Stereophile's Jim Austin Says Streaming Atmos Sucks

[MattHooper]

Mr D Darko has never, and never will, make the slightest positive contribution to a discussion that draws on, or progresses, audio science.

Conversely, he has made many, and will continue to make, contributions that propagate the myths, madness, snake oil, and disinformation campaigns that mislead newcomers and gullible types into spending wastefully and ineffectively, thinking they are getting audibly better sound waves when they are not.

Linking ASR discussions to cherry-picked possibly-true statements of his, accompanied by your words along the lines of ‘look how wise he is’, is among the worst and most corrosive contributions that anyone can bring into this forum.

I request that you reconsider this sort of anti-science behaviour here. It only makes you look like a bad egg.

Somehow I missed this hysterical post.
(Note: “hysterical” in both the common meanings).

The above is apoplectic gate-keeping and guilt-by-association ranting, not addressing anything of substance.

You have have not demonstrated a single instance of my being anti science or where Darko was wrong or what I argued that was wrong. (And I did not indicate I endorse everything he wrote - I mentioned some points I felt were reasonable).

Please provide a rebuttal to what I wrote.

 

[Sal1950]

Ok, I get it now.

Just listened to several songs on Amazon's Best of Dolby Atmos playlist on the discrete Atmos speakers. They sound more alive. Most have a much wider soundstage that makes sense. Singers in front of my speakers, drums behind them a bit. Reverb or echos that sounded right. I think some of them really have it figured out. I've never listened to Billie Ellish before. There were two of her songs on there that made sense in Atmos. Also had a different bass effect. It sounded like deep bass notes were coming out of a speaker that was 6 foot wide and 3 feet tall in front of me. Not coming from a point source like a normal bass amp.

More alive is what stands out to most of what I heard. Rihanna singing "Lift Me Up" stood out. More alive and real than reality. I'm impressed and will be listening to more.

I find Atmos (and the other 3D codes) simply enhancements of the 4, 5, & 7.1 multich tech though admittedly a big one. Those techs can easily position a soundsource at any point around the room but do struggle to place them inside outside borders. For whatever reasons I found them able to create some depth outside the speakers but bringing the position into the middle of the room seems limited.
Enter Atmos and the other object based tech and we now have the ability to place a source most anywhere in the room, floor to ceiling, wall to wall and beyond. For many of us who enjoy an immersive listening experience, this is an exciting addition but that will still require a listener willing to accept a completely different perspective.
This works very well for the more popular genre's of music but may be of limited value to much of the classical crowd. But listeners from J. Gordon Holt to Kal Rubinson find great value in being able to make the listening room completely disappear and bring the ambiance and air of the concert hall completely into the listening room while still keeping the orchestra in the traditional up front position. The idea of suspended reality is greatly enhanced over what can be accomplished using only 2 channels.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I find Atmos (and the other 3D codes) simply enhancements of the 4, 5, & 7.1 multich tech though admittedly a big one. Those techs can easily position a soundsource at any point around the room but do struggle to place them inside outside borders. For whatever reasons I found them able to create some depth outside the speakers but bringing the position into the middle of the room seems limited.
Enter Atmos and the other object based tech and we now have the ability to place a source most anywhere in the room, floor to ceiling, wall to wall and beyond.

“Most anywhere?” Not anywhere? And it’s “object based?” Meaning the spatial cues are a complete post production construct?

The idea of suspended reality is greatly enhanced over what can be accomplished using only 2 channels.

Nope. What I am getting is much better than your sales pitch describes and it doesn’t require post production manufacturing of spatial cues. Just with two channels.

The continued denial of this reality is at a certain point no better than claiming audible differences with cables and power cords. Misinformation is misinformation.

I believe some of the same folks here have called into question the integrity of reviewers such as John Atkinson and others for having such beliefs and promoting them in their reviews. After all ignorance is no excuse.

And yet here we are.

 

[GA16SE]

I find Atmos (and the other 3D codes) simply enhancements of the 4, 5, & 7.1 multich tech though admittedly a big one. Those techs can easily position a soundsource at any point around the room but do struggle to place them inside outside borders. For whatever reasons I found them able to create some depth outside the speakers but bringing the position into the middle of the room seems limited.
Enter Atmos and the other object based tech and we now have the ability to place a source most anywhere in the room, floor to ceiling, wall to wall and beyond. For many of us who enjoy an immersive listening experience, this is an exciting addition but that will still require a listener willing to accept a completely different perspective.
This works very well for the more popular genre's of music but may be of limited value to much of the classical crowd. But listeners from J. Gordon Holt to Kal Rubinson find great value in being able to make the listening room completely disappear and bring the ambiance and air of the concert hall completely into the listening room while still keeping the orchestra in the traditional up front position. The idea of suspended reality is greatly enhanced over what can be accomplished using only 2 channels.

I think that even for classical music, immersive formats can bring more realism. An example can be organ music, when sounds come from above, where the organ is usually placed.

 

[BrooklynNick]

I think that most Atmos music is probably experienced through Apple Airpods. Apple has a fair amount of surround music and this is how most people listen.

Soundbars too. Soundbars are an 8 billion dollar market last year, just in the US. New models that support Atmos seem to come out almost every day.

For the vast majority of people, virtualization is how they will listen to Atmos. I have a Smyth A-16, so I know how good this can sound when done right. As the tech matures and comes down in price, Atmos popularity is only going to grow.

 

[MattHooper]

I find Atmos (and the other 3D codes) simply enhancements of the 4, 5, & 7.1 multich tech though admittedly a big one. Those techs can easily position a soundsource at any point around the room but do struggle to place them inside outside borders. For whatever reasons I found them able to create some depth outside the speakers but bringing the position into the middle of the room seems limited.
Enter Atmos and the other object based tech and we now have the ability to place a source most anywhere in the room, floor to ceiling, wall to wall and beyond. For many of us who enjoy an immersive listening experience, this is an exciting addition but that will still require a listener willing to accept a completely different perspective.
This works very well for the more popular genre's of music but may be of limited value to much of the classical crowd. But listeners from J. Gordon Holt to Kal Rubinson find great value in being able to make the listening room completely disappear and bring the ambiance and air of the concert hall completely into the listening room while still keeping the orchestra in the traditional up front position. The idea of suspended reality is greatly enhanced over what can be accomplished using only 2 channels.

A nice point about the advantages of atmos! Especially the "disappearing room" effect.

I enjoy Atmos in the mixing theaters, but I haven't implemented it in my home theater yet because in my case it will involve a lot of complexity and expense (even more than the usual set up). I have a 7.0 set up, my side channels a few feet above hear height, my rear speakers are up high behind the viewing/listening sofa.

I enjoy classical music in surround and electronica (most music really, but probably electronica most). Having easy remote access to my speaker levels sometimes I pump up my side/rears to bring out more immersive ambience. Lots of fun!

 

[Philbo King]

I agree with this viewpoint saying Atmos is a costly solution in a desperate search for an actual problem.

My favorite viewer comment:
"Finally my snare can sound like shit in 3D!"

 

[Sal1950]

I agree with this viewpoint saying Atmos is a costly solution in a desperate search for an actual problem.

Maybe this idiot should ask Steven Wilson or any number of other FAMOUS engineers how to mix.
What's his name again? Who has he been asked to mix for? Oh wait, he records the sound of nature in the woods. LOL
"you have to sit in the same spot" Isn't that what audiophiles been doing with stereo for 75+ years?
OK, never mind, just another keyboard jockey trying to create click bate on utube.
I will say, the dyed white stripe on his eyebrow makes him look SO Kool.. LOL

 

[chelgrian]

So you are saying, sales of AVRs are really really low? And by implication, sales of 2-channel amps (with room-filling power, not microboxes with wallwarts), are relatively really high?

You sure you got that right? When I drop into the general AV/entertainment stores, I always see numerous AVRs but precious few full size 2CH amps. (PS I know you spoke about sound bars not 2CH amps, but the background to your comment was that discrete MCH is small fry in relation to 2CH.)

I’m not sure it’s even relevant anyways, (just like Matt’s implication that surround systems don’t make great 2CH systems, which makes the rest of his post irrelevant) since sales volumes are always going to primarily reflect the demands of people with little interest in sound quality.

No I did not say that I said sales of discrete 7.1.4 systems, especially with discrete height channels are low compared to the total number of music consumers. The majority of people either do not have the space or do not have the ability to mount ceiling speakers due to rented property etc. I also said that people are adding sound bars, which are mostly Atmos enabled to some degree, to their TVs. I said nothing about the sales or otherwise of 2.0 systems

 

[MattHooper]

I'm for Dolby Atmos being adopted to the degree possible. Obviously I like it for my own work. And while some people are associating it with a "fad" like 3D TVs, I don't think it's going away any time soon. (And as it happens I'm in the minority of having loved 3D in both the cinema and my home theater, so it was a bummer to see that fade).

That said, as for adopting Dolby Atmos for music it clearly presents some challenges for artists and producers/mixers, especially smaller fry (which comprises most music production). Certainly no musician I know of is adopting Atmos in making their music: it's hard enough to afford a decent 2 channel based studio. Along those lines, here's another couple of takes on Dolby Atmos, indicating why it can be a tough call for smaller artists and mixing venues to adopt the system.

The payment situation described by one fella sounds pretty bad: as a mixer/producer/artist Apple is demanding Atmos mixes, so you are stuck taking on the expense of upgrading to an Atmos mixing system, while the streaming revenue is not updated at all to reflect that - you get the same revenue as you did for stereo. Another mixer says he enthusiastically offered to mix some artists music in atmos, and even for free they weren't interested (which btw, also speaks a bit to the assumption that musicians who worked in 2 channel would have preferred surround had it been available) :

 

[chelgrian]

A nice point about the advantages of atmos! Especially the "disappearing room" effect.

I enjoy Atmos in the mixing theaters, but I haven't implemented it in my home theater yet because in my case it will involve a lot of complexity and expense (even more than the usual set up). I have a 7.0 set up, my side channels a few feet above hear height, my rear speakers are up high behind the viewing/listening sofa.

I enjoy classical music in surround and electronica (most music really, but probably electronica most). Having easy remote access to my speaker levels sometimes I pump up my side/rears to bring out more immersive ambience. Lots of fun!

The problem is that vs theatrical Atmos:

- Home Atmos is lossy compressed with either EAC3 or AC4.

- Lossless True-HD is only used for Blu-ray/UHD Blu-ray so is almost irrelevant to music.

- Home Atmos massively loses spatial resolution for objects due to having to group objects due to lack of object channels there are only 6 possible in EAC3 once the bed is encoded.

- All the streaming companies go via EAC3 or AC4 to get to binaural thus getting all compromises above unnecessarily in the binaural mix.

 

[mhardy6647]

I agree with this viewpoint saying Atmos is a costly solution in a desperate search for an actual problem.

That's been true, I'd opine, since quad.
Maybe even since stereo.

I am pretty sure that quad was an industry response to economic malaise of the late-60s/early-70s in a (in retrospect) desperate attempt to enhance unit sales. Why sell two loudspeakers if I can sell four?

By the second half of the '70s, the tail end of the boomer generation (ahem, me, e.g.) discovered the massmarket Japanese brands and the stereo hifi business had a relatively brief second wind.

... and I wonder how many of the members of ASR have heard really (really) well and properly reproduced truly monophonic program material on appropriate equipment (by which I mean,primarily, loudspeaker -- singular)?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Maybe this idiot should ask Steven Wilson or any number of other FAMOUS engineers how to mix.
What's his name again? Who has he been asked to mix for? Oh wait, he records the sound of nature in the woods. LOL
"you have to sit in the same spot" Isn't that what audiophiles been doing with stereo for 75+ years?
OK, never mind, just another keyboard jockey trying to create click bate on utube.
I will say, the dyed white stripe on his eyebrow makes him look SO Kool.. LOL

I thought he made plenty of good points from a more basic consumer perspective. Of all the things he said you hang your hat on his two second comment on the sweet spot? He made a lot of very specific points. Besides his quip about the sweet spot was there anything specific he said that you thought was actually factually incorrect?

 

[MattHooper]

That's been true, I'd opine, since quad.
Maybe even since stereo.

I am pretty sure that quad was an industry response to economic malaise of the late-60s/early-70s in a (in retrospect) desperate attempt to enhance unit sales. Why sell two loudspeakers if I can sell four?

By the second half of the '70s, the tail end of the boomer generation (ahem, me, e.g.) discovered the massmarket Japanese brands and the stereo hifi business had a relatively brief second wind.

... and I wonder how many of the members of ASR have heard really (really) well and properly reproduced truly monophonic program material on appropriate equipment (by which I mean,primarily, loudspeaker -- singular)?

I grew up with Quad and/or quasi-quad.

My father was an audiophile and we had big KEF 105.2 speakers, and some rear dynaco speakers, played through some CARVER amps/preamps which had some nice surround features. It was real fun.

When I moved out of the house, in to a home with some buddies, first thing I did was purchase the biggest TV I could find and set up a surround system (in the mid 80s) for movie watching and music.

So I've always been in to surround sound in various ways.

 

[chelgrian]

I'm for Dolby Atmos being adopted to the degree possible. Obviously I like it for my own work. And while some people are associating it with a "fad" like 3D TVs, I don't think it's going away any time soon. (And as it happens I'm in the minority of having loved 3D in both the cinema and my home theater, so it was a bummer to see that fade).

That said, as for adopting Dolby Atmos for music it clearly presents some challenges for artists and producers/mixers, especially smaller fry (which comprises most music production). Certainly no musician I know of is adopting Atmos in making their music: it's hard enough to afford a decent 2 channel based studio. Along those lines, here's another couple of takes on Dolby Atmos, indicating why it can be a tough call for smaller artists and mixing venues to adopt the system.

The payment situation described by one fella sounds pretty bad: as a mixer/producer/artist Apple is demanding Atmos mixes, so you are stuck taking on the expense of upgrading to an Atmos mixing system, while the streaming revenue is not updated at all to reflect that - you get the same revenue as you did for stereo. Another mixer says he enthusiastically offered to mix some artists music in atmos, and even for free they weren't interested (which btw, also speaks a bit to the assumption that musicians who worked in 2 channel would have preferred surround had it been available) :

I think Apple are shooting themselves in the foot, they are behind Spotify in market share and Spotify appears to be completely uninterested in Atmos. I think a lot of music which used to go in to the Apple service via intermediate mechanisms like Tunecore which insert your stuff in to all the major streaming platforms will just not have Atmos and thus not go in to Apple.

 

[Sal1950]

I think Apple are shooting themselves in the foot, they are behind Spotify in market share and Spotify appears to be completely uninterested in Atmos.

Spotify, everyones behind them in listener numbers, no surprise there. They still don't offer even a lossless tier though they've been promising one for 4 or more years now.
They are the anti-hifi leaders in streaming, I think they're owned by the Devil.

Here's what's going to happen
The Market will decide if Atmos fails or succeeds.
MQA was worthless crap sold with BS lies but in the end the majority saw thru it.
Just about every largely successful recording engineer today has gotten firmly on board.
But in the end, time will tell.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Spotify, everyones behind them in listener numbers, no surprise there. They still don't offer even a lossless tier though they've been promising one for 4 or more years now.
They are the anti-hifi leaders in streaming, I think they're owned by the Devil.

Here's what's going to happen
The Market will decide if Atmos fails or succeeds.
MQA was worthless crap sold with BS lies but in the end the majority saw thru it.
Just about every largely successful recording engineer today has gotten firmly on board.
But in the end, time will tell.

How can you speak for just about every largely successful recording engineer? What constitutes a “largely successful recording engineer?” And what percentage of them have you interviewed? Looks like a lot of assumptions and moving goal posts

 

[olieb]

I think Apple are shooting themselves in the foot, they are behind Spotify in market share and Spotify appears to be completely uninterested in Atmos. I think a lot of music which used to go in to the Apple service via intermediate mechanisms like Tunecore which insert your stuff in to all the major streaming platforms will just not have Atmos and thus not go in to Apple.

Why not? Is there a non-Atmos ban at Apple that I missed?
I just checked in Apple Music. In Classical there are 55 albums listed under new releases, 36 of those have no Atmos version.

 

[Sal1950]

The problem is that vs theatrical Atmos:

- Home Atmos is lossy compressed with either EAC3 or AC4.

- Lossless True-HD is only used for Blu-ray/UHD Blu-ray so is almost irrelevant to music.

- Home Atmos massively loses spatial resolution for objects due to having to group objects due to lack of object channels there are only 6 possible in EAC3 once the bed is encoded.

- All the streaming companies go via EAC3 or AC4 to get to binaural thus getting all compromises above unnecessarily in the binaural mix.

All the same situation we faced with 2ch streaming since it's beginning.
It's only in the last few years that most streamers came around to offering lossless 16/44 or better.
If the multich market numbers grow in relation to what we've seen over the last 5 years, lossless Atmos streaming will come too.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

All the same situation we faced with 2ch streaming since it's beginning.

Therefore it is not a problem? Seems like a bit of a logical fallacy

It's only in the last few years that most streamers came around to offering lossless 16/44 or better.
If the multich market numbers grow in relation to what we've seen over the last 5 years, lossless Atmos streaming will come too.

“It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future” Yogi Berra

And now?