Stereophile's Jim Austin Says Streaming Atmos Sucks

[Newman]

TrueHD has a much higher bit rate vs. DD+. Isn't that an objective difference?

I think he means controlled listening tests for 'objective', and casual listening tests for 'subjective'.

And I agree with you. TrueHD sounds much better.

...in casual listening test opinions. Where bias is given free rein to influence.

cheers

 

[RDoc]

I think he means controlled listening tests for 'objective', and casual listening tests for 'subjective'.


...in casual listening test opinions. Where bias is given free rein to influence.

cheers

Bitrate alone isn't definitive. DD+ has a very complex compression algorithm so bitrate differences aren't that meaningful when the question is what's audible. I've not been able to find a real double blind comparison between TrueHD and streaming DD+, particularly for music.

 

[BJL]

think he means controlled listening tests for 'objective', and casual listening tests for 'subjective'.

I think that a controlled listening test for complex Atmos music would be very difficult to design and implement, but it would be interesting and fun were it possible.

...in casual listening test opinions. Where bias is given free rein to influence.

cheers

Speaking for myself, I was not referring to "casual listening test opinions" rather, I meant focussed, critical and analytic listening. This is easy to do for anyone with solid, formal training in music, but entirely possible those without such formal training, most anyone with an adequate attention span (not a given these days) can train their hearing for critical, analytic listening.

Bitrate alone isn't definitive. DD+ has a very complex compression algorithm so bitrate differences aren't that meaningful when the question is what's audible. I've not been able to find a real double blind comparison between TrueHD and streaming DD+, particularly for music.

Yes the algorithms are very nice, and streamed Atmos often sounds good, especially if you aren't actually paying attention to detail (e.g. distracted listening.) But given a fine (ie capable) audio system, and well recorded, complex music, DD+ is painful and intolerable for anything beyond background music or music accompanying other activities, such as browsing the web, at least, for me.

Ironically, (at least on Apple TV and Netflix), most cinema and TV shows are streamed with Dolby TrueHD audio. A pity music is treated as a poor cousin.

 

[middlemarch]

I think that a controlled listening test for complex Atmos music would be very difficult to design and implement, but it would be interesting and fun were it possible.



Speaking for myself, I was not referring to "casual listening test opinions" rather, I meant focussed, critical and analytic listening. This is easy to do for anyone with solid, formal training in music, but entirely possible those without such formal training, most anyone with an adequate attention span (not a given these days) can train their hearing for critical, analytic listening.


Yes the algorithms are very nice, and streamed Atmos often sounds good, especially if you aren't actually paying attention to detail (e.g. distracted listening.) But given a fine (ie capable) audio system, and well recorded, complex music, DD+ is painful and intolerable for anything beyond background music or music accompanying other activities, such as browsing the web, at least, for me.

Ironically, (at least on Apple TV and Netflix), most cinema and TV shows are streamed with Dolby TrueHD audio. A pity music is treated as a poor cousin.

You've convinced me to actually buy a music blueray so i can compare it to what's being streamed. Have never done that to this point. I've always thought, based on Floyd Toole's research, that the more speakers you've got going simultaneously the harder it is to pick out small differences. And that was just going from one to two speakers. You'd think that would be even more true with 15 channels, for example. I've not been trained as a critical listener and given my short auditory memory the test may have limited validity, but I'm very curious.

Is it possible there's something else going on, not just the compression and bit rate?

 

[Newman]

Speaking for myself, I was not referring to "casual listening test opinions" rather, I meant focussed, critical and analytic listening

Apologies, I use the term 'casual listening' to encompass all uncontrolled aka sighted listening, no matter how intense, analytic or experienced the listener tries to become. It's controlled, or it's casual. In science terms, it's formal experimentation, or informal.

And yes, I admit I do choose the word 'casual' to emphasise that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously if we are not performing a formal listening experiment. Becoming more 'focused, critical and analytic' doesn't change the level of delusion (this truth has been checked using formal experiments), it only changes the level of conviction that one is right.

cheers

 

[BJL]

Apologies, I use the term 'casual listening' to encompass all uncontrolled aka sighted listening, no matter how intense, analytic or experienced the listener tries to become. It's controlled, or it's casual. In science terms, it's formal experimentation, or informal.

And yes, I admit I do choose the word 'casual' to emphasise that we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously if we are not performing a formal listening experiment. Becoming more 'focused, critical and analytic' doesn't change the level of delusion (this truth has been checked using formal experiments), it only changes the level of conviction that one is right.

cheers

I disagree with your entire statement. If you went through conservatory training, you would most likely think differently.

 

[Axo1989]

I disagree with your entire statement. If you went through conservatory training, you would most likely think differently.

I don’t usually read/see posts from that contributor but curiosity strikes at times.

They mean ‘uncontrolled’ listening (ie lacking controls for sighted bias in the scientific sense) of course but habitually/obsessively use provocative language instead as a type of trolling.

Unless you enjoy that type of exchange it may be best to employ the ignore function (I generally do).

 

[Newman]

I disagree with your entire statement. If you went through conservatory training, you would most likely think differently.

If you went through the formal blind vs sighted listening experiments I mentioned, which included trained musicians, you would most likely think differently, because the results are fact. And BTW, preempting, the 'agree to disagree' response amounts to science denial.

I'm not saying the TrueHD audio doesn't sound audibly better; I am saying your test method is inadequate for the purpose of determining one way or the other.

cheers

 

[Sal1950]

I disagree with your entire statement. If you went through conservatory training, you would most likely think differently.

I didn't know you were interested in the Priesthood?

 

[pablolie]

I would not say multichannel fundamentally sucks, but for music listening I shall be forever happy with well presented stereo.

 

[Sal1950]

I would not say multichannel fundamentally sucks, but for music listening I shall be forever happy with well presented stereo.

Blah, stereo is just a gimmick, mono forever.

 

[Newman]

I would not say multichannel fundamentally sucks, but for music listening I shall be forever happy with well presented stereo.

That's a statement of personal standards, that pretends to hint at relative merits.

 

[BJL]

You've convinced me to actually buy a music blueray so i can compare it to what's being streamed. Have never done that to this point. I've always thought, based on Floyd Toole's research, that the more speakers you've got going simultaneously the harder it is to pick out small differences. And that was just going from one to two speakers. You'd think that would be even more true with 15 channels, for example. I've not been trained as a critical listener and given my short auditory memory the test may have limited validity, but I'm very curious.

Is it possible there's something else going on, not just the compression and bit rate?

It's an interesting question.

I occasionally stream from Apple Music when I get a special deal for a month or two. I mostly use it to check out new recordings before I buy the discs (where available!) Comparing blu ray with streaming is super cumbersome and difficult, but I did for curiosity using a track from Yello "Point" just because it is fine Atmos mix, and complex enough to be interesting for close listening.

The streaming version sounds very good, actually excellent; but it sounded off from time to time. The spatial positions weren't always right ("right" meaning as presented in the blu ray), and the inner details (the equivalent of inner voice leading in classical or baroque terms) were not as clear. I'm being hyper critical, but since listening to music is a treat for me, and I listen with intensity, it makes a difference.

For music that I might listen once and done it probably doesn't make much difference, but for music that I will and do listen to several times, the difference is significant, because streaming version seems limited. The overall dynamics are good, but the fine details often seem compressed or distorted. I trust my listening responses, even when it is difficult to quantify. If I lose interest in a recording that I otherwise enjoy, I presume that there is something wrong in the mastering or media.

Sorry I can't be more precise. I'm listening to a 9.1.6 system. That's 15 positions (plus LFE), a lot to follow. In a way, I'm retraining my hearing to be sensitive to a much larger sound stage. One great aspect of Atmos in finely mixed and mastered recordings is that it is very revealing as the instruments have a much larger physical space, in more spare recordings the sense of space from the room, and the fine details of the acoustic environment are clearly audible.

 

[Sal1950]

Is it possible there's something else going on, not just the compression and bit rate?

Well what type of system, and which playback medium do you intent to use, 2, 4, 5.1, 7.1, or Atmos?
A 2ch comparison would mostly be limited to compression and bit rate.
Any of the other forums will offer a completely different soundscape will depend on your playback system.

In a way, I'm retraining my hearing to be sensitive to a much larger sound stage. One great aspect of Atmos in finely mixed and mastered recordings is that it is very revealing as the instruments have a much larger physical space, in more spare recordings the sense of space from the room, and the fine details of the acoustic environment are clearly audible.

That is an excellent statement of the big advantages of/in multich. The opening up of the soundscape to a much larger physical space gives opportunity to the artists and recording engineers to space things out, making the inner details of recording easier to present. That is then also going beyond the the opportunity to be more creative in the process of painting a musical picture on a room sized canvas.

 

[pablolie]

That's a statement of personal standards, that pretends to hint at relative merits.

Clearly I was sharing a personal opinion. It "pretends" nothing.

 

[RDoc]

Well what type of system, and which playback medium do you intent to use, 2, 4, 5.1, 7.1, or Atmos?
A 2ch comparison would mostly be limited to compression and bit rate.
Any of the other forums will offer a completely different soundscape will depend on your playback system.


That is an excellent statement of the big advantages of/in multich. The opening up of the soundscape to a much larger physical space gives opportunity to the artists and recording engineers to space things out, making the inner details of recording easier to present. That is then also going beyond the the opportunity to be more creative in the process of painting a musical picture on a room sized canvas.

There also seems to be another big advantage, at least of ATMOS over stereo: significantly clearer vocals. We can much more easily understand lyrics in ATMOS recordings compared to the same recordings in Stereo UltraHD. For example comparing Diana Krall's "All For You" in Amazon UltraHD to ATMOS, but many others as well.

A disadvantage unfortunately is the freedom it gives the engineers. Some remixes such as some of the Louis Armstrong/Ella Fitzgerald tracks are not well done at all. Others though are fantastic.

 

[middlemarch]

Well what type of system, and which playback medium do you intent to use, 2, 4, 5.1, 7.1, or Atmos?
A 2ch comparison would mostly be limited to compression and bit rate.
Any of the other forums will offer a completely different soundscape will depend on your playback system.

I was referring to just a comparison of the two different sources, BD and streaming, of the same ATMOS version on the same system.

 

[Dismayed]

I haven’t even looked at Stereophile since the days when they painted the edges of CDs green. What a bunch of wackos!

 

[mhardy6647]

I haven’t even looked at Stereophile since the days when they painted the edges of CDs green. What a bunch of wackos!

I believe that a green Sharpie marker was/is the instrument of choice.

 

[Dismayed]

I believe that a green Sharpie marker was/is the instrument of choice.

I experimented with different colors. Red created a warmer rendition with greater air and spatial separation. Purple increased bass slam, but at the detriment of speed. I finally settled on a rainbow of colors to gain the benefits of each color while offsetting the weaknesses with other colors.