Article: Embracing Immersive Audio

[Kal Rubinson]

4 hours 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.

Agreed.  Completely.

 

4 hours ago, Jud said:

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?

This is certainly likely.  As in the past, transitions have been more difficult for some than for others and for many reasons.  Conscious and unconscious bias are always relevant.

[Sal1950]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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." 

The biggest issue IMO is when the old guard insists on calling/seeing much of immersive audio "gimmickry".  If they can't begin to understand and accept the new artistry paradigm of the recordings being done by the leading multich engineers and recording artists, how can they ever begin to understand why X choices have been made? Listening to recordings such as Yello - Point, Booka Shade, Pineapple Thief, Bruce Soord, Steven Wilson, etc, if you can't begin to accept what they are trying to do, the art they are producing, you will never be capable of making a relevant observation.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

The biggest issue IMO is when the old guard insists on calling/seeing much of immersive audio "gimmickry".  If they can't begin to understand and accept the new artistry paradigm of the recordings being done by the leading multich engineers and recording artists, how can they ever begin to understand why X choices have been made? Listening to recordings such as Yello - Point, Booka Shade, Pineapple Thief, Bruce Soord, Steven Wilson, etc, if you can't begin to accept what they are trying to do, the art they are producing, you will never be capable of making a relevant observation.

 

Totally agree Sal. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

The biggest issue IMO is when the old guard insists on calling/seeing much of immersive audio "gimmickry".

In fact I was thinking about this a couple days ago and think it’s just like how the old guard latched on to the evils of jitter, like an attack dog. 40 years after the CD was born, and many years after jitter was made a non issue, those guys still talked about it like the battle continues and it was a coin toss if the next DAC would deliver jitter free enjoyment. Turns out, they all did. 
 

Now, they fall back on ping pong stereo from the late 1950s as their thing, that they brought to multichannel and then immersive. It’s just what they do. 

[Confused]

On 11/28/2023 at 2:11 PM, PeterG said:

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?

Your point is well made here I think. I too have been thinking about the cost of my 2 channel system, and then thinking just how much would it cost for an equivalent quality multi channel system. It would be a considerable cost. I have already had occasional thoughts of something like a KEF Reference multi channel system with decent amplification. Would it really be worth it?

 

Yet I fall into a slightly different category. I have my 2 channel system, and I already have a 7 channel system which has developed over the years for the specific prepose of providing the sound for movies. The system started as a crude surround system in the "Dolby Surround" days, (powered by VCR!) then became a 5 channel system, then a 7 channel system. This as Dolby Digital became more common, together with Dolby True HD, DTS Master Audio, and so on. Recently this has been upgraded yet further with an ATMOS capable AVR and height speakers.

 

From here, for me to try ATMOS purely for music, I have bought myself a 2021 Apple TV 4K (£105 "old new stock"), and I am now going to start an Apple Music subscription. (£10.99 per month, first month free)

 

Obviously I am a very specific case, but for me to at least give it a go and find out for myself, the total additional cost is £115.99, which includes two months of as much ATMOS music as I can find time to listen to.

 

In fact, the cost is actually lower than the above. I have found that using the Apple TV 4K to watch ATMOS content via Disney + works a lot better than using the Disney + app via my TV, and needing to use ARC to extract the sound. So the Apple TV 4K was well worth the money, even if I never use it purely for music. So I could say that the cost of trying this for two months is roughly the same as a couple of beers and a packet of peanuts, £10.99.

 

All of which makes me wonder. How many people will find themselves in a similar situation? That is they already have a multi channel system, they are a lover of music, so why not give this ATMOS music streaming a go? Nothing beats trying it for yourself. Indeed, some people will already have the kit and an Apple Music subscription (or similar), so will end up trying it just because they can.

 

Then we have the question of how many people will become ATMOS converts. As I write, I have no idea if I will, or if I will somehow become jaded by it and drift back to my 2 channel ways.

 

I am sure it will be fun finding out, if nothing else.

[JoeWhip]

You do not sound confused at all Confused and you are doing just what I did. The  2021 Apple TV box is amazing, the video and sound beats the pants off all the apps on my TV.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

Nothing beats trying it for yourself

 

 

5 hours ago, Confused said:

I am sure it will be fun finding out, if nothing else

This is what’s it’s all about :~)

[Kal Rubinson]

10 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

The biggest issue IMO is when the old guard insists on calling/seeing much of immersive audio "gimmickry".  If they can't begin to understand and accept the new artistry paradigm of the recordings being done by the leading multich engineers and recording artists, how can they ever begin to understand why X choices have been made? Listening to recordings such as Yello - Point, Booka Shade, Pineapple Thief, Bruce Soord, Steven Wilson, etc, if you can't begin to accept what they are trying to do, the art they are producing, you will never be capable of making a relevant observation.

Despite my seniority, I do not accept the label of "old guard" because I support everything you say, especially for the examples you cite.  For contemporary / popular music, it seems more than reasonable to exercise all the studio capabilities as they develop and, hopefully, the original writers/performers will do so going forward.   

 

There is, however, a separate issue when it comes to classical music which, frankly, is mostly what I listen to.  In this sphere, the composer has defined the instrumentation and, implicitely, the performance/listening configuration and the goal of home reproduction has been to create, as truthfully as possible, a simulation of that configuration.  Immersive technology has the power to further that goal, especially if the original performances were arranged in a suitably novel way. 

 

OTOH, I see no reason why one cannot also apply immersive mixing more creatively if there is an artistic value to be gained by doing so.  There are a relatively few, but not insignificant, number of such efforts in "bed-level" multichannel classical records which are enjoyable because the producers (e.g., Tacet) wanted to illuminate certain aspects of the music.  I hope to see more of this in the immersive era.  What I would not care to see would be a wholesale, perhaps automated, repackaging of classical recordings just to spread things around for novel effect.  There is a referential reality to standard classical performances to be preserved.  It's not an audio issue, it is an artistic necessity.  Contemporary composers, of course, should be welcome to consider the new formats for new opportunities.

 

 

[JoeWhip]

I do not see why classical orchestra pieces should be any different. Of course, having parts of the orchestra would not make any sense, at least to me, but the live orchestral pieces I have in Atmos more realistically recreate the sound I hear in a concert hall than I have ever heard stereo do. A more sense of space, size and dynamics with ambiance in the surrounds and height speakers. 

[Kalpesh]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Contemporary composers, of course, should be welcome to consider the new formats for new opportunities.

 

 

Pierre Boulez did it ages ago with Répons. I heard it live in Versailles (in Grandes écuries) in the presence of the composer, ministers etc, bought the cd back then an almost never played it ever since. Maybe the next time will be when I'll have a Mch system and  Répons will be distributed Mch, that might happen before chicken have (back) teeth but it's not for sure. I can also remember two Pierre Henry concerts with hundreds of loudspeakers, one outdoors, in front of Chateau de Versailles, the other in Grande salle of Maison de la Radio,  and doubt there's any happiness in the pursuit of recreating those events home

[Kal Rubinson]

33 minutes ago, Kalpesh said:

Pierre Boulez did it ages ago with Répons. I heard it live in Versailles (in Grandes écuries) in the presence of the composer, ministers etc, bought the cd back then an almost never played it ever since. Maybe the next time will be when I'll have a Mch system and  Répons will be distributed Mch, that might happen before chicken have (back) teeth but it's not for sure. I can also remember two Pierre Henry concerts with hundreds of loudspeakers, one outdoors, in front of Chateau de Versailles, the other in Grande salle of Maison de la Radio,  and doubt there's any happiness in the pursuit of recreating those events home

Yes!  Similar events were the Seattle Symphony's performance of Berio's Sinfonia where the voices of "Room Full of Teeth" were distributed throughout all the levels of the hall and the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra's performance of Henry Brant’s spatial composition, "Ice Field" where more than 100 performers were widely distributed, singly or in groups.  See: https://www.stereophile.com/content/immersive-audio-aes.

 

I have the SSO Berio in 5.1 and it is spectacular but should be hair-raising in an immersive rendition.  I have the SFSO Brant in a, get this, 40 channel WAV which, of course, I cannot play in full but the 5.1 mixdown is amazing.  I believe it is available in Atmos and I intend to access that ASAP.  

[JoeWhip]

I attended a Mahler concert by the Philly Orchestra where in angels were up top in the rear balcony. Singing. That would be great in Immersive.

[Kal Rubinson]

29 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I attended a Mahler concert by the Philly Orchestra where in angels were up top in the rear balcony. Singing. That would be great in Immersive.

I recall performances of Boito's "Mefistofele" in which the celestial events of the Prologue were played out with choruses in the upper tiers and the voice of Mefistofele (Norman Treigle) thundered  down from the ceiling.  Very powerful.  I want that again.

[Sal1950]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

What I would not care to see would be a wholesale, perhaps automated, repackaging of classical recordings just to spread things around for novel effect. 

On this point I would agree with you, for classical or rock. That's not art, it's greed.

There is much of that going on everywhere, what was there to be gained in the old Beatles albums

being reissued in Atmos from old mono or 2 channel tapes of which no stems ever existed, besides making money.

But that's just the way of the world partner, little different from whats been going on in the 2ch reissue market for many decades now. Come up with any excuse to claim it "sounds better" and make a bunch of dough. Of course no scientifically supportable evidence is ever required.  I'm thinking MQA here.  LOL  ;)

[Sal1950]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Despite my seniority, I do not accept the label of "old guard" because I support everything you say, especially for the examples you cite.

BTW, we're exactly the same age.  LOL

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

what was there to be gained in the old Beatles albums

being reissued in Atmos from old mono or 2 channel tapes of which no stems ever existed

 

Comparing Now and Then from an old Lennon cassette vs. Real Love from an old Lennon cassette, I'd say the main thing to be gained from the old Beatles stuff is that the AI denoising process lets me hear the boys better. (I'm using the Lennon cassettes for comparison because I haven't had a chance to listen to the Red Album much, and because a cassette is about as low fidelity an analog source as I can think of.) I'm grateful for that. If they want to do immersive with the results also, I've got no problem with it, as long as the same degree of care is taken.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

what was there to be gained in the old Beatles albums

being reissued in Atmos from old mono or 2 channel tapes of which no stems ever existed, besides making money

I totally love the Atmos releases. I have no attachment to the originals and find them a touch boring. The Atmos version breathed new life into these tracks that made me much more interested. 
 

I’ll happily listen to a new mix of anything and much prefer a new mix to a new master. 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I have the SFSO Brant in a, get this, 40 channel WAV

 

You realize you've got @The Computer Audiophile thinking about how to wedge 28 more speakers into his listening space, right? 😉

[JoeWhip]

I am writing a movie script right now, The Man with 40 Wilsons. It is a Hitchcock inspired thriller.

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You realize you've got @The Computer Audiophile thinking about how to wedge 28 more speakers into his listening space, right? 😉

Ha! I have a 56 channel ADM BWF file. Fortunately the Atmos Renderer puts it into anywhere from 2 to 16 channels. Otherwise my CFO may resign 🙂

[Kal Rubinson]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You realize you've got @The Computer Audiophile thinking about how to wedge 28 more speakers into his listening space, right? 😉

If he builds it, I will come (to visit).

[JoeWhip]

Sounds like The Sphere is coming to Minney Soda.

[Sal1950]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

If they want to do immersive with the results also, I've got no problem with it, as long as the same degree of care is taken.

 

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I totally love the Atmos releases. I have no attachment to the originals and find them a touch boring. The Atmos version breathed new life into these tracks that made me much more interested. 
 

I’ll happily listen to a new mix of anything and much prefer a new mix to a new master. 

I understand what your saying, If there's modern technology that can reach into those 60+ yo recordings and

come out with improved SQ, better revealing of inner detail, lower distortion, etc;  fine. But that should be just as easily accomplished then in 2ch mode.

But AI or no AI, I don't believe you can take a mono or simplistic ancient 2ch recording and turn it into something that realistically can be called a genuine immersive recording.  I use my AVR's included DS, DTS, and Auro software daily to upsample 2ch sources, but I still don't consider that immersive, just a psychacoustic trick. In the big picture I feel these money grab releases only shed a bad light on the intended purpose of the artistry from serious musicians and engineers.

YMMV

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

But AI or no AI, I don't believe you can take a mono or simplistic ancient 2ch recording and turn it into something that realistically can be called a genuine immersive recording. 

 

It's kind of ironic that George Martin was an early and repeated advocate of the position that it was silly to expect a recording to be a faithful document of what happened in the studio. (He'd done a lot of pre-Beatles work on comedy records with sound effects, which of course depended on the listener believing in the reality of an artificial soundscape.) And of course the Beatles were allies in pushing the envelope of using studio effects to create artificial sound environments. So allowing listeners to immerse themselves in a synthetic soundscape might be just what the boys would have wanted. At least that's what the survivors and the representatives of George and John signed off on when they gave the go-ahead for the immersive versions to be done.

 

I personally will be listening with a 2 channel rig, because that's what I own.  But I look forward to hearing the immersive versions, because hey, it's the Beatles, and I'm going to enjoy them every way I can.

[ted_b]

37 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

 

I understand what your saying, If there's modern technology that can reach into those 60+ yo recordings and

come out with improved SQ, better revealing of inner detail, lower distortion, etc;  fine. But that should be just as easily accomplished then in 2ch mode.

But AI or no AI, I don't believe you can take a mono or simplistic ancient 2ch recording and turn it into something that realistically can be called a genuine immersive recording. 

 

Put on the Beatles Red album on Apple Music, play "And I Love Her" in Atmos and call me in the morning.  :)