Now That Atmos Is Everywhere… Real vs. Phantom Center in a 5.1 Music-Focused Setup

[krabapple]

I don't think you can get a very good phantom side just by splitting between say left front and left rear. HRTFs and any timing differences will throw off the side image.

Consider: 'C' content synthesized from FL/FR by upmixers is content that is present 'equally' in both L and R.
Turning upmixing off reverts that back to L/R and a phantom C.

How does taking 'hard coded' C content and sending it to both FL and FR differ from that?

It is conceptually the same as taking 'hard coded' SideL content and sending it to both FL and SurroundL.

Note that recommended placement of Surround speakers in 4.x or 5.x is not the same as placement of Back speakers in 7.x etc.
For phantom side imaging to 'work' -- for it to be centered in the middle of side -- FL and SurroundL need to be positioned with audio symmetry to MLP that is analogous to FL--ML--FR.
This may not be what listeners have in their 5.x setups. It may require adjustments.

Especially. if you are trying to have multiple seating positions.

I rarely need to care about that, so I don't. Many things differ when you have to consider multiple listeners. (e.g., a center speaker with good lateral dispersion becomes practically a must)

This booklet talks about the importance of lateral sound in concert hall and room acoustics quite a bit but especially on pages 4-8.

I'm talking about 'lateral sound' that is hard-coded into a lateral channel.

I'd think a better approach in a 5 speaker system is to put the surrounds at the sides and then try and simulate rears with HRTF processing on the rear info fed to the side speakers. Lexicon's used to do this with a feature called 5 speaker enhance.

Maybe so. But Harman's solution for home audio upmixing, as great as it was , is extremely niche/legacy at this point. Vanishingly few consumers still have access to Logic. I've never heard it.

 

[sfogg]

Consider: 'C' content synthesized from FL/FR by upmixers is content that is present 'equally' in both L and R.
Turning upmixing off reverts that back to L/R and a phantom C.

How does taking 'hard coded' C content and sending it to both FL and FR differ from that?

We can locate sounds in front of us and behind us (less so directly behind us) due to HRTF queues changing the sounds received by our ears.

A phanton center still has both source sounds (L/R channel) originating in front of us. The directional queues from each speaker are still 'in front.' We do subtle head movements to help localize too and that still confirms 'front' with some conflicting queues as to where in front.

Trying to do phantom side has one source with queues pointing front and the other saying behind. Head bobs give conflicting info. Our brain won't sum it nearly as well.

This is easy to hear for yourself. Play something mono on your system and use upmixing to steer it to the center speaker and compare that to plain 2 channel listening.

Then turn 90 degrees at your listening position and upmix to hear what is now an actual side speaker. Then drop back to straight 2 channel and the difference will be larger than when you heard when facing straight ahead. This test is with identical speakers located an identical distance away from you with essentially the same placement in the room (relative to front wall, back wall, ceiling and floor reflections). With an actual front and rear speaker they may not be identical. They are likely not the same distance from you and their position within the room is also likely very different.

 

[elguapo]

It's interesting to me you mention this elevation of apparent source in many ATMOS tracks but not all. I've noticed that as well, but thought it was just my imagination.

If you have an analysis tool like FLUX:: MiRA, you can use it to see exactly where the sounds are localized. For example, using the Grammy-award-winning album Immersed by Justin Gray, you can see how the sounds merge beautifully well above the horizon and just in front of your cranium. The mix also fully utilizes the Center (C), Left Wide (Lw), and Right Wide (Rw) channels to achieve pin-point accuracy in object placement within the listening area. That’s the beauty of Dolby Atmos music.

 

[goat76]

One interesting reason is : what exactly happens to Side content of a 7.1 'Atmos mix' (or any mix using Side channels) when it's downmixed to 4 or 5 'bed' channels (i.e., 2 front, 2 surround positioned to the rear of the MLP, center optional)?

Conceptually, Side content should be evenly split, on each side, between front and surround -- forming a phantom side image(s) between them.

Is that what happens in practice?

That is the question I have asked more than once here on ASR, but no one seems to have a clear answer to that.

I only have a 5.1 system, and the main problem I have with Atmos mixes is that the balance seems to be wrong sometimes, in some mixes, between the front channels and the surround channels.
One possible explanation for that could be that everything that is supposed to go to the side surround channels, now only goes to the back/side surround channels, in the 5.1 speaker configuration, which leads to the strange balance.
Another possible explanation could be that some mixing engineers have a different level balance between the front channels and the surround channels in their systems than I do, while other engineers have a more similar balance to mine.

I like to think the side surround information should be split evenly between the front and the back channels, but maybe this is a parameter that can be set by the mixing engineer in the Atmos mixing suite?

If I only had a 7.1 system, I could probably answer this for myself just by listening to the same Atmos mix and switching between 7.1 and 5.1 in the surround receiver.

I really want a clear answer to this.

 

[Newman]

I only have a 5.1 system, and the main problem I have with Atmos mixes is that the balance seems to be wrong sometimes, in some mixes, between the front channels and the surround channels.
One possible explanation for that could be that everything that is supposed to go to the side surround channels, now only goes to the back/side surround channels, in the 5.1 speaker configuration, which leads to the strange balance.
Another possible explanation could be that some mixing engineers have a different level balance between the front channels and the surround channels in their systems than I do, while other engineers have a more similar balance to mine.

I don't have the answers, but note that you don't consider where the height channel information is going into your 5.1.
Maybe that is more of the issue. But it's all rather academic, since I don't see what you could do with the correct answer.

What I will say, however, is that you don't meet the minimum requirements for Atmos playback. From the Dolby guidelines for Atmos home setup:-

"The following components are needed to set up a Dolby Atmos home theater system:

• A source device to play Dolby Atmos content. Many existing devices will work.

• An A/V receiver (AVR) or processor unit capable of supporting Dolby Atmos.

• Speakers to reproduce overhead audio.

• Speakers to reproduce listener-level audio."​

Perhaps you can add the bit in bold and see how that goes.

cheers

 

[BJL]

That is the question I have asked more than once here on ASR, but no one seems to have a clear answer to that.

I only have a 5.1 system, and the main problem I have with Atmos mixes is that the balance seems to be wrong sometimes, in some mixes, between the front channels and the surround channels.
One possible explanation for that could be that everything that is supposed to go to the side surround channels, now only goes to the back/side surround channels, in the 5.1 speaker configuration, which leads to the strange balance.
Another possible explanation could be that some mixing engineers have a different level balance between the front channels and the surround channels in their systems than I do, while other engineers have a more similar balance to mine.

I like to think the side surround information should be split evenly between the front and the back channels, but maybe this is a parameter that can be set by the mixing engineer in the Atmos mixing suite?

If I only had a 7.1 system, I could probably answer this for myself just by listening to the same Atmos mix and switching between 7.1 and 5.1 in the surround receiver.

I really want a clear answer to this.

Part of the problem is that you are listening to Atmos mixes on a 5.1 system, that is, with no Atmos speaker positions (heights and/or front wides) and more to the point, with your processor configured for a five channel system. Parenthetically, some Atmos recordings are delivered with embedded 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, (frequently in Apple Music streaming service, for example.) So that even though a recording may state Atmos, what you are hearing is the embedded channel based mix. If you have some specific examples, that would help.

The Atmos decoder will attempt to place the sound objects as close as possible to where the mix engineer placed it. I can easily switch my processor between 7.1 channels and 9.1.6 Atmos. I just checked out a recent recording. Mark Knopfler One Deep River, track one (Two Pairs of Hands). When played in a 7.1 configuration (without Atmos speakers) the guitars and vocals collapse toward the center, the lead pushed to the center. When played 9.1.6, all guitars spread across the 180 degree soundstage. Likewise, the double and triple tracked vocals open up into the sides and front heights. My impression is that the mix concept was to create a feeling of a proscenium. Thus without the Atmos positions objects move to the center, retaining the feeling of the musicians arrayed in front. With the Atmos configuration and speaker positions enabled, the audio has more positional precision, and it becomes a wide proscenium, with the guitars and vocals placed in positions arrayed 180 degrees and in the front and middle heights (this is a "frontcentric" mix.)

Also, it is conceptually misleading to think of Atmos mixes in terms of channels. There may (or may not) be channel based audio (the so-called 5 or 7 bed channels,) but the Atmos objects are not in general assigned to channels, they are assigned to positions in three dimensional space (complicating this, some Atmos audio is delivered rendered, turning the whole thing into channels.)

For an interesting, complex, and skillfully done Atmos mix, try Brian Eno Foureverandevernomore. He recorded the album for Atmos. If you listen to a blu ray disc, you can usually specify the mix. For streaming services, you don't have that degree of control. It will stream according to the particular service's rules. I believe that Apple tries to stream a 5 channel mix if that is what you have, my recollection is that they require the artists to submit Atmos files with stereo, 5.1, and Atmos, but perhaps someone has better information.

 

[goat76]

I don't have the answers, but note that you don't consider where the height channel information is going into your 5.1.
Maybe that is more of the issue. But it's all rather academic, since I don't see what you could do with the correct answer.

What I will say, however, is that you don't meet the minimum requirements for Atmos playback. From the Dolby guidelines for Atmos home setup:-

"The following components are needed to set up a Dolby Atmos home theater system:

• A source device to play Dolby Atmos content. Many existing devices will work.

• An A/V receiver (AVR) or processor unit capable of supporting Dolby Atmos.

• Speakers to reproduce overhead audio.

• Speakers to reproduce listener-level audio."​

Perhaps you can add the bit in bold and see how that goes.

cheers

As Atmos is an object-based sound format, which is supposed to be able to fold down all the way down to even a pair of headphones or a simple sound bar, I would expect the format to be able to fold down to my 5.1 system with a preserved balance between what goes to the front three channels compared to what goes to the two surround channels.

I think we all understand that more speakers than 5.1 are needed to be considered a full Atmos system, and that the name of the format suggests that overhead speakers are needed for a full Atmos system. But as mentioned, it should be able to fold down with a preserved balance all the way down to an Atmos-compatible system of only 2 channels, like a pair of headphones.

I think I have managed a good balance between all channels in my 5.1 system. But still, some Atmos mixes sound balanced in the way that I expect them. For example, the main instruments have a "weight" towards the front of the sound stage. But with some other Atmos mixes, it's like some of the main instruments have way too much weight towards the surround speakers, making the mix balance somewhat distracting in a way I have a hard time believing the mixing engineer intended it to be.

So the question is (granted that the mismatched balance is not caused by me setting up my 5.1 system wrong), would the balance problem be solved by going up to a 7.1 system, adding side surround channels? If not, it's either a problem with how Atmos folds down the side information, or it may be that some mixing engineers have their speaker levels set up wrong, leading to a skewed balance in the programme material.
I would expect the latter, the lack of a correct balance between the channels in some studios.

Unfortunately, I don't have room for side surround channels in my setup, as I have a doorway to the left and a window to the right, so I can't investigate this on my own. I don't think the lack of overhead channels is the main cause of the problem I experience, as those speakers should most likely act as supporting channels in most Atmos mixes.

 

[goat76]

Part of the problem is that you are listening to Atmos mixes on a 5.1 system, that is, with no Atmos speaker positions (heights and/or front wides) and more to the point, with your processor configured for a five channel system. Parenthetically, some Atmos recordings are delivered with embedded 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, (frequently in Apple Music streaming service, for example.) So that even though a recording may state Atmos, what you are hearing is the embedded channel based mix. If you have some specific examples, that would help.

The Atmos decoder will attempt to place the sound objects as close as possible to where the mix engineer placed it. I can easily switch my processor between 7.1 channels and 9.1.6 Atmos. I just checked out a recent recording. Mark Knopfler One Deep River, track one (Two Pairs of Hands). When played in a 7.1 configuration (without Atmos speakers) the guitars and vocals collapse toward the center, the lead pushed to the center. When played 9.1.6, all guitars spread across the 180 degree soundstage. Likewise, the double and triple tracked vocals open up into the sides and front heights. My impression is that the mix concept was to create a feeling of a proscenium. Thus without the Atmos positions objects move to the center, retaining the feeling of the musicians arrayed in front. With the Atmos configuration and speaker positions enabled, the audio has more positional precision, and it becomes a wide proscenium, with the guitars and vocals placed in positions arrayed 180 degrees and in the front and middle heights (this is a "frontcentric" mix.)

Also, it is conceptually misleading to think of Atmos mixes in terms of channels. There may (or may not) be channel based audio (the so-called 5 or 7 bed channels,) but the Atmos objects are not in general assigned to channels, they are assigned to positions in three dimensional space (complicating this, some Atmos audio is delivered rendered, turning the whole thing into channels.)

For an interesting, complex, and skillfully done Atmos mix, try Brian Eno Foureverandevernomore. He recorded the album for Atmos. If you listen to a blu ray disc, you can usually specify the mix. For streaming services, you don't have that degree of control. It will stream according to the particular service's rules. I believe that Apple tries to stream a 5 channel mix if that is what you have, my recollection is that they require the artists to submit Atmos files with stereo, 5.1, and Atmos, but perhaps someone has better information.

I really wanted to listen to the Mark Knopfler example of yours, and also give you some examples where I find a mismatch in the mix balance when listening in 5.1, but for some unknown reason, Tidal doesn't work this morning using my Apple TV. No music at all comes up when starting the Tidal app.

I want to come back to you when things start to work. Maybe Apple has done an update, and Tidal is slow on the ball?
Does the Tidal app work for the rest of you using Apple TV?

EDIT: I got the Tidal to work now on my Apple TV, had to re-install the app as something had gone bananas for unknown reasons.

 

[goat76]

The Atmos decoder will attempt to place the sound objects as close as possible to where the mix engineer placed it. I can easily switch my processor between 7.1 channels and 9.1.6 Atmos. I just checked out a recent recording. Mark Knopfler One Deep River, track one (Two Pairs of Hands). When played in a 7.1 configuration (without Atmos speakers) the guitars and vocals collapse toward the center, the lead pushed to the center. When played 9.1.6, all guitars spread across the 180 degree soundstage. Likewise, the double and triple tracked vocals open up into the sides and front heights. My impression is that the mix concept was to create a feeling of a proscenium. Thus without the Atmos positions objects move to the center, retaining the feeling of the musicians arrayed in front. With the Atmos configuration and speaker positions enabled, the audio has more positional precision, and it becomes a wide proscenium, with the guitars and vocals placed in positions arrayed 180 degrees and in the front and middle heights (this is a "frontcentric" mix.)

The Mark Knopfler song sounds as I expect it to sound, with a natural balance for the instruments focused on the front stage of the sound field. Most of the main vocal track is panned like a normal stereo track, using the left and right front speakers for a phantom vocal, but with a second vocal take filling in here and there in the center speakers channel and the surround speakers. Both the bass guitar and the rhythm guitar use all three front channels pretty equally, with maybe some small emphasis in the center channel, and they are both heard a bit lower in level in the surround channels, so that the focus remains at the front stage. The solo guitar is heard as a phantom-panned sound in the left and right front speakers and in the surround channels, and the same for the drums.


Another Atmos track that does a good job in the mix is the song Down by the River by Neil Young. The balance is good between the right front speaker and the right surround speaker, making the right guitar appear to be coming from a spot way outside the right front speaker, but still keeping the guitar to the front of the stage. And vice versa, the same for the left guitar. A well-balanced mix when listening to my 5.1 system.



Here comes a few examples, just taken from Tidal’s playlist “Rock Classics: Dolby Atmos”, where I find the balance between the front stage speakers and the surround speakers to be strangely unbalanced towards the surrounds.

The Band - The Weight
Jimi Hendrix - Crosstown Traffic
RUN-DCM, Aerosmith - Walk This Way
Rush - Tom Sawyer
The Beach Boys - I Get Around
The Stooges - Search and Destroy (Bowie Mix)
Poison - Nothin’ But A Good Time
Talking Heads - Life During Wartime

I leave it open for any of the following possible explanations why I find the above songs sounding wrong to me:

• Bad taste of the mixing engineer, who doesn’t understand that certain type of music don’t work very well without a natural emphasis on the front stage.
• Mixing engineers don't have their speakers level-calibrated, leading to a wrong balance in the programme material.
• I don't have my speakers level-calibrated well enough, even though I find most other Atmos mixes sounding well-balanced.
• The downfold process in the Atmos renderer sometimes leads to a somewhat strange balance towards the surround channels, depending on the rest of the speaker configuration.
• Something else.

Also, it is conceptually misleading to think of Atmos mixes in terms of channels. There may (or may not) be channel based audio (the so-called 5 or 7 bed channels,) but the Atmos objects are not in general assigned to channels, they are assigned to positions in three dimensional space (complicating this, some Atmos audio is delivered rendered, turning the whole thing into channels.)

Yes, I’m fully aware that it can be misleading to talk about channels for an object-based format like Atmos, but what I’m not 100% sure of is how the downfold works, as I have no way to compare where the sounds may have appeared to be coming from if my system had side surround channels. I have heard someone mention that Atmos down folds to a channel-based format if played through a 5.1 or a 7.1 system, but I’m not sure that is true, and it’s possible it still works as expected, letting the front channels and the surround channels take equal duty in placing the sound object as a phantom sound between then when side surrounds is missing in the system.

For an interesting, complex, and skillfully done Atmos mix, try Brian Eno Foureverandevernomore. He recorded the album for Atmos. If you listen to a blu ray disc, you can usually specify the mix. For streaming services, you don't have that degree of control. It will stream according to the particular service's rules. I believe that Apple tries to stream a 5 channel mix if that is what you have, my recollection is that they require the artists to submit Atmos files with stereo, 5.1, and Atmos, but perhaps someone has better information.

With the type of music on the Brian Eno album, I think it works really well with more mixing freedom. It contains sound objects that can be freely moved around the listener without making it sound unnatural, but when it comes to rock music, or any other type of music with a band playing together, it’s just very strange if the instruments appear to be coming from positions behind me as a listener, and I don’t think that is what most of the mixing engineer intended to do with the examples I gave above. The balance just ended up being wrong for any one of the possible reasons.

 

[BJL]

Here comes a few examples, just taken from Tidal’s playlist “Rock Classics: Dolby Atmos”, where I find the balance between the front stage speakers and the surround speakers to be strangely unbalanced towards the surrounds.

The Band - The Weight
Jimi Hendrix - Crosstown Traffic
RUN-DCM, Aerosmith - Walk This Way
Rush - Tom Sawyer
The Beach Boys - I Get Around
The Stooges - Search and Destroy (Bowie Mix)
Poison - Nothin’ But A Good Time
Talking Heads - Life During Wartime

I leave it open for any of the following possible explanations why I find the above songs sounding wrong to me:

• Bad taste of the mixing engineer, who doesn’t understand that certain type of music don’t work very well without a natural emphasis on the front stage.
• Mixing engineers don't have their speakers level-calibrated, leading to a wrong balance in the programme material.
• I don't have my speakers level-calibrated well enough, even though I find most other Atmos mixes sounding well-balanced.
• The downfold process in the Atmos renderer sometimes leads to a somewhat strange balance towards the surround channels, depending on the rest of the speaker configuration.
• Something else.

Hello @goat76 - the only one of that group I own is the Hendrix, and yes, played 7.1, Crosstown Traffic is biased toward the side and back surrounds. This bias is clearer in 9.1.6 because it the Atmos uses the top middle to reinforce the side surround, and lift that sound vertically. The front wide positions are not implemented, though it sounds better in Atmos vs. 5/7.1. This bias continues in the next track (Voodoo Child). The engineer, Eddie Kramer, apparently decided that Hendrix wanted the lead guitar (and keyboard solo) to hang around the rear channels. It's as if the main listening position is where Hendrix was playing, facing the rhythm section. Perhaps that is the point of view Kramer is trying express, at least, that is how I am listening to it, now that you pointed this out.

Eddie Kramer was the original engineer on Electric Ladyland, who worked closely with Hendrix during that time. I'm sure he understands the music, it is just his point of view. I'd be interested to read what Hendrix scholars might have to say about his choices on the Ladyland multi channel and Atmos mixes.

I would not automatically dismiss unconventional mix choices, when made by sophisticated engineers. They are trying to express something, it is up to us to understand. One of the reasons I dislike streaming services (and don't subscribe) is that they are frequently poorly documented, and it is often unknown who did the mix and the level of effort. I have read that Kramer put considerable time working with the masters on Ladyland and Axis.

Edit: PS listening to the entire album, to me, Kramer's choices become more coherent. Thanks for bringing this up, I haven't given the album a good listen in a long time!

 

[Sal1950]

The Mark Knopfler song sounds as I expect it to sound, with a natural balance for the instruments focused on the front stage of the sound field. Most of the main vocal track is panned like a normal stereo track, using the left and right front speakers for a phantom vocal, but with a second vocal take filling in here and there in the center speakers channel and the surround speakers.

I leave it open for any of the following possible explanations why I find the above songs sounding wrong to me:

• Something else.

I believe your first comment reveals something about your disappointment and expectations.
I don't look for a immersive sound remastering to keep the majority of the performance up-front on the front L & R stage.
IMHO a good surround mix completely re-imagines the soundspace to immersive you in the music with various parts of the mix placed all around (and above you with Atmos/Auro). It's supposed to be a completely different paradigm for music listening that is best used to create a whole new idea of the listening experice beyoud that of just recreating the illusion of the band playing in front of you. Think of how Pope Sixtus IV reimagined Michelangelo's The Last Judgement and commisioned a band of painters to create the experience of being in the Sistine Chapel.

 

[Chris A]

And yet...Floyd Toole himself is a big fan of upmixing and says he uses it routinely.

The last time I checked, Dr. Toole was using a version of Logic7 remixer (i.e., the original Dave Griesinger product that made Lexicon what it became) on a JBL Synthesis AVP--which I asked him about. Most people who run multichannel setups I find are not using $20K-40K+ AVPs from Trinnov (or JBL Synthesis stenciled on them), and Logic7 isn't really offered in any recent AVP/AVR that I'm aware of.

Chris

 

[goat76]

I don't look for a immersive sound remastering to keep the majority of the performance up-front on the front L & R stage.
IMHO a good surround mix completely re-imagines the soundspace to immersive you in the music with various parts of the mix placed all around (and above you with Atmos/Auro). It's supposed to be a completely different paradigm for music listening that is best used to create a whole new idea of the listening experice beyoud that of just recreating the illusion of the band playing in front of you.

If we take a rock band mixed in Atmos, what I mean when I say that I want the performance/band in front of me as a listener, I don't mean they necessarily have to be tied only to the three front channels. To me, the front stage can reach way outside each front speaker to create a wide sound stage, but I never want any instruments to appear to be coming from positions right beside me or behind me, as that is very unnatural for that type of music. The rest of the sound field, behind me and on the side of me, should be dedicated to room and reverb sounds for creating the atmosphere of realism around me.

So yes, I do want an immersive experience out of Atmos, but it should at least be in a semi-realistic way. I find it too distracting to have the musicians behind me, or even worse, above me, or running around me in circles.

When it comes to Atmos mixes of classical music, I would always prefer that the audio production aims for full realism. But for electronic music containing instruments that don't necessarily exist "outside the box" of a computer program, I think there is room for a more creative kind of mixing, like sounds moving around the room and similar stuff like that.

I have actually mixed a few songs in 5.1, so I know exactly what I prefer, what my personal restrictions are, and how I want an Atmos mix to be. All depending on what type of music it is and what instruments it contains. But there is still a lot of mixing creativity left inside my preference restrictions.

 

[Sal1950]

If we take a rock band mixed in Atmos, what I mean when I say that I want the performance/band in front of me as a listener, I don't mean they necessarily have to be tied only to the three front channels. To me, the front stage can reach way outside each front speaker to create a wide sound stage, but I never want any instruments to appear to be coming from positions right beside me or behind me, as that is very unnatural for that type of music. The rest of the sound field, behind me and on the side of me, should be dedicated to room and reverb sounds for creating the atmosphere of realism around me.

And this is the point where we'll most strongly disagree. Make no mistake there is no real right or wrong here but mainly a matter of preference. I can say speaking strictly for myself, I was accomplishing what you desire in the 1970s simply with a good quad setup and a ambiance extraction system of which there were many. Heck a good well setup stereo only rig is capable of imaging wall to wall and midway down the sides with the right recordings.
OTOH, I didn't spend the kind of money I have to simply get the kind of results I got 50 years ago.. Yes I look for truly immersive mixes that place the performers in a soundspace that completely surrounds and engulfs me. As in the photos from the Sistine show, that is what the best immersive music producers are creating today with music. From Steven Wilson to Alan Parsons and self produced groups like Booka Shade and Yello, I believe you'll find the highest praise and ratings are for those who aren't sticking to that old 2ch paradigm.
YMMV

 

[middlemarch]

Bryan Ferry “Dylanesque” Great recording and superb Atmos mix.

 

[slaweks]

The best way to keep one's hat on is to remember that lossy compression is effectively inaudible above a certain bitrate. Atmos audio at 768 kbps is considered transparent within the industry and academia.

The argument "it must be lossless" is just another form of the "it must be high res" argument. Drawing massively from endless anecdotes, when put to the test with real music, it fails.

The argument about sketchy spatial remastering "done by AI" also reeks of anti-spatial propaganda. Done by AI from what? Apple forbids spatial uploads that are upmixed from stereo. You have to have access to the multitrack masters. If AI creeps into DAW software and enables a better result for the same time investment, then it isn't the weak link. The real issue is the same as for stereo: the general standard of mastering aka frequency of hits and misses.

cheers

"Atmos audio at 768 kbps is considered transparent within the industry and academia." Any references for this statement? In context of Atmos encoded music, please.

 

[elguapo]

Any references for this statement? In context of Atmos encoded music, please.

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3324.pdf

Although this experiment was for 5.1 but still worth to read.

 

[slaweks]

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3324.pdf

Although this experiment was for 5.1 but still worth to read.

Not Atmos. I would like to see how "indistinguishable" 768kb/s is in 7.1.4 setup, and not for a helicopter flying over, but music.
But thank you for the reference.

 

[Newman]

"Atmos audio at 768 kbps is considered transparent within the industry and academia." Any references for this statement? In context of Atmos encoded music, please.

You are not this first to challenge me on that point, and I tried and failed to recall the reference. My best response to the issue, not to the specific challenge, was this post, link.

cheers

 

[Newman]

[to goat76] I believe your first comment reveals something about your disappointment and expectations.
I don't look for a immersive sound remastering to keep the majority of the performance up-front on the front L & R stage.
IMHO a good surround mix completely re-imagines the soundspace to immersive you in the music with various parts of the mix placed all around (and above you with Atmos/Auro). It's supposed to be a completely different paradigm for music listening that is best used to create a whole new idea of the listening experice beyoud that of just recreating the illusion of the band playing in front of you.

Yes. I think sound engineers have the opportunity to do it either way, or anything in between. Mark Waldrep being a blatant example in that he would release what he called 'stage' and 'audience' mixes of the same performance (surround sound, not spatial). Buyer's choice!

I honestly think audiophiles are going to be doing themselves a disservice if they get all pedantic and insist on one way only, and refuse to broaden their perspective and appreciation. It's a creative production: do you want to enjoy the creation, or be sour?

cheers