Immersive Audio Creation, Artist Intent, and More

[sphinxsix]

NOTE: The first several posts were split from another thread and may appear a bit strange without the original stuff. - CC

 

 

 

 

No-one mentions more channels than 2 (2min googling), seems that might be similar to what David Chesky has been doing recently:

 

"I want to get really great players that deserve to be heard and supported and record them with a new Immersive technology I developed called Mega Dimensional sound. And this simply is a much wide soundstage. Past the 60-degree speaker angles, much deeper soundstage, and they have height in there as well. And all this does not need fancy new gear to be played back on. You can play it on any two-channel stereo system as long as you sit in the 60-degree triangle to get the best results. if you do this correctly you will be sitting in front of a large wall of sound, and it will feel like the musicians are in your home. And we offer this in 192kHz/24-bit or DSD."

 

https://theaudiophilesociety.com/

 

Are your surround speakers for sale, Chris.? How much.? 

 

😉

[sphinxsix]

57 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

Are your surround speakers for sale, Chris.? How much.? 

He's laughing.. How about you, @Kal Rubinson.? 😉

 

But seriously - yesterday I bought Paloma Chesky's album in DSD (quite nice music, not a revelation by any means, I didn't expect that), I gave it only a short listen late at night, my reflections (nomen omen in a way) are following - there is indeed some increased impression of spaciousness but ..the quantity of reverb in the recording may piss one off.. 

 

That's it, I begin to feel surrounded by surround guys on this thread, so I'm disappearing from here..

😉

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

He's laughing.. How about you, @Kal Rubinson.? 😉

I already posted a comment that should answer your question.

[sphinxsix]

I'm disappearing from here..😎

[Kal Rubinson]

10 hours ago, ted_b said:

Back to Jud's post: it's weird that Gramophone would award a non-spatial release (no Atmos, no Auro3D, no Sony 360RA) as Spatial.  I guess they are calling surround now "spatial".   Apple has used the nomenclature for 360 degree, but it's now commonly called immersive. 

It is not just a matter of putting a new name on surround/multichannel; it is worse, imho.  What they are doing, in many/most cases, is transforming stereo and/or multichannel recordings into "Spatial Audio" by post-processing.  Very few, afaik, were originally recorded as truly immersive recordings.  As a corollary, many are offered in lower than their original highest resolution formats.  

The following is taken from a related Gramophone page:

Quote

It’s worth noting that film soundtracks aren’t recorded in Dolby Atmos: instead they’re constructed from a number of elements, allowing these to be placed in three dimensions, as if on the inside of a ball surrounding the listener. And that’s what makes it possible to take the multitrack recording files of existing music recordings, and remix them to give the immersive effect of Apple Spatial Audio.

 

[ted_b]

We can argue about post-processing (again, have you heard Rocket Man, or Attics In My Life, two examples of post-processing/mixing done right..there are hundreds of bad examples of course), but my point was about nomenclature.  Don't call things spatial if they have no third dimension (height) channels.  And if they do, let's call them immersive.  Spatial seems too vague...hell, mono can fill up a space and be "spatial".  And Apple Spatial Audio is just one (compressed) vehicle for the likes of Atmos.  Bluray and uncompressed downloads of TreuHD Atmos and Auro3D are other vehicles.  Yes, they are currently limited by the height's 24/48 or 24/96 max but even the best reviewers (smile) often opt to listen to surround music down-rez'd by very good room eq cuz it makes sense.  🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, ted_b said:

We can argue about post-processing (again, have you heard Rocket Man, or Attics In My Life, two examples of post-processing/mixing done right..there are hundreds of bad examples of course), but my point was about nomenclature.  Don't call things spatial if they have no third dimension (height) channels.  And if they do, let's call them immersive.  Spatial seems too vague...hell, mono can fill up a space and be "spatial".  And Apple Spatial Audio is just one (compressed) vehicle for the likes of Atmos.  Bluray and uncompressed downloads of TreuHD Atmos and Auro3D are other vehicles.  Yes, they are currently limited by the height's 24/48 or 24/96 max but even the best reviewers (smile) often opt to listen to surround music down-rez'd by very good room eq cuz it makes sense.  🙂

+100

[The Computer Audiophile]

For a view into how Kind of Blue was turned Atmos…

 

https://www.mixonline.com/recording/how-miles-davis-kind-of-blue-got-a-dolby-atmos-mix

 

edit: Not the link I was looking for. I’ll find it and post. 
 

 

https://immersiveaudioalbum.com/qa-with-maurice-patist-president-sales-and-marketing-pmc-usa/

 

“Steve figured, why don't we use the recording space? We listened to the masters and balanced them really nicely in a stereo mixer that we played back into the big live room at Capitol Studio. Then we built a microphone array, with certain distances between them, into positions where the Atmos speakers actually will be and basically re-recorded it in the room and then, afterwards rebalanced all the levels of the speakers. So instead of using artificial reverbs or anything like that, we actually used the space.“

[Kal Rubinson]

24 minutes ago, ted_b said:

We can argue about post-processing (again, have you heard Rocket Man, or Attics In My Life, two examples of post-processing/mixing done right..there are hundreds of bad examples of course), but my point was about nomenclature.  Don't call things spatial if they have no third dimension (height) channels.  And if they do, let's call them immersive.  Spatial seems too vague...hell, mono can fill up a space and be "spatial".  And Apple Spatial Audio is just one (compressed) vehicle for the likes of Atmos.  Bluray and uncompressed downloads of TreuHD Atmos and Auro3D are other vehicles.  Yes, they are currently limited by the height's 24/48 or 24/96 max but even the best reviewers (smile) often opt to listen to surround music down-rez'd by very good room eq cuz it makes sense.  🙂

I fully agree although I was targeting the process rather than the nomenclature.  Will there  ever be any decipherable information that conveys the provenance of these "immersive releases?"  How will we know if the "immersive" release was made from a stereo source, a multichannel source, original (legacy) studio microphone feeds or, even, a live recording with microphones placed specifically to capture all three dimensions?   Currently, it seems that all those are packaged and labelled identically.

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I fully agree although I was targeting the process rather than the nomenclature.  Will there  ever be any decipherable information that conveys the provenance of these "immersive releases?"  How will we know if the "immersive" release was made from a stereo source, a multichannel source, original (legacy) studio microphone feeds or, even, a live recording with microphones placed specifically to capture all three dimensions?   Currently, it seems that all those are packaged and labelled identically.

I just listen to them and decide if I like them. A purity test gets us nowhere. 

[Kal Rubinson]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just listen to them and decide if I like them. A purity test gets us nowhere. 

If you are considering pop/rock recordings in which, overwhelmingly, there is no reference to the acoustics of a real performance event, that can work.  (Live events are another matter.)

 

OTOH, I have been consistently disappointed by classical "immersive" releases which have a generic acoustic ambience rather than one that presents the unique acoustics of the real performance space.  In those cases, the original multichannel recording (often in higher resolution and from which the "immersive" version was derived) is superior.  I am guessing that the same is true for some other genres, as well.

 

So, as "spatial" or "immersive" or Atmos formats become the lingua franca format for streaming, how can one compare that with the multichannel that is accessible only via purchase of a download or a disc?  

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

If you are considering pop/rock recordings in which, overwhelmingly, there is no reference to the acoustics of a real performance event, that can work.  (Live events are another matter.)

 

OTOH, I have been consistently disappointed by classical "immersive" releases which have a generic acoustic ambience rather than one that presents the unique acoustics of the real performance space.  In those cases, the original multichannel recording (often in higher resolution and from which the "immersive" version was derived) is superior.  I am guessing that the same is true for some other genres, as well.

 

So, as "spatial" or "immersive" or Atmos formats become the lingua franca format for streaming, how can one compare that with the multichannel that is accessible only via purchase of a download or a disc?  

It’s no different from spars codes. They tell you nothing. You have to listen to know if you like the end product. 
 

If you are more concerned with the recreation of an event rather than reproducing what’s on the recording as faithfully as possible, you’ll never be satisfied. 

[Kal Rubinson]

30 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s no different from spars codes. They tell you nothing. You have to listen to know if you like the end product. 

Understood but the encroaching ubiquity of "Spatial" will make that impossible.

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you are more concerned with the recreation of an event rather than reproducing what’s on the recording as faithfully as possible, you’ll never be satisfied. 

Two separate things.  The latter takes the recording for what it is and is accomplished by the user and his system.  The former has to do with what options the user will have and those are becoming cloudy.  

[ted_b]

2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I fully agree although I was targeting the process rather than the nomenclature.  Will there  ever be any decipherable information that conveys the provenance of these "immersive releases?"  How will we know if the "immersive" release was made from a stereo source, a multichannel source, original (legacy) studio microphone feeds or, even, a live recording with microphones placed specifically to capture all three dimensions?   Currently, it seems that all those are packaged and labelled identically.

Agree, the provenance needs to be explained.  Right now, for example, Warner releases on Apple TV Plus's Atmos stream are fake upmixes and it's getting ridiculous.  BUT...as Chris has pointed out, when the music is done right they are very good. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

None of this is any different from stereo. You have to listen to figure out if you like it. More information is nice, but only if it’s meaningful. I’ve yet to find any ounce of information for stereo or Atmos albums that indicates anything about how enjoyable the sound is. 
 

We get hung up on demanding more info or making sure recordings pass a purity test, but that is a clap trap. Just like stereo, some Atmos albums will be mixed with a $10 budget, and most of us will not like the sound. On the other hand, some of the best engineers have done Atmos mixes and the band hated them, and shelved the mixes. No amount of information about the process would tell us anything about the final result with respect to enjoyment. 

[ted_b]

It makes me appreciate that I can demo Atmos via streaming without addtl $$ commit (assuming what you like is available dl or otherwise)

[sphinxsix]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

“Steve figured, why don't we use the recording space? We listened to the masters and balanced them really nicely in a stereo mixer that we played back into the big live room at Capitol Studio. Then we built a microphone array, with certain distances between them, into positions where the Atmos speakers actually will be and basically re-recorded it in the room and then, afterwards rebalanced all the levels of the speakers. So instead of using artificial reverbs or anything like that, we actually used the space.“

 

I don't get it. They used the original masters with (already) quite lots of reverb captured on tape (AFAI remember a natural echo chamber was used quite extensively during the recordingof KoB) they chose PMC speakers to reproduce the 'nicely balanced' sound in the 'big live room' of a chosen studio so they added extra reverb not only to the original sound of the instruments but also to the original reverb from the master tapes (!) and they claim that the Atmos version sounds just like musicians would sound in a real room.? For me that's a nonsense, sorry.. No musician in no room gets an 'equivalent' of an extra reverb of two rooms, such situation simply doesn't exist in case of a live music even or even in case of a normal recording procedure. The quite right (IMO) quantity of the reverb had already been on the master, what they made was adding also, let's say additional layer of 'reverbed' reverb which never takes place in reality, if I may repeat that!

I can understand the sense of immersive recording created by using a specially arranged set of microphones but post production of any kind of a eg stereo (or like in case of KoB 3ch) recording regardless of the used technique, for me somehow doesn't sound convincing.

In this light and also having earlier experience with eg Dolby DTS, I tend to believe what @Kal Rubinson said on another thread, which is that in his opinion only the first mentioned technique is valid from an audiophile point of view or in other words simply sounds good.

 

Edit: Just look at those guys in Capitol studio faces, guys - they know very well they are cheating! 😉

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I don't get it. They used the original masters with (already) quite lots of reverb captured on tape (AFAI remember a natural echo chamber was used quite extensively during the recordingof KoB) they chose PMC speakers to reproduce the 'nicely balanced' sound in the 'big live room' of a chosen studio so they added extra reverb not only to the original sound of the instruments but also to the original reverb from the master tapes (!) and they claim that the Atmos version sounds just like musicians would sound in a real room.? For me that's a nonsense, sorry.. No musician in no room gets an 'equivalent' of an extra reverb of two rooms, such situation simply doesn't exist in case of a live music even or even in case of a normal recording procedure. The quite right (IMO) quantity of the reverb had already been on the master, what they made was adding also, let's say additional layer of 'reverbed' reverb which never takes place in reality, if I may repeat that!

I can understand the sense of immersive recording created by using a specially arranged set of microphones but post production of any kind of a eg stereo (or like in case of KoB 3ch) recording regardless of the used technique, for me somehow doesn't sound convincing.

In this light and also having earlier experience with eg Dolby DTS, I tend to believe what @Kal Rubinson said on another thread, which is that in his opinion only the first mentioned technique is valid from an audiophile point of view or in other words simply sounds good.

 

Edit: Just look at those guys in Capitol studio faces, guys - they know very well they are cheating! 😉

 

Do you yell at kids to get off your lawn?

[ted_b]

Sphinxsix, tell us how you think it sounds.  Or...have you not heard it?

[The Computer Audiophile]

The audiophile purity test, and “we know better than the people who work on music all their lives professionally” is really hindering progress. 
 

Listen to it. If you like it, great. If not, move on. 
 

@sphinxsix have you heard it?

[sphinxsix]

None of you guys related to anything I said but that's ok.

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

None of this is any different from stereo. You have to listen to figure out if you like it. More information is nice, but only if it’s meaningful. I’ve yet to find any ounce of information for stereo or Atmos albums that indicates anything about how enjoyable the sound is. 
 

We get hung up on demanding more info or making sure recordings pass a purity test, but that is a clap trap. Just like stereo, some Atmos albums will be mixed with a $10 budget, and most of us will not like the sound. On the other hand, some of the best engineers have done Atmos mixes and the band hated them, and shelved the mixes. No amount of information about the process would tell us anything about the final result with respect to enjoyment. 

You'll excuse me for pointing out to you that your simple test applies to only some genres such as implied in your reference to "the band hated them."  That's a valid point since the studio production is part of the artistic process and subject to the intentions of the artist and there is no objective reality for reference.

 

Classical music is inherently different in that the event is defined by the performers and the venue and the job of everyone involved in recording, mastering and production/distribution should be to create as objective and transparent record of that event, regardless of the number of channels.   IMHO, "some of the best engineers" really do that.

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

Classical music is inherently different in that the event is defined by the performers and the venue and the job of everyone involved in recording, mastering and production/distribution should be to create as objective and transparent record of that event, regardless of the number of channels.   IMHO, "some of the best engineers" really do that.

 

What if the hall was not the best? What if the recording is remastered so as to highlight the musical contribution of someone who at the time was a rising young player and has since become an established star, or sadly passed away before their time? In classical music a transparent rendition is certainly a valid and laudable goal, but I don't think anybody gets to declare by fiat that it's the only one.

[Kal Rubinson]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

What if the hall was not the best? What if the recording is remastered so as to highlight the musical contribution of someone who at the time was a rising young player and has since become an established star, or sadly passed away before their time? In classical music a transparent rendition is certainly a valid and laudable goal, but I don't think anybody gets to declare by fiat that it's the only one.

This tangent of the present thread seems to have been triggered by my call for clarity in provenance and you have offered some good examples of when it is necessary.  So, sure, such efforts can be justified but should be clearly described. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

47 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

You'll excuse me for pointing out to you that your simple test applies to only some genres such as implied in your reference to "the band hated them."  That's a valid point since the studio production is part of the artistic process and subject to the intentions of the artist and there is no objective reality for reference.

 

Classical music is inherently different in that the event is defined by the performers and the venue and the job of everyone involved in recording, mastering and production/distribution should be to create as objective and transparent record of that event, regardless of the number of channels.   IMHO, "some of the best engineers" really do that.

Classical music isn’t inherently different, it’s just been done that way forever. Many people are stuck in the old paradigm. That’s fine if they like it, but there’s a new world out there with tremendous possibilities.