The Problem With Dolby Atmos

[andrew0v]

Dolby Atmos offers depth and impressive clarity in spatial dimensions with moving elements, but the feeling of turning up the volume and EQing the bass and brighter presence of a stereo track is unmatched. Plus, the moving elements can become tiring and distracting from the melody and rhythm — it’s a party trick that Dolby tends to oversell.

 

[kyuu]

Dolby has certainly confused the branding of Atmos by lumping a bunch of unrelated cruft into it.

However, I'll still take it (and even Dolby Surround upmixing) over two-channel stereo, which has always been a compromised format. I just don't get this whole two-channel puritanism.

 

[sfogg]

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'.

Ditto.

 

[BJL]

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'.

Then you would probably appreciate the CBS quad recording of Bartok Concerto for Orchestra & Miraculous Mandarin, Boulez/NYPO reissued on SACD by Dutton Vocalion from the original quad masters. The liner notes include Boulez' spatial arrangement of the orchestra for the recording. It isn't Atmos but at least it is quad.

duttonvocalion.co.uk store: Pierre Boulez Conducts Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra [SACD Hybrid Multi-channel] | Epoch - Historic SACD | CDLX7360 |

 

[Oddball]

Then you would probably appreciate the CBS quad recording of Bartok Concerto for Orchestra & Miraculous Mandarin, Boulez/NYPO reissued on SACD by Dutton Vocalion from the original quad masters. The liner notes include Boulez' spatial arrangement of the orchestra for the recording. It isn't Atmos but at least it is quad.

duttonvocalion.co.uk store: Pierre Boulez Conducts Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra [SACD Hybrid Multi-channel] | Epoch - Historic SACD | CDLX7360 |

????

 

[HalSF]

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.

Can you offer some examples of successful Dolby Atmos that you've found to be immersive and worthwhile listens?

Can you offer some descriptive examples of Dolby Atmos music that adds new information that didn't originally exist in the recordings? This sounds very bad, depending on what "new information" means. What exactly is this criticism about?

Finally, can you mention an example or examples of Dolby Atmos that demonstrates the issue of directional information that interferes spatially with other directional information and has the "tiring" effect you mention?

I'm asking these things because so far with this thread I'm craving some specifics I can investigate myself.

 

[krabapple]

Then you would probably appreciate the CBS quad recording of Bartok Concerto for Orchestra & Miraculous Mandarin, Boulez/NYPO reissued on SACD by Dutton Vocalion from the original quad masters. The liner notes include Boulez' spatial arrangement of the orchestra for the recording. It isn't Atmos but at least it is quad.

duttonvocalion.co.uk store: Pierre Boulez Conducts Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra [SACD Hybrid Multi-channel] | Epoch - Historic SACD | CDLX7360 |

I've had it for years, thanks.

 

[krabapple]

????

It's a quadraphonic mix from the 1970s that puts you 'inside' the orchestra... which itself is arrayed in an unorthodox fashion.

 

[krabapple]

Can you offer some descriptive examples of Dolby Atmos music that adds new information that didn't originally exist in the recordings? This sounds very bad, depending on what "new information" means. What exactly is this criticism about?

I don't quite know what Andrew0v is talking about there, though it seems to have to do with headphone Atmos (something I'm uninterested in).

However, it is not unheard-of for surround remixes to include elements or alternate takes that were not part of the original stereo mix, or to bring elements up further in the mix than they were on the stereo mix. This is not at all exclusive to Atmos.

(And it doesn't necessarily bother me. What does, is when something I expect to be there, is missing. This is true of any remix, stereo or surround. I object even though I know that there are a few reasons why this can happen... it isn't necessarily incompetence or carelessness.)

 

[Bobby Bass]

I find Dolby Atmos sounds great when the source is done right. The Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and Animals BluRay Atmos mixes are the best I’ve heard and I now prefer listening to them on my 7.2.4 system rather than streaming or multiple CD versions in stereo on my best 2.2 system. Other Blurays I have are hit and miss. Looking forward to the Wish You Were Here mix coming later this year. Pink Floyd was made for Atmos or Atmos was made for Floyd.

 

[goat76]

I also find Dolby Atmos mixes to be either a hit or a miss. The main problem, as I see it, is the sometimes strange channel balance between the front speakers and the surround speakers. Some mixes have way too much sounds going on in the surround speakers, as if the sound system they were mixed on wasn't calibrated/balanced correctly with the front speakers, and other times there is the other way around with almost nothing going on the surrounds.

Yes, some of the above-mentioned problems can be “blamed” on the strange taste of the mixing engineer, but many times as I mentioned, I think the reason is due to a not very balanced sound system.

It’s a possibility that my system is calibrated wrongly, but at the same time many Atmos mixes sounds well-balanced in my system.

 

[Bobby Bass]

I also find Dolby Atmos mixes to be either a hit or a miss. The main problem, as I see it, is the sometimes strange channel balance between the front speakers and the surround speakers. Some mixes have way too much sounds going on in the surround speakers, as if the sound system they were mixed on wasn't calibrated/balanced correctly with the front speakers, and other times there is the other way around with almost nothing going on the surrounds.

Yes, some of the above-mentioned problems can be “blamed” on the strange taste of the mixing engineer, but many times as I mentioned, I think the reason is due to a not very balanced sound system.

It’s a possibility that my system is calibrated wrongly, but at the same time many Atmos mixes sounds well-balanced in my system.

I’ve thought the same thing when I listen to a disc that doesn’t sound right but the fact that others do sound good means it must be the mix because the equipment and settings don’t change.

 

[somebodyelse]

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.

It'll depend on how closely hour head and torso match the one in their respective default models - as I understand it Apple also offer a way to scan yourself with your iPhone to get a personal model rather than using the default too, which should give a better result if done correctly.

 

[krabapple]

I also find Dolby Atmos mixes to be either a hit or a miss.

I find *all* mixes to be hit or miss .

As for surround, I find all of them to be hit or miss too. Going all the way back to quad.

If some sound great and others don't....it's probably not the system. ( Unless the ones that sound great are actually bad in a way that perfectly complements the system. )

 

[levimax]

( nNless the ones that sound great are actually bad in a way that perfectly complements the system. )

Never thought I would see a post from you about "synergy"

 

[krabapple]

Never thought I would see a post from you about "synergy"

It's actually 'luck'

 

[masterhw]

Glad for Atmos to exist… like regular stereo there are some bum mixes, and some superb ones. The great testing over at https://magicvinyldigital.net/ and https://dr.loudness-war.info/ has also revealed the Atmos version of many releases, especially pop music, have greater dynamic range than the hyper compressed radio-friendly mixes of stereo. Sometimes too much so though, I don’t think Green Day - American Idiot should have a DR of 14 lol, give those guitars their grit back.

 

[andrew0v]

Stereo on Apple Music is so much louder and substantially more impactful and energetic than Dolby Atmos. I have yet to hear a mix that convincingly places sounds around my head where their independent phase information doesn't interfere with their intended timed locations. The average listener goes for energy and emotion, which is what an ideal mix and master should aim for. Too large of a dynamic range will bury instruments into the background. I think that Dolby Atmos is for the select elite, and most people probably turn it off because of the reduction in volume, bass, and presence.

There is a limit to hearing and perception, which Dolby Atmos seems to ignore. Although the technology is getting better—such as Complicated by Avril Lavigne, where instruments do hover in front of me- the tradeoff for immersion (Atmos) and volume/energy (Stereo) is too great to justify, in my opinion.

 

[goat76]

I find *all* mixes to be hit or miss .

As for surround, I find all of them to be hit or miss too. Going all the way back to quad.

If some sound great and others don't....it's probably not the system. ( Unless the ones that sound great are actually bad in a way that perfectly complements the system. )

I think I need to explain the problem I’m talking about in more detail.

Of course, there are good and bad mixes. Still, the problem I'm talking about is Atmos mixes where I believe an instrument was meant to be panned somewhere to the outside of the front speakers, but still be kept in the front ”hemisphere” just for widening the stereo field, while still keeping the instrument somewhat in front of the listener. The volume balance between the front speaker and the surround speaker, which needs to share the job of positioning the instrument as a phantom sound in that position, will be highly critical. If the volume balance between the front speaker and the surround speaker is different between the system used for making the mix and the playback system at the home of the consumer, the position of the instrument will change.

In my surround system, I find most Atmos mixes sound as I would expect them to sound, with the main instruments positioned somewhere in front of me as a listener. But once in a while, the guitar in a rock mix is not only hard panned to one of the front speakers in a typical rock mix fashion, but also panned to the surround speaker to make the mix even larger/wider. And that's all fine, but it gets really strange when the sound of the guitar is a little louder in the surround speaker compared to the front speaker, as that makes the instrument appear to be slightly behind the plane of the listening position. That is something I doubt was the intention of the person making the mix.
I can buy the idea of going extreme and panning the guitars straight to the sides of the listener, but not behind, and when that happens, I'm quite sure the surround speakers at the mixing studio were playing quieter than they should have, making the mixing engineer overcompensate the loudness level in the surround channels.

When setting up my surround speaker system, I have made sure to calibrate all the speakers to play equally as loud as each other while sitting in the main listening position. I'm fairly sure that is the correct way of setting up a surround speaker system, or am I wrong about that?

 

[mhardy6647]

— it’s a party trick that Dolby tends to oversell.

a feature that has dogged multichannel formats for a long, long time.



In fairness, two-channel "stereo" suffered from this effect, too... but largely recovered from it.

In full disclosure -- I do have a copy of the album shown above.
This is a random internet (amazon.com) image, though.

(as is this one... from Discogs)