Paul McCartney – The Boys of Dungeon Lane – Reviewed (stereo vs Dolby Atmos), Included 3d immersive video rendering

[Jean.Francois]

Hello,

The Boys of Dungeon Lane by Paul McCartney is an autobiographical work inspired by his childhood in Liverpool.
Across fourteen tracks, he reflects on his memories, youthful friendships, and the passage of time.
Musically, the album blends melodic pop, rock, intimate ballads, and psychedelic influences.

It is unfortunate to see a new album by an artist of this stature handled in such a way, particularly with such heavy use of dynamic limiting on the stereo version. Paul McCartney does not need loudness processing for a new album to succeed.

In this context, it becomes preferable to turn to the Dolby Atmos version in order to recover the full dynamic range of the recording, along with a more refined and evolving spatial presentation depending on the tracks
However, it is regrettable that listeners must rely only on a Dolby Digital Plus encode, a lossy format that slightly reduces the subtlety and precision of the sound reproduction.

Below, a color gradient has been added to reflect perceived height: sounds that remain at the level of the main speakers are displayed in blue, while their color gradually shifts toward red as they rise higher. This visualization makes it easier to observe the elevation of sounds within the room.

You can also find the full analysis (including all graphs and measurements) HERE (link).

Enjoy listening,
Jean-François

 

[Curvature]

Which tool did you use to display the spatial information in your article? Are the SP and SK values objective?

Do you have a list of atmos music ranked by those values? I'm asking because I'm interested in what would present the strongest spatial impression.

 

[Jean.Francois]

Which tool did you use to display the spatial information in your article? Are the SP and SK values objective?

Do you have a list of atmos music ranked by those values? I'm asking because I'm interested in what would present the strongest spatial impression.

The tool I use is one I developed myself. It includes a metric called SP, which I have been using for the past four years for analyses on my website MagicVinylDigital.net. This value is calculated based on the distribution of RMS and peak levels across the different channels: Front, Surround, and Top. It is a score ranging from 0 to 10.

This score indicates whether all channels are being used, and it provides an initial overview of how the different channels are utilized in a multichannel audio signal. An Atmos mix with a score of 3.5 is generally very front-heavy, whereas an Atmos mix with a score above 8 fully exploits all available channels.

With more than 100 analyses performed on the site (and many more outside of it), this score has proven to be a useful indicator. However, it does not take into account the perception of movement or the spatial distribution of different sounds across the space. For example, if the same signal is placed on all channels, the distribution score may be high, but the perceived audio image is not very convincing, with a sound that feels centered in the room, similar to a mono signal in stereo, which is perceived in the center between speakers.

To address this, I introduced last month a second metric called SK, which measures temporal variations. Every 50 ms, an analysis determines a position corresponding to the perceived sound location (still based on RMS and peak values). This position is stored in a three-dimensional matrix. The more the sound fills this matrix, the more the spatial field is used, resulting in a score from 0 to 10.
To achieve more accurate results, everything is calculated across multiple frequency bands for each 50 ms window. This value is a compromise between spatial precision and computational cost. Using a 10 ms window would be slightly more precise, but ultimately it does not significantly change the perceptual or graphical outcome compared to the 50 ms resolution.

I hope this answers your questions. I am also preparing a new feature for the site, with a new category dedicated to immersive sound—this is just a teaser, and I will share more details soon.

Enjoy listening,
Jean-François

 

[Curvature]

The tool I use is one I developed myself. It includes a metric called SP, which I have been using for the past four years for analyses on my website MagicVinylDigital.net. This value is calculated based on the distribution of RMS and peak levels across the different channels: Front, Surround, and Top. It is a score ranging from 0 to 10.

This score indicates whether all channels are being used, and it provides an initial overview of how the different channels are utilized in a multichannel audio signal. An Atmos mix with a score of 3.5 is generally very front-heavy, whereas an Atmos mix with a score above 8 fully exploits all available channels.

With more than 100 analyses performed on the site (and many more outside of it), this score has proven to be a useful indicator. However, it does not take into account the perception of movement or the spatial distribution of different sounds across the space. For example, if the same signal is placed on all channels, the distribution score may be high, but the perceived audio image is not very convincing, with a sound that feels centered in the room, similar to a mono signal in stereo, which is perceived in the center between speakers.

To address this, I introduced last month a second metric called SK, which measures temporal variations. Every 50 ms, an analysis determines a position corresponding to the perceived sound location (still based on RMS and peak values). This position is stored in a three-dimensional matrix. The more the sound fills this matrix, the more the spatial field is used, resulting in a score from 0 to 10.
To achieve more accurate results, everything is calculated across multiple frequency bands for each 50 ms window. This value is a compromise between spatial precision and computational cost. Using a 10 ms window would be slightly more precise, but ultimately it does not significantly change the perceptual or graphical outcome compared to the 50 ms resolution.

I hope this answers your questions. I am also preparing a new feature for the site, with a new category dedicated to immersive sound—this is just a teaser, and I will share more details soon.

Enjoy listening,
Jean-François

Yes, thank you. I am also interested specifically in seeing a ranking of releases for the SP and SK metrics to test the limits of binaural spatial audio. Do you have that available?

 

[Eric Natural]

It is unfortunate to see a new album by an artist of this stature handled in such a way, particularly with such heavy use of dynamic limiting on the stereo version. Paul McCartney does not need loudness processing for a new album to succeed...

McCartney clearly would not have had his producer and engineers make this recording sound the way it sounds if it wasn't what he intended as an artist "of his stature". This subjective "unfortune"-ness misses the point entirely. Your waveform analysis misleads us to believe what we see on a computer screen is flawed audio skipping past the art that McCartney intended for you to hear in 2026.

 

[Philbo King]

IME, I've found that Pauls albums generally use heavy-handed mastering, especially in the last 10 years. Most unfortunate.

 

[Matt S]

McCartney clearly would not have had his producer and engineers make this recording sound the way it sounds if it wasn't what he intended as an artist "of his stature". This subjective "unfortune"-ness misses the point entirely. Your waveform analysis misleads us to believe what we see on a computer screen is flawed audio skipping past the art that McCartney intended for you to hear in 2026.

I might have misunderstood your post, but the stereo waveform looks terrible. Clip clip clip clip.

 

[Redacted]

I might have misunderstood your post, but the stereo waveform looks terrible. Clip clip clip clip.

Yes - surely something not right about the plots or maybe scaling; the top one would sound pretty distorted I think.

 

[Curvature]

Yes - surely something not right about the plots or maybe scaling; the top one would sound pretty distorted I think.

It's a normal waveform for highly compressed music. Compression is a distorting procedure by definition. Whether or not the distortion is audible by itself depends on how the compression's pushed, and you'd be surprised how far that needs to go before the sound isn't just louder, subjectively, but clipped or scratchy.

 

[Redacted]

The plot looks like most of the peaks are literally chopped off, compared with the lower plot!

 

[Mike123]

IME, I've found that Pauls albums generally use heavy-handed mastering, especially in the last 10 years. Most unfortunate.

Unfortunately, most mastering today is for smartphones on noisy streets. Multichannel mastering is geared toward home listening. Having two stereo files—for listening at home on stationary equipment or on headphones outdoors—is, unfortunately, not in the offing. This is, of course, a bummer for those who enjoy listening to high-quality stereo speakers in their living room. But such people, alas, are in the minority.

 

[Redacted]

As said above, we can be pretty sure PMcC would have heard the the final stereo mixes, and decided they were OK.
Old debate, but I have tons of albums where DR is quite squished, and depending on the kind of music being played, it rarely bothers me.

 

[Eric Natural]

Old debate, but I have tons of albums where DR is quite squished, and depending on the kind of music being played, it rarely bothers me.

Tired debate. I push back that recordings are flawed by use of modern recording technique. It’s 2026. Doubt that these purists will like the new Stones record as Andrew Watt also produced it.

 

[Redacted]

They are what they are - no obligation to buy. And for my taste, the new PMcC is dull.
I have lots of albums from new-ish bands that sound great to me!

 

[Matt S]

They are what they are - no obligation to buy. And for my taste, the new PMcC is dull.
I have lots of albums from new-ish bands that sound great to me!

Same.. a lot of highly compressed rubbish out there, but still some good stuff.

 

[Poman123]

McCartney clearly would not have had his producer and engineers make this recording sound the way it sounds if it wasn't what he intended as an artist "of his stature". This subjective "unfortune"-ness misses the point entirely. Your waveform analysis misleads us to believe what we see on a computer screen is flawed audio skipping past the art that McCartney intended for you to hear in 2026.

No matter the stature 83 is 83. Karajan made some his worst recordings as he advanced in age imho.

 

[Redacted]

Yi

No matter the stature 83 is 83. Karajan made some his worst recordings as he advanced in age imho.

You think there were good ones?