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

[Andysu]

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.

7.1.4 is so cheap of atmos , even a trinnovv and yes i do happen to own alt 32 and atmos on it sounds so cheap plastic sounding unrealistic with lousy soundmixer/s filmmixer mixing rubbish with dreadful , its rubbish to my ears or mind ears receive mind maps the sound and it is a far cry from being 3d sound , no multi below surround floor coverage and the rest , in past 15 years , dolby labs is the worst sound forma i have heard in decades

 

[elguapo]

7.1.4 is so cheap of atmos , even a trinnovv

Dolby Atmos music relies on proper speaker placement. Even Trinnov cannot save the day if side / rear channel mistakenly put to ceiling height.

 

[slaweks]

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

You see, I am skeptical, partly because I remember a few years ago, a VP of Apple responsible for Apple TV and streaming, giving some presentation, was asked about increasing the compression bit rate. And he answered that they are not going to do it, because the vast majority their users would not notice the difference. He did not say "indistinguishable".

 

[Oddball]

You see, I am skeptical, partly because I remember a few years ago, a VP of Apple responsible for Apple TV and streaming, giving some presentation, was asked about increasing the compression bit rate. And he answered that they are not going to do it, because the vast majority their users would not notice the difference. He did not say "indistinguishable".

I heard a rumor (which is as reliable as wind blowing) that they are considering a higher tier subscription with higher bit rates for both video and audio. The challenge is their vast library, so they can't really make this happen on a whim. A phased approach could potentially back-fire, but if they don't charge a huge premium in transition, I can't see why they would not want to make more money. They are actually one of few companies really good at it.

 

[Sal1950]

7.1.4 is so cheap of atmos , even a trinnovv and yes i do happen to own alt 32 and atmos on it sounds so cheap plastic sounding unrealistic with lousy soundmixer/s filmmixer mixing rubbish with dreadful , its rubbish to my ears or mind ears receive mind maps the sound and it is a far cry from being 3d sound , no multi below surround floor coverage and the rest , in past 15 years , dolby labs is the worst sound forma i have heard in decades

Andy
From the pictures of your system in your link I can see you've spent a whole lot of money and have tons of good gear over there. But money and lots of gear does not automatically make for a wonderful sounding system.
If you find Atmos "so cheap plastic unrealistic" I'd suggest you take a long look at your system and it's configuration.
There's something drastically wrong that's causing your constant dismissal of Atmos sound.
You might also take a good look in the mirror.

OMG "your gear or your ears". I never thought I'd say that. LOL

 

[Oddball]

Andy
From the pictures of your system in your link I can see you've spent a whole lot of money and have tons of good gear over there. But money and lots of gear does not automatically make for a wonderful sounding system.
If you find Atmos "so cheap plastic unrealistic" I'd suggest you take a long look at your system and it's configuration.
There's something drastically wrong that's causing your constant dismissal of Atmos sound.
You might also take a good look in the mirror.

OMG "your gear or your ears". I never thought I'd say that. LOL

Agreed. It's true that some of the mixes are poor. But then so are some meals. If you pour enough seasoning on it they at least get some taste. My favorite seasoning is bass. If no good, then just bass it up. At least you get the bass.

 

[goat76]

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!

How were the mixes done for the 'stage" version?

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

I think you should still leave some room here for the opposite side of the coin, as I will most certainly always have a problem enjoying an Atmos song of a rock band if too much creativity is put into the mix. As mentioned, I find it very distracting if, say, a guitar is hovering around in the ceiling or if the hi-hat is coming from a position behind me, while the rest of the drumset is in front of me. Things like that make me "sour", as I only find it gimmick-like with that kind of creative mixing. It can sound somewhat impressive on the first couple of listens, but I will get tired of it pretty fast.

(Close to) Full realism is the ultimate goal for me, and if an Atmos mix can ever come close enough to almost convince me of being in the live room with the musicians in front of me, I would be a very happy bunny!

 

[Sal1950]

How were the mixes done for the 'stage" version?

Done ? I'd have to dig out the BD's from my archive but there usually was a picture illustrating the "stage" perspective with a listening standing in the middle with the band playing in a circle around him. Then one of the "audience" mix with the listener in a traditional position out front of the band.

 

[Sal1950]

(Close to) Full realism is the ultimate goal for me, and if an Atmos mix can ever come close enough to almost convince me of being in the live room with the musicians in front of me, I would be a very happy bunny!

Listen to the Classical genre, most of their Atmos is done that way.
But still, IMHO, a lot of work and expense to get something only marginally better than what we were getting in the 70s with a bit of creative ambiance generation.

 

[goat76]

Done ? I'd have to dig out the BD's from my archive but there usually was a picture illustrating the "stage" perspective with a listening standing in the middle with the band playing in a circle around him. Then one of the "audience" mix with the listener in a traditional position out front of the band.

Thanks, but I meant more in details. How was every individual instrument panned in the mix?

 

[Sal1950]

Thanks, but I meant more in details. How was every individual instrument panned in the mix?

You'd have to ask Mark Waldrep on that. Though retired now the AIX Records site is still active.
You might find some info there

https://www.aixrecords.com/

or here,

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?tag=mark-waldrep

or try contacting him.

Contact – AIX Records

www.aixrecords.com

 

[Fidji]

Hmm, not necessarily.

Anyway, discussion of test rigor and statistics is tedious, has been done well elsehwere on ASR, and isn't very on point to this thread.

In retrospect, I can always see how incorrectly I phrased my statement; I am not a native speaker.

What I wanted to say was, "As four people scored 10/10, it is clear that the difference was audible," rather than "it was clearly audible," which implied a large difference between samples. It would be interesting to repeat that test. Dolby is currently promoting AC4 over DD+; therefore, we can hope for further marketing-supported events involving testing.

Regarding the overall audibility of codec differences, my interest stems from the question: "Does it make sense to still pursue lossless multi-channel (MCH) audio, usually in the form of physical media?" Based on my testing, the answer is "yes."
On my system, under uncontrolled conditions [though I followed basics like volume matching and independent material switching] - I could distinguish differences. These were more apparent in some material than others, and in some cases, not at all. When a difference existed, it was best described as "spatial resolution" or "spatial balance." When I tried "unfair" methods, such as soloing speaker groups - it made the differences more pronounced, especially when muting the L-C-R channels and playing only the remaining speakers.

I am aware that I cannot attribute the perceived difference solely to lossy versus lossless codecs, as there may be other variables. For instance, I can determine on some records that it will sound different even without listening . DD+ is hard-panned to 7.1.4 while the same TrueHD track goes 9.1.6, visible on meters. Whether this is due to the codec or a different master for the Blu-ray release is unknown.

This leads to another topic: the exponentially higher variability between Atmos systems compared to 2-channel (2CH) setups. This complicates meaningful discussion, as the perspective of a user with a 4.1.2 system differs from someone with a 15.1.8 system and five screen channels. A $200 soundbar is also labeled as "Atmos."

I would like to see a certification or classification system to differentiate system levels, similar to THX. Labels like "Atmos Compatible," "Atmos," and "Atmos Max" could distinguish systems regarding immersive sound performance. A simple framework could be: "5.1.2 with CEDIA RP22 Level 1 performance" qualifies as "Atmos," while "9.1.4 with RP22 Level 2" qualifies as "Atmos Max." Everything else would be "Atmos Compatible." I prefer the CEDIA RP22 approach because it provides transparent, measurable, and relevant criteria to evaluate the overall performance of the entire system.

 

[Newman]

How were the mixes done for the 'stage" version?

How was every individual instrument panned in the mix?

I haven't seen that detail discussed. Perhaps he has no one formula, works with each artist individually and their wishes and feedback, etc.

I think you should still leave some room here for the opposite side of the coin, as I will most certainly always have a problem enjoying an Atmos song of a rock band if too much creativity is put into the mix. As mentioned, I find it very distracting if, say, a guitar is hovering around in the ceiling or if the hi-hat is coming from a position behind me, while the rest of the drumset is in front of me. Things like that make me "sour", as I only find it gimmick-like with that kind of creative mixing. It can sound somewhat impressive on the first couple of listens, but I will get tired of it pretty fast.

And I think you should still leave room for not only bad, but also good, strongly-spatial mixes. Don't latch onto the bad ones and paint the whole palette with them.

Also, when Toole educates us about psychoacoustic adaptation, he is not only referring to the sound of a loudspeaker, or the sound of a room. He is also referring to the sound of a new, expanded presentation format. He mentions the similarity with the resistance to stereo audio when it was new. It took time for listeners to adapt. I encourage you to take your time, but not to build a wall, eg "I will most certainly always have a problem....".

(Close to) Full realism is the ultimate goal for me, and if an Atmos mix can ever come close enough to almost convince me of being in the live room with the musicians in front of me, I would be a very happy bunny!

I have in the past worded it this way:

Waldrep has worded it this way (link): "Think of what would happen if Mark Chesnutt and his band came and played a private gig just for you in your living room. The drums might be on one side with the acoustic piano on the other. The guitars, pedal steel and bass would probably be across the front with Mark in the center.
".... Robert (Harley) says he’s uncomfortable with music coming from behind him. His expectation is that the only allowable information that should come from the surround speakers is room reverberation. That assumes that there is an acoustic model or real world arrangement of sounds that an engineer is trying to recreate at home. What if the producer, engineer and artist are just trying to make a great sound record with the physicality of a stage and audience? Isn’t that valid too? It represents most of the commercial pop/rock records out there."

Elsewhere, Waldrep referred to his 'audience mixes' as a transitional product, for people who need small steps on the way to a new paradigm. He doesn't see the 'audience mix' as an end state for many buyers of good surround sound.

I like Waldrep's reference to physicality. It's not just about where instruments are placed and what room ambience is recreated. Spatial audio mixes can often add that more physical feeling of reality, and it is a good feeling, consistent with the experimental evidence that audio immersion is a good feeling.

cheers

 

[Newman]

What I wanted to say was, "As four people scored 10/10, it is clear that the difference was audible," .....

Since this discussion has resumed, I note that I debunked the certainty of the above claim, link. It was an honour-system test, and that would need to be controlled for in a follow-up test.

cheers

 

[Mort]

Since this discussion has resumed

What is this thread even about? The title gives me agita. Atmos isn't 5.1, phantom center is a different thing, music focused is a red herring.

 

[Sal1950]

Atmos is turning up everywhere now – streaming, Blu-ray, even stereo playback - which got me wondering: in a music-focused 5.1 system, is a real center worth it, or is a phantom center just as good?

I knew all this would just blow-up. Stereo-BLAH, all that silly panning of sounds from left to right and back again.
MONO FOREVER !!!

 

[goat76]

I knew all this would just blow-up. Stereo-BLAH, all that silly panning of sounds from left to right and back again.
MONO FOREVER !!!

The thing is, most Atmos mixing engineers don't seem to use the center channel for many key things in the mix and still use the two main front speakers, creating a phantom center for the most important elements, like the vocal track and other elements.

The reason for this can be many things. The mixing engineers may be used to how the key elements sound when panned as phantom objects, or they don't think that many users (or themselves) have a good enough center speaker, or that the center speaker often has a somewhat compromised position in most audio systems. I don't know, but in most Atmos tracks I’ve heard and analyzed, the center speaker is only sporadically used, or just acts as a supporting channel for the two main front speakers, or it is not used at all.



A few years ago, I saw an over 4-hour-long video available on YouTube with Andrew Scheps and his fellow Atmos mixing friends. At one point in the discussion, they talked specifically about the center channel, and they all seemed to agree (nodding their heads) that certain elements can sound a bit weird when panned to the center channel. A possible explanation for this could be that they are just so used to hearing certain elements as phantom sounds, or maybe that certain sound elements can sound a bit too isolated when and if they are exclusively panned to a center speaker.

None of the above has anything to do with “stereo” being any superior; it’s just stating the fact that many Atmos mixing engineers still utilize stereo mixing aspects when mixing Atmos tracks, for any possible reasons known to them.


Here is the long video with Andrew Scheps and friends I was talking about. 1.58:22 into the video, they talk about the center channel.

 

[goat76]

I just stumbled across this video with Bob Clearmountain and Alan Meyerson, where they have an interesting talk about the lack of use of the center speaker in many Atmos mixes. Bob Clearmountain is the one who has noticed that and wonders why, as he clearly uses the center speaker for key things like vocals and such, while Alan Meyerson seems to usually use all three front speakers, as he's concerned that there can be compromises at the home of the consumers, like a lesser quality center speaker that may be lacking in the bass capability, where a TV screen is usualy taking up the main space.

The talk about the center speaker is taking place 9.58 into the video.

 

[BJL]

The thing is, most Atmos mixing engineers don't seem to use the center channel for many key things in the mix and still use the two main front speakers, creating a phantom center for the most important elements, like the vocal track and other elements.

The reason for this can be many things. The mixing engineers may be used to how the key elements sound when panned as phantom objects, or they don't think that many users (or themselves) have a good enough center speaker, or that the center speaker often has a somewhat compromised position in most audio systems. I don't know, but in most Atmos tracks I’ve heard and analyzed, the center speaker is only sporadically used, or just acts as a supporting channel for the two main front speakers, or it is not used at all.



A few years ago, I saw an over 4-hour-long video available on YouTube with Andrew Scheps and his fellow Atmos mixing friends. At one point in the discussion, they talked specifically about the center channel, and they all seemed to agree (nodding their heads) that certain elements can sound a bit weird when panned to the center channel. A possible explanation for this could be that they are just so used to hearing certain elements as phantom sounds, or maybe that certain sound elements can sound a bit too isolated when and if they are exclusively panned to a center speaker.

None of the above has anything to do with “stereo” being any superior; it’s just stating the fact that many Atmos mixing engineers still utilize stereo mixing aspects when mixing Atmos tracks, for any possible reasons known to them.


Here is the long video with Andrew Scheps and friends I was talking about. 1.58:22 into the video, they talk about the center channel.

The majority of the music Atmos recordings (and all of the cinema/tv Atmos recordings) that I own make good use of the center channel. The guy talking in the video attached who was promoting the use of a phantom center instead of a real one, in my opinion, is living in the past and should take some lessons in 21st mixing techniques.​

 

[Mort]

I find Rock and Pop to have little center. And when it does, I can barely tell the difference between the phantom and the center. The phantom is a bit deeper.