Article: Embracing Immersive Audio

[ARQuint]

On 11/21/2023 at 4:43 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

So many opinions from people with so little experience and knowledge in the area. 

 

I think that a key observation here is that assessments of Dolby Atmos should be based on experience, and not just experience with Dolby Atmos. The metric of "immersion" is just one aspect of what gives spatiality to a recording: Dr. Edgar Choueiri has written a feature for TAS on this subject for the January 2024 issue that I hope everyone will read and digest. But even just limiting the discussion to immersive mixes, it's not as if this phenomenon began with Atmos. Discreet loudspeaker-based multichannel has given us thousands of albums, which I've collected enthusiastically for a decade and a half (more than 4000 on a 52TB NAS.). I don't get the impression that many Dolby Atmos enthusiasts have much experience with this mother-lode of material.

 

I had an excellent Atmos demo from Joe Whip—we're friends, and don't live that far apart—and I resolved to update my 5.1 Magico/Pass MC system to an Atmos-capable one, trading my Anthem D2v for an Anthem AVM70 and adding a pair of Magico A1s for height channels. I resolved not to form any opinions until I'd had meaningful experience with the unfamiliar format. This is my conclusion so far.

 

Unfortunately, here's a real quality gap with Atmos for music. There are not all that many music-only Dolby TrueHD discs and downloads to listen to. Among those that are available, most (but not all) of mine come from 2L and they are among the very best immersive-style spatial audio mixes I've ever heard. What's streamed on Apple Music has little to do with that—it's egregiously compressed and sounds it when compared to the available stereo versions available on Tidal, Qobuz, etc. In addition, decisions regarding the mix itself for an Atmos release—which sounds go where— are, in my experience, usually inferior to those that were made for the equivalent SACD, Blu-ray, or download. That's my opinion, based on the small number of albums that are both available as disc or download and can be streamed as Dolby Digital Plus.

 

Finally, how many Atmos enthusiasts have heard Choueiri's BACCH-SP XTC filter in action? It's responsible, of course, for a different kind of  advanced spatiality than Atmos (or speaker-based multichannel) but it more often than not serves the musical meaning of a performance exceptionally well. Two-channel devotees are not necessarily Luddites if they decline to embrace Atmos as the future of high end audio.

 

Andy Quint

[ARQuint]

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Edgar’s technology is neat, but has nothing to do with accurate playback of source material. It’s like hitting the Stadium button on old receivers. Cool effect, but not related to what’s on the album. Two channel mixes are done on speakers and headphones, to sound like they do on speakers are headphones like the mixing engineer. Nobody mixes using Edgar’s tech. Thus, using it for playback is essentially like adjusting bass and treble. It may be enjoyable, but nothing related to fidelity. 

 

This is, I think, an unfair characterization of XTC, as developed by Edgar or anyone else. This isn't an "effect," something akin to pushing an ambiance button on a receiver, but the recovery of spatial information that was there all along. Again, it's a different kind of spatial information than the purely immersive variety, but restoring it to a two-channel recording—probably 80% of all stereo recordings I have, not just binaural productions—greatly increases dimensional detail.

 

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The market has selected Atmos. Focusing on Atmos is what I think is the best move. If we don’t, we end up like red headed stepchildren with DSD again. With respect to the multichannel made years ago, that ship has sailed. To me it’s like vintage gear. Nobody is still selling it, finding the old stuff is hard, and the market has already moved on. It may be fun for some people, but I’m very uninterested. 
 

I'm not suggesting that fans of immersive audio look for long out-of-print multichannel SACDs. Rather, I'm asking Dolby Atmos content producers to consistently put more effort into creating their immersive mixes, which can seem pleasantly enveloping at first (and distract you from the glaring deficiencies with basic audio parameters that derive from the heavy compression of the streamed version) but don't always hold up over time. This is especially the case with classical music.

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The format has been around for 30 minutes. The number of mainstream albums being released in TrueHD today is far greater than the number of mainstream albums being released as multichannel SACD or downloads. 

Is this really true, Chris? How many discs with Dolby TrueHD music-only content are available at the current time? I think most audiophiles understand that physical media and downloads may well be going the way of the dodo before long. Otherwise, it's streaming and, as you say, the market has spoken with the powers- that-be deciding that an extremely lossy format is good enough for most.

[ARQuint]

6 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

I have had conversations with folks at Dolby involved with Atmos. They are pushing the labels to release TrueHD Atmos discs as they fully realize how much better they sound than DD+. Hopefully we will see more. Besides the DD+ v. trueHD issue. I have found the physical media conundrum. One of my favorite mixes still is the Bob James Feels like making live album. Downloaded from Immersive Audio Album in a MKV file, it sounds sensational. Until I grabbed the 4k ultra HD Blu ray release. The physical media sounds better in every way,. Maybe it is the player v. The Nvidia Shield, who knows, but give us more physical media. Are you listening Don Was?

 

Last week I received a couple of TrueHD classical albums I'd ordered from Pure Audio Recordings in Germany, both performances I was familiar with from other formats: Destination Rachmaninov (Trifonov/Philadelphia/Nézet-Séguin) and Franck etc organ music played by Olivier Latry. Both were magnificent—spatially, tonally, dynamically. I was able to compare the Latry recording to the hybrid MC SACD and the Atmos Mix won that face off handily – having those height channels goes a long way in sonically illuminating a very large space like a cathedral. I couldn't compare the TrueHD and DD+ versions  as the Apple TV Atmos files are not up on Apple TV now. I'm pretty sure that they were when I ordered the discs a few weeks back, but I believe Apple TV may rotate some selections on and off their playlist.

 

All by way of emphasizing that I fully appreciate what Atmos can do when given the chance. Unlike the folks that wrote the Stereophile editorial, I don't want Atmos to go away, I want it to get better.

 

Joe, let me know when Dave Was returns your call.

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Artistic decisions don’t always jibe with audiophile pursuits. We should hope for something better of course, but we should accept the real world and try to make it sound as good as possible. 

You seem to be implying that using the DD+ format for streaming Atmos is an "artistic decision." It isn't, of course - it's a economic/financial one.

 

[ARQuint]

57 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Just stop already. 

You probably can't kick somebody out just for being annoying. Check the bylaws.

Sorry.

😏

[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.

[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

[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?

 

[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

 

 

[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

[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