Article: Embracing Immersive Audio

[STC]

Quote

And I disagree that the fronts are the most important. 

Unplug the front speakers while playing multichannel music and compare with only the front speakers playing while the surround muted/unplug. You can also try the same with  a movie. 

 

While it true, some latest remastered album and specialized ATMOS music have discrete sound coming from various speakers, real music that we are familiar with are always a frontal channel experience, be it in a concert hall or jazz band in a club.

 

That doesn’t mean you don’t need the surround speakers. If you discount the discrete sound, the real function of the surrounding speaker ( it can be ATMOS or Aura3D) is to provide envelopment via reverbs delivery from the surrounding speakers. That what transforms an ordinary stereo listening to a concert hall experience. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 hours ago, ARQuint said:

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 

Are you suggesting that you know more or are more skilled at identifying the “right” mix than the professionals who do this all day every day for a living? It just seems like such a high horse to be on to suggest that the Atmos engineers, many of whom mixed multichannel, aren’t making as good of choices. As good to who, you? 
 

I had an Atmos mixing engineer over to my place this summer. I asked him questions about his mixes as we listened. His answers detailed so many things that go into mixing decisions. It was very illuminating. For someone to suggest that his, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats,” is the epitome of Minister of Information, high horse, entitled thinking of the old guard. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, STC said:

Unplug the front speakers while playing multichannel music and compare with only the front speakers playing while the surround muted/unplug. You can also try the same with  a movie. 

 

While it true, some latest remastered album and specialized ATMOS music have discrete sound coming from various speakers, real music that we are familiar with are always a frontal channel experience, be it in a concert hall or jazz band in a club.

 

That doesn’t mean you don’t need the surround speakers. If you discount the discrete sound, the real function of the surrounding speaker ( it can be ATMOS or Aura3D) is to provide envelopment via reverbs delivery from the surrounding speakers. That what transforms an ordinary stereo listening to a concert hall experience. 

For most classical and jazz recordings this is true. Morten’s recording are obviously very different, but he isn’t the norm. 
 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For most classical and jazz recordings this is true. Morten’s recording are obviously very different, but he isn’t the norm. 
 

 

Yes, there can always be an exception.  Taking his Grammy winner for surround album, it is a kingly privilege to be surrounded by musicians. 
 

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are you suggesting that you know more or are more skilled at identifying the “right” mix than the professionals who do this all day every day for a living? It just seems like such a high horse to be on to suggest that the Atmos engineers, many of whom mixed multichannel, aren’t making as good of choices. As good to who, you? 
 

I had an Atmos mixing engineer over to my place this summer. I asked him questions about his mixes as we listened. His answers detailed so many things that go into mixing decisions. It was very illuminating. For someone to suggest that his, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats,” is the epitome of Minister of Information, high horse, entitled thinking of the old guard. 

 

Minister of Information", "high horse","entitled" and ""old guard" in a single sentence. I think he's mad again.

 

I'll point out the obvious. Both mixes of "Rocket Man" were made by professionals and yet they sound very different. I feel the one on the SACD is more holographic and involving. I know several mastering engineers well and they workhard to satisfy a paying customer and may tailor a mix accordingly. As one, a good friend who used to work for Bob Ludwig, put it: "When the client says jump, you say 'how high?'"

 

It's very strange that you find it presumptuous of me to have opinions regarding sound quality—that's kind of central to the job description for an audio or music reviewer. I listen and write about what I hear and readers can agree or disagree. Over time, they'll come to understand how I hear things and can use a review of mine, positive or negative, to understand if they're going to like a recording or piece of gear. You do realize that your own reviews also represent informed opinion, right?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

Minister of Information", "high horse","entitled" and ""old guard" in a single sentence. I think he's mad again.

 

I'll point out the obvious. Both mixes of "Rocket Man" were made by professionals and yet they sound very different. I feel the one on the SACD is more holographic and involving. I know several mastering engineers well and they workhard to satisfy a paying customer and may tailor a mix accordingly. As one, a good friend who used to work for Bob Ludwig, put it: "When the client says jump, you say 'how high?'"

 

It's very strange that you find it presumptuous of me to have opinions regarding sound quality—that's kind of central to the job description for an audio or music reviewer. I listen and write about what I hear and readers can agree or disagree. Over time, they'll come to understand how I hear things and can use a review of mine, positive or negative, to understand if they're going to like a recording or piece of gear. You do realize that your own reviews also represent informed opinion, right?

 

There’s likely nothing I can say to close this gap between how we think. 
 

I would say something along the lines of, I prefer one mix over the other and here’s why. 
 

You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”

 

Do you see how your statement can be taken a little differently? Plus, do you see how ridiculous it is to suggest an entire format suffers from choices that aren’t as good? 
 

I’ve used the terms old guard and ministers of information for over a decade. You guys all write with the same style and choice of words in that old paradigm of a box. People obviously enjoy it, but combined with misinformation, it’s borderline Presidential. 
 

 

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There’s likely nothing I can say to close this gap between how we think. 
 

I would say something along the lines of, I prefer one mix over the other and here’s why. 
 

You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”

 

Do you see how your statement can be taken a little differently? Plus, do you see how ridiculous it is to suggest an entire format suffers from choices that aren’t as good? 
 

I’ve used the terms old guard and ministers of information for over a decade. You guys all write with the same style and choice of words in that old paradigm of a box. People obviously enjoy it, but combined with misinformation, it’s borderline Presidential. 
 

 

 

 

The "I would say..." vs. "You say..." versions of my statement regarding the quality of Atmos DD+'s spatiality aren't that

different and I certainly don't feel my version rises to the level of "misinformation." It's an opinion, and I think anyone reading the sentence in context would know that. My feature (slotted for the April 2024 issue when nobody will remember this discussion; the immediate feedback aspect of AS is enviable) gives other examples. And understand that I feel that the lossiness of DD+ is the most damaging aspect of the format. To my ears, it can change the character of voices.

 

You call me out for making broad generalizations.

<< do you see how ridiculous it is to suggest an entire format suffers from choices that aren’t as good?>>

 

How about this one?

<<You guys all write with the same style and choice of words in that old paradigm of a box.>>

Really? You can't tell Valin from Gader, Cordesman from Kalbach, Seydor from Taffel? If that's the case, I'll paraphrase Chris Connaker, and conclude "then I can't help you."

 

We're getting to the bickering stage now, Chris, and I don't want to end up with my own Elba-like thread like a certain conjurer of note. So I'll bow out for real now and look forward to catching up with you at a show.

 

Andy

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”

Technically, it is debatable. ATMOS is object based where individual sound is often recorded in mono and then mixed to create the spatial sound. So it is like panning a recording to place the instrument left or right in stereo. Can you really tell the difference? Does it matter? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, STC said:

Technically, it is debatable. ATMOS is object based where individual sound is often recorded in mono and then mixed to create the spatial sound. So it is like panning a recording to place the instrument left or right in stereo. Can you really tell the difference? Does it matter? 

There is also so much misinformation out there. Some engineers mix with objects in the place of bed / speaker channels while other don’t use objects and many use a mix of the two. 
 

Yet, the old guard is firing up the misinformation machine and attempting to speak from a position of authority. When called out on it, they look around and say, “who, me?” 

[The Computer Audiophile]

39 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Really? You can't tell Valin from Gader, Cordesman from Kalbach, Seydor from Taffel?

I have no clue what any of them write, but I could identify them as the old guard by their style. 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You say, “choices made for Atmos aren't as good as those that have been made previously with speaker-based multichannel formats.”

C'mon.   He said "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."   (Emphasis added.)

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

C'mon.   He said "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."   (Emphasis added.)

That matters not. He is judging art, and without any knowledge of the goals of those who created it. It's very possible that the mixing engineers think the Atmos version is much better at accompllishing what they wanted. 

 

"Quite often" means what? he listened to three albums and two of those he didn't like? 

 

The whole statement is ridicilous. Whatever happend to reproducing what the labels delivered in as high quality as possible? Now we are supposed to make judgements on formats based on zero knowledge? 

 

The old guard did its best to drive people away when digital first came out, and it'll continue to do so with immersive formats. I wasn't around when it happened the first time, I've only been told by manufacturers and dealers how many customers the old guard drove away by telling them what they liked was no good. This time, I'm calling out ridiculousness when I see it. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

We're getting to the bickering stage now, Chris, and I don't want to end up with my own Elba-like thread like a certain conjurer of note. So I'll bow out for real now and look forward to catching up with you at a show.

 

I'd love to catch up at the next show. We likely have much more in common than people reading our online discussion believe. Yes, we have disagreements, but that's OK. 

 

I'd also love to know what you're using to transport and decode Atmos, and for time & frequency room correction.

[ARQuint]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'd love to catch up at the next show. We likely have much more in common than people reading our online discussion believe. Yes, we have disagreements, but that's OK. 

 

I'd also love to know what you're using to transport and decode Atmos, and for time & frequency room correction.

 

This is system for Atmos playback

Sony X1100ES Universal Player - disc transport

Apple TV 4K - Atmos streaming

Anthem AVM70 - Atmos decoding

Anthem AVM70 - DSP room correction

Amplification

  TIDAL Ferios x 2 (Front R and L)

  Pass XA 60.8 x 3 (Center and surrounds)

  Pass Aleph 0s (height channels)

Loudspeakers

  Magico M2 (Front R and L)

  Magico S3Mk2 (Center)

  Magico S1Mk2 x 2 (Surrounds)

  Magico A1 x 2 (Height)

  Magico SSub

[STC]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

This is system for Atmos playback

Sony X1100ES Universal Player - disc transport

Apple TV 4K - Atmos streaming

Anthem AVM70 - Atmos decoding

Anthem AVM70 - DSP room correction

Amplification

  TIDAL Ferios x 2 (Front R and L)

  Pass XA 60.8 x 3 (Center and surrounds)

  Pass Aleph 0s (height channels)

Loudspeakers

  Magico M2 (Front R and L)

  Magico S3Mk2 (Center)

  Magico S1Mk2 x 2 (Surrounds)

  Magico A1 x 2 (Height)

  Magico SSub

Off-topic

 

Do you mind reporting your view of the ATMOS playback without the DSP room correction. You have to calibrate the  ATMOS setup system without the DSP and see if it makes a difference. IMHO, any form of correction with 3D Audio affects the phase and compromises the 3D presentation and since ATMOS relies on reconstruction the spatial sound by playing with level and phase based on the setup I am wondering if the room correction affects the SQ. 
 

If possible two binaural recordings of the playback would be ideal. Just remember you have to calibrate again without the DSP. 
 

Thank you.
 

ST

[ARQuint]

9 hours ago, STC said:

Off-topic

 

Do you mind reporting your view of the ATMOS playback without the DSP room correction. You have to calibrate the  ATMOS setup system without the DSP and see if it makes a difference. IMHO, any form of correction with 3D Audio affects the phase and compromises the 3D presentation and since ATMOS relies on reconstruction the spatial sound by playing with level and phase based on the setup I am wondering if the room correction affects the SQ. 
 

If possible two binaural recordings of the playback would be ideal. Just remember you have to calibrate again without the DSP. 
 

Thank you.
 

ST

 

Interesting. Edgar Choueiri (BACCH-SP) is one of several experts I know who have reservations about how room correction is typically accomplished, with readings averaged from several microphone positions. He's developed his own RC algorithm utilizing measurements from the same in-ear microphones that provide the information necessary to generate an XTC filter for a specific listener - a binaural perspective.

 

Could you PM me so we can discuss further how I could help you?

 

AQ

[The Computer Audiophile]

46 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

Interesting. Edgar Choueiri (BACCH-SP) is one of several experts I know who have reservations about how room correction is typically accomplished, with readings averaged from several microphone positions. He's developed his own RC algorithm utilizing measurements from the same in-ear microphones that provide the information necessary to generate an XTC filter for a specific listener - a binaural perspective.

 

Could you PM me so we can discuss further how I could help you?

 

AQ

I only take a measurement from the listening position(using Audiolense), as I can only sit in one place at a time and prefer to be in the center. Then I send the measurement to @mitchco who creates the 65,000 tap FIR filter for convolution. The results are magnificent. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

He's developed his own RC algorithm utilizing measurements from the same in-ear microphones that provide the information necessary to generate an XTC filter for a specific listener - a binaural perspective.

I am not sure if RC is related to XTC. I was following Choueiri’s use of impulse response to do the XTC during his days at Ambiophonics institute. His approach is slightly different compared to RACE. 
 

I gave up on RC long ago even during Stereophiles days. My approach is room treatment.

 

I am going to PM you now about the other matter. 
 

Thanks again. 

[Kal Rubinson]

23 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Whatever happend to reproducing what the labels delivered in as high quality as possible?

To avoid bickering over those other issues, I will just contend that this is still our common goal and that it applies to whatever the producers release to the public.  But you and Andy were discussing the differences among various formats/mixes of the same original content and, while we strive to reproduce each of them optimally, it is fair game to discuss which ones sound better and why.   

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

it is fair game to discuss which ones sound better and why.

100%. 

 

It's just a disservice when the old guard turns into armchair engineers and questions those creating the mix and their artistic decisions, without a clue as to what they were trying to accomplish. The guys making the recordings can't stop laughing at comments like, "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." 

[Kal Rubinson]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's just a disservice when the old guard turns into armchair engineers and questions those creating the mix and their artistic decisions, without a clue as to what they were trying to accomplish.

Who does know?  Who cares?  They are judged by the results.  There has always been and always will be differences in talent and accomplishment among the engineers and studios and in what they can and choose to release.

 

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The guys making the recordings can't stop laughing at comments like, "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." 

I doubt they are paying much attention to us but that's OK because we are writing to tell our readers what is being offered to them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Who does know?  Who cares?  They are judged by the results.  There has always been and always will be differences in talent and accomplishment among the engineers and studios and in what they can and choose to release.

 

I doubt they are paying much attention to us but that's OK because we are writing to tell our readers what is being offered to them. 

 

In a way I'm happy you guys are the way you are, because I like being different. 

 

If you don't know why a decision was made, why on Earth would you suggest is wasn't good one? Who does that serve other than yourself in the short run. It's the Minister of Information thinking. Plus, if you have no idea why, how can you attribute any differences to talent or accomplishments? It makes no sense. 

 

They are paying attention. I send them snippets and talk to them. I'm sure the guy who mixes albums that have collectively sold 100 million copies has no clue what he's doing, if the old guard says so 🙄

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

In a way I'm happy you guys are the way you are, because I like being different. 

I'll grant you that much.  

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Who does know?  Who cares?  They are judged by the results.  There has always been and always will be differences in talent and accomplishment among the engineers and studios and in what they can and choose to release.

 

I doubt they are paying much attention to us but that's OK because we are writing to tell our readers what is being offered to them. 

 

52 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

In a way I'm happy you guys are the way you are, because I like being different. 

 

If you don't know why a decision was made, why on Earth would you suggest is wasn't good one? Who does that serve other than yourself in the short run. It's the Minister of Information thinking. Plus, if you have no idea why, how can you attribute any differences to talent or accomplishments? It makes no sense. 

 

They are paying attention. I send them snippets and talk to them. I'm sure the guy who mixes albums that have collectively sold 100 million copies has no clue what he's doing, if the old guard says so 🙄

 

 

If I can presume to paraphrase what Chris is saying (tell me if I'm wrong): Saying "I prefer A to B, and here's why" is great, it's what interesting discussions come from. Saying "I prefer A to B because the guy who did B made worse decisions," without having talked to the guy who did B to learn what decisions he made and why, is to presume knowledge you don't have.

 

The other thing that comes to my mind is the human fondness for familiar patterns. Perhaps your concept of correct immersive audio was formed when you did a lot of listening to a previous technology. And therefore it's possible listening to immersive audio done with the next technology isn't going to feel right to you until you have a lot of experience with it. You may think it's because of a lossy format, but can you know that for certain?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

 

If I can presume to paraphrase what Chris is saying (tell me if I'm wrong): Saying "I prefer A to B, and here's why" is great, it's what interesting discussions come from. Saying "I prefer A to B because the guy who did B made worse decisions," without having talked to the guy who did B to learn what decisions he made and why, is to presume knowledge you don't have.

 

The other thing that comes to my mind is the human fondness for familiar patterns. Perhaps your concept of correct immersive audio was formed when you did a lot of listening to a previous technology. And therefore it's possible listening to immersive audio done with the next technology isn't going to feel right to you until you have a lot of experience with it. You may think it's because of a lossy format, but can you know that for certain?

100% this Jud. Thank you for saying what I tried to say. I only used a million words to your 151.