Stereophile's Jim Austin Says Streaming Atmos Sucks

[Justdafactsmaam]

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.

Much agreed

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.

Jackson Pollock is quite possibly the most difficult artist to counterfeit or even mimic. I assure you no toddler could do it.

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.

It’s perfectly fine to disagree. But there is no naked emperor here. The same basic principles of composition color harmony, texture, use of values and everything else that distinguishes non abstract fine art as great applies to abstract art.

Oddly enough one thing art and science share is high level bull**** detection. The art world traditionally has been very skeptical of and resistant to change and artists such as Jackson Pollock were highly scrutinized

 

[Down South]

In another thread I was heavily criticized by some hairshirts for daring to 'intifere with what the recording engineers/artists had laid down on vinyl. For me the whole point of listening to music, live/recorded whatever is to enjoy the experience to 'my' satisfaction not someone else's. This is right/that is wrong is the realm of religious and political fascists, I sadly have to share this planet with them - esta la vida.

 

[goat76]

Sound field is unlimited. Yeah, you can hear whispering right in your ear. You can also hear crickets in the fields hundreds of feet away, dogs barking a couple houses down and the marching band down the street in the distance as they March right by you.

Unfortunately, binaural recordings will likely never get past the stage of just being a few demo recordings. The technology has been around for a long time now but the music industry doesn't seem to be interested in it, they have already made their choice to go with Atmos when it comes to spatial audio, so there is little point for us consumers to chase anything else as there will hardly be any content for other type of formats anyway.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Unfortunately, binaural recordings will likely never get past the stage of just being a few demo recordings. The technology has been around for a long time now but the music industry doesn't seem to be interested in it, they have already made their choice to go with Atmos when it comes to spatial audio, so there is little point for us consumers to chase anything else as there will hardly be any content for other type of formats anyway.

Fortunately it works extremely well with basic two channel stereo. With most minimalist recordings the illusion of spatial reproduction is very much as convincing as dedicated binaural recordings. Pink Floyd’s early 70s stereo recording of Ummagumma recreates the effect of flies buzzing around and behind your head.

The vast majority of recordings in history of recorded music were originally made in two channel stereo. And most will deliver astonishing results. Dolby Atmos production is and will be for the rest of our lives a minority share of recorded music.

The best we are able to do with the massive body of recordings that already exist in stereo for Dolby Atmos is make revisionist upmixes. And even if you like such upmixes the spatial cues that existed in the original stereo recordings will be conflicting with the ones newly created in the upmix

OTOH the BACCH allows for processing of Dolby Atmos recordings that will recreate the imaging through the BACCH system. And do so every bit as accurately and convincingly as any dedicated Dolby Atmos playback system.

So you have an option that works with everything past present and future with maximum range of imaging and an option that doesn’t

Oh, and you can dial in the amount of crosstalk cancelation if you find the effect too much for a given stereo recording. So it also offers much greater flexibility

We haven’t even touched on the superior room correction that you can get with it and……head tracking. The head tracking is a huge advantage.

But anyway….nothing wrong with enjoying inferior technology. I like that we have options. Anything goes….

 

[Newman]

Unfortunately, binaural recordings will likely never get past the stage of just being a few demo recordings. The technology has been around for a long time now but the music industry doesn't seem to be interested in it, they have already made their choice to go with Atmos when it comes to spatial audio, so there is little point for us consumers to chase anything else as there will hardly be any content for other type of formats anyway.

Exactly.

 

[mhardy6647]

But anyway….nothing wrong with enjoying inferior technology.

Tell 'em that on the "vinyl renaissance" thread.
(spoiler: yeah, I agree!)

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Tell 'em that on the "vinyl renaissance" thread.
(spoiler: yeah, I agree!)

I tried.

 

[deweydm]

Proximity is the next frontier.

Tried terrace seating behind the Chicago Symphony at Orchestra Hall last year. It was kind of amazing. Almost like being in the percussion section. (Was in the percussion section in Symphonic Band in high school.)

 

[Sal1950]

So Stereophile did a big interview with Steven Wilson this last month (March 2024) written by Mike Mettler,
with a large splash on the mags cover and around the internet to attract rack sales and internet click bait.
"He's the go-to Dolby Atmos and 5.1 mixmaster for many heritage artists, new-wave bands, and alternative acts."

Steven Wilson: A Master of Immersive Music

Photo By Adam Taylor Steven Wilson loves changing the minds of spatial audio skeptics. He's the go-to Dolby Atmos and 5.1 mixmaster for many heritage artists, new-wave bands, and alternative acts. Best known for leading the post-prog collective Porcupine Tree, releasing a score of...

www.stereophile.com

Not a bad interview overall, except for one glaring omission. No where does he actually discuss having listened to
any of his work. A couple vague references that he couldn't be called out on, or any mention of what coding he had
heard it in. (2, 5.1, Atmos?)
Typical Stereophile attitude on multichannel.

 

[teched58]

So Stereophile did a big interview with Steven Wilson this last month (March 2024) written by Mike Mettler,
with a large splash on the mags cover and around the internet to attract rack sales and internet click bait.
"He's the go-to Dolby Atmos and 5.1 mixmaster for many heritage artists, new-wave bands, and alternative acts."

Steven Wilson: A Master of Immersive Music

Photo By Adam Taylor Steven Wilson loves changing the minds of spatial audio skeptics. He's the go-to Dolby Atmos and 5.1 mixmaster for many heritage artists, new-wave bands, and alternative acts. Best known for leading the post-prog collective Porcupine Tree, releasing a score of...

www.stereophile.com

Not a bad interview overall, except for one glaring omission. No where does he actually discuss having listened to
any of his work. A couple vague references that he couldn't be called out on, or any mention of what coding he had
heard it in. (2, 5.1, Atmos?)
Typical Stereophile attitude on multichannel.

I thought they ran it so that for the next five years, anytime somebody complains that Stereophile doesn't cover multichannel, Jim Austin can post the link to this article.

 

[Sal1950]

I thought they ran it so that for the next five years, anytime somebody complains that Stereophile doesn't cover multichannel, Jim Austin can post the link to this article.

Yep, that and he got @Kal Rubinson to review the Storm Audio ISP Evo preamp/processor.
One that costs $22,000 and who's desired connection type is via a networking system what only 3 or 4 people
on the planet use. LOL
(See, they really do have their finger on the pulse of multich audio)

 

[Ron Party]

I think my posting history shows that I am extremely open minded and never ever judge others' preferences.

That said, I have never once experienced a multichannel setup that blew me away. I suspect 2 reasons may lay behind it:

1. Multichannel is the perfect excuse for the audio industry to sell us 2.5x as much sh*t, ca-ching! And you're on your own setting it up, which typically results in a predictable setup of 2 speakers and a center right by the TV, and 2 speaker behind the couch, standard fare, and if you sit close to any of those speakers it will be a ridiculously poor listening experience (especially the ones close to you when you sit on the side of the couch).

2. If setting up 2 speakers and a sub is as hard as we know... I have little confidence in setting up a balanced multichannel system. If any of you lives in the Bay Area and think your setup may persuade me otherwise, I can guarantee I am fun company and I can bring a good bottle of Barolo. Genuinely curious.

Sadly I'm still without a center channel as my center channel DAC stopped working. I'll try to remember to send you an invite when I get it repaired. Crimson's ITCOTCK in MCh does it for me every time. And, hey, I'm always down for a nice Barolo!!

 

[Sal1950]

Now here's a great interview with Steven written by someone (Jonathan Cornell of IAA - Immersive Audio Album) who actually listens to Stevens productions and knows what he's talking about.

One moment, please...

 

[MattHooper]

I don't think one has to argue that Dolby Atmos can't be wonderful to have various practical concerns as to why it's not worth it for many people.

Darko is, IMO, making some good points here:

The madness of Dolby Atmos for music | Darko.Audio

Because the music just isn't there and the hardware demands are heavy.

darko.audio

Minority report: “Spatial Audio / Dolby Atmos is the future of music playback” | Darko.Audio

The people have spoken.

darko.audio

I note that in the recent Audio Unleashed podcast with mainly "objectivist" minded reviewers Brent Butterworth and Dennis Burger, they say they generally agree with much of Darko's conclusions.

I'm sympathetic too with Darko's approach: I care most about my system being optimized for the vast majority of recorded music, including the vast majority of music I'm interested in, which means wanting regular old 2 channel to sound as good as possible. I don't go chasing hi-res digital, I just want to be sure my system makes records and good ol' redbook CD/Streaming sound as good as possible, to my tastes.

As Darko says, before engaging in the expense and work involved in introducing many more speakers (and having cables run etc likely) it's good to consider just how many recordings you are likely to listen to will actually benefit. I like his point that, for him, putting up acoustic panels on the ceiling was worth it because it benefits every single thing his speakers play, whereas going to the same effort to put speakers on the ceiling would benefit very little of what he will actually listen to.

 

[Sal1950]

I'm sympathetic too with Darko's approach: I care most about my system being optimized for the vast majority of recorded music, including the vast majority of music I'm interested in, which means wanting regular old 2 channel to sound as good as possible.

Why stop at 2ch? Just go mono, everything ever recorded is backward capable and can be done for half the price of stereo?

As Darko says, before engaging in the expense and work involved in introducing many more speakers (and having cables run etc likely) it's good to consider just how many recordings you are likely to listen to will actually benefit. I like his point that, for him, putting up acoustic panels on the ceiling was worth it because it benefits every single thing his speakers play, whereas going to the same effort to put speakers on the ceiling would benefit very little of what he will actually listen to.

A dumb remark.
Along with his acoustic panels on the ceiling, a set of Atmos type speakers can be up-sampled to from everything his listens also.

Just more negativity. BLAH

I don't go chasing hi-res digital, I just want to be sure my system makes records and good ol' redbook CD/Streaming sound as good as possible, to my tastes.

I understand, your not interested in the best possible reproduction of music, you've showed us that over and over.
Rice Krispies is plenty good enough for you.
Since that's the way you feel, pack up that surround system you got and send it to me.
I'll even pay the shipping to get it out of your way.

 

[MattHooper]

Why stop at 2ch? Just go mono, everything ever recorded is backward capable and can be done for half the price of stereo?

Almost every album I care about was recorded in stereo. And I like stereo reproduction much better than mono. It would therefore be irrational for me to go to mono.

A dumb remark.
Along with his acoustic panels on the ceiling, a set of Atmos type speakers can be up-sampled to from everything his listens also.

Wait...what happened to caring about accuracy? I hope you aren't upmixing any 2 channel to surround are you?

Maybe Darko doesn't want to upscale and would prefer to playback in the original stereo. Maybe he doesn't care to have stereo recordings changed to coming out of his ceiling as well. Maybe if he's going to care about Dolby atmos it would be actual atmos mixes that would be more interested in, if enough had been available to make it worth while.

I often upmix stereo to surround and enjoy it. But I certainly would not want to default to doing so for all stereo recordings, and generally prefer stereo on my 2 channel system.

People. Different.

Just more negativity. BLAH


I understand, your not interested in the best possible reproduction of music,

LOL. Remember that ASR members like me who enjoy records also listen to digital sources (and a Benchmark DAC 2L is no slouch in the digital department). Remember, I just said I optimize also for digital red book CD? It's not "either or" Sal. People can walk and chew gum at the same time. Well...some of us

 

[Sal1950]

Almost every album I care about was recorded in stereo. And I like stereo reproduction much better than mono. It would therefore be irrational for me to go to mono.

Like Quad, 5.1, and Atmos, Auro3D, Sony360, etc; stereo is just an enhancement of mono, so why bother?

Of course you had no ulterior motives for making your posts here.

 

[Brian Hall]

I don't think one has to argue that Dolby Atmos can't be wonderful to have various practical concerns as to why it's not worth it for many people.

Darko is, IMO, making some good points here:

The madness of Dolby Atmos for music | Darko.Audio

Because the music just isn't there and the hardware demands are heavy.

darko.audio

Minority report: “Spatial Audio / Dolby Atmos is the future of music playback” | Darko.Audio

The people have spoken.

darko.audio

I note that in the recent Audio Unleashed podcast with mainly "objectivist" minded reviewers Brent Butterworth and Dennis Burger, they say they generally agree with much of Darko's conclusions.

I'm sympathetic too with Darko's approach: I care most about my system being optimized for the vast majority of recorded music, including the vast majority of music I'm interested in, which means wanting regular old 2 channel to sound as good as possible. I don't go chasing hi-res digital, I just want to be sure my system makes records and good ol' redbook CD/Streaming sound as good as possible, to my tastes.

As Darko says, before engaging in the expense and work involved in introducing many more speakers (and having cables run etc likely) it's good to consider just how many recordings you are likely to listen to will actually benefit. I like his point that, for him, putting up acoustic panels on the ceiling was worth it because it benefits every single thing his speakers play, whereas going to the same effort to put speakers on the ceiling would benefit very little of what he will actually listen to.

Another way to look at it is that more and more people will be adding Atmos capable systems for streaming movies. Since there will already be a target audience with Atmos systems, why not try to sell them Atmos music?

The audience with Atmos capable systems may end up outnumbering the audiophile market that only cares about great stereo setups.

 

[MattHooper]

Like Quad, 5.1, and Atmos, Auro3D, Sony360, etc; stereo is just an enhancement of mono, so why bother?

What a strange statement. It has no relationship to what I wrote.

Not to mention it's logic: So why do you bother with surround?

Of course you had no ulterior motives for making your posts here.

Huh?

In a thread discussing the pros and cons of Dolby Atmos, I give my own views on the subject of the thread, and why I haven't adopted atmos for music, personally.

What "ulterior motives" could I have beyond that?

Why poison a conversation by constantly looking for "ulterior motives?"

 

[chelgrian]

Another way to look at it is that more and more people will be adding Atmos capable systems for streaming movies. Since there will already be a target audience with Atmos systems, why not try to sell them Atmos music?

The audience with Atmos capable systems may end up outnumbering the audiophile market that only cares about great stereo setups.

What people are adding is Atmos sound bars, very few people are adding discrete 7.1.4 systems.

The way the vast majority of people are likely to experience Atmos is via a binaural render to headphones. The problem is that the way this is currently done going via EAC3+JOC first is frankly a bad joke technically.