Article: Embracing Immersive Audio

[ARQuint]

On 11/20/2023 at 8:39 PM, fas42 said:

I just thought of an example of what would be fascinating, in Atmos: what is like being a musician, sitting in the middle of an orchestra, playing some major symphonic work?  Having the perspective of that person, what he experiences, would be really nifty to hear - and would be well worth going to the effort to record and hear through playback.

 

We should remember that every so often, Frank makes an insightful observation and it's something he hasn't already remarked 50 times. Frank's proposal is one of the reasons I love multichannel—because of the participatory sense you can get from a surround mix, especially an immersive one. I can feel as if I'm sitting in an orchestra's brass section as I really did decades ago or I'm back in a sweaty basement playing keyboards in a cover band. For me, it's a kind of time travel that results in a very intense connection to the music.

[ARQuint]

9 hours ago, PeterG said:

 

I generally think new technologies are cool, and I hope that someday Atmos is so good that I embrace it.  But the "drunk the Koolaid" responses miss obvious truths, and that makes their impassioned raves less credible.  As Andrew and Stereophile point out, the math on compression is inescapable--there is going to be a price to pay there.  As I pointed out in Chris's original article, 7.1.4(?) is damn expensive compared to 2 or 2.1.  Chris has overcome that by ignoring financial constraints, and that's good for him.  But we should not ignore that for most of us there are certain sacrifices in sound as we modify spending to pay for the additional channels.  I'm not going from 2 Wilson/McIntosh channels to 12 Wilson/McIntosh channels, I'd be going to 12 of something else.  And I have read about a thousand posts on CA about MQA being evil because it is proprietary.

 

Atmos can be a great thing, and for some folks it is already, but let's not pretend there are zero drawbacks

 

The lossiness of DD+ files is very significant. It's not like the difference between a 24/96 and a24/192 version of thez same material (which I often find hard to distinguish) and I feel that a suggestion that it's "time to rethink lossless" is disingenuous. The difference in sound quality between a FLAC file even at Red Book resolution and DD+ will be readily apparent to most, even when obscured by the immersive aspect of the sound. We are not contrasting a football and a tractor here. We are comparing the success of two formats in providing a satisfying musical experience and for many audiophiles, the compromises of DD+ will be disqualifying. And a far cry from the phenomenal experience one gets from a True HD version played back from a disc.

[ARQuint]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m unsure which immersive albums you listen to and on which systems, but your experience is very different from mine. Plus, there is no rule book about what content should go in which channel. 
 

The Grateful Dead’s Attics of My Life, mixed by Steven Wilson, has four voices in the height channels all harmonizing. Each has its own channel. It’s stunningly beautiful. People who haven’t heard it will think it’s a gimmick. I was in that boat. Now I think it’s amazing. 
 

Immersive channels reproduce whatever the creative team wants, not just enveloping sounds. 

I'm glad that STC could get you to better understand my point about the immersive mixes that Atmos content creators must make. Indeed, there is no "rule book" and pretty much unlimited choices in producing an immersive mix. I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats. An example from my TAS article on this subject that's upcoming. Listen, if you can, to the immersive mix for "Rocket Man" from both Apple TV+ and the 2004 Universal Honky Chateau SACD, especially to the way the iconic synthesizer solo during the second verse is handled. The earlier version is far more effective musically.

[JoeWhip]

There will always be disagreements on the artistic choices made by sound mixers in stereo, MC or immersive. I have some MC SACDs where I think the choices were awful. Same with stereo and Immersive. A pet peeve of mine in stereo is panning the drum kit across the soundstage, it can be a great sounding overall recording but that is not how drums sound live. I can still thoroughly enjoy the music though.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

I'm glad that STC could get you to better understand my point about the immersive mixes that Atmos content creators must make. Indeed, there is no "rule book" and pretty much unlimited choices in producing an immersive mix. I'm saying that quite often, choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats. An example from my TAS article on this subject that's upcoming. Listen, if you can, to the immersive mix for "Rocket Man" from both Apple TV+ and the 2004 Universal Honky Chateau SACD, especially to the way the iconic synthesizer solo during the second verse is handled. The earlier version is far more effective musically.

I’m not sure what exactly it is that STC got me to understand, other than his perspective. 

This has nothing to do with the format and everything to do with your personal taste versus that of the teams involved in making the individual music selections.
 

The Rocket Man Atmos version is one that Dolby holds in incredibly high esteem as do many in the music industry. To say that it’s less effective would mean you understand the goal of the mixing engineer and that s/he was unable to reach the goal versus when mixing for the SACD. 
 

Those making broad statements about any format either don’t understand how formats work or like to feel the power of being the minister of (mis)information. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is like deja vu. When the old guard started talking about computer audio and music servers, they used the same playbook. The minister of information has spoken, he shall frame the point of view going forward. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

The lossiness of DD+ files is very significant. It's not like the difference between a 24/96 and a24/192 version of thez same material (which I often find hard to distinguish) and I feel that a suggestion that it's "time to rethink lossless" is disingenuous. The difference in sound quality between a FLAC file even at Red Book resolution and DD+ will be readily apparent to most, even when obscured by the immersive aspect of the sound. We are not contrasting a football and a tractor here. We are comparing the success of two formats in providing a satisfying musical experience and for many audiophiles, the compromises of DD+ will be disqualifying. And a far cry from the phenomenal experience one gets from a True HD version played back from a disc.

You’re still inside the old guard box. The only people who share your point of view are those in the old guard press. Those of us who’ve spent a couple thousand hours listening, disagree wholeheartedly. 
 

There is no purity test for music. You can have your Scottish Nose Whistle album recorded at DSD1024, but I’d rather enjoy different music even if the highest version ever released isn’t up to your standards. So would everyone else, except the old guard. Keep on digging your hole to irrelevancy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

The lossiness of DD+ files is very significant

Lossy compared to what? You’re stuck in the old paradigm that won’t allow you to enjoy music unless it’s released in a format that doesn’t exist. That “just out of reach” paradigm suits the minister of information very well. 

[ARQuint]

Boy, you're testy this AM, Chris. It feels so unnecessary. We both like an immersive approach to recording and playback (and Atmos, specifically). I suspect if Apple TV+ announced this afternoon that they'd be streaming in Dolby HD beginning tomorrow, you'd be as excited as I would.

 

You're trotting out some of your vintage dismissive phrases ("old guard") and some new ones ("minister of information") that are dog whistles for someone to accuse me of "appeal to authority." In fact, you've been strutting your expertise, as you should because of all the hours you've had Atmos up-and-running. But I've had 15 years of experience with loudspeaker-based multichannel and have a context in which to offer an opinion on Atmos as most AS readers will be consuming it. It's just my opinion and if it was offered by someone other than a writer for another publication, I doubt you'd respond with the tone you've taken. Do you really believe that criticism of Atmos comes only from TAS, Stereophile, and John Darko; that "the only people who share [my] point of view are those in the old guard press." I can assure you that that's not the case.

 

You can have the last word, Chris. I've made my points. Best wishes for Atmos, for immersive audio, for you and the AS readership, and for the audiophile endeavor in general.

 

Andy

[Confused]

It was apparently Voltaire who said "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

(or at least he might have said something similar in French)

 

Taking Apple Music as an example. They already provide some 2-channel content at 24/192. In the UK the subscription cost is £10.99 per month, which is just about as cheap as you can get for high resolution 2-channel streaming. So yes, the Atmos part of the offering is lossy, but it is almost as if they are offering for free, or at least at no additional cost. 

 

This seems pretty good to me, and yes, if we get lossless in the future that would be even better.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Boy, you're testy this AM, Chris.

Yeah, when I read enough ridiculousness, it gets to me. 

 

8 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I suspect if Apple TV+ announced this afternoon that they'd be streaming in Dolby HD beginning tomorrow, you'd be as excited as I would.

Completely moving the goalposts. The old guard and I see things differently. 
 

You guys would suggest that people can’t enjoy music unless it’s perfect. I suggest we accept the highest quality delivered and try to perfect it. 
 

10 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

You're trotting out some of your vintage dismissive phrases ("old guard") and some new ones ("minister of information") that are dog whistles for someone to accuse me of "appeal to authority." In fact, you've been strutting your expertise, as you should because of all the hours you've had Atmos up-and-running. But I've had 15 years of experience with loudspeaker-based multichannel and have a context in which to offer an opinion on Atmos as most AS readers will be consuming it. It's just my opinion and if it was offered by someone other than a writer for another publication, I doubt you'd respond with the tone you've taken. Do you really believe that criticism of Atmos comes only from TAS, Stereophile, and John Darko; that "the only people who share [my] point of view are those in the old guard press." I can assure you that that's not the case.

The old guard has always thought of itself as the minister of information. Just open a page a read it. 
 

If 15 years hasn’t taught you that making generalizations based on format is preposterous, I don’t know what to say. 
 

When I read opinions that make no sense, I’ll call them out. I don’t care who says it. Read what the people you mentioned have said about Atmos. It’s like children kicking and screaming because they have to go to school, and kids shouldn’t have to go to school. It comes from a place of ignorance. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Confused said:

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

The old guard has a problem with this. They hope the good dies. They will endlessly talk about a unicorn because it keeps them in the minister of information position. 

[botrytis]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The old guard has a problem with this. They hope the good dies. They will endlessly talk about a unicorn because it keeps them in the minister of information position. 

 

Once the genie is out of the bottle. It will continue to move forward; just not sure how many will try it. It won't go away though.

[PeterG]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With all due respect, you have no experience with it. 

 

The old guard is stuck inside a box, and can’t fight its way out. Suggesting something is bad because it’s bad, just doesn’t cut it. Neither does suggesting something is bad because it isn’t as good as something else, based on arbitrary numbers. What is adequate for immersive playback? I haven’t seen anyone even attempt to bolster their argument that Atmos streaming is bad, based on actual information. They are all saying, “That steak sucks because this rainbow is good.” Makes no sense. Two very different things. 

 

Yes, like the large majority of people considering immersive, I have no experience with it, that's why I've tried to limit my observations to the quality of the discussion.  There are too many ad hominem attacks and too much rhetoric; there should not be a "fight".  There should be an honest exploration of pros and cons.  Your posts are always reasonable, but the chorus behind you is sometimes dogmatic, and this does not help.  On "lossless"issue, for example--it would be much more helpful to know if and when there are sonic sacrifices, rather than stuff like "this is awesome...the file size is huge...the Stereophile guys are antediluvian for even mentioning lossless..."

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not even close. I made huge sacrifices to be able to write a huge check. I had the will and found a way. 

My apologies here--I should have been more clear.  I did not mean to suggest the huge money and time you invested was not a sacrifice.  I should have written that in your passion for this, you decided that cost was no object.  That's awesome!  But for most 2 channel people, immersive presents a puzzle--should I sacrifice quality of gear for quantity?  Will I lose certain attributes that I have spent thousands or tens of thousands optimizing?

[STC]

I think the old guards are justify to stick to whatever they think is perfect. Stereo sound is an acquired taste. It too had resistance before being accepted as the main format. I remember reading an old interview where George Martin asked why they were two speakers in the studio and when he was told they were meant for stereo sound he asked “Why would they want to do that”. 

Linn founder was against CD once and so too Neil Young before coming up with his own digital version. I think he spear headed MAD ( Musicians against digital). 
 

ATMOS will survive but I still think the main format to remain for music will always be stereo. Cheap, practical and easily setup. The majority do not care about sound. They just want music and can be happily enjoy them even with crappy speakers and MP3. 

[PeterG]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is like deja vu. When the old guard started talking about computer audio and music servers, they used the same playbook. The minister of information has spoken, he shall frame the point of view going forward. 

 

I missed that during my 20 year "I'm too busy having kids" hifi hiatus.  But over the past ten years there have been huge advances in bringing computer audio to higher levels of fidelity, as defined by "the old guard".  So I've always taken the constructive aspects of the debate as a good thing

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

Yes, like the large majority of people considering immersive, I have no experience with it, that's why I've tried to limit my observations to the quality of the discussion.  There are too many ad hominem attacks and too much rhetoric; there should not be a "fight".  There should be an honest exploration of pros and cons.  Your posts are always reasonable, but the chorus behind you is sometimes dogmatic, and this does not help.  On "lossless"issue, for example--it would be much more helpful to know if and when there are sonic sacrifices, rather than stuff like "this is awesome...the file size is huge...the Stereophile guys are antediluvian for even mentioning lossless..."

My apologies here--I should have been more clear.  I did not mean to suggest the huge money and time you invested was not a sacrifice.  I should have written that in your passion for this, you decided that cost was no object.  That's awesome!  But for most 2 channel people, immersive presents a puzzle--should I sacrifice quality of gear for quantity?  Will I lose certain attributes that I have spent thousands or tens of thousands optimizing?

All good @PeterG

 

The WHY is what’s most important. I try to get at that, but often fail in my enthusiasm. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK, just got home from driving my daughter to school. Listened to some relaxing music on the way (screenshot below). Calmed down a bit. 
 

Then had the realization that the same folks who told us MQA was the second coming of Christ, are the ones telling us Atmos sucks.

Life is rich. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

The difference in sound quality between a FLAC file even at Red Book resolution and DD+ will be readily apparent to most, even when obscured by the immersive aspect of the sound.

 

This is a comparison that makes no sense to me. Nothing personal Andrew, as I'm sure you and I could have an enjoyable discussion about it at the next audio show. I do believe this is like comparing tractors to footballs. It also depends on the goals of the cretive team and the consumer. It's much more nuanced than suggesting one is lossless and one isn't. That's the black and white answer that would make life so easy, but it really doesn't exist in the real gray world. 

 

We should think about goals. Being placed in the concert hall? Reproducing what's delivered as faithfully as possible? Producing an experience for the listener (from the creative side), among many others. How best to do this isn't as simple as, one has more resolution. 

 

Can an immersive DD+ album put the listener in a concert hall better than a two channel 32/384 album? After listening for over 2,000 hours, I will always say yes it can. Listening to 2L albums in high resolution stereo, DD+, and TrueHD is a good thing to do for this exercise. The stereo version sounds like drinking pure concentrate would taste. It's unnaturally focussed becuase everything has to fit inside the box. I will take the DD+ version every time. In this case, because we have the TrueHD, I will of course take that over DD+.

 

However, TrueHD doesn't exist for 99% of recordings. It's a unicorn. Labels deliver the ADM file, from which services create the DD+. Down the road they can use the same ADM they already have, to create TrueHD. Does everyone remember when Apple asked labels to provide high resolution stereo, years before offering it for streaming? 

 

Two channel is a different beast from immersive. Comparing it based solely on numbers and a loose metric of "quality" is a disservice to everyone. 

 

It may help people such as @PeterG to say, I prefer the DD+ immersive version to the high resolution stereo version becuase the immersive version places each musician in his/her own space, gives instruments room to breathe, gets closer to the artistic intent of the team creating the album, even though the bit rate isn't as high as the stereo version. In addition, the immersive version has double the dynamic range becuase of Apple's -18/ LUFS demands (Loudness Target: -18LKFS based on ITU-R BS. 1770-4 recommendations. Peaks should not exceed True Peak: -1dBTP). There are endless qualities of an immersive release that can be addressed and about which consumers can be educated, that stereo just can't do. Boiling it down to an old bit rate paradigm is a disservice. 

 

 

 

[Jud]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

When the old guard started talking about computer audio and music servers, they used the same playbook.

 

Interesting and ironic that the guy who got me into computer digital audio and therefore this website was Mr. Analog himself, Michael Fremer. (He wrote a piece on how to use an Airport Express and Airplay to play music. I ran the output from an upstairs office computer through the Airport Express in the downstairs listening room to my ancient Theta Pro Basic DAC and was soon hooked.)

 

In fairness to @ARQuint, it should be said that while a good deal of the old guard's resistance to computer audio came from living through the "perfect sound forever" CD era and a resulting resistance to claims about digital technology, it seems as if Andrew's caveats come not from a resistance to immersive technology but a desire to have the media companies offer a higher quality immersive product. That (having a higher quality immersive product) is a goal I think we can all support, even while many enjoy this early stage of the journey.

[JoeWhip]

I agree with Jud. I have known Andy for awhile and he was always a champion for multichannel audio. I can recall discussions back in the old and shall remain nameless Philly area group with Andy and another very passionate guy who is no longer with us who really was forceful about the superiority of MC v. Stereo. Back in the, gasp, 90’s. MC has come a long way since then and with current and future tech, he was right all along. That does not mean I do not enjoy two channel, I do, and am about to take delivery of a new pre amp which I will review and yes, I paid full retail. They both bring me great enjoyment. BTW Jud, I still have a Theta Pro Basic with the final upgrade displayed in my two channel room which still works and still sounds pretty good, considering it is from the mid nineties.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

it seems as if Andrew's caveats come not from a resistance to immersive technology but a desire to have the media companies offer a higher quality immersive product. That (having a higher quality immersive product) is a goal I think we can all support, even while many enjoy this early stage of the journey.

 

Agree, Andrew and everyone I know is in favor of better quality for everything. I just disagree with the characterization of the current level of quality, its comparison to two channel, and the misinformation such as "choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats." 

[JoeWhip]

Indeed, I listened to some Apple Music Atmos today that was quite good. I even love what I heard last night watching a live concert  DVD for heaven’s sake sending the lossy DTS  track through the DTS Neural X renderer.  Don’t ask though as no audiophile other than Audiodoctor would approve of the artist.

[ted_b]

A few things I'd like to write about all these misgivings and, IMHO,  incorrect perceptions:

 

* All music playback, be it 2 channel or 16 channel, creates a soundstage that is part real and part derived.  The real part is that discrete elements are being put into the mix that end up directly in one's speaker location, while other elements use multiple speaker locations and , to the listener, sound like they are coming from in between the speakers (imaging).  This is no different in Atmos, and it is NOT a gimmick or an illusion.  These are real objects/sounds being placed.  And it ain't just for panning or flying around sound!!! I have many Atmos tracks that put a static object (say acoustic guitar) solidly between the side left surround and top left height, and that image (in my system) is as solid and specific as if that guitar were cemented in my left front speaker.  For that reason alone, it is MUCH less frustrating to dial in and calibrate if the speaker pairs or speaker array act similarly, with similar tonality, timbre and gain structure.  Same as wanting to have stereo speakers that are close to identical, if not identical.  And I disagree that the fronts are the most important.  Tell me, in a stereo setup, is the left channel more important, or the right channel??  All channels are important, and once I realized that even the heretofore never-before-used ceiling-based level is as full range and impactful as all other bed and subwoofer channels....I was ready to commit. This isn't throwing some limited range surrounds in the back to handle foley effects in the old dolby surround days; this is committing to "all channels are created equal".   All that being said, one can, with room eq and other DSP, create a pretty good bubble of immersion using non-identical transducers...it's just more difficult.  But tools like the Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit are invaluable for this kind of setup.  Net/net, Atmos will reward at various levels of calibration; it's not easy but I'm not sure your 2 channel speakers-placed-within-.2-inches-of-each-others-absolute-symmetry-from-the-side-and front walls is any different.  We all work hard to get our systems dialed in.  So...do it here too.  :)

 

* Unless you've heard Dolby Atmos (or Auro 3D) in a decent setup you are unfortunately unaware of its benefits.  Those who write about it but haven't heard it are either fools or liars.  Don't be either of those; instead learn, experience and give us your real feedback.  Anything else is a waste of our time (and probably yours).

 

* I don't understand the hesitancy of using streamers like Apple TV 4K + to listen to the DD+ compressed Atmos mixes available to us on Apple Music.  Yes, it's compressed, but have you heard this stuff??  As Chris so eloquently writes above, the Atmos mixes, compressed or uncompressed, can allow individual instruments and voices to occupy its own (often) very large real estate in your now-expanded soundstage.  I find even Apple Music's compressed Atmos to deliver dynamic ranges that far exceed their redbook or even hirez 2 channel counterparts.  And yes, when you then get the family jewels, the TrueHD MKV or BDMV download or disc, you can enjoy that next level of sq.  But to say Apple Music is unlistenable is either a bad home setup or a load of misinformation intended to squash appeal.  Give a listen to GD's Europe 72', GD's American Beauty, The Yes Album, any of Leftroman's stuff, Anna B Savage Influx, Saya Gray's 19 Masters, hell...listen to the 1964 recording of And I Love Her by the Beatles (Red Album)!!  Tell me it's horribly compressed and unlistenable.  NOT.  And I consider myself a hirez detail snob, writing historically about the differences between DSD512 and PCM 768, etc etc.  And Atmos's 24/48 stands tall with these comparisons, mainly because it has the huge advantage of spreading out the objects over a very large canvas.

 

* Another pet peeve about not listening to streamers: if you've run out of monthly subscription money, then ok (but that doesn't feel like our readership demographics).  BUT.....now my analogy: for those of us that remember AM and FM radio, who in their right mind would have said "I don't listen to FM radio cuz my vinyl sounds so much better"??  I would surmise that you probably bought that vinyl after hearing it on FM radio, which is the main benefit!!!  It was the perfect tool to preview new music, preview possible purchases, preview horrible music you clearly are not going to buy, etc etc.  And there's even some music that I've only ever heard on FM radio, love it, but never bought a physical copy cuz it just wasn't the priority at the time...but I realized that hearing it on FM only is just fine..  I mean, I've never bought a Lynyrd Skynyrd album but their music is clearly a small part of my life's soundtrack, thanks to FM radio.  I put Apple Music in the same category, albeit better sonics (at least in my system). 

 

Sorry for the ramble.  My $.02

 

Ted

[Sal1950]

11 hours ago, ARQuint said:

We should remember that every so often, Frank makes an insightful observation and it's something he hasn't already remarked 50 times.

I've known Frank across multiple websites and I'm not sure I've heard him make a single truly "insightful" observation.

He seems to personally revel in trolling threads wherever he goes, looking to make contrary deductions of whatever the current subject attempts to discuss. Individual "ignore" blocks does little to stop his success at fouling the flow of intelligent discussion on the subject at large. The main reason he ends up being banned is the fact that he'll ignore all calls from the admins & moderation teams to tame his disrupting banter as he's shown here with Chris.

JMHO