Article: Thoughts On Immersive Audio

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, Norton said:

Also, can Atmos releases be mixed down to, say,  5.1 and still offer a benefit?

IMHO, yes.  Sometimes, I prefer that to the "immersive" presentation.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The Digital Concert Hall is really cool. Kind of crazy that the old school Classical genre is leading the way with this stuff. 

Not really.  It did so in multichannel and still does.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

IMHO, yes.  Sometimes, I prefer that to the "immersive" presentation.

Not really.  It did so in multichannel and still does.

 

Um OK.

[bbosler]

Chris, can you point us to information on ripping DTS and Atmos from Blu-Ray? I have it figured out for DVD-A and SACD. 

 

If it is one those multi-step processes that requires several programs  I'm not interested, but if as easy as SACD (once you get it set up) then I would give it a try, otherwise I'll just play the disc.

 

thanks

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, bbosler said:

Chris, can you point us to information on ripping DTS and Atmos from Blu-Ray? I have it figured out for DVD-A and SACD. 

 

If it is one those multi-step processes that requires several programs  I'm not interested, but if as easy as SACD (once you get it set up) then I would give it a try, otherwise I'll just play the disc.

 

thanks

 

I touch on it here - 

 

 

[sdolezalek]

Chris:  Have you given any thought as to whether your room treatments would want to change for "immersive" versus stereo?  Specifically, in stereo we generally assume room reflections to be part of our sound stage, in immersive it would seem that you would want a "deader"acoustic space so as to let the speakers do all the talking.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, sdolezalek said:

Chris:  Have you given any thought as to whether your room treatments would want to change for "immersive" versus stereo?  Specifically, in stereo we generally assume room reflections to be part of our sound stage, in immersive it would seem that you would want a "deader"acoustic space so as to let the speakers do all the talking.  

I have thought about this a little, but not more than that. I still love two channel, so adjustments could detract from that. At the same time, I don’t want to make immersive suffer because of two channel. 
 

I think once people read the article I’m working on for next week, they see that it’s all good (subjectively and objectively). 

[fas42]

13 hours ago, DigiPete said:

1. IMO, going MCH / Immersive has a much higher impact to the experience than any audiophile tinkering and perfecting your stereo system. 
   To put it bluntly: A cheap MCH system (with a good MCH recording) easily out performs a vastly more expensive stereo system of the same recording.

 

My experiences has been completely the opposite - all MCH that I've heard immediately brings the word "gimmicky" to mind - it's too obvious what's being done, and detracts from a truly subjective immersion in the music - I lose interest. OTOH, correct optimisation of a stereo setup allows realistic volumes to be generated in the listening space - you are in a normal, real life situation where you listen to music being performed in front of you; rather than around you.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

My experiences has been completely the opposite - all MCH that I've heard immediately brings the word "gimmicky" to mind - it's too obvious what's being done, and detracts from a truly subjective immersion in the music - I lose interest. OTOH, correct optimisation of a stereo setup allows realistic volumes to be generated in the listening space - you are in a normal, real life situation where you listen to music being performed in front of you; rather than around you.

 

 

What can be done with discrete multichannel / immersive audio systems just can't be done with two channels. Period.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

What can be done with discrete multichannel / immersive audio systems just can't be done with two channels. Period.

 

Yes, as already agreed upon. But if one wants to experience immersive listening with the millions of recordings out there, the waiting for some company to process them all, for best MCH, might be a bit lengthy, .

[sdolezalek]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

My experiences has been completely the opposite - all MCH that I've heard immediately brings the word "gimmicky" to mind - it's too obvious what's being done, and detracts from a truly subjective immersion in the music - I lose interest. OTOH, correct optimisation of a stereo setup allows realistic volumes to be generated in the listening space - you are in a normal, real life situation where you listen to music being performed in front of you; rather than around you.

 I very much started with a focus on multi-channel and built a top notch 7.1 system a decade ago and my experience ran the gamut from gimmicky to transformative (where the latter end of that range was generally classical music recorded live in large concert halls and a real sense of the space was just better depicted by the immersive sound). 

 

That being said, I have progressed my listening further and further toward the two-channel spectrum.  That is in part because I found it easier (and certainly more affordable) to optimize the equipment and fine tuning needed to make the best of that experience.  

 

The tradeoffs between the quality of speakers, preamplifiers, processors, amplifiers and wiring multiplied affordable at 2X and the same budget divided by 7.1 or more dictated that 2X was going to provide the better listening experience for music.  That being said, the 7.1+ experience on movies and great recordings is still worth having a somewhat less capable system for; so, like Chris, I like having both but wouldn't give up the experience I now get from 2X.  With a limitless budget and a dedicated sound room, the answer might be different, and, as others have already said, the combination of streaming and high quality powered speakers is bringing the MCH experience a bit closer to affordability. 

[loop7]

On 6/21/2022 at 10:08 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was a big skeptic of immersive audio at first.

Was it just 2 channel preservation or were additional reasons in play as to why you were skeptical?

 

If momentum continues, I predict many high end component manufacturers will release accommodating products extremely quickly; a lot of money to be made. 

 

White glove processing, which you mentioned suffers from an immense backlog, will produce fantastic content but I am, at this point, skeptical about the on-the-fly processing for high quality home installation playback.

[DigiPete]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

My experiences has been completely the opposite - all MCH that I've heard immediately brings the word "gimmicky" to mind - it's too obvious what's being done, and detracts from a truly subjective immersion in the music - I lose interest. OTOH, correct optimisation of a stereo setup allows realistic volumes to be generated in the listening space - you are in a normal, real life situation where you listen to music being performed in front of you; rather than around you.

I fully understand and empathise with your experience.
Many if not most surround music releases of the past has been a hit and miss for the right use of the surround channels.
This is why I always recommend people to try out the never failing releases from 2L!
Please check the youtube of Morten Lindberg linked by both Chris and I.
Morten exclusively records using a simple MCH microphone tree - "documenting" the experience in the optimal listening spot.
This is as pure surround / Immersive as it gets.

And while I have been jumping up and down like a freak here, to promote surround for the last decade, I admit that 90% of my listening is in stereo. 
Knowing that would be the case, I set up my rig to equally cover both stereo and surround.
I chose Genelec's 8260 with their co-axial drivers for optimum stereo imaging for my fronts.
An expensive choice of the time, fortunately these days Genelec makes smaller and more affordable co-ax monitors.

Summary:
Will a dedicated surround or immersive rig be worth it for most audiophiles - Not Yet
Can my stereo be a part of the surround or immersive rig with a little care - YES
Will all surround / Immersive recordings be magically better - NO
Can a less expensive consumer level system still convey the experience and emotions - Yes
Can well recorded surround / Immersive experiences blow my mind - Abso-f***ing-lutely

What ever you do - enjoy the music that speaks to your emotions 😉
Peace 

 

[ShawnC]

If your a RUSH fan, their releasing a big box set of Moving Pictures, with a Dolby Atoms version on Blu-ray.

 

Here's a good article on the release and a bit about what went into the recording of that album.

 

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/moving-pictures-rushs-1981-masterpiece-gets-its-due-atmos

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

If your a RUSH fan, their releasing a big box set of Moving Pictures, with a Dolby Atoms version on Blu-ray.

 

Here's a good article on the release and a bit about what went into the recording of that album.

 

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/moving-pictures-rushs-1981-masterpiece-gets-its-due-atmos

I’ve listened to the Atmos version of Tom Sawyer on Apple Music. It’s really cool. I just wish the Blu-ray was available without purchasing the $300 box set with toy car etc…

 

https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/168122/Rush-Moving_Pictures-Multi-Format_Box_Sets

[ShawnC]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve listened to the Atmos version of Tom Sawyer on Apple Music. It’s really cool. I just wish the Blu-ray was available without purchasing the $300 box set with toy car etc…

 

https://store.acousticsounds.com/d/168122/Rush-Moving_Pictures-Multi-Format_Box_Sets

I couldn't agree more.  Hopefully the Atmos Version will be available somewhere in the future. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

New music releases come out on Fridays. I’m usually interested to see what’s new. Now that I have an immersive system, I’m so excited for Fridays. Not only hearing new music, but hearing both the stereo and Atmos mixes are so much fun. I look up who the mix engineers are, much more than mastering engineers, and I can’t wait to listen. 
 

For example, I just dropped my daughter off at day camp. The entire one hour drive (30 min each way), I listened to the new Jack Johnson album, Meet the Moonlight. In the car it was stereo, but the whole car ride I was imagining what it was going to sound like in Atmos. 
 

It’s fun to be this excited about music and listening. 
 

The new album is fantastic. The Atmos mix is done very well. I’m listening now and will likely be listening for a while :~)

[Me2]

On 6/23/2022 at 2:51 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

What can be done with discrete multichannel / immersive audio systems just can't be done with two channels. Period.

I dont agree completly. I had the chance to listen in Munich to

 

https://www.theoretica.us/bacch-dsp/

 

and this was amazing what is coming out of "Stereospeakers". It was funny to look at the visitors which are having a look behind the speakers to search for surround speakers. One drawback was that you have to sit in the sweetspot or behind. So if somebody dont have the space to install a 7.1.4 or more system it is imho a alternative possibility. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Me2 said:

I dont agree completly. I had the chance to listen in Munich to

 

https://www.theoretica.us/bacch-dsp/

 

and this was amazing what is coming out of "Stereospeakers". It was funny to look at the visitors which are having a look behind the speakers to search for surround speakers. One drawback was that you have to sit in the sweetspot or behind. So if somebody dont have the space to install a 7.1.4 or more system it is imho a alternative possibility. 

I sat through the same demo, calibrated to me, and really enjoyed it. This is certainly one way to get different sound, but it has nothing to do with reproducing what’s on the recording as accurately as possible. Nothing wrong with it, it just offers a presentation that’s quite different from any original. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 6/21/2022 at 6:07 PM, HVAC said:

If you haven’t already. Give “Lost Voices of Hagia Sophia” a listen. Acoustic recreation of sound in Hagia Sophia church now mosque in Turkey. HS built in 500AD if I remember correctly. Huge acoustic space chosen by sound engineers at Stanford to recreate electronically using psychoacoustic software. So this music hasn’t been heard in 2000+ years.  Even if you don’t like sacred music I’m sure you will agree this one is special. Available on Spotify and others. 
If you know anyone else interested, and I think most with nice equipment can present the space accurately, pass it on. 

I’m listening to the lossless TrueHD Atmos version of this now. Really cool. Not my favorite “music” but it’s cool. 

[PeterG]

2 hours ago, Me2 said:

I dont agree completly. I had the chance to listen in Munich to

 

https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/PureStereo/Pure_Stereose2.html

 

and this was amazing what is coming out of "Stereospeakers". It was funny to look at the visitors which are having a look behind the speakers to search for surround speakers. One drawback was that you have to sit in the sweetspot or behind. So if somebody dont have the space to install a 7.1.4 or more system it is imho a alternative possibility. 

 

I've been disappointed that this seems to have gone nowhere commercially after glowing write ups a couple of years ago.  Not sure if it's inept marketing or just something that does not work all that well or easily.  Any intel here?

[Me2]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I sat through the same demo, calibrated to me, and really enjoyed it. This is certainly one way to get different sound, but it has nothing to do with reproducing what’s on the recording as accurately as possible. Nothing wrong with it, it just offers a presentation that’s quite different from any original. 

Then we should talk about high fidelity. I am convinced that immersive reproduction is the right way. Now the question is how to get there and I am convinced that Auro-3d is one of the best ways. From the beginning, this method was intended for music reproduction and, in contrast, Atmos was developed for cinema. I am deliberately talking about music that was captured with the appropriate setup of microphones. My goal is to be able to reproduce spaces such as a concert hall, outdoor performances, etc. at home as realistically as possible. The demo transmissions of the Japanese WOWOW channel were an aha experience. As soon as I'm done with the installation at home I'll also buy a subscription to the Berlin Philharmonic again.

Still to the remark about the Baach system. We rarely know the original recordings, let alone the acoustics. In studio recordings, the room sound is artificially added and may not correspond to reality. There is a recording of Joe Jackson, Body and Soul, which was appropriately recorded in the Grand Hall of the Masonic Hall. Certainly the details of the recording are not consistent, but it was a good try.

 

[DigiPete]

Smyth Research A16 Realiser . . .

So I have been looking for the most cost efficient and broad way to "be allowed" to stream Atmos content.
Man, why isn't it just easy???
I suppose it is, if you buy a standard Atmos certified reciever and just live with the sub-par sound quality.
I just can't get myself to do that!

The Smyth A16 seems to be the "cheapest box" I can find ($4k 😱).
A 16 channel EAS/EBU version exists, and it has e-arc and decodes Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D.

Questions:

1. Am I missing something???
2. Do you have any experience with the A16?
3. Have you found a cheaper option for a minimum 12 channel Atmos solution that will trigger, say Tidal, to deliver Atmos?

I run AES driven monitors, but this "magic box" I'm looking for should equally benefit anyone who prefers to choose their own dac's.
Thanks

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

43 minutes ago, DigiPete said:

Smyth Research A16 Realiser . . .

So I have been looking for the most cost efficient and broad way to "be allowed" to stream Atmos content.
Man, why isn't it just easy???
I suppose it is, if you buy a standard Atmos certified reciever and just live with the sub-par sound quality.
I just can't get myself to do that!

The Smyth A16 seems to be the "cheapest box" I can find ($4k 😱).
A 16 channel EAS/EBU version exists, and it has e-arc and decodes Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro 3D.

Questions:

1. Am I missing something???
2. Do you have any experience with the A16?
3. Have you found a cheaper option for a minimum 12 channel Atmos solution that will trigger, say Tidal, to deliver Atmos?

I run AES driven monitors, but this "magic box" I'm looking for should equally benefit anyone who prefers to choose their own dac's.
Thanks

 

This is the magic box you need. 
 

https://www.arvus.com/atmos-h2-4d.html

[DigiPete]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is the magic box you need. 
 

https://www.arvus.com/atmos-h2-4d.html

Thanks Chris for reminding me.

I remember seeing the Arvus earlier, but it was always an "elusive" box.
Same pricing of $4-5k mentioned around but not on their homepage, pre-ordering and none for sale.
I suppose this is the price we pay for being a small subset of a subset of audiophiles (also a small subset).
Now, what bullet to bite???


 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, DigiPete said:

Thanks Chris for reminding me.

I remember seeing the Arvus earlier, but it was always an "elusive" box.
Same pricing of $4-5k mentioned around but not on their homepage, pre-ordering and none for sale.
I suppose this is the price we pay for being a small subset of a subset of audiophiles (also a small subset).
Now, what bullet to bite???


 

I hear you loud and clear :~)