Don't you think the Green Day guitars get their grit back by simply turning up the volume on your power amp?
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
The Problem With Dolby Atmos
- Thread starter andrew0v
- Start date
Don't you think the Green Day guitars get their grit back by simply turning up the volume on your power amp?
Maybe it's just the rest of the loudspeakers in your surround system that lack the quality of the main speakers?
The thing is, granted that all the loudspeakers in the surround system are of good quality, well set up, and that the listening room doesn't have severe acoustic problems, the surround system will always have better potential than a stereo system of equal quality. That is a fact.
Instead of blaming Dolby Atmos, it's more likely that your disappointment comes from the way the actual mixes are done. I'm sure the Atmos mixes will get better with time and with more experience of the people making them.
Apples to oranges. The stereo mix might be significantly more compressed (in terms of dynamic range)
I haven't found Dolby Atmos surround mixes (which for me, are 7.2 mixes that my system renders to 5.1) to have a burdensomely high dynamic range, at all.
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.
Mixes where a main instrument goes behind the listener are not unknown, even going back to the quad era.
Which mixes are you talking about, particularly?
No, it's not uncommon with mixes where a main instrument goes behind the listener, but the thing I'm trying to explain is when it's quite obvious that an instrument was meant to be positioned right to the side of the listener (as the instrument is almost mixed equally loud in the front speaker as in the surround speaker), but it's tipping over a little to the surround speaker as if the mixing engineer has overcompensate the balance, maybe due to the surround speakers not being calibrated correctly to play equally as loud as the front speakers. I'm not sure, but that's my theory (if it's not my system that has a mismatched balance).
I don't have any particular examples at the moment, as this was something I noticed about a year ago when I analyzed in detail how different Atmos productions were mixed. I'm not listening to Atmos music that often, and the reason for that is that there aren't many small alternative rock bands releasing their music in Atmos, which is my main taste in music. Maybe I'll come back to you on this when I feel the urge to listen to some random tracks in Dolby Atmos.
No, it's not uncommon with mixes where a main instrument goes behind the listener, but the thing I'm trying to explain is when it's quite obvious that an instrument was meant to be positioned right to the side of the listener (as the instrument is almost mixed equally loud in the front speaker as in the surround speaker), but it's tipping over a little to the surround speaker as if the mixing engineer has overcompensate the balance, maybe due to the surround speakers not being calibrated correctly to play equally as loud as the front speakers. I'm not sure, but that's my theory (if it's not my system that has a mismatched balance).
Are your surround speakers positioned at close to Dolby's recommended angles? (They now recommend surrounds to be directly to the side, or just slightly back). If they are too far behind you I guess that could end up sounding different to the mixer's intent.
Source: https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/ab...er-placement/7_1_4_overhead_speaker_setup.pdf
Last edited:
I have my surround channel positioned as Dolby recommends them to be placed using a 5.1 system. I would guess that should give me a correct rendition when the Atmos renderer downmixes to a 5.1 system.
I thought you made an interesting point, so this evening I did some critical listening to a few tracks first with my system set 9.x (with wides) and then 7.x (no wides). What I found that newer recordings (i.e. albums recorded with an awareness of Atmos) matched your observations. When switching to 7.x from 9.x, objects that were in the wides are divided between the fronts and surrounds to simulate an expanded soundstage. On the other hand, older recordings (remixes) seemed mostly to collapse what was in the wides to the front L/C/R speakers. Where the mix attempted to create a phantom width, the results were okay, but nothing compared to having physical width speakers. Also, removing the width speakers affected other aspects of the mix because those objects are being blended into the rest, I suppose.
Here are the particulars of what I compared, in case of interest. These were all blu ray discs. I do not subscribe to streaming services and I wouldn't know if they have the same versions.
Mark Knopfler - One Deep River - 1st track Two Pairs of Hands. This is a lovely front-centric mix. The widths get the lead guitar (and perhaps some ambience). Changing configuration to 7.x moves the lead guitar object to both the fronts and side surrounds simulating the widths, and it is fairly effective, though not at all the same, because the guitar is no longer locked to the widths, accordingly if you change your position, turn your head, etc. it loses effectiveness.
Yello - Point - 1st track Waba Duba. This is a very dense, complex recording. There is a lot of action in the width speakers, but it moves fast. Switching to 7.x, what was in the widths seems to end up in the surrounds, but things move so fast, I might be mistaken. As above, physical widths make for a much better listening experience. This recordings uses all of your speakers.
REM - Automatic for the People - 1st track Drive. The widths get (most prominently) the acoustic guitar. Switching to 7.x collapses what was in the widths to the fronts. Maybe because this is an older recording remixed?
XTC - Big Express - 1st track Wake Up. Widths get the lead vocals. Switching to 7.x, as with the REM, what was in the widths collapses to the fronts. Another older recording. In the case of the XTC and REM, without the widths, the mix loses a lot.
DavidMcRoy
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2018
- Messages
- 742
- Likes
- 1,314
Dolby Atmos is a useful and potentially successful tool. How it's used and our personal artistic preferences are another matter. Sound people in the movie industry have a different job and take a different path when it comes to mixing decisions vs. music industry engineers. The movie people are mostly farther along on the learning curve, probably because of decades of experience with surround sound in general. Lots of Dolby Atmos-for-video work is superb, but the music-only mixes somewhat less so as a group. I would give it time.
Andysu
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2019
- Messages
- 4,586
- Likes
- 2,541
i have a top secret experimental idea that can be re-wired , re-plugged into the b-chain took me less than half minute to do some of the calculations
this would be experimental
the other half of it would be , yes interesting
this again would be experimental
it would still have the other part of it that i use
this again would be experimental
it would have a below ( laying on floor or in-floor would be preferably best ) to middle to above ceiling mounted
yes i think some mixes may or may not depends on the sound and the on-screen sound ( that is visually seen ) would match the sound/visual continuity ( of course blindfold one wouldn't notice )
the upmixer what that usually does with 5.1 - 6.1 - 7.1 mixes is
dolby dsu typically using some form of dolby pro-logic IIx and ether using the side surround signal or rear back signal to disguise or filter/mask the effect , ( need trained ear/mind but can tell as there usually is hint of signal comes from front left/right stereo ) that then is spread across all 2 speakers , or 4 speakers or 6 speakers of the same side to side stereo , no forward backwards motion panning is done here ( that is only when an atmos mix is present ) there is a filter in the dsu as the low frequencies don't usually go that low ( expect for an atmos mix which would be typically 5Hz to 20KHz )
dts neural x its matrix decoder from what i can tell uses the surround signal fed into its matrix decoder , but i can often spot a fraction tiny its takes a good trained listening ear a slip of front signal that appears to be blocked or filtered , but it is the surround signal that again must be going though a dts matrix decoder , could be the side surround or rear back decoders signal ? ether way it uses the surround signal
it is a bit of cheat these upmixers and no its not an an upmixer just because it's up on the ceiling doesn't mean its an upmixer
these matrix decoders are rather bare bones , i could do it far , far diy better than what manufactures are telling us
use a cheap 2nd avr with all the trimmings , Dolby pro-logic IIx and doing a special wiring , so you use the main AVR/AVP and send outputs to the inputs RCA L R , its a sort of what wiring/speakers goes where ? but the end result will be far , far better than dolby's own dsu and dts neural x
x3 of the same AVR 2nd , that has 8 ch inputs , rca outputs that can be used , or internal amplifiers that can power the existing overhead and additional of same speakers placed on ceiling and maybe some lower down the sidewalls or and some on-floor or in-floor
most know how to do this ( like myself as well ) others would be clueless ? they just like to be controlled by dolby labs
and as for the other thing that is a bit complex there are some , asr here that may find this too much complex for them , but its just extra AVR's and wiring and looking at the current present diagrams and expanding on it ( which of course should have been done 14 years ago )
this would be experimental
the other half of it would be , yes interesting
this again would be experimental
it would still have the other part of it that i use
this again would be experimental
it would have a below ( laying on floor or in-floor would be preferably best ) to middle to above ceiling mounted
yes i think some mixes may or may not depends on the sound and the on-screen sound ( that is visually seen ) would match the sound/visual continuity ( of course blindfold one wouldn't notice )
the upmixer what that usually does with 5.1 - 6.1 - 7.1 mixes is
dolby dsu typically using some form of dolby pro-logic IIx and ether using the side surround signal or rear back signal to disguise or filter/mask the effect , ( need trained ear/mind but can tell as there usually is hint of signal comes from front left/right stereo ) that then is spread across all 2 speakers , or 4 speakers or 6 speakers of the same side to side stereo , no forward backwards motion panning is done here ( that is only when an atmos mix is present ) there is a filter in the dsu as the low frequencies don't usually go that low ( expect for an atmos mix which would be typically 5Hz to 20KHz )
dts neural x its matrix decoder from what i can tell uses the surround signal fed into its matrix decoder , but i can often spot a fraction tiny its takes a good trained listening ear a slip of front signal that appears to be blocked or filtered , but it is the surround signal that again must be going though a dts matrix decoder , could be the side surround or rear back decoders signal ? ether way it uses the surround signal
it is a bit of cheat these upmixers and no its not an an upmixer just because it's up on the ceiling doesn't mean its an upmixer
these matrix decoders are rather bare bones , i could do it far , far diy better than what manufactures are telling us
use a cheap 2nd avr with all the trimmings , Dolby pro-logic IIx and doing a special wiring , so you use the main AVR/AVP and send outputs to the inputs RCA L R , its a sort of what wiring/speakers goes where ? but the end result will be far , far better than dolby's own dsu and dts neural x
x3 of the same AVR 2nd , that has 8 ch inputs , rca outputs that can be used , or internal amplifiers that can power the existing overhead and additional of same speakers placed on ceiling and maybe some lower down the sidewalls or and some on-floor or in-floor
most know how to do this ( like myself as well ) others would be clueless ? they just like to be controlled by dolby labs
and as for the other thing that is a bit complex there are some , asr here that may find this too much complex for them , but its just extra AVR's and wiring and looking at the current present diagrams and expanding on it ( which of course should have been done 14 years ago )
You have developed a non-standard upmixing scheme using a second AVR and custom wiring to circumvent the limitations of Dolby DSU and DTS Neural:X. The idea is to control the signal distribution to ceiling, side, and floor speakers yourself, achieving a more accurate soundstage than standard algorithms allow. This is an experimental but logical approach that, when implemented correctly, can yield better results than proprietary solutions.
Impactful and energetic? No!
What has been ignored is dynamic range in stereo music, engineered for radio and/or the standard, terrible ear buds provided with ipods/mobile phones. That is not energy, its fatigue!
The same applies across all music, whether stereo or surround/atmos: some is well produced, some isn't.
Bobby Bass
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2024
- Messages
- 9
- Likes
- 12
I have been streaming Dolby Atmos mixes on Apple Music through my Sonos system and it sounds the same as Atmos Blurays. Not sure if it’s true atmos since it’s an Arc Ultra soundbar with a pair of Era 300s satellites and a sub 4 but it sounds great and immersive. Unfortunately Apple Music won’t play atmos mixes on my main surround sound setup using Heos. Only 2 channel stereo. I like switching back and forth between listening to atmos mixes and then other stereo mixes with my 2.2 system. Love how new technology has helped keep this hobby interesting for over 50 years. It’s been a fun run since playing 45s on my 1st box turntable.
phoenixdogfan
Major Contributor
I think the biggest problem with Dolby Atmos is the mixes. In almost every case, the height information is just an afterthought added sporadically, rather than a constant and continuous part of the sound field from beginning to end. And I think there will be little reason for content creators to change this as long as Atmos systems are rarities out in the wild. And their rarity of course ties to their need for a devoted home theater space for the layout, and the expense of creating it. I think it's fair to say the Atmos segment of the Home Theater Market is relatively small.
That could be remedied by the equipment providers and the codec overlords doing some things to make it less expensive and obtrusive. Smaller, less expensive speakers, particularly height speakers would help. Perhaps something so small it could live on a telescoping pole which is only raised to its full height when in use. And so would providing something other than ginormous AV receivers costing thousands of dollars. If Atmos content could be decoded on a small fanless PC running Fubar or JRiver and sourced from Netflix, Prime, or even from a digital rental store, that would be a way to cut way down on the cost and expense of ATMOS, DTS-X, and Auro 3D. Finally cheap chip amps would also lower the cost of multiple channels, maybe making it possible to have an ATMOS movie night twice a week or so in a living room or family space that is employed for other uses most of the time.
And if nothing is done? Atmos becomes the province of the newly well-to-do living in McMansions with "man caves" in the exurbs. There are a few of those people, but not nearly enough to have Atmos catch on the big way High Definition TV caught on 20 years ago.
That could be remedied by the equipment providers and the codec overlords doing some things to make it less expensive and obtrusive. Smaller, less expensive speakers, particularly height speakers would help. Perhaps something so small it could live on a telescoping pole which is only raised to its full height when in use. And so would providing something other than ginormous AV receivers costing thousands of dollars. If Atmos content could be decoded on a small fanless PC running Fubar or JRiver and sourced from Netflix, Prime, or even from a digital rental store, that would be a way to cut way down on the cost and expense of ATMOS, DTS-X, and Auro 3D. Finally cheap chip amps would also lower the cost of multiple channels, maybe making it possible to have an ATMOS movie night twice a week or so in a living room or family space that is employed for other uses most of the time.
And if nothing is done? Atmos becomes the province of the newly well-to-do living in McMansions with "man caves" in the exurbs. There are a few of those people, but not nearly enough to have Atmos catch on the big way High Definition TV caught on 20 years ago.
Last edited:
If your AVR display says 'Atmos' when you play those streams, then it is Atmos, being downmixed by your AVR.
To play Apple Music Atmos/'Spatial Audio' mixes on your main setup, connect an Apple TV box to your AVR ?
Height speakers don't have to be expensive (or big). They are unlikely to have to play any low frequency content.
You could try this using, say, Pyle mini cubes
Most listeners don't resort to PCs as front ends, and probably find them more complex to set up and use than an AVR. And of course you lose all the features like calibration and room DSP and upmixing, that AVRs offer, unless you get way into the PC weeds.
phoenixdogfan
Major Contributor
J River offers all that stuff for the legacy codecs (PEQ, Bass management, calibration) and Dirac for PC is far more powerful on a PC than a receiver. Would there be a learning curve? Sure, but there's been a leaning curve for this tech, and somehow it's become mass market anyway. PC as receiver would be no exception--particularly when people realized how much cheaper it would be.
masterhw
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2024
- Messages
- 404
- Likes
- 623
I think you misunderstand, they were suggesting that the form of AVRs is a relic of the past and could use changing. Something like a miniDSP Flex HT, or a WiiM could serve much of the same purpose at a fraction of the size and cost.
10PSPMemSticksForMiku2007
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2024
- Messages
- 74
- Likes
- 64
I would prefer to have Atmos decoding on PC, but we also need affordable 16+ channel interfaces and compatible software. Right now Atmos is a completely separate system that the PC can not touch, can not even adjust the volume, only send it to the AVR.
PCM output for normal PC media software and games is just 8 channels. This really needs to change. Not a problem on Mac but Mac doesn't have games.
Any AVR is going to have less DSP capability than a 10 year old PC so I'm really not interested in paying more for the AVR than the computer only to decode a proprietary format. I would also have to give up the bi-amped DSP speaker setup I have with EqualizerAPO. It is not a technical limitation, it is rent-seeking. Although I'd prefer an open source format take over, I'd be willing to pay 100 bucks for a software Atmos decoder. A thousand for an AVR I dont need, no.
PCM output for normal PC media software and games is just 8 channels. This really needs to change. Not a problem on Mac but Mac doesn't have games.
Any AVR is going to have less DSP capability than a 10 year old PC so I'm really not interested in paying more for the AVR than the computer only to decode a proprietary format. I would also have to give up the bi-amped DSP speaker setup I have with EqualizerAPO. It is not a technical limitation, it is rent-seeking. Although I'd prefer an open source format take over, I'd be willing to pay 100 bucks for a software Atmos decoder. A thousand for an AVR I dont need, no.
Similar threads
