Article: Atmos? We Don’t Need No Stinking Atmos

[austinpop]

20 hours ago, austinpop said:

@joelha Thanks for a great, thought-provoking article. I have downloaded your sample, and plan to compare it these 2 versions I found on Qobuz:

• https://open.qobuz.com/track/229930149 in 24/192
• https://open.qobuz.com/track/229429495 in 24/44.1 

 

11 hours ago, bbosler said:

Ok, I downloaded it and compared to the Qobuz version

 

the Atmos track has a slightly wider soundstage, it has a much louder bass line and the drum (snare ?) is louder and further to the right . 
 

The Atmos bass line is louder and tubbier and drum louder to the point they are no longer accompanying the piano, they are the featured instruments as if it is their turn to solo

 

The non Atmos version is much preferred…, to my ear on my 2 channel only system

 

OK, I also listened to the Atmos 2.0 sample and compared it to the 2 Qobuz versions above. My listening was on headphones.

 

First observation: no idea why, but the 24/44.1 and 24/192 versions on Qobuz sound different, even though this is a brand new release. One suspicion I had was that the 24/44.1 was a sneaky MQA version, but I could not get Roon to recognize it as such, nor did it trigger the MQA flag on the review DAC I was using. So I have no answer. I decided to stick with the 24/192 version as the 2ch mix to compare.

 

Moving on to @joelha's Atmos 2.0 sample: that sounds very different too! It had good and bad aspects. The clarity and dynamics were definitely improved, but I did note that overdone bass, and odd movement of the drums to the far right that @bbosler noted. I also thought the timbre was a tad off, especially the piano, with the Atmos track sounding a bit brittle and potentially fatiguing (remember, I only had 1 min of the track). The 24/192 mix sounded very good to me, although some might find it more laid back than the Atmos 2.0.

 

Perhaps this is not the best example, as this is a brand new recording, that seems to have been edited and mastered to 2ch stereo with some care. However, I do see the potential here. Especially on albums where the stereo mix was created for the mass market, with low DR and high level (loudness wars), perhaps the discipline of the Atmos audio quality standards saves the day.

 

This is purely speculation, but it almost seems each approach has pros and cons.

• 2ch stereo mix
  • Pro: Created by a human by ear, not an algorithm
  • Con: no required audio quality standards. They are self-imposed, by the engineer and/or the label
• Atmos 2.0 
  • Pro: Conformance to audio quality standards required
  • Con: 2.0 mix is rendered by an algorithm: the Atmos renderer for the 2.0 speaker setup.

Now I know that last con is debatable, as the engineer authoring the Atmos mix can test each speaker setup rendering prior to release, but the fact remains that the 2.0 mix is rendered by a processor from the Atmos mix. Happy to be educated!

[joelha]

48 minutes ago, austinpop said:

This is purely speculation, but it almost seems each approach has pros and cons.

• 2ch stereo mix
  • Pro: Created by a human by ear, not an algorithm
  • Con: no required audio quality standards. They are self-imposed, by the engineer and/or the label
• Atmos 2.0 
  • Pro: Conformance to audio quality standards required
  • Con: 2.0 mix is rendered by an algorithm: the Atmos renderer for the 2.0 speaker setup.

Thanks for taking the time to write your detailed impressions, austinpop.

 

However, this is the danger of using only one sample to assess an entire format.

 

It would be like assessing DSD vs. PCM based on only one track.

 

If I didn't upload a sample track, people would just read about one man's impressions of Atmos 2.0.

 

Not very satisfying.

 

And by uploading not even one track but one minute of one track, the opportunity to assess an entire format is very limited.

 

Your assessments may be spot on however, as with any other format, they'd be far more informed by hearing many more examples of Atmos 2.0.

 

Not hearing those additional examples is not your fault of course. 

 

I hope you'll get to hear more Atmos 2.0 music.

 

At the very least, one of the points of my article was to explain that enjoying Atmos does not require the major hardware investment that I assumed it did.

 

As for the sound, it could very well be a matter of personal preference but I'm hooked.

 

Thanks again for your post.

Joel

[austinpop]

Pardon me if this is a bit off-topic, but I just want to get the basic Atmos flow understood.

 

Authoring (what's in the Atmos mix)

• "Bed" channels: 7.1.4 discrete channels that form the foundation. Perhaps other bed configurations are allowed?
• "Objects": up to 128 — (7+1+4) = 116. These are encoded as metadata that define the spatial locations of said objects

Rendering

• This is computation (done in the Dolby Refernce Player) that starts with the Atmos mix above, looks at the specified output speaker layout, and then renders the 128 (beds + objects) to that layout.

Is that, in a nutshell, what Atmos is about?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

Pardon me if this is a bit off-topic, but I just want to get the basic Atmos flow understood.

 

Authoring (what's in the Atmos mix)

• "Bed" channels: 7.1.4 discrete channels that form the foundation. Perhaps other bed configurations are allowed?
• "Objects": up to 128 — (7+1+4) = 116. These are encoded as metadata that define the spatial locations of said objects

Rendering

• This is computation (done in the Dolby Refernce Player) that starts with the Atmos mix above, looks at the specified output speaker layout, and then renders the 128 (beds + objects) to that layout.

Is that, in a nutshell, what Atmos is about?

Yes and no. 
 

It’s possible to use 7.1.2 bed channels and 128 objects, but there are no rules. Some really good engineers use objects for everything except LFE, essentially no bed. Again, no rules. 
 

Rendering, is pretty much as you say. 

[austinpop]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes and no. 
 

It’s possible to use 7.1.2 bed channels and 128 objects, but there are no rules. Some really good engineers use objects for everything except LFE, essentially no bed. Again, no rules. 
 

Rendering, is pretty much as you say. 

 

Oh that's interesting. I thought the actual audio data was all in the beds, and the objects were pure metadata. If there is an "all object, no bed" mode, then I clearly need to understand this more. But this is OT. I'll take it offline with you, Chris.

[Apollo]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Would love to hear that.  

Here is a link to Qobuz (Belgium) where you can find a highrez version of this album, which should be similar (not equal) to the SACd version.

The extra 6th track 06 - Flamenco Sketches (alternate take) however is not on this version.

Please note that this is a remix, and that track durations are different.

e.g. 

Track 1 on SACD 9:22 , on Qobuz: 9:07

 

[robocop]

Atmos music never going to be big just as surround music never made it. I went to huge expense and had a 5 channel dedicated music system back when J Gordon holt was recording music in 5 channel and had a similar system. I have the SACD Miles Davis 3 channel, Pink Floyd 4 channel Dark Side mix and Kraftwerk. All sounded amazing and easily beat stereo. Alas circuit board on preamp died and I reverted to stereo in the absence of new surround recordings. The cost of the associated equipment will keep Atmos to a small high end percentage as did surround music. I'm afraid home theatre is about where it will largely stay and this is what it has largely been designed for. A blow you off the seat movie sound. Which lately is overwhelming movie stories.  

 

 

[STC]

6 hours ago, robocop said:

Atmos music never going to be big just as surround music never made it.

ATMOS will remain in the streaming platform where the users are listening with headphones or earbuds. ATMOS binaural is especially tailored for it and it can sound really good compared to plain stereo. 
 

I also agree with you that multichannel music for audiophiles is not going to replace the stereo anytime soon. I still have the multi channel SACD player and like you said so few materials that I care to listen available. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 hours ago, robocop said:

Atmos music never going to be big just as surround music never made it

You are aware that a single Atmos file plays on systems from two channels through sixteen channels right? 

[Apollo]

My biggest fear/objection about Atmos, is that it is Apple only.

Other players - software, hardware, streaming services - most probably will be restricted completely, or will have to pay lots of money to have access to Atmos content.

[JoeWhip]

It is not Apple only. They have more Atmos then say Tidal, but it in not Apple only. The folks at Dolby are pushing for more downloads well as physical media.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

My biggest fear/objection about Atmos, is that it is Apple only.

Other players - software, hardware, streaming services - most probably will be restricted completely, or will have to pay lots of money to have access to Atmos content.

 

Currently for streaming it's Apple Music, Amazon Music, and Tidal who have Atmos. For downloads it's sites like 2L, TRPTK, and Immersive Audio Album. For Blu-ray it's everyone. 

[joelha]

It's surprising to read comments predicting the demise of Atmos or its relegation solely to home theaters.

 

It seems as if some are suggesting that if a technology won't be widely accepted, it won't be worth our time.

 

We're in a nitch hobby.

 

Does the average household have separate amplifiers, preamplifiers, dacs, streamers, etc.?

 

Yet, many of us do.

 

SACD's were never a universally accepted format and yet many of us still play and even rip them.

 

The question is not whether a format will become popular with the masses but whether we can enjoy it.

 

Ours is not a philosophizing hobby, it's an audio hobby.

 

Listen and make your decision.

 

Joel

[PeterG]

30 minutes ago, joelha said:

It's surprising to read comments predicting the demise of Atmos or its relegation solely to home theaters.

 

It seems as if some are suggesting that if a technology won't be widely accepted, it won't be worth our time.

 

We're in a nitch hobby.

 

Does the average household have separate amplifiers, preamplifiers, dacs, streamers, etc.?

 

Yet, many of us do.

 

SACD's were never a universally accepted format and yet many of us still play and even rip them.

 

The question is not whether a format will become popular with the masses but whether we can enjoy it.

 

Ours is not a philosophizing hobby, it's an audio hobby.

 

Listen and make your decision.

 

Joel

 

There is plenty of healthy criticism and debate within our hobby.  But there is also a sad/odd set of debate that is driven primarily around competition and the need some have to see their own current system as the best.  Some of these objections have little to do with the topic at hand--whether that topic be Atmos, cables, SACD, whatever--and everything to do with that particular item not being resident in the objector's listening room.  Illegitimi non carborundum est

 

[jrobbins50]

On 1/4/2024 at 9:55 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Would love to hear that.  

See my PM in email to you. JCR 

[bobfa]

I think that this is on topic??  I have done some interesting testing.  I play Apple ATMOS from my Mac Mini to a Schiit Syn 2-channel DAC and then use the analog extraction to present a 5.1 output.  There is a lot of ambient info in that data.  Now, taking the same stream and feeding it to the system rendered in 7.1.4 is a very, very interesting experience.  Note that the power amp and speakers are the same.

 

I am finding that many of the ATMOS masters I am listing have superior mastering.

 

Someone up the list mentioned the website Magic Vinyl Digital.  So I took a look at the new Peter Gabriel album in this context:

 

https://magicvinyldigital.net/2023/12/17/peter-gabriel-i-o-review-test-cd-bright-and-dark-mix-tidal-max-flac-24-96-bright-and-dark-mix-amazon-dolby-atmos-and-blu-ray-bright-mix-dark-mix-and-in-side-mix-dolby-atmos-truehd/#Part5

 

Just the DR numbers are amazing on the ATMOS mixes.    Yes I need ATMOS

 

 

[firedog]

Okay, finally listened to it on my 2 ch.. setup and compared it to the stereo versions on Qobuz.

The Atmos definitely sounded more "live" - as if you were in a hall or club and hearing the instruments right in front of you and the  sound around you with all the in-space reverberation. 

It also seemed louder. 

I agree with others that the bass seemed a bit bloated. Of course, that is also often true in live performances, especially miked ones. The playback thru the mixing board and PA speakers isn't always the greatest quality. 

 

The Qobuz stereo sounds very good. After hearing the Atmos it seemed "flat", although it isn't and is a very good recording and mix. 

 

I found the whole exercise very interesting. I'd like to hear more 2ch Atmos, but am not going to subscribe to Apple Music. Will just have to wait for it to become available in other ways - either Qobuz or downloads. 

[seeteeyou]

 

https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/home-entertainment/sonos-era-300-review/

Quote

For example, two Sonos Era 300 speakers can be paired together and used with a Sonos Arc or second-generation Beam soundbar for the ultimate 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos entertainment experience -- no overhead speakers needed. In fact, even if you invest in just one Era 300 speaker, I've found its audio performance more than reliable for all genres of content.

 

https://forums.steinberg.net/t/why-is-atmos-routing-so-complicated/853273/2

Quote

The whole point of Atmos is become independent of specific speaker positions and allow you to make a mix that works from anything like a 32 channels theater to a a mono speaker without having to make separate mixes (in theory, practice is not necessarily quite there yet).

So all positions are described in a 3D space as X/Y/Z coordinates and then mapped to whatever speakers are in the room when someone listens to this mix. Because of all of this 3D mapping there are no master or aux buses anymore, because it all gets packaged up in one very large file as independent audio streams with metadata. And then the actual mixing happens during playback, not when you render the file.

 

https://musictech.com/guides/essential-guide/beyond-stereo-dolby-atmos-and-the-race-for-space/

Quote

Of course, the technology for multi-speaker panning and mixing has existed for many decades; what Atmos does is simplify and standardise the process. A song mixed and rendered using the format will automatically adapt to whatever playback setup you’re using – a single mono Bluetooth speaker, a car stereo, a pair of headphones, or all the way up to extended home entertainment systems featuring any number of speakers.

Hence it's much closer to an "adaptive" format as mentioned above, IMHO there's no such thing as 2ch Atmos since the final number of decoded channel(s) in PCM format is decided by either the hardware or software (i.e. Dolby Reference Player) decoder.

 

The only difference among various "flavors" of Atmos should be determined by each specific CODEC, obviously TrueHD should be our best bet since it's a lossless CODEC that could be found on Blu-ray discs or downloaded online.

 

Other than that, we've got the lossy ones (AC-4 and EC-3) that are available for streaming purposes

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleMusic/comments/13nm9y6/comment/jl38f1x/

Quote

Amazon Music decodes AC4-IMS on its own and sends the decoded Atmos audio to the device. This means that you can enjoy Dolby Atmos even on Android devices that do not support Dolby Atmos technology, as it does not rely on hardware decoders.

 

https://www.avid.com/resource-center/encoding-and-delivering-dolby-atmos-music

Quote

AC-4 is the codec that is used to deliver your Dolby Atmos music to Android devices over streaming platforms. AC-4 can also carry the binaural metadata that we create during a Dolby Atmos Music mix. This means that when your mix is played over headphones, the binaural properties set during the mix process will be heard by the listener.

 

Quote

On an Apple TV 4K the audio is transmitted over HDMI for an Atmos-enabled soundbar or AV receiver. However, EC-3 is also used for headphone delivery on the Apple iPhone, even though it is a format that is designed for speaker delivery. An iPhone doesn’t use the Dolby Atmos Binaural settings that are baked into the ADM file that we created. Instead, it creates a binaural version of the mix by first downmixing the Dolby Atmos file into a 7.1.4 mix and then virtualizing that 7.1.4 mix into a binaural mix. In fact, this processing is done in the AirPods themselves.

 

Of course Dolby Reference Player with Dolby AC-4 could also decode AC4-IMS just fine

 

https://github.com/google/ExoPlayer/tree/release-v2/testdata/src/test/assets/media/ts

 

---

 

2023 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2023-surround-releases.33410/

 

2022 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2022-surround-releases.31649/

 

2021 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2021-surround-releases.29669/

 

2020 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2020-surround-releases.27537/

 

2019 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2019-surround-releases.25817/

 

2018 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2018-surround-releases.24661/

 

2017 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2017-surround-releases.24645/

 

2016 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2016-surround-releases.24637/

 

Basically Atmos turned out to be available on Blu-ray as early as October 2016, while the very first free download actually appeared back in November 2017.

 

Right now Atmos downloads could even be found on Bandcamp for as little as 7 bucks per album, no kidding.

 

---

 

 

Finally let's go back to the link I quoted above, most likely that should have explained what's going on behind the scenes

 

https://musictech.com/guides/essential-guide/beyond-stereo-dolby-atmos-and-the-race-for-space/

Quote

Mixing for Atmos is fundamentally different from mixing for stereo, and not just in terms of panning. Perhaps the biggest lasting impact that Atmos may have for mixing is how engineers treat loudness and EQ. It’s no secret that the dynamic range of popular music has become smaller and smaller during the ‘loudness war’ of the past few decades. Interestingly, it might be Atmos that provides a much-needed reset to the brick-like compression and limiting of modern popular music.

“It is going to go back to a more dynamic listening experience,” says Lewis. “And though it might take the listeners a little time to recondition, that has to be a good thing. For me, it is about dynamics, width, and space. It’s about opening the music up and letting people inside. The downside is that we will probably have to work a bit harder, because some of the free gifts you get from a mix bus aren’t going to be there anymore. So, figuring out how we are going to ‘glue’ a mix together is going to take a period of experimentation.”

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, seeteeyou said:

 

https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/home-entertainment/sonos-era-300-review/

 

https://forums.steinberg.net/t/why-is-atmos-routing-so-complicated/853273/2

 

https://musictech.com/guides/essential-guide/beyond-stereo-dolby-atmos-and-the-race-for-space/

Hence it's much closer to an "adaptive" format as mentioned above, IMHO there's no such thing as 2ch Atmos since the final number of decoded channel(s) in PCM format is decided by either the hardware or software (i.e. Dolby Reference Player) decoder.

 

The only difference among various "flavors" of Atmos should be determined by each specific CODEC, obviously TrueHD should be our best bet since it's a lossless CODEC that could be found on Blu-ray discs or downloaded online.

 

Other than that, we've got the lossy ones (AC-4 and EC-3) that are available for streaming purposes

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AppleMusic/comments/13nm9y6/comment/jl38f1x/

 

https://www.avid.com/resource-center/encoding-and-delivering-dolby-atmos-music

 

 

Of course Dolby Reference Player with Dolby AC-4 could also decode AC4-IMS just fine

 

https://github.com/google/ExoPlayer/tree/release-v2/testdata/src/test/assets/media/ts

 

---

 

2023 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2023-surround-releases.33410/

 

2022 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2022-surround-releases.31649/

 

2021 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2021-surround-releases.29669/

 

2020 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2020-surround-releases.27537/

 

2019 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2019-surround-releases.25817/

 

2018 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2018-surround-releases.24661/

 

2017 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2017-surround-releases.24645/

 

2016 SURROUND RELEASES

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/2016-surround-releases.24637/

 

Basically Atmos turned out to be available on Blu-ray as early as October 2016, while the very first free download actually appeared back in November 2017.

 

Right now Atmos downloads could even be found on Bandcamp for as little as 7 bucks per album, no kidding.

 

---

 

 

Finally let's go back to the link I quoted above, most likely that should have explained what's going on behind the scenes

 

https://musictech.com/guides/essential-guide/beyond-stereo-dolby-atmos-and-the-race-for-space/

Can you summarize what you’re trying to say? I see a lot of links that repeat what others have said in this thread or that are off topic, but I likely just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. 

[Confused]

I tried the 2 minute Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio sample and compared to the non-ATMOS version that is available on Apple Music.

 

My observations are very similar to those posted by others. Overall, I prefer the 2 minute 2 channel ATMOS version, to me it had a degree of extra realism and versus the Apple Music version is one step further away from reproduced music towards the real thing. Also, I too found that the ATMOS version had more bass.

 

This ties in with some other experimentation that I have done this weekend with 2 channel ATMOS. I can play an ATMOS track using Apple Music on my iPhone or iPad and play this through my system via AirPlay. With options to use the AirPlay direct on my Devialet amp, or an AirPlay receiver on my PC to HQPlayer, then stream with NAA, or AirPlay to my Denon AVR.

 

As an alternative to the AirPlay route, I can use Apple Music on my Apple TV, HDMI to my Denon AVR, then line out analogue to the Devialet amp. With the Denon set to stereo, this effectively gives me a 2-channel downmix. 

 

What is interesting is that the results are quite different. The key difference is between using Apple TV / HDMI and any of the AirPlay options, and the key difference sonically is bass. Basically, there is a lot more bass, and deeper bass, via Apple TV / HDMI.

 

I suspect that this is because when using Apple TV  HDMI to the Denon AVR the LFE channel is included, but when using iPhone / iPad AirPlay it is not.

 

I get similar results if I simply use Apple Music on my PC, this too lacks the last depths of bass with an ATMOS encoded album.

 

This is all a little frustrating, as it seems to be impossible to establish exactly what Apple is doing with ATMOS across various devices and platforms. In addition, us humble Apple Music subscribers have no information and zero control over any of this, certainly when using devices such as iPads, iPhones, or Apple TV.

 

What I can say is that subjectively Apple TV HDMI to my Denon sounds the best. I suspect that this is the only route I have tried that is downmixing all channels, including LFE.

[Confused]

Another thought regarding the above observations.

 

Is there any way that you could connect an Apple TV via HDMI to input to a PC?

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, Confused said:

I tried the 2 minute Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio sample and compared to the non-ATMOS version that is available on Apple Music.

 

My observations are very similar to those posted by others. Overall, I prefer the 2 minute 2 channel ATMOS version, to me it had a degree of extra realism and versus the Apple Music version is one step further away from reproduced music towards the real thing. Also, I too found that the ATMOS version had more bass.

 

This ties in with some other experimentation that I have done this weekend with 2 channel ATMOS. I can play an ATMOS track using Apple Music on my iPhone or iPad and play this through my system via AirPlay. With options to use the AirPlay direct on my Devialet amp, or an AirPlay receiver on my PC to HQPlayer, then stream with NAA, or AirPlay to my Denon AVR.

 

As an alternative to the AirPlay route, I can use Apple Music on my Apple TV, HDMI to my Denon AVR, then line out analogue to the Devialet amp. With the Denon set to stereo, this effectively gives me a 2-channel downmix. 

 

What is interesting is that the results are quite different. The key difference is between using Apple TV / HDMI and any of the AirPlay options, and the key difference sonically is bass. Basically, there is a lot more bass, and deeper bass, via Apple TV / HDMI.

 

I suspect that this is because when using Apple TV  HDMI to the Denon AVR the LFE channel is included, but when using iPhone / iPad AirPlay it is not.

 

I get similar results if I simply use Apple Music on my PC, this too lacks the last depths of bass with an ATMOS encoded album.

 

This is all a little frustrating, as it seems to be impossible to establish exactly what Apple is doing with ATMOS across various devices and platforms. In addition, us humble Apple Music subscribers have no information and zero control over any of this, certainly when using devices such as iPads, iPhones, or Apple TV.

 

What I can say is that subjectively Apple TV HDMI to my Denon sounds the best. I suspect that this is the only route I have tried that is downmixing all channels, including LFE.

There’s a lot going on here :~)

 

The odds your AirPlay method is using the Atmos album are very slim. Make sure your phone/tablet still say Atmos after music starts playing. 
 

You may want to read this for some additional background on Atmos music - https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/immersive/music-ultimate-guide-to-high-end-immersive-audio-r1223/

 

[Confused]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The odds your AirPlay method is using the Atmos album are very slim. Make sure your phone/tablet still say Atmos after music starts playing. 

Yes, good point. On an iPhone it still states "Dolby Atmos" next to the selected album but the "Dolby Atmos" designation under the play bar vanishes if AirPlay is selected. (this seems to be the the case for Bluetooth also) I am demonstrating my Apple Music Newbie status here, but you live and learn. 

So in terms of the many devices that I have to hand, the only things that will actually work with Atmos are the Apple TV 4K, and my iPhone, assuming I only use the internal speakers. It is somewhat ironic that ATMOS will work on the iPhone's internal speakers (which are rubbish) and not via any other means. (other than Air / Ear Pods, which I do not have)

 

Oh well, at least the Apply TV works as it should. I guess these things will get easier in the future.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

38 minutes ago, Confused said:

Yes, good point. On an iPhone it still states "Dolby Atmos" next to the selected album but the "Dolby Atmos" designation under the play bar vanishes if AirPlay is selected. (this seems to be the the case for Bluetooth also) I am demonstrating my Apple Music Newbie status here, but you live and learn. 

So in terms of the many devices that I have to hand, the only things that will actually work with Atmos are the Apple TV 4K, and my iPhone, assuming I only use the internal speakers. It is somewhat ironic that ATMOS will work on the iPhone's internal speakers (which are rubbish) and not via any other means. (other than Air / Ear Pods, which I do not have)

 

Oh well, at least the Apply TV works as it should. I guess these things will get easier in the future.

 

AirPlay Atmos only works on a few devices using AirPlay 2. The good thing is that this helps explain the differences you heard because it wasn’t playing Atmos in your tests. 
 

More ways to play it are coming and a few ways to make it high end / great sounding are also coming. 

[PeterG]

On 1/2/2024 at 7:04 PM, PeterG said:

Nevertheless, a terrific minute of music, and it sounds very good.  I don't think I would have mistaken it for analog had I not known, but I agree on the excellent soundstage, or maybe I should say on the excellent use of the stereo effect.  Similar to John Lee Hooker's Burnin' with the reverb.  REALLY good bass.  I am going to buy the CD or LP to compare.

 

Following up--I bought the LP.  Unfortunately, for purposes of comparing Atmos to vinyl, the mix is so different on the LP, that using this to compare media would just be silly.  On the vinyl, the bass is much more subdued, and also way below the level of bass my system is capable of producing.  So I'm left thinking one of the engineers made a decision that really should have been left to the artist, and I do not understand why.  Interestingly, the record notes that the performance was recorded in "Stereo/5.1, immersive", so I guess I am doubly surprised by the difference.

 

(For those who buy both vinyl and digital, I would recommend digital on this one.  The album sounds great overall, but it does not sound analog, and my fourth side had significant surface noise, I expect to exchange it)