Jump to content
  • joelha
    joelha

    Atmos? We Don’t Need No Stinking Atmos

     

     

        

        Audio: Listen to this article.

     

     

     

    Atmos? We don’t need no stinking Atmos.


    From the beginning, I told Chris Connaker that writing about a 12-channel Atmos system would appeal to very few audiophiles. It’s hard enough to afford a highly satisfying two-channel system let alone one that requires additional amplifiers, speakers, dacs, and cables. And how many of us have a room (or the incredibly tolerant wife) to accommodate such a system?


    Full disclosure: I have never heard a 12- or 16-channel Atmos system. Chris has invited me to his home to listen and, so far, I haven’t taken him up on his very kind offer. I’m sure that’s my loss.


    For those who contend that Atmos is not true-to-the-source, I have to ask, “What is the source?” The flat master, the CD, vinyl, or one of multiple streaming versions? What about first pressings, subsequent pressings, remastered or even upsampled versions? Which of those options is TTTS? The truth is, we don’t care about being true to the source nearly as much as we care to hear the sound we like.


    If that weren’t true, there wouldn’t be highly regarded tube amplifiers which introduce several percentage points of distortion into the audio chain. I’ve already mentioned upsampling which, depending on the software and settings used, can create a variety of sonic results. And what about the variety of speakers employing various technologies (horn, ribbon, electrostatic, dynamic cone, etc.) each with different sonic characters and their own following?


    Are there bad Atmos recordings? Absolutely and I have some. I also have my share of bad stereo recordings. Atmos is not the issue nearly as much as the care and artistry used in mastering and mixing the final recorded product.


    So, if I haven’t heard a full-fledged Atmos system, why am I writing about Atmos?


    Because Chris opened my eyes to a very compelling Atmos option which is almost never discussed: Two-channel Atmos. Now you’re probably thinking, “Two-channel Atmos? That makes as much sense as a two-dimensional hologram. What could be the benefit of two-channel Atmos?”


    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. 


    Why would this be? For one, Atmos is, by design, to be played not only in 12 or even 16-channel versions but in 2-channels. The two-channel product is not an “edited” version of the traditional Atmos album (as when a multi-channel file is downmixed to two channels by JRiver or similar programs) but pre-determined to meet Atmos standards. The process of creating an Atmos album is detailed here: link.

     

    Second, while Atmos files can be compressed, Apple is enforcing a set of audio quality standards, including requiring the use of uncompressed files, which Tidal and Amazon are likely to uphold. Where among these standards come the improved sound I’m hearing, I don’t know.


    What are the downsides of two-channel Atmos?


    There are several.


    First, while there are sites which host Atmos files, the albums are often priced above that of the average album download and the selection is limited.


    Second, you can find additional albums on Bluray discs but you have to carefully search for the Atmos versions, some being part of a deluxe box set which can be quite expensive. Depending on your requirements, the discs might require ripping. And here again, the selection is very limited.


    Then there’s the required Dolby decoding software which costs $400.


    If your eyes haven’t yet dimmed on the prospect of acquiring two-channel Atmos albums, even the downloaded files require conversion.


    As with so many aspects of this wonderful hobby, getting the very best sound is often expensive and time consuming. But I love the journey. When I was a teen, the only way to improve my system was to buy another component. Today, we have so many more options to explore, many of them delivering almost instant gratification such as a new software program or even an adjusted software setting. I’m placing Atmos in that category.


    Finally, you might be thinking, “Sure, I’ll just spend $400 on the Dolby decoder, purchase an Atmos album, and learn how to create a 2-channel album all so I can decide whether I like 2-channel Atmos. Nope. Not necessary. Here’s a one-minute clip of the first track of a truly outstanding album (A Shade of Blue by the Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio) (download link, please unzip). It’s a 24/48 file in flac uncompressed format. Please download the sample as soon as you can as I’m not sure how long it will be available. 


    I chose this album for a number of reasons. First, the recording is excellent. Second, as it’s on both Qobuz and Tidal, subscribers will have an opportunity to compare the downloaded file to the streaming versions. Finally, if you like jazz, it doesn’t get much better than this. You will notice the bass is enhanced on the Atmos version. I believe that’s a mastering or mixing choice rather an inherent feature of Atmos. As I’ve mentioned, the aspects to listen for are the way in which the instruments are separated and distinct and even more, the natural sound of the album.


    Please audition the uploaded sample and post your opinions, good, bad, or otherwise. I believe many who have criticized Atmos (as the title of this article not so subtly suggests) will change their opinion and will even find the time and expense of acquiring 2-channel Atmos albums to be well worth it.
     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I was so intrigued by this approach, that I wanted to give it a more thorough look. Luckily, Chris was able to help me, and I was able to compare 3 albums from his Atmos TrueHD collection with which I was familiar, and had my preferred 2ch stereo mixes already.

     

    First, it's important to define what the comparison point is. I can think of 2 practical criteria:

    1. compare the Atmos 2.0 rendering to the stereo 2ch mix that was created at the same time by the mixing engineer. Or,
    2. compare the Atmos 2.0 rendering with the listener's previous personal favorite 2ch mix. Does the Atmos 2.0 displace it?

     

    folder.jpg

    On the Mendelssohn, I was comparing the 24/48 Atmos 2.0 rendering to the stereo 2ch DXD mix from The Spirit of Turtle. Is this fair? Sure, since that is the best available 2ch mix. On this recording, I thought the spatiality of the Atmos 2.0 mix had some merit. It appeared to put me the listener back a few rows, so there was more ambience, but less immediacy. I can see this being an interesting tradeoff, with some preferring the Atmos 2.0 mix.

     

    folder.jpg

    On the Beethoven, I was comparing the 2ch 24/96 release with the 24/48 Atmos 2.0. Here, I felt the Atmos 2.0 mix actually improved the somewhat bloated upper bass in the 2ch stereo mix, which is good. But the loss of resolution and transparency was a negative.

     

    folder.jpg

    On the Yes Album, I compared the Atmos 2.0 mix with the Steve WIlson stereo mix from the same album. Both (Atmos and 2ch stereo) were remastered by Steve Wilson in 2014 (I think). Oddly, I found the 2ch mix in the "Steven Wilson Remixes" album sounded the best, although as best I can tell, they're the same Steve Wilson mix. So, here criteria 2 came into play, and I compared Chris's Atmos 2.0 with my 2ch reference from "Steven Wilson Remixes." Here again, I heard loss of resolution and transparency in the Atmos 2.0 mix compared to the stereo 2ch mix.

     

    In general, my biggest complaint with the Atmos 2.0 mixes was what amounted to a perceptible loss of transparency, resolution, and micro-details. The Atmos 2.0 mixes do alter the sound stage, and some may find this pleasing, especially on speakers. For me, being as sensitive to resolution and transparency as I am, that did not compensate for the loss of transparency.

     

    So there you have it. I suspect the value of an Atmos 2.0 rendering will vary album by album, and in some situations may be preferable, but not universally. Still, coming back to the point of this article, it's worth checking out the Atmos 2.0 rendering of an album to see if you prefer it. No argument with that!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just wondering if there were anyone who gave volume matching a try?

     

    https://twitter.com/viticci/status/1405558809024774147

    Quote

    Like, it’s a night/day difference in terms of max volume compared to standard. As soon as I enable Atmos, songs get so much quieter. Switch it off, and you can hear “real” full volume again.

     

    Dolby Atmos Feels Quiet, Low Volume? (Here’s Why With Fix)

    https://tvnoob.com/dolby-atmos-feels-quiet-low-volume-heres-why-with-fix/

    Quote

    The low volume level requires listeners to turn up their system in order to hear the same average loudness, but this results in improved sound quality and clarity when compared with traditional stereo mixes. 

     

    Why is Dolby Atmos quieter than other music audio formats?

    https://www.travsonic.com/why-dolby-atmos-is-quieter/

    Quote

    The lower volume level may require listeners to turn up their system to achieve the same average loudness as previous stereo releases. However, this adjustment improves sound quality and clarity compared to traditional stereo mixes.

     


     

    I'm assuming that nobody actually gargleblasted any Atmos tracks (with PGGB 256) yet, though something like this might still be relevant here?

     

    https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/62699-a-toast-to-pggb-a-heady-brew-of-math-and-magic/page/4/#comment-1127088

    Quote

    First I must stress that one must do volume matching before you can appreciate the musical feeling of high resolution PCM. Given the quiet background of 32fs one can always turn the volume higher and more details can be heard without feeling sound becoming harsh and too pressing. In general I believe the limit of turning the volume higher is mid range becoming harsh. In 32fs one can tune up the volume by 3dB or so and still not feeling any strain from the sound. That is probably taking advantage of the quiet background.

     

    In other words, maybe the whole point of Atmos should be allowing us to crank the volume up quite a bit without having to wreak havoc?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Great post. Just jumping in here, not at all an immersive audio expert but maybe this was mentioned before?  If not you can find some more info on different versions of ''A Shade of Blue'' here: 

     

    Magic Vinyl vs Digital

     

    Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio – A Shade Of Blue – Review – (Test: vinyl record, SACD Stereo and 5.1, CD, Tidal MAX Flac, Downloaded FLAC 5.1 in 24/96, MP4 Dolby Atmos, MKV Dolby Atmos TrueHD ), recorded for spatial sound.

     

    For our 8 editions reviewed have obtained the following Dynamic Range (DR) :

      Vinyl – 2023 SACD – 2023 SACD 5.1 – 2023 CD Track from SACD – 2023 Tidal MAX – 2023 FLAC 5.1 24-96 – 2023 MP4 Dolby Atmos – 2023 MKV Dolby Atmos – 2023
    Global DR14 DR13 DR16 DR13 DR13 DR16 DR16 DR16
    Min DR13 DR12 DR15 DR12 DR12 DR15 DR15 DR15
    Max DR16 DR16 DR16 DR15 DR15 DR16 DR16 DR16
    Speed Ball Blues DR13 DR12 DR15 DR12 DR12 DR15 DR15 DR15
    Speak Low DR14 DR13 DR16 DR13 DR13 DR16 DR16 DR16
    The Way We Were DR13 DR13 DR15 DR13 DR13 DR15 DR15 DR15
    Like Someone In Love DR13 DR13 DR15 DR13 DR13 DR15 DR15 DR15
    Black Is The Color DR14 DR14 DR16 DR14 DR14 DR16 DR16 DR16
    Girl Talk DR14 DR14 DR16 DR14 DR14 DR16 DR16 DR16
    Midnight Sugar DR14 DR13 DR15 DR13 DR13 DR15 DR15 DR15
    Last Tango In Paris DR14 DR12 DR15 DR12 DR12 DR15 DR15 DR15
    Misty DR16 DR16 DR16 DR15 DR15 DR16 DR16 DR16
    Bye Bye Blackbird DR14 DR12 DR15 DR12 DR12 DR15 DR15 DR15

     

    The Dynamic Range measurements confirm the results observed on the waveforms of the various editions. The dynamic is present on all stereo versions (DR13) and for all multichannal versions (DR16). As a reminder, the scale goes from 0 to more 20, but the dynamics are considered good from 12, quite good between 10 and 11, and deteriorate below 10.

    (...) 

    Part 5 : Spatialization

    Spatialization allows you to define the sound distribution of the music on all the channels. The spatialization indicator and the description of the graph are described.

     

     

    The spatialization of the Dolby Atmos TrueHD version varies from track to track, with values ranging from 7.2 to 9.1.
    We find a beautiful spatialization using all the channels with an extension of the music by the positioning of the instruments in the spaces.

    Spatialization : ●●●●●●●●oo (8.4)

     

     

    a-shade-of-blue-ddp-atmos-spatialization-8.4-7.2-9.2.jpg.06904529417d5c88fb5d0198c5cf309f.jpg

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Very nice post, di-fi.

     

    The spatialization point is one I find particularly seductive about even the two-channel version of this (and many other) Atmos albums.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    image.png.59dc24f0455037a99d4203213f48639b.png

     

    image.thumb.png.896869e335db558f3a0267ab52a82f62.png

    12,000 respondents is a sizable sample (for audio interest anyways). If lossless Atmos DR is higher than the rubbish dished out to the consumer since the 90's what on earth has changed the mindset?? Gotta be $$$$. 

    200 Atmos titles is not enough, there needs to be thousands - millions, like Hi-Res was supposed to be and not 24bit Redbook which is a bit of half-assed attempt. 

    Qobuz to be on board, Spotify (🤣). 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, One and a half said:

    image.png.59dc24f0455037a99d4203213f48639b.png

     

    image.thumb.png.896869e335db558f3a0267ab52a82f62.png

    12,000 respondents is a sizable sample (for audio interest anyways). If lossless Atmos DR is higher than the rubbish dished out to the consumer since the 90's what on earth has changed the mindset?? Gotta be $$$$. 

    200 Atmos titles is not enough, there needs to be thousands - millions, like Hi-Res was supposed to be and not 24bit Redbook which is a bit of half-assed attempt. 

    Qobuz to be on board, Spotify (🤣). 

    I don’t understand. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    He is saying only 5% of Darko’s shepherd, is reading or agreeing your Atmos articles 😂

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, One and a half said:

    image.png.59dc24f0455037a99d4203213f48639b.png

     

    image.thumb.png.896869e335db558f3a0267ab52a82f62.png

     

    Not bad. The 64% are already potential customers (maybe some of them need a little convincing).

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, R1200CL said:

    He is saying only 5% of Darko’s shepherd, is reading or agreeing your Atmos articles 😂

    The whole poll is a ridiculous clap trap based on a false premise. What does the question even mean anyway, “the future of music playback?” As if there can be only one “future of music playback.”

     

    I don’t even want to know where the sample group got its Atmos education from. The amount of misinformation and Dunning-Kruger experts is amazing. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 3/2/2024 at 6:52 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

    The whole poll is a ridiculous clap trap based on a false premise. What does the question even mean anyway, “the future of music playback?” As if there can be only one “future of music playback.”

     

    I don’t even want to know where the sample group got its Atmos education from. The amount of misinformation and Dunning-Kruger experts is amazing. 

     

    The last line basically says it all for most Audiophiles that read the rags from industry.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

    Another interesting pow:

     


    He got some good points or ?

     

    I found the video here:

    https://darko.audio/2023/06/the-madness-of-dolby-atmos-for-music/

     

    yes, he is a bit of a snarky prick, but makes at least one excellent point

     

    Those pushing Atmos , or any immersive platform for that matter, are lying to you when they make it "sound" like you can experience true  immersion with a cheap sound bar or a set of headphones. As long as they continue to do this, and no reason to think they will stop, then the people who are unwilling to invest in a multi-speaker setup will continue to experience  it is as he says it is. 

     

    If you like the Atmos mix on a 2 channel system or a soundbar or headphones then that's great, but it will not be immersive like they want you to believe. 

     

    He is also correct to point out that some services are moving to a business model where you have to pay extra to get the Atmos mix. While we may not like it, the model makes good sense for the streaming company. Since most people don't have a system capable of properly implementing Atmos, most people don't care if they have Atmos or not, so the company is wasting their time and money offering it to the masses. For an additional $5 or whatever it is a month, it will make a difference to those of us who do have system capable of doing it justice, so we will pay up to get it = more $$ for the company. That is, unless we drop the service altogether

     

    The thing this guy is pushing which is incorrect, , is the idea that this is all intended for the masses and since the masses will not buy the equipment they need to implement it, then it is all a waste of time. However, if you look at the plethora of high end equipment currently on the market with the most popular home theater pieces frequently sold out, and more and more immersive audio being developed (not just remixed stereo)  it seems to me the market is big enough to support the format even if the masses don't truly buy in. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, bbosler said:

    Those pushing Atmos , or any immersive platform for that matter, are lying to you when they make it "sound" like you can experience true  immersion with a cheap sound bar or a set of headphones.

    I know I don’t get out enough, but who are these people suggesting you can get true immersion, whatever that means, from a sound bar? I’ve never seen anyone say that. Then again, I refuse to waste hours of time watching videos of people say what could’ve been said in 30 seconds. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I watched that video quite awhile ago. Snarky prick? Yes. Full of shit? Yes too. Now back to our original programming.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Soundbars can give a tiny brief glimpse of what immersive audio can do. That is about it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, bbosler said:

    The thing this guy is pushing which is incorrect, , is the idea that this is all intended for the masses and since the masses will not buy the equipment they need to implement it, then it is all a waste of time. However, if you look at the plethora of high end equipment currently on the market with the most popular home theater pieces frequently sold out, and more and more immersive audio being developed (not just remixed stereo)  it seems to me the market is big enough to support the format even if the masses don't truly buy in. 


    Agree. Everything is a niche now days. People suggesting one format or one anything will rule a market and make all others irrelevant, are either uninformed or saying it for clicks. 
     

    It’s like the stupid headlines saying “new Tesla killer from Byd” or back in the day “new iPhone killer.” Get over it people. There are billions of people on the planet and room for several options for us all. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, it’s still a lossy format, unless you rip or download the very few tracks available. Correct ?

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Better for what?

    An indication of how many listeners there are. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Imagine a poll asking how do you listen to MUSIC with lossless audio? The answer with the most votes would be I don’t. So what, does that mean lossless should go away?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    42 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    I know I don’t get out enough, but who are these people suggesting you can get true immersion, whatever that means, from a sound bar? I’ve never seen anyone say that. Then again, I refuse to waste hours of time watching videos of people say what could’ve been said in 30 seconds. 

     

     

    https://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/best-dolby-atmos-soundbars-the-best-atmos-tv-speakers

     

    And, the very best Dolby Atmos soundbars are capable of immersing you in the action without the need for all the extra boxes that come with a traditional home cinema system. Some of these bars have even been fitted with dedicated upfiring speakers to help deliver an even more convincing 3D audio effect.  

     

     

     

    https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/best-dolby-atmos-soundbars?op=1

     

    The best Dolby Atmos soundbars can surround you in a dome of 3D audio, delivering an experience that traditional soundbars simply can't match. Dolby's popular spatial audio format is designed to elevate your home theater experience by swirling sound around and above the listening position. Soundbars that support this tech use a mix of targeted speakers and advanced software to bounce audio effects off your ceiling when listening to Dolby Atmos content. 

     

    etc.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    28 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

    Well, it’s still a lossy format, unless you rip or download the very few tracks available. Correct ?

     

    Well, so is Spotify, and it hasn't seemed to hurt it's popularity ;)

    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...