Article: Embracing Immersive Audio

[fas42]

Downunder there is close to zero interest, still. The two major retailers in my state only mention it in the context of the "other" audio experience - home theatre. And the major website that is based in our part of the world, Stereonet, only mentions Atmos in passing, in the posts ...

 

So, if it's going to make the Big Time it's a slow start, for us. Whether it "sounds real", rather than just gimmicky, in a less than fully optimised, and expensive rig is the other question mark - I haven't come across anything live or on the net yet that shows signs of getting this reasonably good ...

[fas42]

And this article, https://www.afr.com/technology/true-surround-sound-technology-for-music-is-here-but-there-s-a-catch-20230828-p5dzvl, from a local reputable journal screams at me what the problem still is: the focus, how it's presented, is all about gimmickry, in what you hear ...

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is part of the human problem. Who you’re listening to is a writer who visited Dolby labs rather someone, me, who has spent over 2,000 hours listening to all genres, talking with those who create it, and spending time in the studios. 
 

You decide who’s more credible. 

 

I'm sure that your own listening space for immersive is of a high order. Because you've gone to the effort, taken the care, to "get it right". But if articles which are intended to enthuse potential buyers of new audio directions - and the readers of this journal are the 'serious' members of the community - send the message that it's all about fireworks and razzle dazzle, then it's highly likely that these people will settle back down with their carefully considered stereo setups, and think, "It's just another fad ..."

[fas42]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I was talking about what you think, not what others think. You said ...

 

 

Perhaps you misunderstood. I was talking of the fact that media coverage, etc, is about the Wow! factor of hearing Atmos. Which is less likely to encourage serious consideration of surround sound systems, by those with the money and interest to do it properly.

[fas42]

I note that "spatial stereo" is now "a thing", actively promoted by companies. And on looking it up found these comments,

 

Quote

There have been stereo upmixing techniques since for ever. Nothing has yet beaten proper stereo sound for music.

 

and

 

Quote

Fully agreed. I listened to a lot of Atmos music today. 90% I’d describe as “airy vocals with all other sounds pushed to the background”, 5% as “stereo but with some sounds gimmicky going from left to right” and 5% (mainly classical) where Atmos actually created a superior feel of space in the music.

 

The former I agree with wholeheartedly. The latter is a bit disquieting, because it implies that the gimmicky side of things is still too prominent in the minds of producers of the recordings.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Again, perhaps I don't understnad what you're trying to say, but I've spent over 2,000 hours listening and I disagree with whomever said what you quoted.

 

Really all I'm saying is that I suspect I will have a similar viewpoint to the second comment - unless I hear only those recordings which have been carefully engineered enough, on a setup which is 'faultless' in the ways I am sensitive to, then I will be too aware of the rig trying to impress me, rather than just deliver a musical experience.

 

No alternate reality here, . There are enough setups out there now which are accurate enough to deliver the goods, which I point to now and again in my video clips blog thread. This is the sort of thing I was looking for, and getting, decades ago - the interesting aspect is understanding why most rigs fail, and what is needed to make it happen ...

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

In other words, you know what you want to believe and you’ll seek information to back it up. 

 

Which implies I have an agenda, to demonstrate that surround sound is "not good enough". Which I don't. What I'm seeing so far, is that one has to be exposed to the "best examples" of Atmos, to see "what the fuss is about". If I come across an example of some album I know well, that is significantly improved in the presentation by being in Atmos, then I can cheerfully tick the Yes box, . If a recording was designed from the start to be a surround sound experience then it's almost inevitable that reverting to stereo will lose a lot of its impact - but for albums created before the adoption of this technology I will have a question mark until I hear tracks that show otherwise ...

[fas42]

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.

[fas42]

Nicely caught, Confused. Which got me another thread, just now,

 

 

And that continues the theme ... . I come, currently, from the angle of this chap,

 

Quote

I like atmos for movies, but I LOVE two-channel for music. Set up properly you can nearly achieve a 3D effect. To me, music sounds coming from all angles could be a fun novelty, but I doubt it will ever replace stereo, for me at least.

 

Except, the 3D effect is not a "nearly" - when this standard of reproduction switches on, fully, any interest in something more Wow! evaporates ...

 

I'm happy to be next to the stage where the musicians are performing; actually going onto the stage, being in the middle of them, would be interesting - but I don't see it as being life changing.

[fas42]

As I mentioned a while ago to Confused, this track would be a "go to" for me, to check whether a rig was up to it - I referred to it often, when first getting good replay,

 

 

Most stereo setups turn this into a congealed mess, when everything climbs on board - if an Atmos setup can render this super clean, at solid, elevated volumes, then I would give it a big thumbs up ...

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

This person has obviously not been lucky enough to sit on a stage 10 feet from a Van Cliburn winner, twice. Maybe not life changing, but "interesting" doesn't cover it at all.

 

 

 

Well, I have "been lucky enough" to sit a couple of feet away from a classical guitar player with a major catalogue of recordings to his name, as he effortlessly "fooled around" with his instrument while conversing with people sitting with him ... yes, special stuff - but most music is when performed by someone "practiced in the art" ... or reproduced well, .

[fas42]

I keep my eye out for a single, yes, single, video on YouTube that captures what it sounds like in a room that has good quality Atmos playback running - yes, plenty of Whiz Bang stuff, but nothing that one would want live with for more than 10 minutes.

 

You know how people can capture some live music happening somewhere, on a very amateurish mobile clip, and one thing that shines through it the quality of 'realness' of what is going on? Well, if Atmos done well is up to it, then at least something of that same quality should be evident in a rough and ready capture of what it "sounds like" - otherwise, I don't see the point. So far, I haven't chanced on a video done to demonstrate this - so, if someone could point me to one, I would appreciate it ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You could’ve stopped right there. Ridiculous quality that’s barely stereo, and you judge 12 channel Atmos. Just stop with the cockamamie comments. 

 

I'm not judging a system whether I can discern 12 channels of sound. What I would be judging is whether the integrity of the playback chains used for those channels are good enough, so that if I listen with just one ear - or alternatively with the microphone of some recording device - at some, random position, then the SQ has no major defects or obvious problems. If the replay has distinct issues, sufficient to be obvious on a video clip, then all the Wowness! of other aspects won't count for a can of beans, in the long term.

 

Interestingly, I was just down in the big shopping area of my area for the first time in a good while ... was that one 'serious' audio concern still going? Nope - had died. How about the mega size retailer of everything, especially electronics, who had a decent room set aside for the "good stuff", last time - well, that space was no more, swamped by a sea of mega size screens that stretched into the distance, with colours pumping at maximum heat ... it's visual, maaan ... that's where the action is!

 

Not inspiring, not one little bit ... whether Atmos can reach to be taken seriously is very much a question mark, in my neck of the woods.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Here's my take this weekend: MUSINGS: Beyond "High Resolution" recordings. Into "Immersive" and "High Reality" content.

 

 

Your stance is, unfortunately, why I will keep pushing my agenda - a key thing you said,

 

Quote

The issue with standard 2-channel stereo is that it's simply not natural.

 

That demonstrates that you have never heard a 2 channel system projecting a convincing illusion, or if you have, you thought it was a gimmick, a fluke, or a by-product of some type of distortion, e.g. "tube warmness". It's none of those, but simply a natural consequence of the playback having low enough levels of certain types of distortion or anomalies - the fact that the latter is not plug and play keeps that standard of presentation at bay for most participants; which is not a reason to try and force the concept of it being possible to "just go away!!"

 

Why I want to hear a clip of decent Atmos playback happening is to check whether the technology is at least good enough to "sound right" - every instance of surround sound I've come across in the flesh, and the ones that are captured in clips all do the set to 11! thing - equivalent to the rows and rows of monster TV sets all throbbing with Super! colour, with excess paint running down down the fronts of the glass, I saw a day or so ago ... great for a thrill ride - but do I want to live with it ... ?

 

Natural means, natural. Reality should just be reality ... not "High Reality".

[fas42]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’re still on that magical mystery tour. 

 

You see, I just have to turn on my ultra cheap rig, quite reasonably optimised over the time I've had it, and turn up the volume - as I did about an hour ago, after quite a few days not using it - sound stage away in the distance, almost invisible speakers, firing beautifully. Pipe and drums band, then a classic blues compilation, happening as I type - spot on from the other end of the house; in the room where it's playing the CD, the band's powering, filling every inch of the space with that driving beat, and feel ... would Atmos add one tiny bit to that? ... Nope!!

 

It's a tour I'm happy to take, indefinitely ... .

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

Frank, there is nothing in this world, inclusive of illegal substances, that'll improve the world you're living in. Cheers for being so content, but the quote about remaining silent and be thought a fool, vs speaking up and removing all doubt, is coming into play with respect to Atmos. You personally are certianly no fool, but your immersive audio comments are quite silly and come from a place of zero experience. 

 

Not quite zero ... the recent audio show had a home theatre room with Atmos logos prominently shown, with surround speakers in play; working competently at levels probably 20dB higher that anyone here has had Atmos working at home. Yes, impressive stuff - but showing shortfalls in SQ, as mentioned elsewhere ... I'm on the lookout for what it might sound like, when all the stars align; but so far have come across nothing.

 

I was just perusing WhatsBestForum, to see what the interest is like there ... very mild, from what I can see - Mike Lavigne, who pushes 2 channel quite a ways, sees a place for it - but not for the great archive of music going back decades.

 

I note that Joe Whip, in a separate thread there, mentions "sense of scale and dynamics" for orchestral being hard with 2 channel ... yes, but that's purely limitations in the hardware used ... an Atmos version could add some authentic 'bounce' from the hall's surfaces, but I see that as the only benefit.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, bbosler said:

 

so you are capable of discerning what something will be like without having to experience it.

 

No wasting time for you !! No need to try things to find out if you like them. You just know !!

 

Most people would claim nobody is capable of doing that, but I believe you. I envy you. 

 

 

For me, the point is that an audio system is merely a means for connecting to the musical events captured on recordings - it's tool for doing that, and no more. If a system does that effortlessly, at any sane volume level I choose, on any album I care to put on, then it's done its job - until very recently, essentially all audio setups just downright failed at doing that; it was like looking at a girl with makeup caked on, who was trying to look attractive - but only succeeded in making one uncomfortable, because it was all too obvious ...

 

It's fine to have a hobby of trying "new things", or exploring alternate methods to enhance the experience; but the fundamentals have to be in place first - for me. Does the system handle any sort of recording without making it obvious that "something is not right" ... check 👍. Does the playback place me "in the room" where the action is - which I call 'immersive' - the "I'm there!" sensation ... check 👍.

 

I would be very interested in hearing a competent Atmos playback - but the odds are not good: retailers here are only interested in the home theatre thing - and I heard such a setup quite superior to what they would do, only weeks ago - which failed the 'transparency' test. And there is not the slightest hint that anyone has a home system in my region that meets the standard that say Chris would state is required ...

 

The word I use over and over again is "convincing" - hard to do but certainly achievable - until a surround rig I come across nails that, I'll be happy with 2 channels that gets all the important stuff right.

 

[fas42]

I'll give another example of what a system that "does its job" achieves ... you put on an album by a group who you have never heard of before, or an album by a known band that put out a 'dud' - the recording went nowhere, the tracks almost instantly disappeared into the archives. And it works. Beautifully. You get, on the first listen what the musicians were trying to do, aiming for - plenty of Wow! moments while you listen - what a "discovery"!! This is the thrill that having top notch replay delivers - the magic of finding "new stuff" ... not for me the tedium of playing "audiophile approved" tracks for the umpteenth time, to see if I can hear when the drummer dropped a stick "more clearly than ever before!", .

[fas42]

13 hours ago, STC said:

I wonder why you are spamming every thread with your rhetoric of how a good two channel stereo like your could outperform even a decent ATMOS.  And reading from video thread of yours on how to decipher the SQ of a system just by listening to an unknown recording method I envy with your ability. 
 

Perhaps, it is time that you post you own system YouTube and tell us how it sounds so superior to other system. 

 

I'm saying that any half decent two channel setup, properly 'debugged' and optimised, can create a convincing, immersive listening experience. Atmos is Yet Another Method of tricking the brain so that an illusion of some quality can form; which should be easier for a number of reasons - I'm about the Art of Audio Conjuring, ; which just happens to be getting easier and easier, over the years - using different techniques.

 

I know most blokes are locked into a world of "mine's bigger than yours!!", but that sort of carry on is downright boring for me - I get a kick out of seeing things evolving, and, yes, other people making progress, . Audio friend up the road is an example of that ...

 

It seems people have a hard time understanding what you listen for, in a YouTube clip ... you can never pick how good it is - what you are listening for are the usual, extremely obvious giveaways that it's a capture of an audio system - if you ask someone who can't see the screen whether this is playback of a recording track, or a live performance by musicians, and they laugh, "Of course not! It's obviously somebody's hifi!"  ... you've got your answer. If it sounds like an audio system, then it's already failed ...

 

A system "sounds superior" because it doesn't sound like anything. Except the recording. The more it has zero 'personality', that is, exactly like the recording, directly injected, the better it is ... a comparison of ten 'superior' rigs should be quite boring, because they will be so alike that the exercise becomes very tedious ... the whole exercise is the complete opposite of something like high performance, supercars - and that's something most people don't understand.

[fas42]

Mone

28 minutes ago, STC said:

I am saying that any decent man can be brainwashed by others or by their own into believing that they can even perceive 3D sound from mono setup and more so after resoldering repeatedly their poorly engineered stereo. Just saying ……😂

 

Mono recordings trivially can give depth; the ear/brain knows what the acoustic cues mean, when a drum kit at the back of a swing orchestra is clearly well behind everyone else. The "fatness" of what you hear is not going to give you brilliant Left and Right stuff, but it lifts completely out of the speakers - which is good enough.

 

If you don't grok that substandard SQ occurs because crucial weaknesses haven't been addressed, that's fine ... luckily for most, in  industries where it discovered fairly early in the piece that it was important to get everything right, attention to detail is taken seriously, e.g. the airline business.