Article: High End Immersive Audio - One Year On

[Foggie]

On 6/21/2023 at 5:16 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

100% This is a huge part of immersive audio that people can’t grasp until they’ve experienced it. 
 

It’s also a “hidden” part that I never thought about until one day I “got it.” All five guys in Pearl Jam in their own space yet a cohesive whole sound. It’s amazing. 
 

 

Or some just don't like it or want it 🤷‍♂️.   Just another point of view here 🙂👍  I grasp it, but don't want drums above my head, bass 2in from my nose, sounds coming from everywhere.  Its great to have choices and respect those who get into it, but like anything, atmos isn't the greatest thing ever made.  

 

Getting bombarded with immersive everything, isn't making it more interesting (for me), it's actually exhausting to be honest.  In a way immersive is coming off much like MQA.  Not the technology, just the hype, discussions etc..  Feels like its being forced on us and possibly by some music delivery companies requirements ($$).  A shiny new toy, format 🙂

 

Its technically cool and what can be done with it is also cool, but that's where it ends for me.  It's another (surround sound) effect and IMHO is for home theater or HP.  Another format to get people to spend $ on another version of dark side of the moon.  No thank you - redbook, highres, dsd, mqa, dvda, blueray etc...  It just never ends.

 

There is a slew of sub-topics WRT economics, mixing etc.. and I'm just providing another prospective and again in no way criticizing it as a choice for anyone.  If it makes one happy, great!  👍

 

The stereo mix is the most important to me 100% because I want to listen to music first and foremost (like the way you hear it), not really into the audio gymnastics / cool effect factor.  My .02 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Foggie said:

Or some just don't like it or want it 🤷‍♂️.   Just another point of view here 🙂👍  I grasp it, but don't want drums above my head, bass 2in from my nose, sounds coming from everywhere.  Its great to have choices and respect those who get into it, but like anything, atmos isn't the greatest thing ever made.  

 

Getting bombarded with immersive everything, isn't making it more interesting (for me), it's actually exhausting to be honest.  In a way immersive is coming off much like MQA.  Not the technology, just the hype, discussions etc..  Feels like its being forced on us and possibly by some music delivery companies requirements ($$).  A shiny new toy, format 🙂

 

Its technically cool and what can be done with it is also cool, but that's where it ends for me.  It's another (surround sound) effect and IMHO is for home theater or HP.  Another format to get people to spend $ on another version of dark side of the moon.  No thank you - redbook, highres, dsd, mqa, dvda, blueray etc...  It just never ends.

 

There is a slew of sub-topics WRT economics, mixing etc.. and I'm just providing another prospective and again in no way criticizing it as a choice for anyone.  If it makes one happy, great!  👍

 

The stereo mix is the most important to me 100% because I want to listen to music first and foremost (like the way you hear it), not really into the audio gymnastics / cool effect factor.  My .02 

 

 

 

 

Interesting perspective. Sounds like you haven’t spent much time, or any, listening to immersive audio. No problem with that however. 
 

 

 

Not sure I really understand the following quote though:

 

2 hours ago, Foggie said:

The stereo mix is the most important to me 100% because I want to listen to music first and foremost (like the way you hear it), not really into the audio gymnastics / cool effect factor. 

 

Not sure I follow this either:

 

2 hours ago, Foggie said:

Feels like its being forced on us and possibly by some music delivery companies requirements ($$). 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Foggie said:

Another format to get people to spend $ on another version of dark side of the moon.

Given that the purchase model is dead for all intents and purposes, and almost nobody is selling immersive audio, I’m not sure the facts backup your opinion. 
 

 

 

[fas42]

Quote

 

Yes, great article.  I loved this quote from John Couling of Dolby Labs:

“When you take sounds and you separate them from each other,” Couling said, “you will be able to hear those sounds independently much more clearly than if they are on top of each other. By creating space, we also create depth and clarity — and we found that’s what content creators really wanted.”

 

 

 

 

Which is what competent stereo delivers. "Space, depth and clarity" are the result of optimising 2 channel replay, without requiring the extra equipment to achieve the 'effect'. And it all occurs on the performance stage, rather than coming at you from various parts of the room. So, as Foggie muses, why go to the overheads of some surround system?

 

If I listen to early Rolling Stones, I can see each of the band "in their own space". Just like if I was in their rehearsal room; or in the case of their later mixed albums, each acoustic layer existing as a separate entity, in the whole. Without help from extra speakers. Yes, an Atmos rig will make it easier to get the sense of this - but it's not a necessity ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is what competent stereo delivers. "Space, depth and clarity" are the result of optimising 2 channel replay, without requiring the extra equipment to achieve the 'effect'. And it all occurs on the performance stage, rather than coming at you from various parts of the room. So, as Foggie muses, why go to the overheads of some surround system?

 

If I listen to early Rolling Stones, I can see each of the band "in their own space". Just like if I was in their rehearsal room; or in the case of their later mixed albums, each acoustic layer existing as a separate entity, in the whole. Without help from extra speakers. Yes, an Atmos rig will make it easier to get the sense of this - but it's not a necessity ...

Why not stick with mono?

[fas42]

45 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why not stick with mono?

 

Mono would be fine if most recordings to date were in only one channel. But the majority is stereo; and many use that format for creating a lateral spread, and other effects; we're used to classical works and stage presentations having a strong left to right distinction, when live; hence stereo makes sense.

 

If there was a large suite of recordings, over a major time frame, which used recording techniques to capture the immersive qualities of an event, then the Atmos type systems would be the obvious choice to go with, and would be "part of the furniture". But they aren't there ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

If there was a large suite of recordings, over a major time frame, which used recording techniques to capture the immersive qualities of an event

There is a large suite of recordings already. 
 

What about the vast majority of albums, that never existed in a physical space? Will mono due? 

[fas42]

58 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

What about the vast majority of albums, that never existed in a physical space? Will mono due? 

 

Albums that had no existence in front of a microphone, say, recordings by Jarre, have a stereo component to their composition - because it was available to the artist, and could be used as a creative tool; reproducing in mono would reduce 'the message'; OTOH, people have complained that albums that were never meant to be anything than mono, say early Beatles, just don't work as well if the individual contributions are hard panned, left or right. My point would be that well done stereo, perhaps switchable to mono as required, suits most situations; except for, properly done Atmos style mixes.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Albums that had no existence in front of a microphone, say, recordings by Jarre, have a stereo component to their composition - because it was available to the artist, and could be used as a creative tool; reproducing in mono would reduce 'the message'; OTOH, people have complained that albums that were never meant to be anything than mono, say early Beatles, just don't work as well if the individual contributions are hard panned, left or right. My point would be that well done stereo, perhaps switchable to mono as required, suits most situations; except for, properly done Atmos style mixes.

Dark Side of the Moon never existed in a physical space. Is mono good enough? If not, then is stereo good enough?

[Sal1950]

6 hours ago, Foggie said:

Or some just don't like it or want it 🤷‍♂️.   Just another point of view here 🙂👍  I grasp it, but don't want drums above my head, bass 2in from my nose, sounds coming from everywhere. 

I don't think you grasp it at all.  You really do need to have experienced a great modern multich reproduction system to have an accurate point of view

Like the stereo bashers back in the day, (I was there) thinking it was all about goofy sound effects.

Yes, it is a new & different paradigm on the ART of reproduced music. But you have to come into it with an

open mind and listen to a great system using recordings from today's leading musicians and recording engineers. You just might change your mind.

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dark Side of the Moon never existed in a physical space. Is mono good enough? If not, then is stereo good enough?

 

DSOTM is a highly layered production - at one stage, over 3 decades ago, I used this, stereo, album constantly, to reference how much 'space' I could conjure out of it. Mono would still give the recording its magic; stereo makes it better - and a remastering specifically designed for Atmos would make it better still, if reproduced as intended by the engineer of such a mix - there is no black or white in this ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

DSOT is a highly layered production - at one stage, over 3 decades ago, I used this, stereo, album constantly, to reference how much 'space' I could conjure out of it. Mono would still give the recording its magic; stereo makes it better - and a remastering specifically designed for Atmos would make it better still, if reproduced as intended by the engineer of such a mix - there is no black or white in this ...

I'm just trying to follow your logic. I agree there is no black and white. 

 

The Atmos DSOTM is amazing. Studio productions, like most music created today, and for the last many decades, can be made into amazing Atmos mixes. 

 

The logic some people, not you, use to eschew immersive audio is strange to me. I thought you were saying it's only good for live recordings made with immersive in mind. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I don't think you grasp it at all.  You really do need to have experienced a great modern multich reproduction system to have an accurate point of view

Like the stereo bashers back in the day, (I was there) thinking it was all about goofy sound effects.

Yes, it is a new & different paradigm on the ART of reproduced music. But you have to come into it with an

open mind and listen to a great system using recordings from today's leading musicians and recording engineers. You just might change your mind.

I agree Sal. While I wasn't there when mono moved to stereo, I have studied the transition in newspaper archives. The arguments against immersive are identical to those from 1959 against stereo. It's crazy. 

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The logic some people, not you, use to eschew immersive audio is strange to me. I thought you were saying it's only good for live recordings made with immersive in mind. 

 

In my earlier post, I was responding to the comment "When you take sounds and you separate them from each other,” Couling said, “you will be able to hear those sounds independently much more clearly than if they are on top of each other. By creating space, we also create depth and clarity ... ". An immersive rig can generate that sense, with a little bit of manipulation of a stereo mix - but it's also obtainable by accurate reproduction of just straight stereo. And then, if you want to replay mixes specifically captured and mastered for multi-channel, to their best advantage, a system designed to do that is necessary - if you have an Atmos style setup then both options are available.

 

But those who don't want to go to the expense of the rig, and buying all the albums, Yet Again, can still have cake to eat, by directing efforts in another direction - it's a choice, up to the individual.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

it's a choice

Choice is good.

[Kal Rubinson]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I agree Sal. While I wasn't there when mono moved to stereo, I have studied the transition in newspaper archives. The arguments against immersive are identical to those from 1959 against stereo. It's crazy. 

To illustrate:

John Curl exhumed the following quote from a mid-1960s letter to Stereophile, originally published in Vol. No. 4: "Sirs: I say that stereo is a first class fake and the biggest fraud ever put out by American Mfr. I have never found anyone who knows audio engineering or music that did not agree with this. All those who disagree just don't know enough to know the truth or they are liars engaged in selling stereo equipment. The only reason that most people have gone for stereo is that they have not had time, and will not take the time to get all the facts, so they are victims of advertising, the biggest con game in the world, and I am not so sure that they don't deserve what they get."

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

To illustrate:

John Curl exhumed the following quote from a mid-1960s letter to Stereophile, originally published in Vol. No. 4: "Sirs: I say that stereo is a first class fake and the biggest fraud ever put out by American Mfr. I have never found anyone who knows audio engineering or music that did not agree with this. All those who disagree just don't know enough to know the truth or they are liars engaged in selling stereo equipment. The only reason that most people have gone for stereo is that they have not had time, and will not take the time to get all the facts, so they are victims of advertising, the biggest con game in the world, and I am not so sure that they don't deserve what they get."

Absolute gold.

[Foggie]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting perspective. Sounds like you haven’t spent much time, or any, listening to immersive audio. No problem with that however. 

 

Not necessarily, if one doesn't like it nor want it for music, doesn't indicate they I haven't spent any time with it.  Odd that was the conclusion made.  Like I said, the technology is cool (channel, object, beds), I just posed an opinion on it for music vs HT and HP.

 

 

Not sure I really understand the following quote though:

 

A well done stereo/master mix provides the info and spatial cues needed IMHO. Are the cues interrupted in the same manner as atmos for example, not necessarily.  It is different for sure, but again not everyone wants all those "effects" for music IMHO.  When I'm at a jazz venue I hear "stereo" not surround sound, spatial etc..  Most importantly, it comes down to personal preference and how one hears and prefers to listen to music, which is really all that matters in the end. 

 

Not sure I follow this either:

 

Another format / business model requiring lic fees, specific hrdwr, delivery, not to mention the huge task put on the artist and engineers to "get with the program".  This is a whole can of worms and not interested in derailing the topic. 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Foggie said:

16 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting perspective. Sounds like you haven’t spent much time, or any, listening to immersive audio. No problem with that however. 

 

Not necessarily, if one doesn't like it nor want it for music, doesn't indicate they I haven't spent any time with it.  Odd that was the conclusion made.  Like I said, the technology is cool (channel, object, beds), I just posed an opinion on it for music vs HT and HP.

 

 

Not sure I really understand the following quote though:

 

A well done stereo/master mix provides the info and spatial cues needed IMHO. Are the cues interrupted in the same manner as atmos for example, not necessarily.  It is different for sure, but again not everyone wants all those "effects" for music IMHO.  When I'm at a jazz venue I hear "stereo" not surround sound, spatial etc..  Most importantly, it comes down to personal preference and how one hears and prefers to listen to music, which is really all that matters in the end. 

 

Not sure I follow this either:

 

Another format / business model requiring lic fees, specific hrdwr, delivery, not to mention the huge task put on the artist and engineers to "get with the program".  This is a whole can of worms and not interested in derailing the topic. 

 

 

 

 

I gleaned that you don't have much experience with Atmos based on the totality of your answers. Assuming your are very learned in the field in which you work, you're probably able to tell when people aren't that experienced in it, just based on the words they use and how they talk. This is what I got from your answers. Not a negative, just the impression I got. 

 

When you're at a jazz venue, you her the entire venue in 360 degree surround. Every part of the venue from the floor to ceiling and front and back walls contribute to the sound you hear. In one's listening room, you are bouncing that venue off of your own venue, creating a presentation that is far from what actually existed. In Atmos, the sounds coming from the ceiling, side, and rear walls of the venue are reproduced identically. There is no need to route rear wall ambiance through the front two channels, when it can appropriately come from the rear wall. 

 

I hear you about the new requirements to produce the content. If these requirements delivered the same stereo tool, but just added a tax, then I'd agree with you. Dolby invented a technology that does what stereo can't do. There is always a cost to anything like this in all industries. Nobody is forced to move into Atmos, it's a choice. I hope it remains a choice. Nothing is for everybody. I'm sure there are guys who absolutely prefer mono.

 

 

[fas42]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

When you're at a jazz venue, you her the entire venue in 360 degree surround. Every part of the venue from the floor to ceiling and front and back walls contribute to the sound you hear. In one's listening room, you are bouncing that venue off of your own venue, creating a presentation that is far from what actually existed. In Atmos, the sounds coming from the ceiling, side, and rear walls of the venue are reproduced identically. There is no need to route rear wall ambiance through the front two channels, when it can appropriately come from the rear wall.

 

 

I see a problem with that explanation ... the direct sound in an Atmos mix, coming from the front speakers, is still bouncing around the walls of your listening space, inter-modulating with the sound from the surround speakers. Potentially confusing what your ears have to unravel. This can be partially solved by severe treatments of the wall surfaces, and upping the volume of the surround channels to dominate the sounds from those directions - the former creates an unnatural listening space, the latter is no longer truthful to what was recorded.

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I see a problem with that explanation ... the direct sound in an Atmos mix, coming from the front speakers, is still bouncing around the walls of your listening space, inter-modulating with the sound from the surround speakers. Potentially confusing what your ears have to unravel. This can be partially solved by severe treatments of the wall surfaces, and upping the volume of the surround channels to dominate the sounds from those directions - the former creates an unnatural listening space, the latter is no longer truthful to what was recorded.

I guessed you’d say this :~)

 

The thing to keep in mind is what can give the best opportunity for accurate music reproduction. Nothing is perfect. Playing the band, in addition to front, side, and height information, out only two front channels isn’t more faithful to the real event. 
 

In Atmos, the rear ambiance can be played only from the rear channels if desired. 
 

I have recordings created to work on two and four channels. When I start with front stereo, then flip on the rears, the listener is placed smack into the center of the venue.  It’s amazing. Anyone who has heard this, immediately understands that stereo can’t come close to reproducing this reality. It shouldn’t even be an argument. It’s a fact. 
 

Whether or not people like it is a totally different thing. I respect all opinions. 

 

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I guessed you’d say this :~)

 

 

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The thing to keep in mind is what can give the best opportunity for accurate music reproduction. Nothing is perfect. Playing the band, in addition to front, side, and height information, out only two front channels isn’t more faithful to the real event. 
 

 

Yes, the "best opportunity" is the way to look at it. Regarding being faithful to the real event, the method that some use, of just using a single pair of microphones to mimic what a pair of ears would hear at some spot in the audience, seems as good as any if intended for a stereo rig.

 

 

[emcdade]

2 channel system:  How stylish and handsome.  A true man of taste.

 

12 channel system:  Welcome to my geek lair.

[Foggie]

On 7/7/2023 at 10:09 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I gleaned that you don't have much experience with Atmos based on the totality of your answers. Assuming your are very learned in the field in which you work, you're probably able to tell when people aren't that experienced in it, just based on the words they use and how they talk. This is what I got from your answers. Not a negative, just the impression I got. 

 

Sorry for ruffling feathers.  Do I have the experience with atmos like you, no not at all.  I've heard it, researched it on a basic level as well as the various other "sub" topics.  My OP wasn't to poo-poo it for others that enjoy it as I stated.  Really trying to compartmentalize multi-chnl and stereo Hifi as separate entities and stand by that.  I just don't have a desire for multi-chnl audio (other then HT) simple as that.  My digital is well sorted, but if someone where to give me $$ with a choice to add to my rig, I'd get a vinyl rig before multi channel.

 

On 7/7/2023 at 10:09 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

When you're at a jazz venue, you her the entire venue in 360 degree surround. Every part of the venue from the floor to ceiling and front and back walls contribute to the sound you hear. In one's listening room, you are bouncing that venue off of your own venue, creating a presentation that is far from what actually existed. In Atmos, the sounds coming from the ceiling, side, and rear walls of the venue are reproduced identically. There is no need to route rear wall ambiance through the front two channels, when it can appropriately come from the rear wall. 

 

I understand acoustics pretty well and this is kind of out of context to what I meant (my fault), it was a generalization, e.g. venues (amplified) aren't using "10-12" surround speakers. 

 

I get it, you and many others are totally all-in with atmos, and that is cool.  Same as being all-in with Hifi.   Enjoy it, have fun.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Foggie said:

Enjoy it, have fun.

Absolutely! 
 

I enjoy my headphone systems, my two channel systems, and my immersive system. There’s no best for everyone and no wrong answers.