Atmos? We Don’t Need No Stinking Atmos

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With all due respect, I still have no idea what point you’re trying to make. 

Simply put, it's just a matter of combining the superiority of 2-channel Atmos recordings and the power of PGGB 256

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/immersive/atmos-we-don’t-need-no-stinking-atmos-r1245/  

On 1/3/2024 at 2:40 AM, joelha said:

The answer is, most 2-channel Atmos recordings I’ve heard are more analog sounding and have a more appealing soundstage than their traditional stereo counterparts. Against my favorite non-Atmos albums, I keep gravitating to my 2-channel Atmos albums.

Even if Atmos mixes were THAT good, it's still inevitable that most DACs (without any NOS options that is) would still try to "mess" with the audio internally via their own processing that couldn't be disabled at all.

That's when PGGB 256 would come in handy as long as we're choosing the right DACs with NOS (or similar options that are close enough) options.

And then here's the "fun" part, Dolby Digital Plus (i.e. lossy) Atmos tracks could be "acquired" from TIDAL in an extra special way

https://archive.org/details/a-ha-take-on-me-atmos-mix

Upsampling lossy tracks with PGGB 256 wouldn't be too shabby then?

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

Meanwhile, I am still struggling to understand what exactly an Atmos 2.0 mix is, and why we should not consider it a "downmix?"

Conventionally speaking, "downmixing" could be done with just about any kinda random software out there while here's an example

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/AudioChannelManipulation

OTOH, Music Media Helper seemed to provide something quite different as shown below

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/immersive/objective-and-subjective-review-of-my-714-immersive-audiophile-system-r1123/

In other words, that looked more like "decoding to" rather than merely "downmixing to" Stereo if I weren't mistaken.

As usual it might be just a matter of semantics but the underlying processes shouldn't be THAT simple IMHO.

DRP stands for Dolby Reference Player and then we've got a definitive answer here

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/mmh-new-atmos-decoder-beta-discussion.33488/

Quote

The DRP remixes the Atmos stream to selected output channel layout, just like an Atmos AVR remixes to the user's AVR speaker layout. Nothing is lost.

Most likely we could get a better idea by studying this Python script

https://gist.github.com/Plazik/e950267cc580bcde371ea7879aaa3d5d

That should have explained what the underlying processes are all about

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/mmh-new-atmos-decoder-beta-discussion.33488/#post-670668

C:\Program Files\Dolby\Dolby Reference Player\gst-launch-1.0.exe

1 hour ago, seeteeyou said:

DRP stands for Dolby Reference Player and then we've got a definitive answer here

 

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/mmh-new-atmos-decoder-beta-discussion.33488/

 

Most likely we could get a better idea by studying this Python script

 

https://gist.github.com/Plazik/e950267cc580bcde371ea7879aaa3d5d

 

That should have explained what the underlying processes are all about

 

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/mmh-new-atmos-decoder-beta-discussion.33488/#post-670668

C:\Program Files\Dolby\Dolby Reference Player\gst-launch-1.0.exe

Yes, I’m the one who discovered how to do it - https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/immersive/how-to-decode-and-play-dolby-truehd-atmos-on-windows-and-macos-r1092/

All scripts and apps just call the DRP. 

2 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

 

Simply put, it's just a matter of combining the superiority of 2-channel Atmos recordings and the power of PGGB 256

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/immersive/atmos-we-don’t-need-no-stinking-atmos-r1245/  

 

Even if Atmos mixes were THAT good, it's still inevitable that most DACs (without any NOS options that is) would still try to "mess" with the audio internally via their own processing that couldn't be disabled at all.

 

That's when PGGB 256 would come in handy as long as we're choosing the right DACs with NOS (or similar options that are close enough) options.

 

---

 

And then here's the "fun" part, Dolby Digital Plus (i.e. lossy) Atmos tracks could be "acquired" from TIDAL in an extra special way

 

https://archive.org/details/a-ha-take-on-me-atmos-mix

 

Upsampling lossy tracks with PGGB 256 wouldn't be too shabby then?

This is a completely different topic, which has been discussed for years. 

5 hours ago, STC said:

Can there be two channel ATMOS?

Yes. The Dolby Atmos Renderer and Dolby Reference Player can play the Atmos two channel mix. It’s a selectable option, just like other speaker layouts. 

4 hours ago, STC said:

Joel, I don’t think that is possible to play Dolby ATMOS with two speakers with the exception to headphones compatible with. You need devices that are Dolby ATMOS enabled. 
 

For Tidal “ You can stream music in Dolby Atmos on your Dolby Atmos compatible soundbars, TVs, AVRs, in addition to your iOS and Android compatible devices. For a full list of compatible devices, visit our support page.“

 

and for Apple products “

If you choose Automatic, here’s what you'll need

Supported songs will play in Dolby Atmos automatically when you're listening using:

Any Apple or Beats Bluetooth headphones

If you’re using headphones that support Spatial Audio with dynamic head tracking, you’ll need to turn on Spatial Audio in Control Centre.

The built-in speakers on an iPhone XS or later (except iPhone SE), iPad Pro 12.9-inch (3rd generation or later), iPad Pro 11-inch or iPad Air (4th generation or later)”

 

You cannot produce ATMOS with two speakers with the exception to headphones or AirPods and that too only if they are ATMOS compatible.

You shouldn’t go by those statements to tell you what’s possible. They tell you the truth but not the whole truth. 
 

Use a Mac laptop with a two channel DAC and Apple Music. You can play the Atmos mix or the traditional stereo mix. Very different presentation frequently. 

4 hours ago, bbosler said:

Yet your article states that the $400 decoding software is a requirement 

 

 

For TrueHD decoding on Mac or Windows this is required. Not a requirement for Atmos streaming from Apple Music on Mac. 

4 hours ago, STC said:

I didn’t comment much earlier because I was confused and thought I misunderstood the topic.

 

Speakers got nothing to do with ATMOS. What matters is, the minimum number of speakers required to render ATMOS correctly. ATMOS is based on panning sound between speakers to position them in space. That’s what stereo does but it is limited since it is channel based. I guess, it works with your system and Chris but I am still stuck with the basics and still fascinated with Bravia Acoustic Surface speakers playing ATMOS or with the iPads with 4 speakers.

 

Here is the video explaining ATMOS.

 

 

That’s a marketing video. Reference it at your own peril. 
 

Atmos certainly can pan between speakers but movement of objects is not a requirement. If you look at most classical pieces, the objects are static. 

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

 

Even if you put one speaker sound will come out. That doesn’t mean proper ATMOS rendering. IT will sound different. With music since most sound is within the front channels so you may sense something different and probably better since it is decongested. 
 

I have been quietly following the ATMOS topic and the more I read about two speakers ATMOS, I am confused further and made my first comment here because this is NOT what ATMOS meant to be. You need at least 4 speakers for the decoder to place the sound. In the absence of other speakers it is like listening to 5.1 with two speakers. Yes, it will sound different but sound meant rest of the 3 speakers are not produced. If you have downsampling to 2 then you are essentially hearing stereo with different mixing.

 

Is there a software where it says Dolby ATMOS downsample for 2.0 or 2.1?

With all due respect, you’re really fighting this for no reason. Suggestion this isn’t what Atmos is meant to be is a bit preposterous. It’s as if there can be only Atmos mixes with objects moving around the listener, and nothing else (in your belief). 
 

I don’t know how anyone can say it clearer and prove it to you any more, than showing you it can be done AND providing a sample to download. Two channels is an official option offered by Dolby. 

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For TrueHD decoding on Mac or Windows this is required. Not a requirement for Atmos streaming from Apple Music on Mac. 

 

 

That’s a marketing video. Reference it at your own peril. 
 

Atmos certainly can pan between speakers but movement of objects is not a requirement. If you look at most classical pieces, the objects are static. 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect, you’re really fighting this for no reason. Suggestion this isn’t what Atmos is meant to be is a bit preposterous. It’s as if there can be only Atmos mixes with objects moving around the listener, and nothing else (in your belief). 
 

I don’t know how anyone can say it clearer and prove it to you any more, than showing you it can be done AND providing a sample to download. Two channels is an official option offered by Dolby. 

What is the difference between ATMOS and AUra3D. Understand the purpose so that we can understand the topic. Just because something meant for multichannel can be decoded for stereo doesn’t make it Aura3D or ATMOS. This is like telling just because your system allows you to play mono, now you can hear stereo from one speaker.

Since that video is marketing, why not post the official version of Dolby ATMOS?

7 minutes ago, STC said:

What is the difference between ATMOS and AUra3D. Understand the purpose so that we can understand the topic. Just because something meant for multichannel can be decoded for stereo doesn’t make it Aura3D or ATMOS. This is like telling just because your system allows you to play mono, now you can hear stereo from one speaker.

 

Since that video is marketing, why not post the official version of Dolby ATMOS?

Again, you’re really fighting for a “purpose” or something that fits your view of what Atmos is. You’re allowed to do so, but I don’t see why you would. Dolby allows 2 channel rendering. Period. It provides a different presentation and often better dynamic range than a traditional stereo mix. Period. Thats the crux of this article. Period. 

33 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Again, you’re really fighting for a “purpose” or something that fits your view of what Atmos is. You’re allowed to do so, but I don’t see why you would. Dolby allows 2 channel rendering. Period. It provides a different presentation and often better dynamic range than a traditional stereo mix. Period. Thats the crux of this article. Period. 

If you are saying ATMOS rendered to two channels provides better dynamic range than traditional mix then there is nothing to disagree unless we would like to explore more but you also said “often” which already explained why. I have no problem with that.  It provides more air or space is also possible. Basically, a remastered version of stereo. 
 

The bottom line is ATMOS is not stereo. It can be downgraded to play with stereo setup. Period. So too Aura3D or 5.1 or 7.1 and all else. 
 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I see the Atmos 2 channel option as no different than the rendering to 5.1.2 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, in terms of - it’s officially specified in the decoder. The presentations sound very different as they should. 

Isn’t that also the same for Auro3D? You have even written about it. They have their own decoder and I still remember when they introduced Aura3D many years ago how the original decoder can render to lower number of speakers. 
 

Anyway, the OP is about the simplicity of converting Dolby Atmos for two channel playback, right? Or is it about advocating getting Dolby Atmos format recordings and play them with two speakers because it is superior to the previous stereo format? 

6 minutes ago, STC said:

Isn’t that also the same for Auro3D? You have even written about it. They have their own decoder and I still remember when they introduced Aura3D many years ago how the original decoder can render to lower number of speakers. 

Not sure. There is so little content in Auro and the Auro tools are stuck on Intel based Mac that are not even sold anymore. I’ve given up on Auro for the time being. 
 

8 minutes ago, STC said:

Anyway, the OP is about the simplicity of converting Dolby Atmos for two channel playback, right?

I think he said the exact opposite.
 

8 minutes ago, STC said:

Or is it about advocating getting Dolby Atmos format recordings and play them with two speakers because it is superior to the previous stereo format?

Again, you’re really fighting this for some reason. The OP is talking about his experience and how enjoyable it is. 

35 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not sure. There is so little content in Auro and the Auro tools are stuck on Intel based Mac that are not even sold anymore. I’ve given up on Auro for the time being. 

 You are making accusations as if I have an agenda and fighting this. I am only pointing out the observation I make about 2 channels and what it meant to be. If only you have been less defensive and explain how it is better than I could probably try to understand if ATMOS is also doing spatial sound with stereo. 
 

Anyway, Aura 3D is compatible with Windows now. 

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 You are making accusations as if I have an agenda and fighting this. I am only pointing out the observation I make about 2 channels and what it meant to be. If only you have been less defensive and explain how it is better than I could probably try to understand if ATMOS is also doing spatial sound with stereo. 
 

Anyway, Aura 3D is compatible with Windows now. 

Original stereo was 3 channel not 2.

4 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Original stereo was 3 channel not 2.

How was it recorded? I mean what was the format that was capable of capturing 3 channels in the analogue era?

If I recall correctly, Kind of Blue was recorded for three channel stereo. 1958.

1 hour ago, STC said:

 You are making accusations as if I have an agenda and fighting this. I am only pointing out the observation I make about 2 channels and what it meant to be. If only you have been less defensive and explain how it is better than I could probably try to understand if ATMOS is also doing spatial sound with stereo. 
 

Anyway, Aura 3D is compatible with Windows now. 

To me it makes no sense to argue over what something was "meant to be."  We have what we have, and I like to make it sound as good as possible. Not sure what you mean about me explaining "how it is better." I've said the Atmos mix often has more dynamic range. Joel even providede a sample for people to listen to. Some people in this thread think it's better, while others think it's worse. Just like in life, there really is no best. It's all subjective. Some people are happy to have this option and increase their enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. Others are fighting it tooth and nail. 

1 hour ago, STC said:

How was it recorded? I mean what was the format that was capable of capturing 3 channels in the analogue era?

31 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

If I recall correctly, Kind of Blue was recorded for three channel stereo. 1958.

According to writer, musicologist, clarinetist, saxophonist, and blues producer Robert Palmer, "Kind of Blue was recorded on three-track tape in two sessions at Columbia Records' 30th Street Studio in New York City. On March 2, 1959, the tracks "So What", "Freddie Freeloader", and "Blue in Green" were recorded for side one of the original LP, and on April 22 the tracks "All Blues" and "Flamenco Sketches" were recorded, making up side two."

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

Original stereo was 3 channel not 2.

Now, I remember about the experimental 3 channel sound. 
 

I believe Kind of Blue was released on SACD in the 90’s in a three channel mix with Miles in the center channel. I think this is hard to come by these days on the used market. Would be fun to listen too although I do not need another version of this recording. Between vinyl, gold cd and two different high rez downloads, I think I have enough.

25 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I believe Kind of Blue was released on SACD in the 90’s in a three channel mix with Miles in the center channel. I think this is hard to come by these days on the used market. Would be fun to listen too although I do not need another version of this recording. Between vinyl, gold cd and two different high rez downloads, I think I have enough.

I have the SACD but only ripped it in 2channel version.

Would have to dig it up to actually see how multichannel was recorded for that SACD

7 minutes ago, Apollo said:

I have the SACD but only ripped it in 2channel version.

Would have to dig it up to actually see how multichannel was recorded for that SACD

Would love to hear that.  

20 hours ago, austinpop said:

@joelha Thanks for a great, thought-provoking article. I have downloaded your sample, and plan to compare it these 2 versions I found on Qobuz:

• https://open.qobuz.com/track/229930149 in 24/192
• https://open.qobuz.com/track/229429495 in 24/44.1 

11 hours ago, bbosler said:

Ok, I downloaded it and compared to the Qobuz version

 

the Atmos track has a slightly wider soundstage, it has a much louder bass line and the drum (snare ?) is louder and further to the right . 
 

The Atmos bass line is louder and tubbier and drum louder to the point they are no longer accompanying the piano, they are the featured instruments as if it is their turn to solo

 

The non Atmos version is much preferred…, to my ear on my 2 channel only system

OK, I also listened to the Atmos 2.0 sample and compared it to the 2 Qobuz versions above. My listening was on headphones.

First observation: no idea why, but the 24/44.1 and 24/192 versions on Qobuz sound different, even though this is a brand new release. One suspicion I had was that the 24/44.1 was a sneaky MQA version, but I could not get Roon to recognize it as such, nor did it trigger the MQA flag on the review DAC I was using. So I have no answer. I decided to stick with the 24/192 version as the 2ch mix to compare.

Moving on to @joelha's Atmos 2.0 sample: that sounds very different too! It had good and bad aspects. The clarity and dynamics were definitely improved, but I did note that overdone bass, and odd movement of the drums to the far right that @bbosler noted. I also thought the timbre was a tad off, especially the piano, with the Atmos track sounding a bit brittle and potentially fatiguing (remember, I only had 1 min of the track). The 24/192 mix sounded very good to me, although some might find it more laid back than the Atmos 2.0.

Perhaps this is not the best example, as this is a brand new recording, that seems to have been edited and mastered to 2ch stereo with some care. However, I do see the potential here. Especially on albums where the stereo mix was created for the mass market, with low DR and high level (loudness wars), perhaps the discipline of the Atmos audio quality standards saves the day.

This is purely speculation, but it almost seems each approach has pros and cons.

• 2ch stereo mix
  • Pro: Created by a human by ear, not an algorithm
  • Con: no required audio quality standards. They are self-imposed, by the engineer and/or the label
• Atmos 2.0 
  • Pro: Conformance to audio quality standards required
  • Con: 2.0 mix is rendered by an algorithm: the Atmos renderer for the 2.0 speaker setup.

Now I know that last con is debatable, as the engineer authoring the Atmos mix can test each speaker setup rendering prior to release, but the fact remains that the 2.0 mix is rendered by a processor from the Atmos mix. Happy to be educated!