Stereophile's Jim Austin Says Streaming Atmos Sucks

[krabapple]

No. I am describing what I am hearing. I thought it was obvious that this was subjective, musical enjoyment, not measurements.

Nor even level-matched controlled listening. Which is what's really required to verify a particular claim of audible difference. No need to get a statistical population sample, just testing you would do, for your claim.

 

[jhaider]

Nor even level-matched controlled listening. Which is what's really required to verify a particular claim of audible difference. No need to get a statistical population sample, just testing you would do, for your claim.

In fairness I’m not sure it’s possible for a consumer to switch fast enough for a reasonable test. HDMI takes time to lock onto the signal.

 

[krabapple]

Yes, it won't be easy. But claims should be tempered even so.

 

[RobL]

Of course I will still be in China. But thanks! That sounds like the sort of thing that would do it.

Oh ok, in that case The Genelec Beijing Experience Store has an immersive room as well!

 

[Sal1950]

In fairness I’m not sure it’s possible for a consumer to switch fast enough for a reasonable test. HDMI takes time to lock onto the signal.

Maybe a digital recording of the streams?
It would require a AD-DA conversion but if its as bad as some claim it should still jump out.
Maybe from the kitchen even. LOL

@Purité Audio Yo Keith, you gonna love this post over at "the file" LOL
"I believe over processing makes real musical instruments loose their musicality. Just listen to the very expensive Kii range of super processed sound speakers, they sound great playing mostly computer generated music because as it has no harmonic structure to it's notes, put some real recorded instruments on them and they start to sound sterile."

Dolby Atmos: a Bleak Shadow?

Morten Lindberg of Norwegian music label 2L.

www.stereophile.com

 

[Dimifoot]

If there are people here that haven’t heard the superiority of TrueHD Atmos compared to DD+ Atmos, level matched, there is no point discussing.
Really.
Are you into multichannel music at all? Movies?

Maybe we should do a double blind study to prove that it’s safer to jump off an airplane with a parachute than without.

 

[Sal1950]

@Archimago has posted his thoughts: On Stereophile's "Dolby Atmos: A Bleak Shadow?" - really?

Strongly urge everyone to go to Archimago's site and read his detailed thoughts. That said, here is his conclusion (which focuses on the uber-issue of why SP seems to be so anti-MC. Bit rates and stuff like that are discussed in the main body of his piece.)



I also want to point to this nugget from the main part of his post:

What an absolutely awesome post by Archi!
He has a great writing style for putting a few controversies into clear
focus using simply the facts and avoiding subjective impression..
I envy his talent.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

If there are people here that haven’t heard the superiority of TrueHD Atmos compared to DD+ Atmos, level matched, there is no point discussing.
Really.
Are you into multichannel music at all? Movies?

Maybe we should do a double blind study to prove that it’s safer to jump off an airplane with a parachute than without.

I’m all for a double blind preference comparison between state of the art Dolby Atmos system and 2 channel system using the BACCH SP with its optimum playback system. Choosing source material would be an issue. But I’d love such a shootout under blind conditions.

I don’t think it would be so cut and dry as the parachute analogy.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Choosing source material would be an issue.

It would be the issue.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

It would be the issue.

Should be solvable. At the end of the day the systems are in service of the music. If we couldn’t find source material for such a shoot out what does that say? If Dolby Atmos limited my options of source material that would be a nonstarter.

 

[Sal1950]

Maybe we should do a double blind study to prove that it’s safer to jump off an airplane with a parachute than without.

Let's not bicker between each other over how audible the compression is, I think we all agree that a lossless form would be much preferable.

It was very enlightening to read John Atkinson's feeling on multich in general as written in this months (Feb 2024) "Records 2 Live 4 review of 2L L2's Henning Sommerro - Borders. Since I believe it would be illegal for me to scan-post the review until it's release to the public domain, I wrote this synopsis of his position and posted it to the Stereophile thread. I promise it is completely true to his words.
It's no wonder Stereophile's editorial attitude towards multichannel music is what it is. With the last 2 Editors since J. Gordon Holt taking positions like this, what else could be expected?


"John
To your credit you do mention that (L2's Henning Sommerro - Borders) is available in Atmos 7.1.4 both on BD disc and downloads, along with a few other variations of immersive and surround mixings. Also that these recordings are at the forefront of immersive recordings.
OTOH, in the text you then go on to say that you still have a beef against all multich formats and refuse to listen to anything but 2ch because you had to "survive" Quad back in the 70s.
Really John, that was 50 years ago?
So your going to hold a grudge against multich forever because matrix'd SQ & QS, and vinyls CD4 were flawed due to the weaker technology of the time? This from the former editor of Stereophile for near 25 years and a writer for 40?
I find that a sad statement from a man that was supposed to represent some of the very best in home music reproduction for all those years.
J. Gordon Holt is rolling over in his grave

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Should be solvable. At the end of the day the systems are in service of the music. If we couldn’t find source material for such a shoot out what does that say? If Dolby Atmos limited my options of source material that would be a nonstarter.

The problem is not the actual original source but the different processing paths from it to the two formats being compared.

 

[GA16SE]

I guess in a way I'm lucky as I barely have the room for 2.1 system so I'll never need worry about Atmos lossless or lossy or whatever they come up with. Maybe one day a headphone or head gear apparatus that can do it?

There’s already Smyth Research Realiser A16

Realiser A16 the world's most advanced 3d audio processor

The Realiser A16 is the world’s most advanced personalised head-tracked 3D headphone processor, rendering 15.1.8ch Dolby Atmos with breath-taking realism.

smyth-research.com

 

[Sal1950]

The problem is not the actual original source but the different processing paths from it to the two formats being compared.

Hi Kal, Great to have you here as always.
I was just thinkin, it's now been nearly 5 years since you retired "In The Round"
During that time and the last 2 or 3 specially, the surround music market has been exploding.
On the music side, labels like 2L are releasing classical titles on optical media in every imaginable variant of immersive and 5.1.
Tons of new popular and jazz recordings are being done or remastered on BD and DVD in Atmos and released to streaming.
Labels like Dutton - Vocalion - Quadio have gone back to the vaults and are remastering the wonderful 1970s Quad tapes to new BD media in High Resolution 24/192.
Topping things off, much of the new AV gear has been re-engineered to provide far better measurements and sound.
Also the DRC software like Dirac, Audyssey, etc; have and are being vastly improved in performance & user friendliness.

All this being said I could think of no better time for you to resurrect the In The Round column.
I can't imagine you ever being short of exciting new gear, recordings, or software to review. I know your personal audio passion is surround music and according to your January 2024 review of the Merging Network Converter you recently have been expanding your systems to add additional Atmos and subwoofer speakers. I know all of us in the surround community would be very pleased to once again see your name at the top of those pages. Please give it some consideration.
Cheers, Sal

 

[krabapple]

Maybe a digital recording of the streams?
It would require a AD-DA conversion but if its as bad as some claim it should still jump out.
Maybe from the kitchen even. LOL

It has to be from the kitchen. Also, at least one veil must be lifted.

 

[krabapple]

I’m all for a double blind preference comparison between state of the art Dolby Atmos system and 2 channel system using the BACCH SP with its optimum playback system. Choosing source material would be an issue. But I’d love such a shootout under blind conditions.

I'd hardly expect that matchup to to be anything near 'apples to apples' , if one is a dedicated remix from multitrack masters, versus something that's more like an automated 'upmix'. So it might be more fair to compare Atmos as an upmixer of a stereo source, to BACCH and its like.

Though if we're only talking about reporting preference -- which sound 'best' to the subject -- anything goes.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

The problem is not the actual original source but the different processing paths from it to the two formats being compared.

If that is the problem then it’s a problem with Dolby Atmos. It is not a problem for a BACCH SP based system.

And it does seem to me that this is an issue. The vast majority of music I listen to was originally recorded and/or mixed in 2 channel stereo. Almost all of those recordings need dedicated new mixes for Dolby Atmos. So unless the vast majority of someone’s preferred recordings were originally dedicated Dolby Atmos recordings or mixes it going to be an issue for them as well. And that’s going to be a crap shoot no matter what. So far the upmixed stereo recordings I have heard have not been to my liking. Not even close. But I can’t say that those auditions represent the state of the art in upmixes. But I can say those mixes were of recordings I listen to in stereo.

This is part of the reason the source material selection would be both an interesting and telling part of any such shootout.

An interesting twist to this is that apparently (I have not tried this) the BACCH SP can take a Dolby Atmos mix and accurately recreate the imaging through 2 channels. Like I said, I have not tried this but if it is true then the shoot out might just end right there.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Hi Kal, Great to have you here as always.
I was just thinkin, it's now been nearly 5 years since you retired "In The Round"
During that time and the last 2 or 3 specially, the surround music market has been exploding.
On the music side, labels like 2L are releasing classical titles on optical media in every imaginable variant of immersive and 5.1.
Tons of new popular and jazz recordings are being done or remastered on BD and DVD in Atmos and released to streaming.
Labels like Dutton - Vocalion - Quadio have gone back to the vaults and are remastering the wonderful 1970s Quad tapes to new BD media in High Resolution 24/192.
Topping things off, much of the new AV gear has been re-engineered to provide far better measurements and sound.
Also the DRC software like Dirac, Audyssey, etc; have and are being vastly improved in performance & user friendliness.

All this being said I could think of no better time for you to resurrect the In The Round column.
I can't imagine you ever being short of exciting new gear, recordings, or software to review. I know your personal audio passion is surround music and according to your January 2024 review of the Merging Network Converter you recently have been expanding your systems to add additional Atmos and subwoofer speakers. I know all of us in the surround community would be very pleased to once again see your name at the top of those pages. Please give it some consideration.
Cheers, Sal

I would love to see the MITR column revived but not by me. I am enjoying my retirement and do not want to (re-)encumber the responsibilities that are required for the column.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I'd hardly expect that matchup to to be anything near 'apples to apples' , if one is a dedicated remix from multitrack masters, versus something that's more like an automated 'upmix'. So it might be more fair to compare Atmos as an upmixer of a stereo source, to BACCH and its like.

Though if we're only talking about reporting preference -- which sound 'best' to the subject -- anything goes.

True but as consumers that is what we are faced with if we are choosing between them. And at the end of the day it is a matter of preference. What else would be the criteria?

The actual procedure of choosing source material for such a shootout would be a huge tell from the get go

 

[Kal Rubinson]

An interesting twist to this is that apparently (I have not tried this) the BACCH SP can take a Dolby Atmos mix and accurately recreate the imaging through 2 channels. Like I said, I have not tried this but if it is true then the shoot out might just end right there.

If that is so (and I have not heard anything about it before), it could be an interesting comparison for some folks. Not especially for me.