The Problem With Dolby Atmos

[andrew0v]

Dolby Atmos technology has improved, and the masters they provide can be immersive and worthwhile listens, but there are three significant problems I think it still suffers from. Firstly, its stereo-rizer function still adds new information that didn't originally exist. Secondly, the masters add a lot of directional information that interferes with eachother, spatially—attempting to hear information from more than three directions at once is tiring, the effect doesn't last and there is compression and file size issues due to the up-mixed channels.

Lastly, and most importantly, it isn't a natural progression from what made stereo sound so imaginative and catchy, with a clearly defined center and left and right channels where a rich, powerful mix could take place. Instead, Dolby Atmos is completely alien to stereo and, unfortunately, most would agree it doesn't gain points by being so different from stereo.

Dolby Atmos is still an entertaining listen with significant improvements, but is it the future of sound or even spatial audio? Possibly not.

 

[voodooless]

So, what's the second significant problem?

 

[andrew0v]

So, what's the second significant problem?

Made the edit thanks for point that out.

 

[DVDdoug]

Firstly, its stereo-rizer function still adds new information that didn't originally exist.

Most movies should be original multi-channel recordings, not up-mixed from stereo. I assume newer Atmos music releases are also done that way and with a good Atmos system you should hear what's intended.

Some (most?) recordings will be "creative" and you might not like what they are doing. There were some early stereo recordings with weird-creative stereos effects, or just done badly. There are Beatles recordings with the vocals on one side and the instruments on the other.

I would expect classical music recordings to closely replicate the sound of a concert hall (except that you'll usually have additional small-room reflections at home). In a concert hall or most live venues the sound is "immersive" with reflected sound coming from all around.

Live amplified music is usually mono with the same sound coming out of the left, right (and other) PA speakers. But in a small venue you might hear the drums or guitars coming directly from the stage so you might get some sense of "location".

I don't have Atmos but when listening to regular stereo music on my 5.1 system I like to use a "hall" or "theater" setting for the "feel" of a larger space. Yes, you can consider that hi-fi heresy since I'm not listening as intended... Fair enough! I've also had my speakers in a "dance hall" a couple of times and to my ears they sound WAY better in a bigger space. But, that's not what was heard in the studio either.

I have a shelf-full of concert DVDs with surround and to me, it's some of the most enjoyable music I own. I enjoy the surround sound in movies too.

 

[andrew0v]

Most movies should be original multi-channel recordings, not up-mixed from stereo. I assume newer Atmos music releases are also done that way and with a good Atmos system you should hear what's intended.

Some (most?) recordings will be "creative" and you might not like what they are doing. I would expect classical music recordings to closely replicate the sound of a concert hall (except that you'll usually have additional small-room reflections at home). In a concert hall or most live venues the sound is "immersive" with reflected sound coming from all around.

Live amplified music is usually mono with the same sound coming out of the left, right (and other) PA speakers. But in a small venue you might hear the drums or guitars coming directly from the stage so you might get some sense of "location".

I don't have Atmos but when listening to regular stereo music on my 5.1 system I like to use a "hall" or "theater" setting for the "feel" of a larger space. Yes, you can consider that hi-fi heresy since I'm not listening as intended... Fair enough! I've also had my speakers in a "dance hall" a couple of times and to my ears they sound WAY better in a bigger space. But, that's not what was heard in the studio either.

I have a shelf-full of concert DVDs with surround and to me, it's some of the most enjoyable music I own. I enjoy the surround sound in movies too.

Surround sound does have its place and can be very impressive, but most of in the zone quality listening for me happens in stereo.

 

[-Matt-]

...but there are three significant problems I think...
Firstly, its stereo-rizer function still adds new information that didn't originally exist.

I'm not clear what you mean by the "stereo-rizer function". If you are referring to processing that converts multi channel source material down to stereo then it seems to me that you are identifying a deficiency with stereo reproduction, not with Atmos.

 

[andrew0v]

Stereo-rizer is for apple airpods I think it replicates a Dolby Atmos like soundstage. It's gotten better over the years.

 

[Oddball]

Dolby Atmos technology has improved, and the masters they provide can be immersive and worthwhile listens, but there are three significant problems I think it still suffers from. Firstly, its stereo-rizer function still adds new information that didn't originally exist. Secondly, the masters add a lot of directional information that interferes with eachother, spatially—attempting to hear information from more than three directions at once is tiring, the effect doesn't last and there is compression and file size issues due to the up-mixed channels.

Lastly, and most importantly, it isn't a natural progression from what made stereo sound so imaginative and catchy, with a clearly defined center and left and right channels where a rich, powerful mix could take place. Instead, Dolby Atmos is completely alien to stereo and, unfortunately, most would agree it doesn't gain points by being so different from stereo.

Dolby Atmos is still an entertaining listen with significant improvements, but is it the future of sound or even spatial audio? Possibly not.

Atmos mixes leave a lot to be desired in most cases, but can't really correlate with any of you points that make some incredibly wrong statements.

 

[Blueprint]

Stereo-rizer is for apple airpods I think it replicates a Dolby Atmos like soundstage. It's gotten better over the years.

I think you’re right about this point. AirPod Atmos is a very artificial sounding effect that is clearly inferior to stereo in my view. However I really enjoy Apple Atmos music played through my multi-channel system. It’s a richer experience than plain stereo, for my taste.

 

[-Matt-]

Stereo-rizer is for apple airpods I think it replicates a Dolby Atmos like soundstage. It's gotten better over the years.

This then is not a problem caused by Dolby or Atmos, it is Apple attempting to make up their own method of conversion.

 

[krabapple]

Dolby Atmos technology has improved, and the masters they provide can be immersive and worthwhile listens, but there are three significant problems I think it still suffers from. Firstly, its stereo-rizer function still adds new information that didn't originally exist.

I couldn't care less about earbud listening tricks.

Secondly, the masters add a lot of directional information that interferes with eachother, spatially—attempting to hear information from more than three directions at once is tiring, the effect doesn't last and there is compression and file size issues due to the up-mixed channels.

The latter, at least , is not an issue in releases on physical disc.

(and anyway, audiophile pearl-clutching about the audibility of lossy compression on streamed multichannel music, is just that.)

Lastly, and most importantly, it isn't a natural progression from what made stereo sound so imaginative and catchy, with a clearly defined center and left and right channels where a rich, powerful mix could take place. Instead, Dolby Atmos is completely alien to stereo and, unfortunately, most would agree it doesn't gain points by being so different from stereo.

Atmos is simply an evolution of home audio surround sound, which has been around since at least the 1970s, but most significantly since around the turn of the millennium. Were those all 'alien to stereo' too?

The psychoacoustic deficiences of two-channel home audio ('stereo') were first noted in the early part of the 20th C.

 

[andrew0v]

I couldn't care less about earbud listening tricks.



The latter, at least , is not an issue in released on physical disc.

(and anyway, audiophile pearl clutching about the audibility of lossy compression on streamed multichannel music, is just that.)



Atmos is simply an evolution of home audio surround sound, which has been around since at least the 1970s, but most significantly since around the turn of the millennium. Were those all 'alien to stereo' too?

The psychoacoustic deficiences of two-channel home audio ('stereo') were first noted in the early part of the 20th C.

Stereo is technically a binaural format there are phase differences between the same source as well as volume differences that comprise the stereo field of 2 speakers. That's why time alignment matters so that your two ears picks up sound sources at the correct times. It's all spatial audio at the end of the day.

 

[-Matt-]

Secondly, the masters add a lot of directional information that interferes with each other, spatially

This is of course the intended mode of operation for multichannel audio. In stereo it is this interference effect that allows the creation of a soundstage. In a multichannel system the interference can create an enveloping three dimensional sound-scape. This is one of the major developments that Atmos offers over stereo. It isn't really valid to describe this as a problem with Atmos.

attempting to hear information from more than three directions at once is tiring...

It is, however, a valid personal preference if you prefer to hear the sound as coming for "over there" as you do with stereo, rather than from all around, as you get with Atmos.

One of the nice things about a multi-channel audio system is that at the press of a button you can switch between listening in Atmos, Stereo, DTS-X, Auto 3D, etc. My preference for listening mode can change depending on the content and my mood.

 

[krabapple]

I'm particularly amused to read this today, havng attended a NY Philharmonic concert two night ago that featured orchestra in the left, right, and rear balconies as well as onstage. It was entrancing, not 'tiring'.

 

[krabapple]

One of the nice things about a multi-channel audio system is that at the press of a button you can switch between listening in Atmos, Stereo, DTS-X, Auto 3D, etc. My preference for listening mode can change depending on the content and my mood.

Quite so and it's not unusual for me to prefer an automated upmix of the 'stereo' to its dedicated surround mix... and to prefer either to the unprocessed 'stereo'.

 

[Blueprint]

This then is not a problem caused by Dolby or Atmos, it is Apple attempting to make up their own method of conversion.

Dolby does this too with their own protocol for binaural listening. It’s true that Apple’s is different but neither are particularly good in my view.

 

[napfkuchen]

Surround sound does have its place and can be very impressive, but most of in the zone quality listening for me happens in stereo.

For me the „ranking“ is:
1. Atmos Bluray
2. Atmos Streaming (Apple Music)
3. stereo upmixed (Auro3D)
4. stereo

1 and 2 are very close (no difference for my ears most of the time). Might not be the same experience for the purists. To me the vastly expanded and at the same time more precise sound-panorama, also effects wandering around and above you are really exciting. Sometimes there is some kind of cloud moving in the background with precise objects in the foreground. To me this „next level“. Of course, the experience depends on one‘s own taste and the quality of the mix.
Auro3D as a spiced-up stereo version also expands the stereo panorama. It sounds bigger than stereo while still retaining the localization of the singer‘s voice and Instruments, but it‘s also behind Atmos.

I think if you have a decent Atmos setup, so not a soundbar but dedicated speakers with decent directivity, there‘s no way stereo is superior. Also why should Atmos be tiring? More to the contrary, because sound sources are more clearly sparated and you don‘t need to concentrate as much to distinguish them.

 

[-Matt-]

Dolby does this too with their own protocol for binaural listening. It’s true that Apple’s is different but neither are particularly good in my view.

Yes, Dolby offers a way for people to listen to multi-channel source material with stereo equipment. But why, in this scenario, would you expect stereo equipment to give a perfect listening experience? The fact that stereo equipment cannot accurately recreate every nuance of the multi-channel source material only underlines a deficiency with stereo, and not a "problem with Dolby Atmos".

 

[levimax]

To me there are only 2 problems with Dolby Atmos:

1. It is 3 to 10 times more expensive to purchase and set up compared to a Stereo system.
2. It is a closed source proprietary format designed to generate revenue for Dolby first and foremost. See first problem.

 

[Blueprint]

Yes, Dolby offers a way for people to listen to multi-channel source material with stereo equipment. But why, in this scenario, would you expect stereo equipment to give a perfect listening experience? The fact that stereo equipment cannot accurately recreate every nuance of the multi-channel source material only underlines a deficiency with stereo, and not a "problem with Dolby Atmos".

The point is that it’s worse than stereo. So I find it a fair point. Dolby has put their name to it and says it is Atmos, therefore it can be critiqued as Atmos.