Jump to content
  • austinpop
    austinpop

    My Visit to Audiophile Style HQ — Another Take on Immersive vs. 2ch Audio

     

     

    Audio: Listen to this article.

     

     

    My Visit to Audiophile Style HQ — Another Take on Immersive vs. 2ch Audio


    Rajiv Arora

     


    I have been wanting to visit @The Computer Audiophile Chris’s audio lair for several years, but it was only recently that the stars actually aligned, and I got to spend a full and enjoyable day there, listening to his epic immersive system.


    It’s great enough to visit a 2-channel system of this caliber, with Wilson Alexia V speakers, Constellation Audio preamp and monoblocks, and DACs like the EMM DV2 and the T+A DAC-200, but once you add in the all-Wilson 7.1.4 speakers and the other goodies that Chris has installed, and been writing about this past year, we enter uncharted territory! I’m not sure how many other immersive audio-only systems of this caliber are out there in the wild. I suspect Chris’s system is one of a kind, so I was very excited and curious to experience it. 

     


    The Room


    I’ve seen pictures of Chris’s room in his articles, but being there in person makes you realize that it is a challenging space. Golden ratio, it ain’t. As he described in a series of articles some years ago, Chris put a lot of work into room treatments and room correction EQ, so I would be hearing the benefit of all his efforts. First, some pictures.
     

     

    image3.jpg

     

    The gorgeous Wison Alexia V’s, with a Watch center channel speaker standing guard, ready for immersive duty!


      

     

    image8.jpg

     

    The side, rear, and ceiling Wilson Alida speakers and room layout. In the distance, a rare glimpse of the reclusive Computer Audiophile, in his natural habitat. 

     

     


    image5.jpg

     

    Goodies lined up (left to right): Constellation monoblock, preamp, EMM and T+A DACs, Merging HAPI DAC, Brooklyn surround amps, Wilson Lōkē sub, and a Wilson Alida surround speaker. The full system list is maintained here: https://audiophile.style/system

     


    Listening Impressions


    Effectiveness of room treatments and EQ


    We started the day with me seated in the listening chair, and Chris playing me some of his favorite tracks. This wasn’t critical listening, it was just for me to acclimate to the environment, the room, and the equipment. We played a mix of Atmos, other surround formats, and 2ch music.


    From the get go, I was struck by how much better the sound quality I was hearing was compared to what I was expecting from the look of the space. The Wilson Alexia’s are one of my favorite speakers. While I had not heard the V’s before, I immediately heard the excellent instrument placement. Tonally, the sound was just stellar, sounding very natural and organic. Bass was deep and impactful, without any boominess or obvious room modes.


    In the time domain, transients were crisp and fast, with no hint of smearing from excessive reverb. I’m no expert on evaluating rooms, but one of the things I listen for in any setup is the front to back depth of the soundstage. Especially on the 2-channel orchestral tracks (more on this later), Chris’s setup had this in spades. The extent to which I could hear the positioning of instrument groups from front to back was really fantastic. It is one of the most important aspects of imaging and listening satisfaction for me.

     


    Immersive Music Listening


    Once I’d familiarized myself with the sonics of the system and the space, it was time for the main event: listening to immersive music. We broke this session up into 3 sections: first we listened to lossy Atmos music from Apple Music, then lossless TrueHD Atmos, encoded at 24/48, and finally some lossless DXD (24/352.8) discrete immersive tracks from the 2L label.


    The lossy Atmos session was perhaps the most realistic gauge of the typical immersive music experience, as this is the format where the largest amount of actual music is available, and the format delivered by Apple Music. Perhaps not surprisingly, this experience ranged from ho-hum to sublime. 


    image2.jpgIn the latter category, Chris fired up Elton John’s Rocket Man. While not something I listen to very often, this song is intensely familiar to me and, I suspect, half the humans on the planet. The track starts off fairly conventionally. Elton John and his piano are portrayed very nicely up in front. But what immediately grabbed me was the ambience, and sense of space. As the track builds, other instruments emerge from around you, but my jaw dropped at the first crescendo around the 1 min mark, when the chorus kicks in from behind. The sense of envelopment, of being surrounded by the players was quite intoxicating. Not to mention the vertical sounds of the actual rockets. I could tell from Chris’s knowing smirk that he’d demoed this many times before, and yeah – it was impressive!  
      

    image7.jpgOther tracks were not as impressive. I fired up Blomstedt’s recent release of the Schubert 8th and 9th. This has quickly become one of my favorite versions of these symphonies. On the lossy Atmos mix, I heard a mix of good and bad. The good was – again – an increase in ambience, a sense of spaciousness that transcended the physical listening room. That is something the 2ch mix does not do as well. The bad was a noticeable loss of resolution. Transients were smeared, instruments were hard to disambiguate, massed violins sounder like a homogenous blob. Perhaps the most disappointing was a lack of front to back depth in the sound stage. It seemed like the Atmos mix was rendering ambience very well, but not necessarily enhancing the soundstage in the way I would have valued. Well, perhaps this was an artifact of compression.
      

    image1.jpgWe then moved to a collection of lossless mixes that Chris had on his local storage. We fired up another of our favorites, Esa-Pekka Salonen and the LA Philharmonic’s rendition of the Rite of Spring on DG. Ah, this was better. Gone were those smearing effects from compression. Transients were nice and crisp, and the soundscape was expansive and detailed. However, here again, I felt I was trading off ambience for soundstage depth. The sense of being present in the hall was really quite impressive. But the soundstage depth was not particularly deep. There was a foreshortening going on, while on the other hand, I got a much more palpable sense of my surroundings, and of the hall. But these are not things I value quite as much.


    Finally, Chris fired up a demo track from 2L that was 12 channel DXD. Unfortunately, my notes don’t record the name of the piece, but it doesn’t matter, as it was up to the best standards of 2L recordings. This was a truly impressive experience, because the mix placed the listener in the center of the action. To have well-recorded music reproduced at full resolution all around me was quite spectacular. I wish my visit had occurred after Chris had received the 5.1.4 DXD version of 2L’s Magnificat, which is by far my favorite 2L recording. I’m sure a 10-ch DXD rendition of this amazing album must be a real treat on this system.

     


    2-channel Listening


    As much as I would have liked to spend the whole day with immersive music, our time was limited before Chris’s parental duties kicked in, so we switched to 2-channel listening, as this was a format I was more familiar with, and I wanted to try out several things on his system.

     


    Baseline with the Merging DAC


    Until now, we had been listening to 12 discrete channels where the DAC duties were being handled by the Merging HAPI MkII DAC. To recalibrate my ears, we kept this DAC in place, only this time with conventional 2ch music, playing to Alexia V’s through the Constellation pre and monoblocks. For this session, we used a selection of tracks I had brought with me, both in native resolutions, as well as upsampled to 32/16FS with PGGB-256 (see upsampling section.) These included the Schubert and Stravinsky albums mentioned earlier, as well as several others.


     Listening to the Blomstedt Schubert album in 2ch lossless 24/96 after the lossy Atmos was quite illuminating. On the one hand, the 2ch mix did not convey that sense of ambience and space that the Atmos mix did. On the other hand, soundstage depth, instrument timbre and texture were so much better on the 2ch mix.


    On the Stravinsky, we were going from the lossless Atmos mix with 24/48 resolution per channel to the 2ch 24/96 mix. This was a better indicator of what a surround mix adds without the downsides of compression. Certainly, here again, there was a loss of space and ambience, but was it a crushing loss? Not to me. My focus is on the stage, and I place the most value on how the musicians and instruments sound and are rendered.

     


    Moving up to the T+A DAC-200


    Staying in the 2ch realm, we now moved up the scale of quality and price to the T+A DAC-200 that Chris had reviewed some time ago. The original plan was to continue on to Chris’s reference EMM Labs DV2 DAC, and if I was lucky, the Rossini Apex would have arrived in time for my visit. However, that did not happen, and we even ran out of time to fire up the EMM as well. Time flies when you’re having fun! 


    Still, the T+A answered most of my questions for me, and gave me much to ponder.


    First, let me say, the DAC-200 is a very impressive DAC! It draws you in from the first note, and never puts a foot wrong. We first listened to tracks in their native resolution, using the DAC’s builtin BEZ 2 (Bezier) oversampling filter. Both Chris and I liked this filter the best of the builtin options.


    Listening to the same tracks again, the step up in quality from the Merging HAPI MkII to the DAC-200 was immediately obvious. There was a growth in the soundstage, which became deeper and more expansive. Instruments were more realistic and the overall sound was natural and organic. Now I was really hearing the Alexia V’s sing! 
      

    image6.jpgOn the title track from TOOL’s Fear Inoculum, you want to hear a deep, dense wall of sound, and this is exactly what the DAC-200 was giving us. I should mention at this point that we were running pure 2ch, without EQ or subs in the mix. They were not missed at all. The Alexia V’s were growling with aplomb, although as I write this I find myself wondering: does anything actually growl with aplomb?!


      

    image4.jpgAnother of my favorite albums is Susanna Mälkki’s BIS recording of Bartok’s Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta with the Helsinki Philharmonic. The last movement really tests a system’s ability to reproduce percussion, and on Chris’s system with the DAC-200, this was spectacular. Compared to the Merging HAPI MkII, the intricate rhythms of the celesta and the tympani were much better articulated and easy to follow, as well as being more textured and palpable.

     

     

    DSD Upsampling with HQPlayer


    As impressive as the DAC-200 was sounding on native 2ch material, we were still only driving it in 3rd gear, so to speak, as were using the inbuilt oversampling filter. As Chris’s review highlighted, the DAC-200 really scales well with upstream upsampling.


    We first tested with real-time upsampling all the test tracks to DSD256 with HQPlayer, using Chris’s preferred settings (poly-sync-gauss-long (1x), poly-sync-gauss-hires-lp (Nx), and the ASDM7ECv2 modulator). The DAC-200 has dedicated PCM and DSD pipelines, and in keeping with previous T+A DACs, the DSD pipeline uses pure 1-bit processing. In this scenario, we set the DAC-200 to the NOS2 (no oversampling) mode. Chris’s CAPS Twenty server did the heavy lifting, as upsampling PCM to DSD256 in real-time is a computing resource-intensive operation.


    Technicalities aside, the upsampled DSD256 tracks supplied another large step up in sound quality. The sound was more lustrous and refined, with excellent bass heft. There was a real sense of space and ease, as if the music had been freed and allowed to breathe. Another word that kept coming to mind is natural. Just lovely.

     


    PCM Upsampling to 32/16FS with PGGB-256


    The DAC-200’s PCM pipeline also scales very well, and we exploited this by playing the same demo tracks, this time pre-usampled to 32/16FS (705.6k or 768k) using the latest PGGB-256. In this scenario too, the DAC-200 is configured in NOS2 mode, and PGGB-256 is doing the upsampling to 16FS in software. The mechanics here are different, as all the heavy computational work is done ahead of time, and offline, so playback is as lightweight as native files. It does mean the playback files are very large uncompressed WAV files.


    These upsampled PGGB-256 files were the highlight of the day! Compared to the native files, the improvement was huge. All the refinement and luster we heard going up to DSD256 with HQPlayer was now accompanied by an increase in transparency. Instruments snapped into focus, and on the Bartok track, for example, the texture and articulation, the leading edges, of the percussion strokes was extraordinary.


    Comparing the PGGB-256 Stravinsky 2ch mix on the DAC-200 to the lossless 24/48 12-channel Atmos mix on the Merging HAPI MkII really distilled the immersive vs. 2ch question. One the one hand, the Atmos mix enveloped you with the ambience of the venue, and the sense of being there. On the other hand, the sheer SQ from PGGB-256 and the DAC-200 on the 2-channel mix, especially in the soundstage depth and instrument realism, was just more compelling for me!


    What an amazing day of listening this was.

     


    Reflections on what I heard


    Fortunately for me, my visit to AS HQ allowed me to hear both what a state of the art immersive sound system is capable of, as well as what a well-set-up world-class 2-channel system can sound like. Being able to experience both these aspects of music listening in a single day was an incredible experience!


    For certain genres, and for certain mixes, experiencing immersive audio of this quality takes you into a new realm, from which there is no going back. Mixes like Elton John and the 2L Atmos DXD have to be experienced to be believed. Genres like rock, pop, jazz, and even chamber music can sound incredible with the right mix, that palpably places you in the performance space, in a way that 2ch stereo just cannot.


    For orchestral symphonic music though, a different equation applies. I found the 2ch mixes to be more compelling, as they allowed for the use of an even better DAC. And what this supplies you is an increase in instrument realism, placement, and timbre, and expanding the soundstage in the dimension that really matters: depth. What I was hearing on the 2ch PGGB-256 upsampled mixes of the Stravinsky and the Schubert, played back on the T+A DAC-200 was far more compelling (to me) than the Atmos mixes played back on the Merging HAPI MkII.


    This of course begs the question: could you get the best of both worlds with an array of 6 DAC-200’s (or Rossini Apexes!) to handle the 12 channels of an Atmos mix? Maybe so, but this starts to become a very costly endeavor indeed!


    But let’s go back to the key point of difference between genres. For orchestral classical music, the dimension I care about the most is the width, height, and depth of the soundstage. That last dimension (depth) is not the dimension that Atmos, or surround mixes in general, addresses. Immersive music formats tackle the listening space from front to back, and use DSP to render sounds emanating from the sides, rear, and above with great precision.


    But with classical orchestral music, what is of interest is the soundstage in front of the listener, including the space behind the plane of the front speakers. The physical 7.1.4 speaker layout does nothing to address this space. It is still left up to the mix and the electronics to convey this depth in the best way they are able.


    Why is that? I wonder if a surround format could be devised where the forward soundstage depth could be enhanced by front depth speakers. Instead of adding even more channels, could we achieve this by redefining the existing speaker count? Are “side” speakers really necessary? As a classical listener, I would gladly give these up if they could be used instead to enhance stage depth.

     


    Summary


    I finally managed to get out to Minneapolis to experience Chris’s setup, and I feel very fortunate that I was able to experience it. Excellent lossless Atmos mixes on a world-class immersive sound system can be a transformative experience, and it certainly had a profound impact on me!


    Is this a path I would pursue? Without having experienced a system like Chris’s, I wouldn’t have known how to answer that question. Now, I know and the answer is no. But my reasons are highly personal, and relate to what I like to listen to, which 90+% of the time is orchestral classical music. Your mileage may vary!

     

     

     

     

     


    About the Author


    rajiv.jpgRajiv Arora — a.k.a. @austinpop — is both a computer geek and a lifelong audiophile. He doesn’t work much, but when he does, it’s as a consultant in the computer industry. Having retired from a corporate career as a researcher, technologist and executive, he now combines his passion for music and audio gear with his computer skills and his love of writing to author reviews and articles about high-end audio.


    He  has "a special set of skills" that help him bring technical perspective to the audio hobby. No, they do not involve kicking criminal ass in exotic foreign locales! Starting with his Ph.D. research on computer networks, and extending over his professional career, his area of expertise is the performance and scalability of distributed computing systems. Tuning and optimization are in his blood. He is guided by the scientific method and robust experimental design. That said, he trusts his ears, and how a system or component sounds is always the final determinant in his findings. He does not need every audio effect to be measurable, as long as it is consistently audible.
     
    Finally, he believes in integrity, honesty, civility and community, and this is what he strives to bring to every interaction, both as an author and as a forum contributor.




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    20 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

     

    The question was who was conducting the fragments of Mahler's piece in the movie soundtrack. I'm probably old-fashioned, but to me the conductor and the performance of the symphony are more important than the format in which the sound is delivered.

    ?? It’s a movie!  No idea who actually conducted those snippets. And that was not at all my point. I was pointing out that the way they captured the orchestra in Dolby Atmos was very cool, and I dreamed that an entire performance would be an immersive treat. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, ted_b said:

    ?? It’s a movie!  No idea who actually conducted those snippets. And that was not at all my point. I was pointing out that the way they captured the orchestra in Dolby Atmos was very cool, and I dreamed that an entire performance would be an immersive treat. 

     

    I thought that even in the movies it would be nice to hear a performance of Mahler's symphony in a fine interpretation. By the way, more than once I've heard music performed by great conductors, singers, etc., in movies. I didn't pay attention to whether it was in Dolby or something else, my attention was captured by other things.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, RichardSF said:

    I listened to the text-to-speech player at the top of the article, and had to laugh whenever the 2L record label came up, the voice would say "2 liter recording". It makes perfect sense for a text-to-speech translator to do this, but sometimes you get these priceless nuggets of humor.

    That is a good one 🤣

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 hours ago, Nikhil said:

    am I the only one on here that has been completely in the dark about PGGB-256

    There's a whole giant thread about it, have you not seen it?  

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Next time it would interesting to see how lossless 5.1 fits in, for instance with the BIS Bartok mentioned. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks to Rajiv for your great article and to Chris for facilitating it.

     

    I’ve been immersing myself in the QuadraphonicQuad forum, which Chris provided a link to in one of his articles.

     

    https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/

     

    It’s been quite an education as to what people’s expectations are from Multi-channel systems, commencing with Quad up to full Atmos, 7.1.4

     

    I started adding a lot of music to my Apple Music library linked to from this forum.

     

    Beginning with the thread on Dolby Audio (non-Atmos), Quadraphonic and 5.1 Albums, that can also be found on Apple Music. I then moved onto the thread on Dolby Atmos, which can be found on Apple Music, Tidal and Amazon. (All in lossy formats).

     

    https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/music-streaming-on-apple-music-in-5-1-dolby-audio.31315/

     

    https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/listening-to-in-dolby-atmos-streaming-via-tidal-apple-amazon.31491/

     

    Of the three services, Apple is the only one which doesn’t limit you to specific hardware for decoding Atmos. On MacOS, I use the steps detailed in an earlier article by Chris, which makes use of the MacOS decoding and mapping of Atmos to 5.1.2. I then play these through HQPlayer via BlackHole to my 5.1 system.

     

    I agree with Rajiv when he says the effectiveness of Atmos/Multi-channel is very much dependant on the mix.

     

    From the QuadraphonicQuad forum I would identify three main categories of multi-channel mix which we encounter as…

     

    1/ Discrete = Different instruments/groups of instruments imerge from each speaker. In some cases this might even include the height speakers.

     

    (To have the main voice/instrument exclusively in the center channel though, is not considered desriable by most commentators. The main voice/instrrument should, at least, be spread to the main front left and right channels in some way.) I agree. Otherwise it’s too “discrete” in an artificial way.

     

    2/ Ambient = The mix uses the rear/side and height channels for Ambience only. I would call this a “conservative” mix.

     

    3/ Discreet = Specific instruments/voices appear in more than one speaker; but are not the same signal. For example a trumpet might appear in the front right channel, and also imerge from the back right channel. The information from the right back channel is different; it is not merely a copy of the front channgel to the back.

     

    Discreet for me is exciting in a musically enhancing way. As distinct from “lazy” or “conservative” mixes. See below.

     

    I really don’t know how the 3rd category of mixes are achieved, whereby the sound of an instrument is somehow shared between front and other channels. When done right this is the most convincing category of mix for me, because the instrument appears to project forward into the room towards me, in a way I hear live. I can also imagine how the height and side channels could further enhance this effect.

     

    The benefit of this is not limited to any particular genre.

     

    There could also be 4th and 5th categories of mixes, whereby the other channels appear to be simply “copy and paste jobs” of the main stereo speaker signals. Or even worse the “mix” might have been produced via some automatic computed process from an original stereo mix. Whether such mixes actually exist on Apple Music, I don’t know. They seem to be mainly unprovable suspicions by some commentators.  Apple apparently stipulated that only specifically created Atmos mixes should be submitted to them. The question is; how strictly can that actually be enforced?

     

    On QuadraphonicQuad, I get the impression the general consensus is to favour “discrete” mixes, whereby different instruments appear in different channels. This certainly can be exciting. I have to admit that, although I was not keen on this kind of mix to begin with, I have been enjoying some of the original Quadraphonic mixes from the 70’s which are in Dolby Audio on Apple Music. Specifically the Temptations and Isley Brothers albums.

     

    It seemed to be a case of; “we’ve got 4 channels now, and we’re gonna use ‘em”.

     

    The reason for Stereo in the first place was for greater instrument separation, further enhanced by using mono-blocks and dual mono everything, wherever possible, when it comes to the electronics.

     

    There are musically valid reasons for doing this, because they allow us to better following the individial contributions of different musicians.

     

    On the other hand, although I’ve been to many concerts in my time, I haven’t been to too many where some musicians were playing from behind me, let alone dangling from the ceiling (there have been a few).

     

    I worry that too much push for these kinds of “ultra discrete” mixes could lead to a “give the people what they want” approach, and result in a lot of very gimmicky/artificial mixes. They may have their place; but I would agree that  it could be dependant on certain genres.

     

    So my preferred approach is the third category above, which really seems to enhance the sense of natural sound projection/propogation into my room.

     

    The problem is, in some people’s minds, there could be a grey area between this and so called “lazy” mixes where the stereo channels appear to have just been copied into other channels, or “conservative” mixes where only ambiance appears in channels, apart from the main front channels. How effective particular mixes are will, of course, come down to individual perceptions and the systems being used for playback.

     

     

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 4/2/2023 at 12:50 PM, firedog said:

    There's a whole giant thread about it, have you not seen it?  

     

    I found it afterwards but thanks again for the link.

     

     

    .

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, Geoffrey Armstrong said:

    Thanks to Rajiv for your great article and to Chris for facilitating it.

     

    I’ve been immersing myself in the QuadraphonicQuad forum, which Chris provided a link to in one of his articles.

     

    https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/

     

    It’s been quite an education as to what people’s expectations are from Multi-channel systems, commencing with Quad up to full Atmos, 7.1.4

     

    I started adding a lot of music to my Apple Music library linked to from this forum.

     

    Beginning with the thread on Dolby Audio (non-Atmos), Quadraphonic and 5.1 Albums, that can also be found on Apple Music. I then moved onto the thread on Dolby Atmos, which can be found on Apple Music, Tidal and Amazon. (All in lossy formats).

     

    https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/music-streaming-on-apple-music-in-5-1-dolby-audio.31315/

     

    https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/listening-to-in-dolby-atmos-streaming-via-tidal-apple-amazon.31491/

     

    Of the three services, Apple is the only one which doesn’t limit you to specific hardware for decoding Atmos. On MacOS, I use the steps detailed in an earlier article by Chris, which makes use of the MacOS decoding and mapping of Atmos to 5.1.2. I then play these through HQPlayer via BlackHole to my 5.1 system.

     

    I agree with Rajiv when he says the effectiveness of Atmos/Multi-channel is very much dependant on the mix.

     

    From the QuadraphonicQuad forum I would identify three main categories of multi-channel mix which we encounter as…

     

    1/ Discrete = Different instruments/groups of instruments imerge from each speaker. In some cases this might even include the height speakers.

     

    (To have the main voice/instrument exclusively in the center channel though, is not considered desriable by most commentators. The main voice/instrrument should, at least, be spread to the main front left and right channels in some way.) I agree. Otherwise it’s too “discrete” in an artificial way.

     

    2/ Ambient = The mix uses the rear/side and height channels for Ambience only. I would call this a “conservative” mix.

     

    3/ Discreet = Specific instruments/voices appear in more than one speaker; but are not the same signal. For example a trumpet might appear in the front right channel, and also imerge from the back right channel. The information from the right back channel is different; it is not merely a copy of the front channgel to the back.

     

    Discreet for me is exciting in a musically enhancing way. As distinct from “lazy” or “conservative” mixes. See below.

     

    I really don’t know how the 3rd category of mixes are achieved, whereby the sound of an instrument is somehow shared between front and other channels. When done right this is the most convincing category of mix for me, because the instrument appears to project forward into the room towards me, in a way I hear live. I can also imagine how the height and side channels could further enhance this effect.

     

    The benefit of this is not limited to any particular genre.

     

    There could also be 4th and 5th categories of mixes, whereby the other channels appear to be simply “copy and paste jobs” of the main stereo speaker signals. Or even worse the “mix” might have been produced via some automatic computed process from an original stereo mix. Whether such mixes actually exist on Apple Music, I don’t know. They seem to be mainly unprovable suspicions by some commentators.  Apple apparently stipulated that only specifically created Atmos mixes should be submitted to them. The question is; how strictly can that actually be enforced?

     

    On QuadraphonicQuad, I get the impression the general consensus is to favour “discrete” mixes, whereby different instruments appear in different channels. This certainly can be exciting. I have to admit that, although I was not keen on this kind of mix to begin with, I have been enjoying some of the original Quadraphonic mixes from the 70’s which are in Dolby Audio on Apple Music. Specifically the Temptations and Isley Brothers albums.

     

    It seemed to be a case of; “we’ve got 4 channels now, and we’re gonna use ‘em”.

     

    The reason for Stereo in the first place was for greater instrument separation, further enhanced by using mono-blocks and dual mono everything, wherever possible, when it comes to the electronics.

     

    There are musically valid reasons for doing this, because they allow us to better following the individial contributions of different musicians.

     

    On the other hand, although I’ve been to many concerts in my time, I haven’t been to too many where some musicians were playing from behind me, let alone dangling from the ceiling (there have been a few).

     

    I worry that too much push for these kinds of “ultra discrete” mixes could lead to a “give the people what they want” approach, and result in a lot of very gimmicky/artificial mixes. They may have their place; but I would agree that  it could be dependant on certain genres.

     

    So my preferred approach is the third category above, which really seems to enhance the sense of natural sound projection/propogation into my room.

     

    The problem is, in some people’s minds, there could be a grey area between this and so called “lazy” mixes where the stereo channels appear to have just been copied into other channels, or “conservative” mixes where only ambiance appears in channels, apart from the main front channels. How effective particular mixes are will, of course, come down to individual perceptions and the systems being used for playback.

     

     

     

     

     

    Geoffrey, I have been on the QQ forum for years, and visit and post on it daily (so do several folks here).  It's a go-to for immersive recordings.  👍

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yes, I’ve seen you on there Ted. Chris as well. I’ll post some comments there too, including thanks for all the great pointers.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    https://www.stereophile.com/content/beatles-reanimated-giles-martin-revolver-remix

     

    This is Giles Martin talking about doing an Atmos remix for Revolver.

    The most interesting part for me was that he said in order to get studio ambience, they didn't just fake it in the mix. they actually played back some of the tracks in Abbey Road studio 2 (where they were originally recorded) and re-recorded them that way for use in the atmos mix.

    Pretty interesting concept.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    53 minutes ago, firedog said:

    https://www.stereophile.com/content/beatles-reanimated-giles-martin-revolver-remix

     

    This is Giles Martin talking about doing an Atmos remix for Revolver.

    The most interesting part for me was that he said in order to get studio ambience, they didn't just fake it in the mix. they actually played back some of the tracks in Abbey Road studio 2 (where they were originally recorded) and re-recorded them that way for use in the atmos mix.

    Pretty interesting concept.

     

    Agreed this is an interesting concept and makes much more sense than landing the listening in the center of the band.  Some of my favorite stereo recordings are those with a "you are there" feeling--Muddy Waters Folk Singer, Jazz at the Pawnshop, and (new fave!) Eva Cassidy Nightbird.  Paradoxically, I'm pretty sure each of these at at the minimalist end of the spectrum wrt recording gear/technology.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    23 hours ago, Geoffrey Armstrong said:

    The reason for Stereo in the first place was for greater instrument separation,

    Certainly, many early 2-channel recordings were of the ping-pong, dual-mono variety with almost total separation of instruments little or nothing in between.  Stereo (from Greek stereos ‘solid’) was developed to fill the space between the speakers with the instruments, simulating their placement in the recording space.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, firedog said:

    https://www.stereophile.com/content/beatles-reanimated-giles-martin-revolver-remix

     

    This is Giles Martin talking about doing an Atmos remix for Revolver.

    The most interesting part for me was that he said in order to get studio ambience, they didn't just fake it in the mix. they actually played back some of the tracks in Abbey Road studio 2 (where they were originally recorded) and re-recorded them that way for use in the atmos mix.

    Pretty interesting concept.

    This is the approach often taken by recordists Jim Anderson and Ulrike Schwarz where they play their original tracks at the large studio at Skywalker Sound and capture/re-mix some of their Atmos releases. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    @austinpop, thank you for helping me understand why I have so rarely found immersive mixes of classical orchestral recordings compelling (with the oft-cited exception of some 2L releases).  

     

    In the interest of stimulating further discussion, I have listed some thoughts and questions below in response to the article and the subsequent comments:

    • One genre of classical music that was only mentioned in passing and that I have enjoyed listening to in immersive formats:  choral music (see for example 2L's Solacium performed by Trio Mediaeval and Infinity performed by Voces8).  Maybe this is one genre where the gains in spaciousness can trump the lack of forward soundstage depth?
    • I cannot agree more with @ted_bwhen he wrote:
      On 3/31/2023 at 6:05 PM, ted_b said:

      There are some that are ok, but nothing compared to what even the more conservative jazz labels like Blue Note has been able to do...let alone the magical aggressive mixes of the folks at IAN or others have done with world, jazz and electronic genres.   Even in the case of straight ahead jazz, the better immersive versions give new insight into soundstage depth, width and height.

       

      And then we get to true immersive recording, like what Morten does at 2L.  There, best heard via Auro-3D or discreet DXD wav, we have immersion built into the entire process, with player, instrument and mic placements all set up for the best immersive capture possible.

      A particular IAN release that helped me understand how transformative listening to a native immersive recording could be is Alessandro Quarta Plays Astor Piazzolla, best heard from the PureAudio Bluray disc that contains the original Auro-3D mix.  

    • @Geoffrey Armstrong, I enjoyed reading your typology of Discrete, Ambient and Discreet immersive mixes.  One way that I have tried to categorize immersive mixes is by using three basic descriptive characteristics: Separation, Spaciousness and Movement.  I have wondered whether immersive formats may actually stimulate classical composers, arrangers, performers and recording engineers to take the repertoire in new directions to deliver effects through these characteristics not currently possible with typical orchestral performances.  Two examples that I have found interesting in this respect are the track Exhalation performed by cellist Johannes Moser and Steve Reich's Electric Counterpoint performed by Mats Bergstrom.  

    • Perhaps the more important question is whether audiences will be receptive to this kind of experimentation?  When I asked an immersive mixing engineer with extensive classical experience whether he could imagine a recording of a Bach choral fugue where the individual voices were separated (front, back and height) and even moving in space, he thought that would be a step too far for most classical consumers.  But is it a gimmick if it enhances someone's ability to connect emotionally to the music?  

    • Could immersive formats help take music back to its roots?  After all, the concert hall soundstage is a product of modern, urban societies.  But music has been enjoyed throughout human history in homes, village common spaces and religious venues with performers spread out all around listeners.  I, for one, am hopeful that we are still in the very early days of discovering what the immersive format has to offer to music lovers....  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Kurvenal said:

    A particular IAN release that helped me understand how transformative listening to a native immersive recording could be is Alessandro Quarta Plays Astor Piazzolla

     

    Agree 100%

     

     

    1 hour ago, Kurvenal said:

    I have wondered whether immersive formats may actually stimulate classical composers, arrangers, performers and recording engineers to take the repertoire in new directions to deliver effects through these characteristics not currently possible with typical orchestral performances.

     

    I think this will happen for sure. Before immerive was an option, it would be like asking a composer to think of a color s/he has never seen. It's not possible. Now the tools are available to release componsers from the bounds of ear-level surround to an immersive sound field. 

     

     

    1 hour ago, Kurvenal said:

    Perhaps the more important question is whether audiences will be receptive to this kind of experimentation?  When I asked an immersive mixing engineer with extensive classical experience whether he could imagine a recording of a Bach choral fugue where the individual voices were separated (front, back and height) and even moving in space, he thought that would be a step too far for most classical consumers.  But is it a gimmick if it enhances someone's ability to connect emotionally to the music?  

     

    It may take the retirement of a few engineers who've been around the block a few times, before this is looked at differently. The younger guys I talk to are all-in on creating immersive experiences, without the baggage that experience can bring (good and bad).

     

     

    1 hour ago, Kurvenal said:

    Could immersive formats help take music back to its roots?  After all, the concert hall soundstage is a product of modern, urban societies.  But music has been enjoyed throughout human history in homes, village common spaces and religious venues with performers spread out all around listeners.  I, for one, am hopeful that we are still in the very early days of discovering what the immersive format has to offer to music lovers....  

     

    Absolutely. This is only the beginning. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm not usually a Luddite, but I can understand if to some, on this issue I come across as one! Several thoughts, as I enjoy this fantastic discussion.

     

    1 hour ago, Kurvenal said:

    After all, the concert hall soundstage is a product of modern, urban societies.

     

    For symphonic music, I am not sure what other placement would sound natural? In Ted's Tár example, yes, the perspective of the conductor might be interesting, but even then, the instruments are laid out in the semicircle (or hemisphere) in front of you, the listener (conductor).

     

    That's why I come back to this point. We have 12 speakers at our disposal. Why are none of them laid out to actually aid in soundstage depth?

     

    My second point has to do with cost. In today's world, a high-end 2-ch system worth $100k is not even that unusual. But for a classical music listener, would they find an immersive system for that same $100k to be as compelling? This is what gives me pause.

     

    Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing against the power of immersive music and formats. After all, I experienced it at Chris's. But I still think for classical music, especially symphonic music, the current 7.1.4 layout does not really serve the needs of the music.

     

    I would love to be proved wrong, and I would gladly travel to experience a demo that shows me otherwise.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I should also mention that because immersive music is in its infancy, everyone I’ve talked to in the music business has been receptive to feedback and willing to share their perspectives. Everyone feels the groundswell and is excited for many reasons. As music lovers getting in on the ground floor, we have an opportunity to show how much we care about this stuff and actually have an effect on the products. 
     

    I played some lossless TrueHD Atmos to engineers last week in a studio. The smiles on their faces told the whole story. The next questions were all about how to get more lossless Atmos. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, austinpop said:

    But I still think for classical music, especially symphonic music, the current 7.1.4 layout does not really serve the needs of the music.

    If 7.1.4 layout does not serve the need in classical music, how can 2ch stereo serve better?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Atmos is a great way to expand the perception of venue ambience to the listener. This would especially be true for music like Classical and Jazz where the listener expects a performance occurring in front of him or her.

     

    Atmos is also away to envelop the listener in the performance. This may or may not be something the listener wants. It could be disconcerting to some and exciting to others. When I was in the home theater business years ago, I tried some Dolby A 5.1 mixes as alternate demo material and some loved them and others didn’t.

     

    My personal opinion is that Atmos will find the most success in high-end automotive applications where you have a captive audience in a fixed position. I think home use will remain a  small niche due to the high cost and high complexity.

     

    Just my $00.02 worth. 

     

     

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    51 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

    If 7.1.4 layout does not serve the need in classical music, how can 2ch stereo serve better?

     

    There are no additional speakers behind the front L-C-R speakers, so how would 7.1.4 enhance soundstage depth behind the front speakers?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is the listener perspective in a classical concert. All the music is originating in front of you, but instruments are laid out on a stage that has depth. This is what you want reproduced well.

     

    SS.jpg

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...