Stereophile's Jim Austin Says Streaming Atmos Sucks

[Chrispy]

Don't really care about manufactured let alone streamed Atmos really, besides I don't have an Atmos setup. I'd rather have a bluray, tho.

ps And what Jim Austin thinks, meh.

 

[jhaider]

So, we don’t like MQA because it’s lossy and Stereophile is wrong, but we won’t tolerate Stereophile criticizing lossy ATMOS because, well, it’s Stereophile and ATMOS is ‘science.’

LOL!

MQA didn’t add any anything. Multichannel obviously adds channels.

There’s a noticeable and annoying sound quality degradation with Dolby Atmos lossy streaming compared to physical media Dolby Atmos.

That’s not my experience, frankly. [edit - unnecessary] I doubt there are many people here who could tell a difference between Abbey Road on Atmos Blu-Ray or Apple Music with levels normalized, for example. Both are equally transporting. My Atmos disks never leave their jewel boxes. There’s just no point - they’re all on Apple Music. Now if only they’d start adding some of the sub-Atmos multichannel stuff. Maybe start with the old Living Stereo 3.0 ch SACDs.

 

[amirm]

The Atmos objects have very low data rate and have fair amount of degradation in fidelity. They were there for effects in movies where such fidelity doesn't matter much. But for music, it is not optimal. In AB tests of this, the Atmos version sounded brighter and definitely not as good.

 

[dfuller]

The Atmos objects have very low data rate and have fair amount of degradation in fidelity. They were there for effects in movies where such fidelity doesn't matter much. But for music, it is not optimal. In AB tests of this, the Atmos version sounded brighter and definitely not as good.

Can confirm this - I have been able to listen to BWFs vs the compressed version (usually M4A, iirc?) and it is substantially different.

But yeah, this is why I can't quite grok Atmos, or spatial in general, as a music format. It needs too much bandwidth for streaming at decent fidelity vs even conventional channel based surrounds.

 

[Sal1950]

But yeah, this is why I can't quite grok Atmos, or spatial in general, as a music format. It needs too much bandwidth for streaming at decent fidelity vs even conventional channel based surrounds.

So is that what you would have said 10 or 20 years ago about lossless 2ch streaming?
It requires too much bandwidth so we should just junk the whole streaming idea and give up?
Forget those decades we enjoyed an imperfect offering, it should all have just been trashed.
That makes no sense to me at all.
We're hearing the same things we did back then from most users, "it may be imperfect but it sound pretty good to me".
The ability to stream the larger files and it's demand will come as the format grows in popularity.
Or maybe someone will develop a lossless flac like compression for mkv, it's well needed not only for audio but video as well.

An by the way, lossless 4.0 & 5.1 flac doesn't require enormous files, I've got hundreds on my harddrive and listened to them for years, they're incredilble.

But yeah, this is why I can't quite grok Atmos, or spatial in general, as a music format.

A pity you don't like spatial audio in general, but that's your loss.
There are enormous numbers out there world wide that love it, specially in its 24/96 & 24/48 high resolution versions.
That is the SOTA for music reproduction in the home, as remains the optical media for the best of the best source.

 

[waynel]

I too feel the version of Atmos on Apple is very enjoyable and listenable but that said would also much prefer lossless.
I continue to use streaming, 2ch or more, in the same manner I always have, to review & preview music I'm interested in.
If the album is something I really enjoy, I look for an avenue to own the recording whether on hard media or lossless download.

All this said I continue to shake my head on what the mission really is at Stereophile and the reasons behind their position on
multich audio. They'll support and applaud lossy MQA but attempt to discredit Atmos over "Apple's" lossy stream with zero effort
put towards praising or even discussing it's lossless version. Simply an axe job aimed at the multich market. The sound quality of lossless Atmos in 24/48 and 5.1 in 24/96 on DVD and BluRay is incredible and offers a listening experience far beyond that of 2ch CD, let alone vinyl LP.
So what is the mission at Stereophile, to advance and promote the SOTA in home music reproduction?
Or for whatever the reasons, to continue this dubious marketing approach from their little boys club cult?

I think it’s because as home setups move to more channels the cables tend to go into the walls to avoid a cluster and need to be fire rated which excludes the BS expensive cable manufacturers which make up a large portion of their advertising revenue.

 

[Anton D]

The Atmos objects have very low data rate and have fair amount of degradation in fidelity. They were there for effects in movies where such fidelity doesn't matter much. But for music, it is not optimal. In AB tests of this, the Atmos version sounded brighter and definitely not as good.

I think it’s because as home setups move to more channels the cables tend to go into the walls to avoid a cluster and need to be fire rated which excludes the BS expensive cable manufacturers which make up a large portion of their advertising revenue.

Ideally, we are moving past cables, altogether!

AC power is the final umbilical!

 

[Dimifoot]

That’s not my experience, frankly. I realize it’s cool to be a snob and shit but there should be some basis in it. I doubt there are many people here who could tell a difference

I would be very happy if that was true. I would love to be able to enjoy all the content that’s available in Tidal Atmos as much as I do with lossless Atmos and Auro discs (I have plenty). But I don’t.
It sounds compressed, annoyingly, and I am not talking about “golden ear” stuff. It’s obvious for everyone, when level matched.
Especially with classical.

Again, please accept that my bias -if any-is 100% towards Atmos and streaming Atmos and I would love to have more and more content available.

Upmixing uncompressed stereo to Auro/Atmos does sound more enjoyable than Tidal Atmos.

Could it be that Apple Atmos sounds better? Don’t know, I very much hope so. If anyone things so, let me know, I would happily give it a go.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

A pity you don't like spatial audio in general, but that's your loss.
There are enormous numbers out there world wide that love it, specially in its 24/96 & 24/48 high resolution versions.
That is the SOTA for music reproduction in the home, as remains the optical media for the best of the best source.

Where does one go to audition SOTA Dolby Atmos playback?

 

[jhaider]

I would be very happy if that was true. I would love to be able to enjoy all the content that’s available in Tidal Atmos as much as I do with lossless Atmos and Auro discs (I have plenty). But I don’t.
It sounds compressed, annoyingly, and I am not talking about “golden ear” stuff. It’s obvious for everyone, when level matched.
Especially with classical.

I don't think it's the lossy compression so much as something weird Tidal does with levels. FWIW before Apple had Atmos I subscribed to Tidal. Everything immersive on Tidal seemed so quiet - as if it were normalized 12 or 15 dB below their stereo tracks. If you don't have a lot of surplus headroom in your system I remember immersive on Tidal being a little disappointing. And even if you do, the balance is perceptually wrong because the low average level throws off your loudness compensation offsets.

By contrast, Apple Music's "Sound Check" keeps average levels fairly constant regardless of format. When Apple went immersive I found I wasn't using Tidal any more so dropped Tidal. But that was a couple years ago now - so I don't know if firsthand if Tidal has gotten better or worse. From what you report it sounds same as it ever was, though.

Could it be that Apple Atmos sounds better? Don’t know, I very much hope so. If anyone things so, let me know, I would happily give it a go.

I'll put it this way - for the things I personally have on disk that are also on Apple Music, I do not believe I would be able to tell a difference in the blind.

Admittedly my disk-based immersive collection leans mostly to classic and more modern rock (R.E.M., the Beatles, the Who, Pink Floyd, Allman Bros. Band, Prince, etc.) but also e.g. the Karajan/BPO Beethoven and Sibelius cycles, Nelsons/Leipzig Bruckner cycle, and some organ pieces recorded in the Stephansdom - Then again maybe some tell would reveal itself in blind testing that one could never subsequently unhear...always a risk!

Where does one go to audition SOTA Dolby Atmos playback?

That's a fair question, sadly. I've yet to find a shop with a really good immersive demo room.

 

[voodooless]

The Atmos objects have very low data rate and have fair amount of degradation in fidelity. They were there for effects in movies where such fidelity doesn't matter much. But for music, it is not optimal. In AB tests of this, the Atmos version sounded brighter and definitely not as good.

AB against what? I wonder how much the object channels are actually used in music? I see little point.

 

[Dimifoot]

I don't think it's the lossy compression so much as something weird Tidal does with levels. FWIW before Apple had Atmos I subscribed to Tidal. Everything immersive on Tidal seemed so quiet - as if it were normalized 12 or 15 dB below their stereo tracks. If you don't have a lot of surplus headroom in your system I remember immersive on Tidal being a little disappointing. And even if you do, the balance is perceptually wrong because the low average level throws off your loudness compensation offsets.

I am aware of this.
It’s about 10-13dbs below as you mentioned, so yes, I have to raise volume accordingly with Tidal Atmos to get to Reference Level.
But the problem is that it sounds harsh like 128mp3.

I am not using loudness compensation because I mainly listen to Reference (average 85db-peaks of 105).

I'll put it this way - for the things I personally have on disk that are also on Apple Music, I do not believe I would be able to tell a difference in the blind.

I will try Apple Atmos then, as you suggest, I hope I won’t be able to tell a difference.

 

[amirm]

Where does one go to audition SOTA Dolby Atmos playback?

At AES conference. Both Genelec and Neumann had full systems and producers were brining their music to play every hour. This was all uncompressed masters and the sound was exceptional.

 

[Blumlein 88]

At AES conference. Both Genelec and Neumann had full systems and producers were brining their music to play every hour. This was all uncompressed masters and the sound was exceptional.

What does an uncompressed master mean for the object oriented audio? Or do such audio recordings simply come in the Atmos 7.1.2 base layer format with no object metadata involved?

 

[amirm]

What does an uncompressed master mean for the object oriented audio? Or do such audio recordings simply come in the Atmos 7.1.2 base layer format with no object metadata involved?

They had brought the project files in the DAW with object assignment and steering. This way they would show the Dolby visualizer showing the objects dancing around. I asked them about the fidelity of the final encoded file quality and they actually didn't know what that would be.

 

[Anton D]

At AES conference. Both Genelec and Neumann had full systems and producers were brining their music to play every hour. This was all uncompressed masters and the sound was exceptional.

Now it’s just a matter of time until we can stream that.

The future is so bright…

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

At AES conference. Both Genelec and Neumann had full systems and producers were brining their music to play every hour. This was all uncompressed masters and the sound was exceptional.

Would have been nice to have been there. Any other options you know of?

 

[Sal1950]

Where does one go to audition SOTA Dolby Atmos playback?

Good question, Hell where do you go today to audition a SOTA 2ch rig if you don't live in one of a few major cities.
Check your local listings for Home Theater Designers to see if they can help you, act like a real potential customer.
They may either have a showroom of their own or could introduce you to someone.

Would have been nice to have been there. Any other options you know of?

Axpona coming up in Chicago Apr 14-16 and the Tampa show Feb 16-18
Do some homework to check if there's something available at either.

It’s about 10-13dbs below as you mentioned, so yes, I have to raise volume accordingly with Tidal Atmos to get to Reference Level.
But the problem is that it sounds harsh like 128mp3.

Dude, I would never claim streaming Atmos is equal to lossless but that's a gross exaggeration unless Tidal is really messing up.
The vast majority of listeners think it sounds just fine, just like Spotify's customers are happy with their lossy 2ch stream.
Maybe you should switch to Apple music using a 4k TV box. It presently offers the best source.

 

[Dimifoot]

Dude, I would never claim streaming Atmos is equal to lossless but that's a gross exaggeration unless Tidal is really messing up.

Well it’s definitely worse than 256mp3.

The vast majority of listeners think it sounds just fine, just like Spotify's customers are happy with their lossy 2ch stream.
Maybe you should switch to Apple music using a 4k TV box. It presently offers the best source.

I will try it, I have an Apple TV 4K. I hope it will sound better.

 

[voodooless]

Well it’s definitely worse than 256mp3.

Got any proof? We have about 200 Kbps per stereo pair, and given that a lot of content is shared among the channels, you can much more efficiently compress multichannel audio. Given that MP3 isn’t exactly state of art audio compression anymore, I think DD+ will do better per Kbps, can’t find a reference for that yet, though.