Stereophile's Jim Austin Says Streaming Atmos Sucks

[Sal1950]

I understand. I just disagree.

Kool, save your money.
But It's your loss.

 

[chelgrian]

Kool, save your money.
But It's your loss.

How many people doing Atmos are actually capturing a live performance using something like ORTF-3D placing the virtual mics in the sound field then doing nothing else and delivering as is?

 

[Brian Hall]

Kool, save your money.
But It's your loss.

I already have a Dolby Atmos system with seven separate speakers and subwoofer. It is great for movies and TV. The Atmos Mix of Dark Side of the Moon sounded great on it.

I am not opposed to Atmos music. I have access to it through Amazon and Tidal.

 

[Newman]

I understand. I just disagree.

You are also disagreeing with sound engineers. Your perfect right.

But if it makes sense to them, then it’s not right to say “it makes no sense”.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You are also disagreeing with sound engineers. Your perfect right.

But if it makes sense to them, then it’s not right to say “it makes no sense”.

If you are going to make a logical fallacy of appeal to authority at least get real about your authority. “Genuine high level experts” actually do agree with Brian. All of them.

See what I did there?

 

[Newman]

I already referenced two by name. Please keep up if you want to play word games.

 

[Brian Hall]

You are also disagreeing with sound engineers. Your perfect right.

But if it makes sense to them, then it’s not right to say “it makes no sense”.

Ok. It makes no sense to me personally. It is their right to have whatever opinions they want. The question is, will consumers of what they produce actually like it?

Being different just to be different doesn't make something good.

A perfect example from the Art world: The crap Jackson Pollock produced. I do not consider it art or even creative. It is something a toddler could easily create. But "Art Experts" tell people it is great art and some people are afraid to disagree. Oh no! Someone may look down on them so they are afraid to say the Emperor forgot to put his clothes on. Most "Art" is a scam.

I'm not implying Atmos music is a scam. It has the potential to be good when used where and how it makes sense.

 

[SIY]

The crap Jackson Pollock produced. I do not consider it art or even creative. It is something a toddler could easily create.

Tell me you don't understand art without saying, "I don't understand art."

 

[Putter]

I do get tired of the Straw man argument that the musicians will be around you and the drums will be floating overhead and ...

As an avid multichannel fan, most recordings have the instruments in the normal locations albeit perhaps a wider soundstage and lead vocals coming from the center speaker as the Bell Lab engineers originally intended. I personally have not made the transition to Atmos as I'm more music oriented and find 5/7 channel is sufficient for my needs.

The fact that most musicians don't do multichannel is a combination of budget and lack of imagination. Let's face it, most recordings are actually multi track aka multichannel then compressed back into 2 tracks. This technology is new enough that it doesn't occur to musicians and producers that there may be demand for it.

 

[pablolie]

Ok. It makes no sense to me personally. It is their right to have whatever opinions they want. The question is, will consumers of what they produce actually like it?

I am perfectly happy listening to stuff in stereo. And I'll never own a surround system - to me it doesn't make sense to have a flat screen in front of you yet have sound coming from all over. Plus, a well set up stereo system is capable of mimicking "spatial" events just fine.

Being different just to be different doesn't make something good.

A perfect example from the Art world: The crap Jackson Pollock produced. I do not consider it art or even creative. It is something a toddler could easily create. But "Art Experts" tell people it is great art and some people are afraid to disagree. Oh no! Someone may look down on them so they are afraid to say the Emperor forgot to put his clothes on. Most "Art" is a scam.

The language of art is between an artist and the audience the artist addresses. If it doesn't speak to us individually, hey, ignore it, but to categorically claim "it's NOT art" is intellectually lazy. I don't like bats, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to exist. A world that just complies to my preferences would be very uninteresting.

 

[Brian Hall]

Tell me you don't understand art without saying, "I don't understand art."

I do not understand how anyone can consider splatters of various colors of paint on a canvas as Art. It requires no talent to produce. As I said most toddlers could produce the same result.

It ranks up there with taping a banana to a wall and requires the same amount of talent.

 

[Sal1950]

I am perfectly happy listening to stuff in stereo. And I'll never own a surround system - to me it doesn't make sense to have a flat screen in front of you yet have sound coming from all over. Plus, a well set up stereo system is capable of mimicking "spatial" events just fine.

Is that the only kind of music you listen to, live concerts on video?

 

[Newman]

Plus, a well set up stereo system is capable of mimicking "spatial" events just fine.

That’s exactly what it cannot do. Inherently. Even with HRTF function assistance. It is inherently crippled, when it comes to loudspeakers in a room.

 

[pablolie]

Is that the only kind of music you listen to, live concerts on video?

Not at all, I think most of the time I listen to studio recorded music. And we all know that these days, the vast majority of albums are mastered using individual tracks for the different contributors and all effects are a result of mixing preferences of the recording engineer. It makes me smirk when reviewers rave about stuff like Nile Rodger's guitar riffs being "accurately projected in space" in some Daft Punk album, for example. Furthermore, many live albus sound worse than their studio equivalents, in my experience, but there are glorious exceptions.

PS: None of this means I think surround sound is "bad". I just have a deeply engrained preference for stereo. And I like Pollock. :-D

 

[MattHooper]

I do get tired of the Straw man argument that the musicians will be around you and the drums will be floating overhead and ...

As an avid multichannel fan, most recordings have the instruments in the normal locations albeit perhaps a wider soundstage and lead vocals coming from the center speaker as the Bell Lab engineers originally intended. I personally have not made the transition to Atmos as I'm more music oriented and find 5/7 channel is sufficient for my needs.

I very much enjoy multichannel playback (presuming you are using the term to indicate more than stereo). Not only because, well, it's how we mix in my profession, it's also just another wonderful way to experience music too. So I listen to lots of music in surround. Though most often it's upmixed in my case, though sometimes discrete (like concert blu rays etc).


That said...

The fact that most musicians don't do multichannel is a combination of budget and lack of imagination.

1. I don't think there is good evidence for that, in terms of new music being produced.

2. For much of recorded music history, it was either mono or 2 channel that was the available (practical) formats. It wasn't a question of budget or lack of imagination. It was the standard, and people accepted that standard, not "wishing we could do it multichannel."

Let's face it, most recordings are actually multi track aka multichannel then compressed back into 2 tracks.

You seem to be using the term "multichannel" as synonymous with more than 2 channels/tracks, e.g. surround.

Multichannel does not equate to multichannel in that respect.

Multiple tracks can be, and of course have been used traditionally, to build a sonic impression for mono or stereo.

(And BTW, often it does the other way: I may deliver many tracks in a mono or stereo format, and they are then mixed to surround).

 

[Sal1950]

Plus, a well set up stereo system is capable of mimicking "spatial" events just fine.

Got to disagree there.
Stereo can't come close to even a well engineered Quad recording, let alone 5.1/7.1 or Atmos.
I've been doing surround since the early 70's and well understand it's spatial strengths.
2 ch may be able to fake a somewhat immersive event, but not close to what can be done with more
discreet channels placed correctly around the room.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I already referenced two by name. Please keep up if you want to play word games.

Then of course it follows that they all agree. Two certainly is a definitive sample and I’m sure there’s no cherry picking either.

But what about David Chesky?

From Chesky Records webpage
“Our philosophy is simple: to create the illusion of live musicians in a real three-dimensional space. Chesky Records tries to achieve the impression of reality with the most advanced technology available, careful microphone placement, and, most of all, a recording team that pays attention to every minute detail-making your listening experience tangible, pleasurable, exciting, and realistic. Our commitment to detail and our dedication to the music we produce has earned the company world-wide acclaim for the artistic and technical excellence of its releases. But Chesky Records didn't become a Grammy Award-winning independent audiophile label overnight: it's been nearly thirty years of hard work coupled with an abiding passion for great music that has gotten us this far, and it is this very same combination that will carry Chesky into the future.”

And yet he opts for binaural stereo and does not record in multichannel.

Then there’s Pauler Acoustics which offers multi channel mixing services but chooses stereo recording for their own label Stockfisch

What Rainer Maillard of Emile Berliner Studios? Again a company that does state of the multichannel and yet Rainer Maillard’s own “personal highlights” list is all stereo on vinyl. Including a couple direct to disc recordings. No multichannel despite their state of the art capacities to record and mix it.

I think your appeal to authority does really hold up. Not all audio engineers agree.

 

[pablolie]

Got to disagree there.
Stereo can't come close to even a well engineered Quad recording, let alone 5.1/7.1 or Atmos.
I've been doing surround since the early 70's and well understand it's spatial strengths.
2 ch may be able to fake a somewhat immersive event, but not close to what can be done with more
discreet channels placed correctly around the room.

Personally, I don't like recording artifices - even with stereo it is hard enough to set up your two speakers optimally. And then some recordings attack you with stupid panning artifacts that project 12 foot pianos and percussion or guitar payers walking around the studio (Beatles' "Sun King" anyone?) etc. I doubt 7 speakers are easier to set up optimally, and the potential for annoying effects is enormous.

I have no doubt multi-channel provides more "space". I just know it does little for my enjoyment. It's been a long time since I played in a band and was in the middle of stuff. When I go to live events, the stage is in front of me. That's what's real to me.

Again, this is no attack on surround sound. But I have been often annoyed by surround systems, and can't say I have heard one prefer to my stereo setup - but I am just stating personal preference. Not at all a condemnation of other technologies. It's just like I'll never buy an SUV. But I wish those that do enjoyment to the fullest.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Got to disagree there.

And you are wrong

Stereo can't come close to even a well engineered Quad recording, let alone 5.1/7.1 or Atmos.

Quite the opposite none of the above can come close to a binaural recording played back with BACCH SP in two channel stereo. The multichannel formats above have neither the accuracy nor the range of imaging. It’s no contest

I've been doing surround since the early 70's and well understand it's spatial strengths.
2 ch may be able to fake a somewhat immersive event, but not close to what can be done with more
discreet channels placed correctly around the room.

A lot has happened in 50 years. More so the last 5

 

[pablolie]

.. binaural recording played back with BACCH SP in two channel stereo ..

I have some binaural recordings, and most of them to me make little difference. Which to me raises the question whether "binaural" is also afflicted by the same chicanery of many 24/192 recordings that are simply upscaled Red Book.