It might work if there's surround vision as well as surround sound.

How do you cope with reality? The human field of vision is quite limited. It is part of our reality to be able to see only a segment of our surroundings—and only a very small part of that with reasonable sharpness—while perceiving the rest through means such as our hearing (which is also not particularly precise). In terms of the stimuli that need to be processed, an action movie in spatial audio demands a huge workload. About a third of our processing capability is used for vision. That’s why I prefer listening to spatial audio in the evening with the room darkened (and TV off).

 

[sergeauckland]

It always depends on the production, of course, but I usually prefer Dolby Atmos / Auro3D because individual voices/instruments/effects are much more distinct. In addition, sound objects move through the space. It all feels a bit gimmicky (a term with positive connotations for me), and it might therefore be best suited to electronic music, but Atmos was the reason for me to listen to music genres that aren't usually my thing (e.g., classical music, R&B).


How do you cope with reality? The human field of vision is quite limited. It is part of our reality to be able to see only a segment of our surroundings—and only a very small part of that with reasonable sharpness—while perceiving the rest through means such as our hearing (which is also not particularly precise). In terms of the stimuli that need to be processed, an action movie in spatial audio demands a huge workload. About a third of our processing capability is used for vision. That’s why I prefer listening to spatial audio in the evening with the room darkened (and TV off).

If I hear a sound from behind, I turn round. What's the point of doing that with an Atmos film? I don't even like stereo sound for TV, as the soundstage width never matches the picture. It's especially annoying watching a symphony concert as the camera pans round, or focusses on an instrument whilst the sound stays put. That's why I listen to the Proms on the radio, not on TV.

S.

 

[Bjorn]

Absolutely. It's highly inaccurate. Stereo with proper spaciousness sounds on the other hand more like the real deal.

 

[goat76]

I just want to point out that the title of this thread should probably be corrected to “Is music mixed in Atmos genuine musical creativity, or just cheap gimmickry?” I don't know about any music “recorded in Atmos”.

To the question: There is a lot of Atmos mixes that are gimmicky, and I often find them to be quite distracting rather than musically enjoyable. It's as if Atmos is in its “child steps”, and many mixing engineers seem to be using the format to make a lot of exaggerations showing off what can be done, instead of using the format to get closer to sound of the real musical event, which Atmos has a higher potential to do than 2-channel audio.

 

[respice finem]

I just want to point out that the title of this thread should probably be corrected to “Is music mixed in Atmos genuine musical creativity, or just cheap gimmickry?” I don't know about any music “recorded in Atmos”.

To the question: There is a lot of Atmos mixes that are gimmicky, and I often find them to be quite distracting rather than musically enjoyable. It's as if Atmos is in its “child steps”, and many mixing engineers seem to be using the format to make a lot of exaggerations showing off what can be done, instead of using the format to get closer to sound of the real musical event, which Atmos has a higher potential to do than 2-channel audio.

Exactly why I returned to stereo. Too many (esp. movies) were "too much of a good thing", I wished for two "knobs" - one for width and one for depth. But, probably the performance as such was OK (assuming the producers know what they are doing), and my "poor man's Atmos" was at fault. Even so, in an average home it's hard to get much more than that.
I will try the new/coming immersive audio offerings, based on headphones, but don't want a "loudspeaker zoo" in the living room again.

 

[DanielT]

I just want to point out that the title of this thread should probably be corrected to “Is music mixed in Atmos genuine musical creativity, or just cheap gimmickry?” I don't know about any music “recorded in Atmos”.

To the question: There is a lot of Atmos mixes that are gimmicky, and I often find them to be quite distracting rather than musically enjoyable. It's as if Atmos is in its “child steps”, and many mixing engineers seem to be using the format to make a lot of exaggerations showing off what can be done, instead of using the format to get closer to sound of the real musical event, which Atmos has a higher potential to do than 2-channel audio.

You have a point there; I’ve changed it now.