Article: Embracing Immersive Audio

[STC]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

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

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. 

[JoeWhip]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Why can't they just release the TrueHD as a download?

They did, in a MKV file. The disc played back on my player just sounds better for whatever reason. 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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.

Just stop already. 

[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.

😏

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

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

Sorry.

😏

 

It is Frank. Sorry to say, he doesn't know when to stop. He likes to wave a red blanket in front of a charging bull.

[STC]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

I'm saying that any half decent two channel setup, properly 'debugged' and optimised, can create a convincing, immersive listening experience.

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 ……😂

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Mone

 

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.

Dude, stop. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@fas42 word on the street is that you’ve been banned from other sites for your posts. Let’s not have to get to that level. Feel free to say whatever you want, but do it in this area - 

 

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dude, stop. 

 

The ignore list is very effective for me, though I can understand as the site owner you'd want to be aware of what folks are saying. Sorry about that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Jud said:

 

The ignore list is very effective for me, though I can understand as the site owner you'd want to be aware of what folks are saying. Sorry about that.

Thats my conundrum 😏

[PeterG]

On 11/26/2023 at 7:04 AM, ARQuint said:

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.

 

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

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

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.

This is exactly the problem when you blindly believe in something. Firstly, most drums in recordings do not sound far away or at the back of the stage. Why? Drum recordings are often made with microphone stuck very close to them and often the use more than one so the reverbs will be minimal and since you are not present in the venue you have no clue of the size or space to precisely determine the position. Often even in live concert without visual aid you will misjudge the position. you are entitled to your believe but please do not make unsubstantiated claim about stuff beyond your knowledge or experience. Unless you can substantiate your claim by posting you own YouTube of your perfect system. Preferably before and after resoldering.  You have not even addressed that point yet. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thats my conundrum 😏

I use the ignore list but that’s not stopping one from commenting in my own thread and when you view the thread without signing in ignore list is visible and it is hard to ignore when…… ( censored words)

[STC]

7 minutes ago, PeterG said:

I'm not going from 2 Wilson/McIntosh channels to 12 Wilson/McIntosh channels

I would blame the marketing for this. Your main sound is still the from the front and you do not need full range high fidelity for the surround which is often additional sound unless you have a flying around the room Sinatra otherwise a reasonable quality speakers should able to convey the spatial sound good enough. For music, all the additional speakers should only produce envelopment but since we can create some fancy effect of placing the instrument anywhere then the quality of surround speakers matter. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, PeterG said:

And I have read about a thousand posts on CA about MQA being evil because it is proprietary

I honestly haven’t seen many that even suggest MQA is evil because it’s proprietary. When there’s an open codec that’s actually better, as in FLAC, people question why a proprietary codec is being pushed. 
 

Atmos has no open equivalent and the record labels aren’t putting out music in other formats. 
 

 

41 minutes ago, PeterG said:

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.

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. 
 

Let’s not forget all the high resolution immersive content. 
 

 

46 minutes ago, PeterG said:

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 know of nobody who is ignoring this reality. 

 

47 minutes ago, PeterG said:

I'm not going from 2 Wilson/McIntosh channels to 12 Wilson/McIntosh channels, I'd be going to 12 of something else

 

understood. It’s not easy. 

 

49 minutes ago, PeterG said:

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

Nobody is pretending this. We are talking about something great and enjoy telling people about something that has a larger impact on music reproduction than anything we’ve yet experienced. CD to high resolution can’t hold a candle to the impact Atmos has had on my music loving life. 
 

 

52 minutes ago, PeterG said:

Chris has overcome that by ignoring financial constraints

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

50 minutes ago, STC said:

I would blame the marketing for this. Your main sound is still the from the front and you do not need full range high fidelity for the surround which is often additional sound unless you have a flying around the room Sinatra otherwise a reasonable quality speakers should able to convey the spatial sound good enough. For music, all the additional speakers should only produce envelopment but since we can create some fancy effect of placing the instrument anywhere then the quality of surround speakers matter. 

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. 

[JoeWhip]

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

It is Frank. Sorry to say, he doesn't know when to stop. He likes to wave a red blanket in front of a charging bull.

I have had him on ignore on this site and another one for years now.

[JoeWhip]

I do not need 12 Wilson’s to get great results. Far from it. You can get great results with immersive audio without spending a bundle.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I should also note it isn’t the intention of anyone, myself included, who writes for Audiophile Style, to drive a wedge between audiophiles who enjoy immersive audio and everyone else. We all still love two channel audio and have great two channel systems. 
 

For people to enjoy and talk about immersive audio, others don’t have to assume second class audiophile citizenship. We can all flourish, with more options than ever before. 
 

Those doubting immersive audio often come across like they have an ulterior motive. What’s the problem if immersive audio succeeds and becomes as popular as stereo? Nothing. Nobody loses. Everybody wins. 
 

This isn’t a race. If it was a race, one runner would be going east to west while the other would be going north to south. Two channel stereo and immersive audio are different animals. 

[STC]

1 hour 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. 

 Perfectly legitimate expectation of what one want to hear in a multi channel system. We do enjoy such effects. In stereo Amused to Death was reference CD for 2 channel stereo, there are sound with effects that produces sound beyond ordinary live musical experience. Nothing wrong in liking them. In fact there was an orchestra album with birds chirping. Some stereo system with low ceiling or reflective ceiling would swear that the could hear the birds flying above. In my system they are almost the same height with rest of the instruments because my ceiling is damped. Perhaps, one day we may have a Dolby ATMOS remaster which now could make the birds literally flying above and behind you and I would definitely want that system compared to the 2 channel stereo.
 

As you said, there is no rule book when it comes to studio recordings. You can make where the sound should appear and there are people like such experience. Even in simple stereo system some like big soundstage but others like smaller but intense projection of sound. I was just saying stating that getting extra similar speakers shouldn’t stop you from enjoying multichannel. Even average speakers for the surround could enhanced the sound more compared to the 2 channel sound. Not meant to offend anyone. I was just trying to convince others to embrace multichannel and not to shy away from them just because they cannot afford 12 Wilson’s.

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 Perfectly legitimate expectation of what one want to hear in a multi channel system. We do enjoy such effects. In stereo Amused to Death was reference CD for 2 channel stereo, there are sound with effects that produces sound beyond ordinary live musical experience. Nothing wrong in liking them. In fact there was an orchestra album with birds chirping. Some stereo system with low ceiling or reflective ceiling would swear that the could hear the birds flying above. In my system they are almost the same height with rest of the instruments because my ceiling is damped. Perhaps, one day we may have a Dolby ATMOS remaster which now could make the birds literally flying above and behind you and I would definitely want that system compared to the 2 channel stereo.
 

As you said, there is no rule book when it comes to studio recordings. You can make where the sound should appear and there are people like such experience. Even in simple stereo system some like big soundstage but others like smaller but intense projection of sound. I was just saying stating that getting extra similar speakers should stop you from enjoying multichannel. Even average speakers for the surround could enhanced the sound more compared to the 2 channel sound. Not meant to offend anyone. I was just trying to convince others to embrace multichannel and not to shy away from them just because they cannot afford 12 Wilson’s.

Ah. Understood. 

[STC]

39 minutes ago, STC said:

should stop

 Meant to say “shouldn’t stop you”

[The Computer Audiophile]

34 minutes ago, STC said:

 Meant to say “shouldn’t stop you”

Corrected the original.