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



    I have been asking labels as well. Frans de Rond at Sound Liaison is working on an Atmos mix of the forthcoming Carmen Gomes, Inc. release  that I hope to review.  Considering the sense of space he captures in his recordings, Atmos should sound fantastic.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 4/10/2023 at 8:00 AM, Kurvenal said:

    Is there any section on QQ forum that focuses on “native” immersive recordings with “immersion built into the entire process, with player, instrument and mic placements all set up for the best immersive capture possible” as you described in your post above?  Who else is doing this besides 2L and IAN?  Would love to find a way to promote these types of efforts since the quality of immersive remixes from archival recordings is so variable…

    No real thread per se, but the boutique labels like 2L, TRPTK, Sono Luminus, Anderson Audio NY and Aliud all have immersive setups when they record (i.e microphone tree to record all 12-16 channels incl heights/tops).  Our Native DSD website is now carrying some of their immersive releases, and will carry more soon.  And don't forget, although not live recordings, there are several artists who have composed, recorded and mixed with immersive as the target (Brian Eno, etc).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well there is, a very limited, lossless multi-channel streaming service; Qobuz! They have around 20 (classical) albums in 5.1. Even though that's only half the 12 channels required for Atmos 7.1.4, the Qobuz albums I've listened too are 192khz/24bit per channel!

     

    I don't know exactly what's going on here. Did these 20 or so albums wind up there by accident, or is it an experiment Qobuz decided to try out? Perhaps someone from Qobuz could comment?

     

    I'm guessing the attitude of Apple is, they just want something that'll work for all users. If the user chooses "Atmos Automatic", or "Alway Atmos" the user must know they can handle Atmos via Airpods or have an Atmos system. In those cases the lossy streams are not likely to fail, with some necessary buffering. Although I have seen complaints of non-gapless playback in some cases. Much better though that music doesn't break up in the middle of the track, even if gapless fails occasionally.

     

    I imagine Qobuz might be waiting for a critical mass of users to be on fibre before introducing more lossless multi-channel streams.

     

    … but why don't Qobuz and Apple make it another tier of service? For those of us who can handle the lossless streams, have the necessary hardware, and would be willing to pay a premium for lossless immersive, why not introduce it as a higher tier? After all, Apple were generous enough to provide stereo lossless and Atmos lossy, at no extra charge. I guess their philosophy though it to make their service as compelling as possible without raising the fee to get more subscribers onboard (volume).

     

    I think this proves Chris's point, that it's not a question of technical limitations.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In my experience, there is a difference between the traditional 5.1 or 5.0 or 7.1 release vs. Atmos. The Atmos has a better sense of space , of instruments placed in a soundfield vs. in a given speaker. I much prefer the Atmos experienced, assuming, of course, that the mixer is accomplished in the format.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, JoeWhip said:

    In my experience, there is a difference between the traditional 5.1 or 5.0 or 7.1 release vs. Atmos. The Atmos has a better sense of space , of instruments placed in a soundfield vs. in a given speaker. I much prefer the Atmos experienced, assuming, of course, that the mixer is accomplished in the format.

    Agreed, just as there is a step up in soundfield space, etc when going from 2.0 to 5.0 or 5.1.  I hope @austinpophas access to the myriad of natural surround 5.0 recordings that Jared (Saks) has done for Channel Classics.  They convey the sense of the venue very well, when set up correctly in your home.  However (sorry Jared) the 7.1.4 immersive technologies take this sense and make it real with that ever-so-important-but-often-snubbed third dimension.  I wonder what a good Atmos mixer could do for Jared's recordings...or more to the point, what Jared could do if he set up for it on his next recording (phone call into Jared is on my to-do list tmrw :)  ).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think the results of Jared’s catalogue would be fantastic.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    @JoeWhip said, “I much prefer the Atmos experienced, assuming, of course, that the mixer is accomplished in the format.”

     

    Yes, exactly. In the QuadraphonicQuad forum, where an album exists in both a 5.1 and Atmos mix, the 5.1 mix is sometimes preferred to the Atmos, as the 5.1 was considered a better mix.

     

    If I’ve understood Chris’s comments correctly, Atmos is always limited to 24/48, even when lossless? This is obviously an advantage for file size; but could also be a limitation in absolute quality terms when compared with a 5.1 at 192khz.

     

    We are already in the 3rd dimension with Stereo, if it can re-create depth and height. Obviously this should be further enhanced with Multichannel/Atmos.

     

    If part of the advantage of Immersive is to reproduce the reverb/reflections of the space it was  recorded in, how does the reverb of your own room come into play?

     

    With stereo you may actually like the reflections in your own room, as a substitute for the reall thing.
     

    With immersive you might be more inclined to address/suppress your rooms natural reverb?

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Geoffrey, I do not get caught up in numbers. I have too many files ant all formats to worry about 192 vs. 24/48. Well done recordings sound great whether they are redbook or high res. In some cases, they sound the same or one really has to strain to hear a difference. I can make two comparisons with 24/192 stereo and Atmos. Bob James Makin Live and John Williams and the Berlin Philharmonic. In both cases, the Atmos mix kills the 24/192 stereo mix. More open, air, detail,  dynamics, more like hearing the real thing. One other thing, films are all mixed at 24/48. No one complains in the industry that they need to be done at high resolutions. Movies are amazing on my modest HT system.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    34 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

    Geoffrey, I do not get caught up in numbers. I have too many files ant all formats to worry about 192 vs. 24/48. Well done recordings sound great whether they are redbook or high res. In some cases, they sound the same or one really has to strain to hear a difference. I can make two comparisons with 24/192 stereo and Atmos. Bob James Makin Live and John Williams and the Berlin Philharmonic. In both cases, the Atmos mix kills the 24/192 stereo mix. More open, air, detail,  dynamics, more like hearing the real thing. One other thing, films are all mixed at 24/48. No one complains in the industry that they need to be done at high resolutions. Movies are amazing on my modest HT system.

    Couldn’t agree eith you more on the Bob James Joe. Is that via Apple or a Blu-Ray rip?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Question -how does music played back using Atmos stack up against the same recording played back in DTS, SACD, or DVD-Audio multi-channel?  Is it a similar experience, or is it a different animal entirely?   I ask because the article mentioned music/voices coming from behind you (Rocket Man) during playback. 

     

    I ask because that effect in SACD/DVD-A, etc., was never something I could get used to.  To me, it didn't reflect reality.  When I listen to music live, I don't sit in front of the musicians, nor do I sit on the stage.  So, when a recording includes that effect, it never sounded natural.  

     

    Is that content presented differently in using Atmos? 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The more I thought about Rajiv’s article and the many interesting comments it has generated, the harder it was for me to shake the feeling that I was missing something fundamental about how I relate to music.  

     

    This morning I figured out the paradox that has been nagging at me.  

     

    I am a longtime fan of many genres of classical music, including symphonic orchestra performances.  I can also vouch that many immersive mixes have absolutely heightened the emotional impact of the music for me.  I should, therefore, be the perfect target consumer for immersive symphonic recordings.  Instead, I now realize that the more a conventionally produced immersive orchestral recording (with a live audience) can create a sense of what @The Immersive Frame called a “full, natural acoustic envelopment”, the more unhappy I will be as a listener.

     

    No doubt one reason that I feel this way is because I actively seek out the increased separation of instruments/performers that is possible with the fuller soundstage of immersive mixes.  I cannot put it better than @ted_b when he said the following about the IAN release “Alessandro Quarta Plays Astor Piazzolla:

     

    On 4/9/2023 at 7:29 PM, ted_b said:

    This mix is an incredible example of expanding a traditional soundstage into one where each instrument occupies a three-dimensional place in your room, not just imaging as we've known it.  The image of, say, the upright bass player takes up a large person-sized piece of real estate in space, with placement far off the typical front speaker spread.  What it's not is bombastic and gimmicky and Atmos for Atmos sake.  These folks at IAN (Stefan, etc) really know how to mix with Atmos, even when it's not an "everthing going on around you" type of mix.  And the music is great!! 

     

    So, when an immersive orchestral performance ends and I am suddenly enveloped in applause and shouts from the audience, I am filled with disappointment that the level of envelopment from the music itself pales in comparison.  Imagine the underwhelming experience you would get from watching the Berlin Philharmonic’s Digital Concert Hall if the only vantage point for the video showed the full stage taken from a distance so that the entire orchestra was always visible, without any closeups highlighting specific instrument sections or individual performers during key moments of the performance.   

     

    The disconnect is even greater for opera, where video closeups of the soloists are not matched by comparable separation of the audio.  I, for one, would embrace an immersive opera recording where I could locate voices arranged around me on the stage and at the same time be enveloped by the music of the orchestra coming at me from all sides.  Then I would not have to grit my teeth when the curtain falls, and I am for the first time truly enveloped in sound – but sound coming from the audience instead of the performers.   

     

    Immersive audio has the potential to transform a large-scale classical music production into a much more intimate experience by bringing the listener closer to individual instruments and performers.  For me, the resulting potential for heightened emotional engagement with the music is clear.  I live in hope that others feel similarly, and labels will as a result see value from introducing multiple immersive mixes of the same performance so that listeners can pick the one they prefer.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree 100% with Ted. That is what makes Atmos so appealing to me, the sense of real three dimensional instruments in real space in the room with you. For me, the orchestral concerts place you in the hall like the real experience. That perspective can be adjusted by the mixer, giving a front hall or mid hall or other perspective. The possibilities are endless.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, Kurvenal said:

    Imagine the underwhelming experience you would get from watching the Berlin Philharmonic’s Digital Concert Hall if the only vantage point for the video showed the full stage taken from a distance so that the entire orchestra was always visible, without any closeups highlighting specific instrument sections or individual performers during key moments of the performance.   

     

    That experience drives me nuts. I absolutely hate it. I would love it if it was a replication of being there. Of sitting in your seat and taking it all in from a distance,,, but no ...

     

    I have watched these Berlin videos where the camera changes every few seconds from being in the orchestra , to being above, to being behind , to being on the podium , back in the orchestra focused on an instrument for a few seconds then bounce to another angle and on and on and on and on and on and on........   IT IS MADDENING !!! How can I possibly concentrate on the music when the  image  is bouncing around constantly  like I'm watching an MTV video from the 1980s ?

     

    I can't watch it for for than a minute.

     

     

    3 hours ago, Kurvenal said:

    I live in hope that others feel similarly, and labels will as a result see value from introducing multiple immersive mixes of the same performance so that listeners can pick the one they prefer.  

     

    with that I agree.. set a camera up in a seat and leave it there

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    45 minutes ago, bbosler said:

     

    I have watched these Berlin videos where the camera changes every few seconds from being in the orchestra , to being above, to being behind , to being on the podium , back in the orchestra focused on an instrument for a few seconds then bounce to another angle and on and on and on and on and on and on........   IT IS MADDENING !!! How can I possibly concentrate on the music when the  image  is bouncing around constantly  like I'm watching an MTV video from the 1980s ?

     

     

    Agree. Most music is meant to be listened to from a certain perspective - Top of the Pops presentations work when the SQ is well down, and you have to be 'dragged somewhere' to pick up that there is something interesting going on. High quality replay means that the layering and staging is fully evident, and it's trivial to change conscious focus to some aspect of the whole - this also allows one to listen to a recording differently each time, simply by altering what you pay attention to.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 4/13/2023 at 7:12 PM, bbosler said:
    On 4/13/2023 at 3:56 PM, Kurvenal said:

    Imagine the underwhelming experience you would get from watching the Berlin Philharmonic’s Digital Concert Hall if the only vantage point for the video showed the full stage taken from a distance so that the entire orchestra was always visible, without any closeups highlighting specific instrument sections or individual performers during key moments of the performance.   

     

    That experience drives me nuts. I absolutely hate it. I would love it if it was a replication of being there. Of sitting in your seat and taking it all in from a distance,,, but no ...

     

    I have watched these Berlin videos where the camera changes every few seconds from being in the orchestra , to being above, to being behind , to being on the podium , back in the orchestra focused on an instrument for a few seconds then bounce to another angle and on and on and on and on and on and on........   IT IS MADDENING !!! How can I possibly concentrate on the music when the  image  is bouncing around constantly  like I'm watching an MTV video from the 1980s ?

    @bbosler: Agreed, the video analogy was a poor choice on my part, and I can see that for many it pushed the wrong buttons.  A classic example of how a strength (the ability to zoom in for closeups) can become a weakness if overused…  

     

    I want to go back to something @The Immersive Frame wrote in his excellent post:

    On 4/10/2023 at 4:20 PM, The Immersive Frame said:

    Classical music throughout history evolved in very different kind of rooms but very often a certain genre or type of composition is closely connected to a certain type of venue. Sacred music often is laid out in a way to embrace the long and dense reverb of large cathedrals whereas we might not so much enjoy a string quartet in a large venue with very little reflective surfaces around the ensemble, just to mention two examples. Within the orchestral repertoire itself there has been a huge development: whereas concert venues still sounded much different during Beethoven's time (rooms with a close proximity to the audience, high acoustic gain values to name a few parameters) the late romantic repertoire with huge instrument counts would never be imaginable without the appropriate spaces to accomodate them. This illustrates how closely repertoire, ensemble and the acoustics of a venue are connected. Some may even say the room is an extension of the musical instrument itself.

     

    Chamber music performed in small rooms was enjoyed by a small, aristocratic sliver of the population.  The Industrial Revolution led to the emergence of a large middle class with a hunger for musical entertainment.  The resulting mass market for the romantic repertoire is what drove the construction of large venues and the huge orchestras needed to fill them.  But this growth in scale also left most of the audience distant from the performers and straining to hear the detail of the music. 

     

    Maybe the loss of immediacy inherent in the transition from small rooms to larger ones should be considered as a bug, not a feature, in the evolution of classical music?  I therefore agree with @JoeWhip when he wrote:

     

    On 4/13/2023 at 5:32 PM, JoeWhip said:

    That is what makes Atmos so appealing to me, the sense of real three dimensional instruments in real space in the room with you. For me, the orchestral concerts place you in the hall like the real experience. That perspective can be adjusted by the mixer, giving a front hall or mid hall or other perspective. The possibilities are endless.

     

    Glenn Gould triggered a lot of antibodies when he started performing Bach on the piano.  I can still get pleasure out of listening to The Goldberg Variations played on a harpsichord, but my level of emotional engagement is much higher listening to thoughtful interpretations of exactly the same music on a piano.  I will therefore default to a piano version even though Bach did not compose the piece with that instrument in mind.  

     

    Similarly, I think fully immersive recordings have the potential to transform listening to orchestral music by creating a much more vivid sense of immediacy from previously unimaginable listener perspectives very different from the more conventional approaches employed on most orchestral recordings today.  

     

    If we now have access to a potential fix, why not use it instead of continuing to replicate the bug?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 4/13/2023 at 7:12 PM, bbosler said:

     

    That experience drives me nuts. I absolutely hate it. I would love it if it was a replication of being there. Of sitting in your seat and taking it all in from a distance,,, but no ...

     

    I have watched these Berlin videos where the camera changes every few seconds from being in the orchestra , to being above, to being behind , to being on the podium , back in the orchestra focused on an instrument for a few seconds then bounce to another angle and on and on and on and on and on and on........   IT IS MADDENING !!! How can I possibly concentrate on the music when the  image  is bouncing around constantly  like I'm watching an MTV video from the 1980s ?

     

    I can't watch it for for than a minute.

     

     

     

    with that I agree.. set a camera up in a seat and leave it there

    ...whereas I would go absolutely INSANE with the "camera in a seat" approach.  I very much appreciate the close ups of the musicians, the varying sightlines, etc.  

     

    Interesting how we can see the same thing SO differently.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, jhwalker said:

     I very much appreciate the close ups of the musicians, the varying sightlines, etc.  

     

    Interesting how we can see the same thing SO differently.

     

    I just tried to watch the Bellin Philharmonic perform Beethoven's 3rd. It isn't the variation, it is the fact that it changes every few seconds. If they switched to focus on a soloist or a section that was taking the lead that is one thing, but they don't.

     

    In 1 minute the camera changed 11 times... that's about every 5 seconds. Sometimes they switch after 1 -2 seconds.They just bounce around. I'm glad you enjoy it. 

     

    Once you notice it you can't un-notice it. I will just resign myself to going to our local symphony and sitting in my seat. And I've beaten that dead horse enough so I will move on.. we're off topic anyway, it is supposed to be immersive audio, not video

     

    Beating A Dead Horse GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I just listened to an immersive orchestral recording of Zubin Mehta and the Munich Philharmonic that for me was qualitatively different from many others I have heard on Apple Music.  Much more enveloping and I could hear all the different instruments and sections of the orchestra very distinctly without taking away at all from the whole.  It made me really want to hear a lossless version.

     

    I would be interested in hearing others’ reactions and also any other recommendations for other immersive recordings of orchestral performances.  Having heard this one I am now more hopeful about current approaches to recording and mixing orchestral performances than I was when I wrote some of my earlier posts in this thread.    

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Many thanks for a very interesting review (and discussion).  Much of the back and forth here put me in mind of my preference for crossfeed with headphones.  I listen to orchestral and chamber music and my discussion with others over the years about phones has persuaded me that listeners to other kinds of music are often looking for a very different kind of presentation.  I find crossfeed necessary in order to move the performance space forward of my head - this is critical in achieving the affect that I associate with listening to music.  In particular, it avoids the super-stereo affect that I find very distracting.  But I know many (most?) actually prefer the standard presentation of headphones.  As far as listening is concerned, I don't think I can overstate the importance to me of the feeling that I am at some distance from the musical event.  Of course, capturing the contribution of reflected sound lends any good recording an immersive dimension - but secondary I think to the distance/depth/Z-dimension that seems so important to me.  I wonder whether this tends to feature more naturally with good 2-channel reproduction.

    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...