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

[BJL]

Can't much speak for the streamer files though I do have Apple Music available. I currently have approx 203 Atmos TrueHD lossless BD and download sourced music files in Rock, Country, Blues, some Big Band, not to include the movies and Auro3D music.
Your trying to twist the words of the engineers. Hard panning to center channel is more a movie dialog thing, with Atmos music vocals & more looking to use an "object" positioned somewhere upfront. I don't know why your making center channel use as much of a deal, it's simply one of a minimum of 9 speaker positions used the create a sounds position in an immersive sound field, something in which they should all be "phantom".

If the instruments or vocals are intended to be placed in the center, but a center speaker is not used by use of the L/R equally to create a phantom center, it will sound artificial, as if a hole in the center. As an example, without knowing what his intent was, Steve Wilson places vocals in most tracks of "Who Are You" (& several other of his remixes) at the left and right (using the wides, if you have them), in mono, creating a centerish position, but it sounds fake because there is nothing in the center speaker, a hole in the center.

In my opinion, it is analogous to listening to mono mixes in two channels (i.e. through the L/R) instead of through a single speaker, preferably the center speaker. The two channel presentation of a mono mix sounds artificial, where played back through the center channel the sound blossoms outward. You can easily test this even without a mono switch on your AVR/AVP, play a mono mix and switch to dolby surround. That will direct the audio to the center channel. It's not as perfect as a mono switch, but quite close. Pick your favorite fine original mono mixed album from the '60s, which I think was a peak for mono mix and mastering.

I recently spent some time with Eddie Kramer's Atmos remix of Hendrix Electric Ladyland (thank you @goat76 for mentioning a track from this album.) He does magic with those old tapes in what is primarily a 7.1 mix (the heights mostly duplicate the side surrounds) and making especially effective use of the center, which evolves from the first track to the end.

Of course, none of this matters if your center channel speaker is mediocre, in which case, you should make it a priority to acquire a high quality center speaker.

 

[TK_IIVI]

I only bring it up because in the discussions of lossy vs lossless Atmos comparisons, I most often hear it stated that changes in image positions are one of the most obvious. Maybe it's all BS, maybe worth deeper investigation on your part??? I make no claims either way

I don't need to investigate that, as I already know it's BS. If there are changes in the image positions, it's not the same mixes to begin with.

Preface: I mix post, not music, and I max out at surround sound, not Atmos.

Having said that though I think there may be some confusion judging from what I read (in general). This is how I look a it for starters;

The mix itself is whatever the mix-engineer decides and it then exists "in full", with no data compression or compromise. After this stage is complete the mix is "mastered" into a different delivery format and this is where bit rate restrictions may apply. For some deliverables there are no restrictions, like for cinema distribution, but for others there are. Now, the thing is that the objects are too numerous to all be used without restrictions if the bit rate is too low, but the solution - as far as I understand it - is not to limit resolution of audio just in terms of frequency bandwidth but rather to group objects together. This means that if I were to pan four objects close to each other we can imagine the mastering process pretty much just sum those four objects into one mono object at an XYZ location that makes the most sense.

So when people talk about the lower bit rate having an effect on how well resolved imaging is when bitrates are limited I think they're not referring to anything that has to do with LCR, unless of course the engineer decides to define a sound at the front using an object rather than a bed's channel. In other words I don't think it affects the question of phantom center versus using the center channel.

The decision to avoid the front centre speaker is a production quality decision. We could have had better sound quality, and they are withholding it from us. And not for creativity reasons.

Based on my own experience (see above) I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. To me the comb filtering mentioned in one of the earlier videos posted actually has the effect of "smoothing out" some of the potential problems with a source sound. I definitely feel that dialog that sits purely in the center channel is much more naked and it's easier to spot problems with it. But I also think that rather than that being a purely qualitative question it also ends up being somewhat aesthetic, so I can totally understand that many engineers and artists don't want a naked vocal in the center. It feels unusual, naked, and potentially disconnected from the rest of the mix.
Having said that, of course nobody is forced to use center-only and it's entirely possible to spread the signal out across LCR in any ratio one desires. I know some post-engineers that prefer maybe 80% center and the rest LR. Others, like me, put it fully center. For music I guess whatever sounds good is good.

I guess the bottom line is that I think we need to trust that the decisions being made are being made for good reasons and possibly aesthetic ones. It's not necessarily true that using the center rather than relying on a phantom center will actually make you feel that it's of higher quality depending on what else is going on in the mix.

And yes, it can be hard to tell if something is actually coming from the center channel, since my main front speakers already produce a very solid phantom center on their own.

If it's either phantom center or purely center-speaker only then it's really easy to tell the difference, at least if the room you're in is decent and with LCR being either the same or at least well matched/set up.

Anyway, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

 

[Newman]

I guess the bottom line is that I think we need to trust that the decisions being made are being made for good reasons and possibly aesthetic ones.

I guess that trust's a bit difficult when, as I mentioned a couple of posts earlier, at least some of the labels are apparently rejecting the engineer's mixes when they use the centre.

 

[TK_IIVI]

I guess that trust's a bit difficult when, as I mentioned a couple of posts earlier, at least some of the labels are apparently rejecting the engineer's mixes when they use the centre.

Are there no mixes out there with the center channel being used?

 

[Newman]

Based on reports in this thread, there are many.

 

[TK_IIVI]

Based on reports in this thread, there are many.

Ok, well then I don't think we need to dwell on the idea that labels are dictating how the mixes are done in general. I get that Olive has some amount of "clout", for good reason probably since he is no doubt knowledgeable in his field, but at the end of the day he's just another person that does work in some areas and not others, just like the rest of us. If he was a mix engineer and he was told directly by labels that he can't use the center then fine, but it looks like the idea that it is "mandated by the labels" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe mix engineers were told what to do, maybe they weren't and just wanted to not have a conversation where they have to justify their aesthetic or technical choices. Maybe they misunderstood. Maybe this was just a few minor labels.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's looking like we're making a hen out of a feather. If we have the actual mix engineers say that they're restricted by labels then that's another matter, but watching some of the videos posted earlier I got the impression that they were entirely free to pan as they saw fit and just chose themselves to not use it.

 

[Newman]

Ok, well then I don't think we need to dwell on the idea that labels are dictating how the mixes are done in general.

I agree. I just think that we should be aware of it.

I get that Olive has some amount of "clout", for good reason probably since he is no doubt knowledgeable in his field, but at the end of the day he's just another person that does work in some areas and not others, just like the rest of us.

Sorry, definitely not "just like the rest of us".

If he was a mix engineer and he was told directly by labels that he can't use the center then fine,

Well, he got it from one or more sound engineers. Maybe you didn't read the thread I linked in post #512?

Also in that thread, Olive posts that his experience is that it is widespread in actual mixes he hears, and that a survey of 100 Commercial Pop Atmos music tracks measured the average level of each channel and found the center level is the lowest only after the LFE which is often not used at all. Even lower than the surround and top channels, individually. I also posted in that thread some of Olive's Facebook comments on the issue, where he outlined the sonic penalties...both in centreline seats and off-centre seats.

but it looks like the idea that it is "mandated by the labels" is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, it might be a stretch. I tried to look into it and couldn't find any written mandate...which doesn't rule out sound engineers getting mixes rejected with a verbal or written direction to that effect from the label. What I did find was a suggestion in the UMG guidelines:-

"We suggest that you think critically about center channel vocal placement." (with the aim not to narrow the vocals), because "We have observed artists feeling a sense of narrowing of their vocal..."

"Think critically"? Not carefully, critically. I can see how that might be enough for many sound engineers to decide to avoid it altogether. Why run the gauntlet of rejection?

Maybe mix engineers were told what to do, maybe they weren't and just wanted to not have a conversation where they have to justify their aesthetic or technical choices. Maybe they misunderstood. Maybe this was just a few minor labels.

No, UMG is probably the biggest of them all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's looking like we're making a hen out of a feather. If we have the actual mix engineers say that they're restricted by labels then that's another matter, but watching some of the videos posted earlier I got the impression that they were entirely free to pan as they saw fit and just chose themselves to not use it.

Yes, the engineers in the videos certainly aren't backing up the idea.

But IMO to call it a 'hen out of a feather' is a brush-off. It's a sound quality compromise that isn't necessary, isn't a creative decision, and does have some degree of suggestion coming from a huge major label.

cheers

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, the engineers in the videos certainly aren't backing up the idea.

But IMO to call it a 'hen out of a feather' is a brush-off. It's a sound quality compromise that isn't necessary, isn't a creative decision, and does have some degree of suggestion coming from a huge major label.

Still, IMO no one should be starting to dictate to the artists and engineers how they create their product with this fairly new technology, we've seen way too much of that in the Loudness Wars. The market place will determine what they like or don't.

 

[Newman]

The same marketplace that chose lossy mp3 streaming and rewarded the loudness wars? I dunno about that solution.....

 

[TK_IIVI]

Sorry, definitely not "just like the rest of us".

Read what I wrote again, I mean that pretty literally. He does not work in all areas, he works in some areas. I work in some areas. I know more about them than others. The same applies to him, because he is a fellow human. It's the same for all of us. Therefore, there is always the issue of what your thought is, how you express that into a question, how the other person perceives it, how they formulate a reply, how they express their reply, how you perceive it, and so on.

I'm not arguing that some people don't prefer to hear a clearly anchored center using the center channel and center speaker, and I'm obviously not arguing that the image doesn't shift if we rely on a phantom center, when I referred to Olive I was talking purely about the idea that this was mandated by labels, nothing else.

What I did find was a suggestion in the UMG guidelines:-

"We suggest that you think critically about center channel vocal placement." (with the aim not to narrow the vocals), because "We have observed artists feeling a sense of narrowing of their vocal..."

"Think critically"? Not carefully, critically. I can see how that might be enough for many sound engineers to decide to avoid it altogether. Why run the gauntlet of rejection?

Sure, but it would be good to hear from the engineers delivering to UMG that they avoid the center for fear of rejection, if that's the reason. The actual argument from UMG as a suggestion is absolutely sound. UMG is there to obviously sell a product, but also make sure that the wishes of talent is taken into account. So I could imagine for example cases where you have artists that are no longer active because of age or death where their older catalog is being remixed for Atmos. From UMG's perspective, if they already have a bunch of artists that don't like having their vocal "isolated" in the center then it stands to reason that it's a good suggestion to avoid that for all the artists that aren't around to fight for their artistic expression.

IMO to call it a 'hen out of a feather' is a brush-off. It's a sound quality compromise that isn't necessary, isn't a creative decision, and does have some degree of suggestion coming from a huge major label.

The "hen out of a feather" comment is referencing the idea that it would be a common demand or mandate issued by labels, not the general idea of using the center. When it comes to using the center I'll just reiterate that I think it is an aesthetic, creative decision most of the time.

What we're running into here is a fundamental distinction between whatever "objective" "sound quality" is on the one hand and artistic expression on the other. People cringed at Dylan's electric guitar, and I'd argue that from some admittedly extreme perspective an amp-distorted electric is even lower sound quality. Now, those are obvious examples where everyone will agree that a twangy guitar that has some "hair" on it because the amp distorts gently on a John Hiatt track is as intended and doesn't count as 'poor quality', but the thing about that is that we're then left with the question of how we decide where to draw the line between "Ok, this is fine because it's an artistic decision" and "This should be higher quality" - beyond personal preference.

So like I said, I think there is a clear difference between phantom center and the dedicated center. When I mix post in 5.1 I leave dialog in center only, pretty much 100% of the time, because for me dialog is king, and I need it to be clear at all times. A clearer dialog in the center allows me to push other elements up in the mix and make the whole thing louder when I want to. But I can absolutely see how this just doesn't apply the same way to music because it's a different beast. And it probably depends a lot on the genre and the individual artist.

 

[TK_IIVI]

IMO no one should be starting to dictate to the artists and engineers how they create their product with this fairly new technology, we've seen way too much of that in the Loudness Wars. The market place will determine what they like or don't.

I agree. Though I suppose on the one hand we have the idea of pushing the envelope and trying to 'lead' or whatever, and on the other doing what people like. Anyway, if it's actually "art" we're dealing with then for the most part artists should decide.

The same marketplace that chose lossy mp3 streaming and rewarded the loudness wars? I dunno about that solution.....

Just a note; when lossy mp3 streaming came out bandwidth was low and storage was limited. I think for a lot of not so discerning people it was a decision between buying "expensive" CDs or copying/downloading a million mp3s so you had "everything" on your hard drive, and then transferred chunks to your iPod every now and then to listen to it. Today it's obviously different which much more storage capacity and more streaming bandwidth. All that just to say that I don't think it's entirely fair to lay that blame on "the marketplace".

I take your point though if the general gist of it is that we should strive for higher quality when we can.

 

[Newman]

What we're running into here is a fundamental distinction between whatever "objective" "sound quality" is on the one hand and artistic expression on the other.

I'm comfortable with the distinction I described in post #514, and that abandoning the centre channel for music belongs in the former.

I take your point though if the general gist of it is that we should strive for higher quality when we can.

Agreed.

 

[TK_IIVI]

I'm comfortable with the distinction I described in post #514, and that abandoning the centre channel for music belongs in the former.

It would be sad however if the audience got to decide what artists do, rather than artists.

 

[Sal1950]

The same marketplace that chose lossy mp3 streaming and rewarded the loudness wars? I dunno about that solution.....

Chose Newman? The streamers didn't all change to lossless and high rez out of the kindness of their hearts. The loudness wars thing has subsided quite a bit and is mostly non-existent in the high quality demanding, surround sound world. But still a lot of it is at the insistence of the artists, if that's what they want their stuff to sound like ???
These productions don't exist because of some backward thinking engineer. LOL

 

[Newman]

I said "chose", in the sense that 90% of recorded music consumers are not into sound quality, so they didn't really care enough about dynamic compression to reject it, and didn't care enough about early mp3 sound quality compromises (early downloads like iTunes, then early streaming) to reject it either.

So if we rely on "the market" to "choose" between music recordings that use the centre channel and those that don't, we are relying on a mechanism that has repeatedly let down audiophiles who are into sound quality. I can't think of a worse way to satisfy audiophiles who are into sound quality. The mechanism, that you propose we let settle the issue, essentially ignores our (audiophile) priorities.

cheers

 

[Sal1950]

I said "chose", in the sense that 90% of recorded music consumers are not into sound quality, so they didn't really care enough about dynamic compression to reject it, and didn't care enough about early mp3 sound quality compromises (early downloads like iTunes, then early streaming) to reject it either.

Still, things have changed because the 10% of the market that does care bitched and complained about it, our voices were everywhere in the audio media for a number of years. I'm sure Spotify finally caved in when they noticed all the others gaining new listener they weren't getting any more. Not because they wanted to spend more money for the bandwidth or believed they were doing a bad thing.

 

[TK_IIVI]

I can't think of a worse way to satisfy audiophiles who are into sound quality. The mechanism, that you propose we let settle the issue, essentially ignores our (audiophile) priorities.

Then again, the use of the medium doesn't happen in order to satisfy audiophiles, it's to satisfy the expression of art (ideally, or to just make money). So if the goal is to change this then the effort needs to be directed at artists in their spaces or the owners of the IP, the labels.

Also, at some point this ends up being a philosophical question because we are dealing with art, not measurements.

I say philosophical for two reasons; first, because you need to define what "quality" is, technically. Second, because where do you draw the line between "good quality" and "justifiable lesser quality"? Are you ok with an electric guitar with an amp? With an amp that distorts? Without an amp but distortion added using software? How about chorusing? Flanging? Reverb? What can be added during the mix?

From our perspective it doesn't matter what we do, what matters is how it sounds. There is literally no difference to me - philosophically - between choosing to use the phantom center for some sounds or choosing to slap a software flanger on something. It's literally the same thing, ultimately. I'm presenting something to people. How do I like it? Do I like with a flanger even though it's maybe "lower quality"? Or without? Same with center versus phantom.

So you really end up having to first define what "quality" is, and then secondly having to argue why your preference for that should override artistic expression. Would the same apply to the moving image? Should we demand that the technically superior image capture technology be used instead of what artists prefer? I mean, to me it's really the same thing. Shooting a movie on film with a vintage lens is probably going to be far less "quality" than the best digital has to offer with a super clean lens. We should demand the latter? Aren't we robbing ourselves of artistic diversity this way?

 

[Sal1950]

I say philosophical for two reasons; first, because you need to define what "quality" is, technically. Second, because where do you draw the line between "good quality" and "justifiable lesser quality"? Are you ok with an electric guitar with an amp? With an amp that distorts? Without an amp but distortion added using software? How about chorusing? Flanging? Reverb? What can be added during the mix?

Those are "artistic" choices made by the musicians and production crew.
The have nothing to due with the discussion of High Fidelity gear and home reproduction.
These is a backward reasoning often used to support less than accurate reproduction.
The best HiFi system is simply a wire with gain attached source. That's a High Quality rig.

 

[TK_IIVI]

Those are "artistic" choices made by the musicians and production crew.
The have nothing to due with the discussion of High Fidelity gear and home reproduction.
These is a backward reasoning often used to support less than accurate reproduction.
The best HiFi system is simply a wire with gain attached source. That's a High Quality rig.

I don't disagree. I was just trying to point out that the decision to put a sound in the center channel only is not a question just about the quality of sound but about artistic intent. Like I said, I move between putting some sounds in the center at times and other times not. Those are ultimately artistic decisions affected by how technology works. If we want to call that a matter of "quality" then that could just as well extend to other aspects of mixing. That was my point.

 

[krabapple]

The excuse that a center-only vocal is worrisome/too exposing to some artists has circulated for years, well before Atmos. I have to think it has some basis in truth. The thing is, it could be just experience with one or a few extremely famous singers (e.g., a Mick Jagger, a Taylor Swift) driving that narrative, rather than a general trend. How are we to know? More testimony from more mixers who've gotten that feedback, is the only way.*

Another thing is, vocals are NOT the only discrete element one finds in the C channel of multichannel mixes. In my experience, bass guitar parts show up there, along with more transient effects (obviously including sounds that pan across the front stage.)

In at least one lazy 5.1 I own, the Center is literally just a very low level replicate of front L/R (Nektar's Remember the Future SACD, which was clearly just an indifferent 6-channel upmix of an old quad source. The Jeff Beck Blow By Blow SACD is a similar 4ch-->6ch upmix.)


* and btw, I would be surprised if the issue of comb filtering from phantom centering ever enters the consideration of mixers or artists. I'd like more testimony on that too