DOLBY Atmos for MUSIC, here to stay?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2022
- My CNET article on Dolby Pro Logiv IIz www.cnet.com/tech/home-entert...
Pro Logic IIz second chance www.cnet.com/culture/dolby-pr...
Please check out the AUDIOPHILIAC PATREON
/ audiophiliac
The all-new Audiophiliac Podcast can be heard on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts. OR direct from my website audiophiliacpodcast.buzzsprou...
----MERCH-------
Audiophiliac T-Shirts and Mugs! teespring.com/stores/audiophi...
Twitter: @AudiophiliacMan
Instagram: / steve.guttenberg
#DOLBY #DolbyAtmos #audiophile
Looking for great sounding FREE UNCOMPRESSED or processed music? Check out these videos about the two MA Recordings samplers:
• FREE Dynamically Uncom...
• FREE Hi-Resolution, Dy... - Наука та технологія
There's an Audiophiliac imposter scamming my viewers, DON'T respond! I don't do giveaways or ask for money (except for my Patreon).
Regarding the movie “Gravity” and Atmos (per Steve: “which made sense, it was a space movie”)… there is no sound in space; in space, no one can hear you scream. 🤣
I found that funny too
Well, Gravity had great photography, but as a movie it was abysmal
For the most part, ATMOS speakers need to be mounted in the ceiling. ATMOS up firing speakers placed on top of another speakers don't really work that well. It's just not the same effect. Like you stated, it's all in the mixing.
I had the same thought. But I haven’t heard up firing speakers, I just assumed they were a compromise.
I actually have full range 3 way speakers set up as my height speakers. If a violin or choir or cello gets sent up there, I want to represent its full range.
Overhead speakers are a night and day improvement
No, when it comes to music up firing it's perfectly fine, it's where you have the movies that you're watching that the placement of the speakers in the ceiling matter more. This is coming from someone that has all the formats SACD, DVD audio, atmos music disc, Auro 3d, 3-D movies Lo, 4K , etc.
I agree. I tried the upward firing orientation and it had no noticeable effect. Then I mounted them at ceiling height and it made a huge improvement.
@@ProgRockKeys in a concert room, what would a cello or a violin be doing in the ceiling anyway?
One reason I enjoy multichannel sound is the additional clarity of having a single instrument in its own channel. A speaker reproducing a more limited range of sounds offers a boost in realism and allows a dense arrangement more room to breathe. Rear channels can be quite effective for sounds that are secondary to the main musical content (e.g. background vocals and strings), plus they're pretty terrific for special effects (rain on "Riders on the Storm," the clocks on "Time").
sorr4y but that's just rubbish
@Lloyd Stout What's not true about it?
@@johnholmes912 Which part?
I am in total agreement with you Pat, multi-channel audio allows a much broader pallete for the mix engineer to manipulate and space around the instruments is most definitely one of the benefits of that scenario compared to plain vanilla stereo.
@Lloyd Stout Quadriphonic was certainly designed with music in mind. I think we expect things to be happening in front of us because that's our tradition: the theatre proscenium, the movie screen, the church choir, etc. There's no reason not to break with tradition if the result is artistically valid.
After listening to 5.1 going back to stereo is like going back to a Coke gone flat, no fizz.
Agreed!!
Yup. Atmos in 5.1 sounds great too. Check out ELTON Diamonds! Sounds great in 5.1. Also Kraftwerk 3D!
I like what you said about stereo being capable of sounding very spacious. It seems to me that stereo is the ideal way to listen to everything.
My theory is that stereo system od speakers reflects the stereo positioning of stereo microphones. If stereo positioning of microphones was in use, then all time shifts are reproduced adequately and best by stereo speakers. Also libraries of acoustic special effects are developed in stereo. They both are responsible in 90% for spacious imagery of stereo recording. To make real 3D music all effects need to be also rearranged to 3D effects which would complicate their behaviour.
Gimme, gimme, gimme, I need, I need! I thought DVD AUDIO surround was awesome but it was seldom done in a way that was immersive and 3D like. Beck's album, Sea Change in 5.1 DVD AUDIO was AMAZING.
Amazing mix. 5.1 is great too.
It should be mentioned Dolby Atmos is not channel based, it is object based which essentially means it works no matter how many channels you have in your setup. 3D Audio is an audio mixing decision, a new tool for artists to express more in their music no matter the channels listeners have available.
Whilst that is true, if the listener only has 2, 2.1, 5.1 etc, it doesn't magically make the sound feel more three dimensional. The three dimensionality / object based principle is a mixing tool only that ultimately gets deconstructed into whatever channels exist in the listening setup.
@@yewfh-oz7in Except that's exactly what it does do. It makes it *feel* more three dimensional in the final set up, whatever that is. It's why it *sounds like* the singer is right in front of you.
Technically, Atmos is a hybrid audio format consisting of a channel-based bed and channel-less objects. This is partly why Atmos is so consumer-friendly because everyone can at least play it regardless of speaker setup as all the Atmos audio is 'also' within the bed channels. On headphones, it is binauralized with HRTF to simulate e.g. a 7.1.4 speaker setup.
Not touched on here in this video, is actually the way Atmos music is made. Because there is no master bus like there is for Stereo and the format required -18LUFS loudness level, Atmos music generally has much better dynamic range than its stereo brother. Basically there is no loudness war so for Audiophiles this is fantastic. No more overly compressed and limited stereo mastering erasing the dynamic range anymore, the music will benefit and often more the reason to listen in Atmos than Stereo I find.
@@yewfh-oz7in atmos done right in headphones is superior to stereo, that's the real benefit and guarantee of it's eventual adoption on headphones as a standard, someday. See my examples above.
@@SamHocking he said it the best he k ow what he's talking about outta all the commets yours proves to be the most honest and you know what your talking about period
Ha ha I love this channel
Tongue in cheek from a man who’s seen it done and listened to it all .
Simply the best
Nothing new under the ☀️
Cheers Steve 👍
Always like how steve voices his opinions with context and calm. There is never a NEED for anything audio. just a WANT and a LIKE. Its like food, i need X calories and nutrients for healthy body function, but i don't like sushi but i like thai food. Every time i hear audio experts going on about you don't need this or that gets an eye roll from me. Everything in this hobby is a LIKE and WANT, period.
she said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room...
That was a very crippled Atmos system you listened to… Not having four Atmos speakers ON THE CEILING and having the SAME speakers around, you will be missing the full effect. Also, listen to true immersive classical recordings to get the full scope of Atmos instead of the ‘panned mono’ on the mentioned rock recordings. Atmos is certainly NOT a gimmick.
Yes, and don’t forget to add speakers across the ceiling and under your floorboards to truly get the Atmos feeling, lol, pluh-ease.
I agree that stereo with a great mix in a well designed space is more representative of the stage and quite immersive in its own right. Whatever they are doing with spatial audio is making the mix dynamic and engaging again. I do not actively listen to spatial audio in my cinema, but it is fun to play a few tracks whilst everyone prepares their drinks and snacks for the main event. As for critical listening, I will stick to my stereo setup.
If you have the right setup and a good mix, Dolby Atmos can be phenomenal!
it can be phenomenal only for those who have never experienced a proper stereo. The more speakers the more phase issues. The more phase issues the more distortion. The more distortion the less natural it sounds. I've worked for AVID for years installing Dolby Atmos in some of the most demanding mixing rooms around the world, but I was never impressed with how it sounded like compared to a high fidelity stereo system. DA is more a toy or an attraction for kids than a serious music system.
@@CyrilleBoucanogh I Agree to disagree! Not everything in Dolby Atmos is going to sound better than a proper Stereo set up. But if you have a properly calibrated system and the Mix is done right, There are albums that blow away their Stereo Mix.
Enjoying Dolby Atmos music with quality is expensive.
Unlike stereo and equipment depending, Atmos music can only be appreciated at medium to high volumes. Too much background mechanical noise (RFI), and to think the cables that carry the signal to my height channels happen to be shielded as well. Can only assume the heightened noise floor (faint background signal noise) becomes more apparent cause the entry-level cables on my height channels have limited shielding. Hence, when the height channels are switched off (externally amplified poweramp), just going through just a five channel configuration (base-level). The noise floor comes back down to satisfactory levels, unlike the height channels, which only have limited shielding. The shielding on my base-level speaker cables are of superior quality.
Unshielded cables often act as antennas for attracting RF, and the longer the cable, the better the antenna. Probably explains why when I used to disconnect my height and surround channels within 10 minutes, the unwanted faint background signal noise used to dissipate.
Maybe I should've matched cables of the same quality? Yeah, so long as I don't mind paying at least an extra £500 for the height channel cables.
Conclusion;
Other than listening at medium to high volumes, listening to Dolby Atmos music with quality can be rather expensive.
An avid music listener.
If you have the money for something that is not often used and not always remarkable, why not? That's what we work hard for! I had a quadraphonic system in the 70's. Nobody noticed unless you said something then they somehow magically heard the difference.
Recently, I ordered an Ohm Walsh 5.2 system (Full towers in the front and for me they recommended the surrounds on the back wall and slightly above the listener). My thought was, based on all I've read, that this will give me the immersion without getting married to Atmos. Counting the days...
I like my Nat King Cole SACDs by Analogue Productions which did reproduce the 3 channel stereo on the multichannel layer.
I would expect the Atmos mix to be louder because you are getting more channels playing simultaneously.
Surround mixing can be well done. Paul Simon's live concert at the Library of Congress is just brilliant for its ability to put you on the stage with the performers.
I was shaken and unsure of how to feel when Apple Music released streaming over the Dolby atmos format. Then I learned I needed to use beats headphones, apple headphones, or something compatible to even use it. I figured having to use low quality gear to use a supposed upgrade means any benefits will be cancelled out anyways. Then I got to thinking about everything that was said about how all of these concepts had already been tried and never overthrew stereo as the standard. quite honestly, I’m finding that if I use one of my Bluetooth MINIRIG 3’s and don’t hook the other one up for stereo, it still sounds great and there is still a good amount of imaging for a single driver.
Man giving me flashbacks, my uncle served in the military and brought back pioneer receiver with quad sound along with the Akai reels as well back in the 70’s. I was impressed with some of the tracks he played back then but can’t recall the names since it was 40-50 years ago.
5.1 music when done well and on a properly setup system, sounds terrific. Overall less fatiguing and more impactful, more alive.
I couldn't agree more with you, listening to well mixed 5.1 soundtracks (both music and movies!) is far more involving and detailed and on certain albums switching back to stereo would most certainly be a downgrade and less enjoyable to me.
I can into centre channel, but overhead and rear, for music? Oh no.
@jamegumb overhead I cannot comment on as I do not use atmos, however side wall mounted speakers are a critical part of listening in a 5.1 setup like mine, i really wouldn't have it any other way as stereo sounds just flat in comparison to a well mixed multi-channel composition.
@@robertg3903 I am wanting to keep my setup behind my pc specifically as clean as possible (least amount of wire and hassle while still doing well soundwise) and so got a 1U amplifier, pc put into 2U case. I had the big Atmos receiver (7.2.4) but too big and cumbersome.
Now trying to decide between 4.0 or 3.1, and I prefer compression drivers for it, great for films and game, the dynamic range is great. For pc specifically, forget about side, you just use rear ones, far easier in most setups as well, also better to tell what is behind. GTFO never played better.
I might take 5.1, but only in 1U format. Preferably with usb connection, but taking ages for rework on freeDSP (factory for critical chip burned down). Even then, I would not do it for music, but for all the rest. I might test a few more tracks on it though, but I like opera the most, not sure if there is a lot of 5.1 for it.
@jamegumb that's a lot of pc talk to me fella and as I'm not a pc guy it's way above my head. What I do understand though... all I'll say is for me physical media and dedicated 4k, blu ray and dvd-audio, sacd players excel for my particular set up
Thanks for hitting on this. Open to new pathways and I would really like to experience this fully within a proper room setting…..with an album like the brilliant new release from The Smile or the DUNE soundtrack. Those I know who are seriously into music and/or high quality audio are still doing 2.1 or 3.1 for movies, concert footage and video games. The few I know who have 5.1 or 7.1 systems are not music or tech heads at all. Considering the shift of many to more privacy, comfort and economy with home theater set ups and away from the cell phone peppered pre-Covid communal movie experience, I think that this marketplace will continue to pick up momentum and expand. More immersive gaming and user-friendly VR platforms may help drive it as well. That being said, my 2.1 channel systems still kick enough full spectrum ass to keep me happy and with some good open back cans, non-music streaming, gaming or utube concert footage is always exciting and immersive.
What most of listeners are looking for is to feel separation of instruments allowing to imagine it's presence in space. Recognizing instrument not only by timbre but also by exact direction of it in space .
Usualy it is deflecteted by speaker's resonances and generaly by their characteristic which "pull" parts of harnonics to them thus stretching side instruments image into wider and sometime making them covering each other. Sure expanding the scene provides more place for instruments because then scene is wider.
With my system I do not want to go for it. My stereo music is with placement of instruments in front about double the span of speakers. and with height of room Some mid bass tones are "cruising" around and that distracts me enough.
Anyway illusion which I perceive actually is that I am standing or sitting in front to door open wide to forest rain, With 3D imagery probably would feel like raining all around. What to expect form positioning of instruments will depend on mixing skill.
I have tried the multichannel with a nice setup with an Anthem system. I left this as the processsing resulted in aweful sound for music. For movies its great. But with a great stereo system it is possible to experience amazing effects, i.e. DaftPunk Giorgio where sounds appear left and right behind, Radiohead Bends where on some tracks the backwall bounces, ofc Whole lotta love where the effects appear in front.
I really thought about buying an old buying quad and just adding an amp for 5.1 duty, having sold a Yamaha atmos after being underwhelmed.
But, the best rule in audio is that when you’re happy, keep your billfold in your pocket! My old surround will carry me for a while, and I’ll just keep a look for a steal on that quad…to tinker with, a tad.
Thanks for your input! I have a collection of DVD live concerts and am always looking on how to appreciate the ones properly mixed.
Contemporary surround mixing seems to buy into the same 'front sound stage' paradigm as stereo. My favourite surround mixes are those old quad mixes where the music truly surrounds you - as if the musicians and vocalists were placed in a circle with the listener at the centre. The short lived DVD-A unfortunately tended to just aim for frontal soundstage when it used contemporary mixes, though it did conspicuously often offer a very discrete centre vocal channel (which I personally didn’t find an advantage over stereo).
It's a label requirement to use a predominant front stage perspective. Fully enveloping mixes are rejection on the fears of losing impact when folding down.
My first purchased setup was 7.1 THX/Doubly surround via Onkyo RX… I always enjoyed music/audio via “ALL CHANNEL” audio selection on the RX… I do so love ambient music and listening to it this was was absolutely fantastic and much more full as opposed to 2 channel… interested to hear with Atmos.. thanks for the review!
If it has an hdmi input you can enjoy Atmos on Apple but not Tidal. Tidal looks for an Atmos processor in the hdmi handshake, Apple does not, so you can down-mix to 5.1/7.1.
That’s the worst way to listen to music.
My wife and I just purchased the Sonos Arc, (2) Sonos One’s in the living area, a Sonos Arc for the bedroom, and the Sonos Beam for our loft. Absolutely love Dolby Atmos! Loved the video, very informative! I have a question, where did you get your acoustic tiles (those exact ones)?
The tiles are GIK Acoustics absorber/diffuser panels
That’s hardly the way to listen to high quality audio. Yes you go get multiple channels and “sound coming from everywhere”. Try listening to a proper sound staging and imaging system like Martin Logan or the higher end KEF or ATC. Totally different immersive sound from just two speakers.
I think that you naild it right there. I have had some few revelations on a few movies with this format but would never advise that against a great stereo set up. All well to everyone.
Re Dolby ProLogic IIz, as a vendor partner, we were very much under the impression that the driving force behind it would be the game industry. While we only found one movie that performed very well in IIz (Innocence: Ghost in the Shell 2), there were a handful of PC games that were better mixed for height channels than movies.
Bob Carver had it, it was called the Sonic Hologram Generator. It worked with just 2 speakers set up properly. I use it with Magnepans! It adds a lot of depth ( sometimes too much), it all depends on how the music was mixed and recorded.
Paul McCartney said, and I paraphrase: “our music isn’t a museum piece. Atmos is a fun new way to listen.” Like the difference between a Van Gogh painting and going to see the “Van gogh Immersive Experience”. Both are worthy of your time and are enjoyable.
I just added Atmos speakers to my 9.1 system for home theater, but I always listen to music in Pure Direct or downstairs in 2-channel. Thanks!
I changed from a 5.1 surround sound system to a 7.1.2 but only because Atmos has become come accessible, DTS would have been able to do a lot of what Atmos does but didn't become as available. The ability to mix a voice to a single a Channel around the room certainly adds to the music
Check out Yello - Point Atmos mix! It's amazing!
@@evanars1 I'm currently working through tidals new Atmos album list.
listening to Harry styles new album! Not my type of music but he's embraced atmos
@@evanars1 or final view from the rooftops - London electricity
Has the orb moving around the room sound
I’m relatively new to your channel and appreciate how you make my dream of entering the hifi world a reality. I may take some flax for asking if you could make a video of the best ways of listening to music over iTunes. I find it the most economical way to meet my family’s musical needs and want to build a system around it. Thanks!
it would be quite economical indeed, Itunes is limited to 256 kbps audio- so no need for equipment that can reveal all the details that were in the music before compressing it in 256kbps files
Hey Steve, Dolby Atmos music is great because it can be easily down mixed to 2ch or 5.1, also if you have a good Atmos theater (with actual speakers in the ceiling, not the bounce speakers) it's a game changer, I absolutely love it. Coldplay (I know) has release 2 great albums in Atmos.
Finally, someone gets it! So many good mixes are being released every week.
I mean, come on - Dolby Atmos debuted in 2012. It's not "gaining traction" for movies, it has been a staple of blu-ray and now 4K. It's just that audiophiles are inherently wary and naturally biased against anything "new".
Lol. No, it’s because we see this for what it is, a GIMMICK. Complete waste of time and money.
@@mpi5850 Thanks for making my point 👍
I had a Salora Orthoperspecta system at one point. Its quite interesting 3 speaker system from Finland that uses regular stereo sound. I think its the first surround system and predates dolby surround.
Great video Steve. If you're looking for a great Atmos song to tickle your fancy, try out the closing credits song from Black Panther. I have set up my atmos gear as if it were all part of a HiFi set up. Talk about emersive. This was the craziest mix I have ever heard. Not only did it create an amazing soundstage, this track puts the listener on the stage!
Thing is, most records nowadays are terribly mixed and mastered for stereo, so this is a chance (for popular music at least) to bring back imaging, soundstage and dynamics back to music. I think you don’t have to be either a “stereo person” or a “surround person” or whatever; you can embrace both depending on the recording, it is akin to “having to pick” a preferred format, be it digital, vinyl, CD, etc.
You also forgot to mention in the middle there all those failed attempts at surround music in the early 2000s, DVD-Audio, SACD, etc. Those didn’t work out because it was “difficult” or “too complex” for the average consumer, I think Apple’s approach is way easier and that’s why it’s gaining traction among non-audiophiles.
I still don't understand why there hasn't been a ton of surround music released on the blu-ray format? I can only hope that Apple releases a new version of the Apple TV 4K that can handle DTSHD-MA and Dolby TrueHD because I'm not a fan of 640kbps.
Sadly it's the smaller physical music market now the mass market focus is on monthly streaming contracts 💲💲
Without watching this video, and commenting on the premise offered by the title alone, I’m going to say no. I sat in a room with two high end Bowers and Wilken speakers powered by McIntosh amps, vinyl on the high end Marantz turntable. Playing LedZepplin, and I could distinctly hear ever instrument being played and where in the room it was being played, as though they were in the room where I was sitting. Atmos by Dolby is awesome, if you’re in a movie theater and the sound effects are coming from where the object your watching are moving though in space. It’s great along with the subwoofer beneath your seat adds to the visual experience, but for music, nah! I can live without it. Just give me that room with that same audio gear setup and I’m in heaven. Oh wait, a beer in hand, and a platter of appetizers and I’m good to go. Later!
You gotta get the speakers in the ceiling for proper effect. I've done the klipsh upward firing ones with little effect.
Dolby Atmos in speaker listening is NOT needed, however it's ok if used with headphones because like he said, the music enhancement. Remember the sound effects on your PC sound card from Creative Sound Blaster? They were many, like: hall mode, concert mode, bathroom effect, stadium effect, theatrical mode, etc.. If you do remember them, well that's exactly what Dolby Atmos is, but it works with the right speaker placement and movies, along with some music. I setup a Home Theater system for a doctor and he wanted a 5.1 surround. He was listening music in DTS mode, but some channels wouldn't work. So I came over and set them up in PCM stereo mix, and he asked me, what did you do? They all sound fantastic, is this Dolby Atmos? I said, no this is PCM mode where multichannel sound comes from all the speakers. He said leave like that and forget Dolby Atmos, I just want to hear music and movies from all speakers.You see Dolby Atmos is not necessary for the Audiophile, some might disagree with me.
Love the quilts . We have some old family ones from back in the dizay
I must say that I often use ALL CHANNEL STEREO (5.1 channel surround) for orchestral recordings in my living room in order to FILL the space with the orchestra, it is quite pleasing. But, I don't notice much of a difference between this and actual Dolby Digital 5.1 for music?
I enjoy my 5.2 home theater surround system, but I still prefer listening to music on a two-channel stereo rig w/dual subs. I don’t feel a need nor desire Atmos.
I listen to all my CD music in 5.1 stereo (works well on my system). I do have some actual 5.1 on blu-ray and it is pretty awesome. For vinyl I tend to use 2.1 only because my system where it's on is better that way. But CD's I love in 5.1 stereo on almost all CDs.
Very Interesting.
I'm considering a budget 5.1 system myself for blu ray films & main audio source is cd !
May I add? Steve you mentioned quad, well, I jumped into that back in 1973, TOOK A LOAN OUT to do it lol. I STILL own the Marantz 4140 integrated amp (with the FOUR blue power meters), and the Sony TC-388 quad deck bought back in the day. The demo tape that came with this deck is very immersive!
Quad on open reel OR 8 track tapes were the best way to enjoy the format because it was DESCRETE, something vinyl could never do! (and I have some vinyl 'quad' demos, it's not the same).
Fantastic video. Great point about when doves 🕊 cry atmos is a totally different mix..agree the vocals are interesting 🤔…stereo is best when well done, but agreed this Atmos is here to stay. The good mixes are fun. Personally I love both. Atmos mixes engineered right is something my wife loves too which floored me. She like music but insists on listening in atmos.
I haven’t listened to it enough but I always wondered how it’s possible over headphones. Thanks!
I have Gravity on 3D BluRay (I’m a 3D nut). It’s sufficiently awesome with plain old 5.1 channel surround. I also watch concert videos, like Jeff Beck “Live at Ronnie Scott’s” with surround. Also awesome! But unless there’s footage to watch, I’m a pure stereo guy.
That is too bad because many of these new Atmos music mixes sound amazing in 5.1. That Ronie Scott blu-ray, 5.1 mix is average compared to the best spatial mixes. Still an awesome live concert. One of my favs.
Once again Steve you've managed to open up another Pandora's box. I've commented here several times. I've been a recording engineer 40 years. First I can tell you there is no demand for Atmos mixes in my world. Don't get excited to see that much content. Next a correction: the Atmos mixes use a different set of processing, it's not a matter of additional compression. Those mixes would not work in stereo. Compression seems to have a bad name but I will tell you various methods of compression and using them with skill and good taste is the very essence of the engineer's art. Finally Dolby is a very hardcore business operation that depends on creating proprietary systems and forcing professionals to pay top dollar to use them. Their system of noise reduction for cassettes was a gold mine for them and they're always looking to have another hit product like that. In fact, they've had several successes in the film world . I can't say I'd be thrilled to have to pay for the equipment to mix records in Atmos. I'm not too worried about it. A good stereo setup will always sound best for music as Steve points out.
I do wonder who is asking for Atmos mixes. It's not the public and most likely not the artist. Once the poor ROI of doing an Atmos mix for a streaming service becomes apparent I'm sure they'll dry up
I’ve been successfully making surround and immersive releases for well over a decade….I have a number of clients that specifically hire me to do immersive recordings. 🤷♂️ No sign of it drying up - in fact it has increased. 🤷♂️
@@dbssound1 I agree, Dolby made it dirt cheap and easy to mix and publish in Atmos ... that comments seems to come out from back in time but now Dolby engine are available, in expensive and easy to run ...
Your bubble sounds old and stale. That's too bad. Don't grow more narrow as you grow old sir.
After 50 years of stereo listening with amps & speakers I’m now streaming Apple Spacial Audio to their AirPods. The better mixes are magical and the sweet spot follows me everywhere.
I tried the reflecting atmos speakers but for better positioning, seperation and effects i recommend ceiling mounted for atmos, for movies and especially atmos recorded music, way more realistic.
My son-in-law bought a house whose owner had invested in a large theater room. He got a “turn key” theater experience with Klipsch, Polk Audio, Sony components. It is a very nice Theatre Experience but for me I’d rather have my money invested in a fine 2 channel system with a treated Room so I can enjoy my Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Mahler Symphonies and Miles Davis’ Sketches of Spain. 👍🏻
On the Dolby Atmos experience because of the “height” imaging shouldn’t that, for the best most accurate experience, require a taller ceiling with ceiling mounted speakers? Even in a good 2 channel room a ceiling over 10 feet (about 14 feet or more) in height is usually recommended. So many of us are stuck with 8 foot ceilings and room dimensions that aren’t optimal for 2 channel sound much less multichannel encoded systems like Dolby Atmos.
Great Information Steve, as always.
Hi Steve, I have designed a few club PA systems with a centre channel for vocals with horn and ported subs going down to 30 hz which is low for a small club system.
Still loving your reviews.
X New Yorker /
Andrew , Montreal ,Canada, great food and culture , hard winters 😵💫🤣
Thanks for watching Andrew!
I was so dissatisfied that multi channel discs failed in the marketplace. Sacd and dvd audio were and are great. Ive got some audio releases on bluray. They are fantastic. But it looks like-streaming is where they are heading.
Given a choice of listening to a great 5.1 mix or the same composition in stereo... Hands down I'll pick 5.1 every time
Yes it is a shame that multichannel DSD didn´t take off. I believe there is only one multichannel DAC on the market and you have a hard time sending mutlichannel DSD to AVRs.
@@florianhofmann7553 PCM and DSD can both sound amazing. It's the quality of the mix, not the format that is most important. That goes for mono, stereo, quad, 5.1, and Atmos.
@florianhofmann most modern (and some older!) av receivers will happily accept a pure dsd signal.
@@robertg3903 Yes even my old Denon will take DSD over Denon link. But it is always tied to a physical SACD disc. You can hardly send multichannel DSD from a PC, is what I meant to say. HDMI from a PC cannot handle DSD and somehow mutlichannel DSD over USB is unwanted. Probably has to do with the copy protection.
Thanks a million for covering this Steve!
what is good to correct cancellation null points produced by your speakers comb effect, you could use a subwoofer, have a speaker behind you against the wall connected in reverse phase to your main speakers, you don't want to exceed 660 Hz below this frequency, a min DPS could be used. give you better open space stronger lower frequencies because there is no dips from the room and the other speaker.
a speaker has to have no more than 0.8 of a mm to be in synergy and to reduce comb effect if everything is equal meaning that resistance is equal on both sides what it won't be. a delay on one speaker is needed it could be checked with a AC voltmeter and a resistor placed in series, or use something like REW to correct the issue. of course you can place the speaker further back to the other speaker the one with the less resistance, talking fraction of a mm of course.
Years ago I had a very good Lexicon processor and seven channels of amplification in a home theater setup for the family room. It was great for movies. But it was not as good as my two channel living room system for playing music. That setup with dipolar speakers "did space" far, far better. Now, thirty years later, I still have no urge to do multichannel audio. Excellent two channel audio soundly (ha) beats multichannel. Someday maybe, but not yet.
I enjoyed your excitement on vocal's from the center channel. The movie Beyond the Sea starring Kevin Spacey as Bobby Daren has a simply fabulous sound track. Kevin Spacey knows how to sing, and his vocals are hard in the center. Pity the movie is only on DVD, but the mix is amazing.
No need for Atmos. Back however many years ago I bought a copy of Master and Commander. Plenty of height info mastered into the audio. You could hear the crew running above you in scenes shot below deck. Astounding. Atmos is what SQ or QS quad was back then, fake imaging. BTW the film won an Academy Award for best sound editing.
I have a 7.2.4 atmos system, and when playing a movie it sounds quite good, the music from soundtracks sounds really good. But when playing the 2.2 music part I quite prefer it. Just sounds more realistic.
I have a home theatre room with a projector and a Dolby Atmos setup....There are times I've checked to see what my processor is decoding the signal at and have been surprised to find that what I might have sworn was being played in Atmos was only just 2 channel....That's how good the psuedo acoustics can be implemented with just 2 channel audio
As a theatrical format at least I can't imagine Dolby Atmos going anywhere, UNLESS it was to be replaced by a more immersive equivalent. As for home stereo usage, i.e. music, I couldn't say. However, as a surround format for movies, domestic or theatrical, we've never had better let alone anything that approaches Atmos, which was a necessity in my view since regular surround (5.1 - 7.1) without overhead channels never really rocked my boat. Seeing a movie mixed and presented in Dolby Atmos sound in a great cinema auditorium is just an awesome experience, although digital IMAX cinemas without Atmos is still the best theatrical experience to my mind because of the front channels sound in particular (and screen format and size). This is why I only use 2 channels (or, actually, 2.2 channel) for both music and movies in my own setup, because I believe the front channels + subs is the, by far, most important investment; when I've found myself contemplating the inclusion of surround sound in my setup, I've always ended up believing the front channels plus subs to be the better area to upgrade instead. That being said, surround done very well is Atmos alright.
Not all my DVDs have the voice coming from my center speaker but I really like the few that do. I have a deep purple I just got that dose, it's so nice.
My first symptom of being an audiophiliac is when I took a saw to the console "stereo" system my parents had and tipped the speaker mounts a few degrees inboard to improve the imaging.
Listened to all your podcasts Steve , which I didn’t even know you were doing until a week ago , enjoyed all of them 👍
Had a Marantz 4400 for a few years back in the late 70's / early 80's. Fab sound, even had an oscilloscope to assist in placing the sound. Really heavy. Excellent bass. Shame I parted company with it.
Steve, you might want to listen to Atmos in a proper setup with ceiling mounted speakers and everything timbre matched before passing judgement that it is a gimmick. It is well known that topper or bounce speakers are a joke. And Atmos has been around since 2012 and has been the standard for blurays for many years. Seems you are a bit late to the party.
Even with all of that it’s a gimmick. For music. Try listening to proper high end systems with sound staging and imaging. Your ceiling embedded speakers are ok for movies etc. It’s crap for music.
i had 4.1 system at one point, its fun when you have it.
but most of my places i lived in after that had no space for that, so stereo is all i have now, do not want much more at the moment.
stereo is what most people can fit and afford, its the nice baseline and standard for the the foreseeable future. no headphones of course, those are for when you cant listen to speakers.
I think the majority of music, stereo is perfect, but I can imagine music produced from its inception, could really take advantage of multichannel and be incredible.
Atmos is not a big deal to me really... at least the Apple Music Atmos versions, I prefer the stereo ones any day of the week.
Amazon HD (also offers Atmos)
.... It's what I use.
Excelent point of view, enjoyed it a lot. 👍🏼
Getting a Atmos/Multi setup CH to reproduce the content correct is key to getting the immersive and imo superior to stereo experience. Not many people have the right space for it - and i would say it is the biggest obstacle for multi ch music taking off.
I've been a fan of all things spatial audio since the mid-70s. All of it was hobbled by either poor conceptual design or limits of the available technology. The only approach that nailed it was Cambridge mathematician Michael Gerzon's "Ambisonics." I wrote a paper about this when I was in college. By the time Gerzon had it worked out, there was no commercial interest remaining. Happily, in recent years when gamers wanted full functionality spatial audio Ambisonics was revised, this time modern DSPs and software are more than able to render it wonderfully.
Gerzon's model encompasses an approach to capturing an acoustic event in a manner that provides for it's coherent recreation using any practical number of playback channels, in any physical arrangement you like. There are Ambisonic microphones (ex Core Sound Tetra Mic) that record 4 signals, XYZ & W, where W is omnidirectional.
The big difference between Dolby and Ambisonic is that they have fundamentally different goals. Ambisonics is about recording and playback of a live performance, but can be used in post-production to create directional effects. Dolby is 100% about producing directional effects using "objected oriented" techniques. In essence, Dolby Atmos is about synthesizing things that never really happened. Also, Dolby is great at marketing. Every little thing has a defined brand and generates licensing revenue in their world.
so in summary 2-channel audio has not been surpassed as of yet??
@@ydid687 Only commercially. Two-channel is the standard for what gets made. One of the magical parts of Ambisonics is that it plays well on any number of playback channels, from mono to Steve Martin's googlephonic system.
Well Speaking for myself, I found music from my 7.1.4 system pretty unsatisfying but that was due to the characteristics of the speakers and amplifier more than the divide between stereo and multichannel mixes (Also not really impressed with Apple Music Atmos tbh). I personally care almost exclusively about tonality, dynamics and a lively but also as much as possible fatigue free sound when it comes to music listening(stuff like soundstage and imaging, while they do enhance are of tertiary importance to me).
So I invested about as much as in my whole HT setup, TV, players, Console and all (Klipsch RP speakers helped keep the cost manageable there) to a decent stereo system more suited for quality music reproduction and could not be happier! Guess were I am spending most of my time now... (I work from home so the system is on 8 hours plus on average. hence the high priority for fatigue free sound while not losing on quality and detail).
I do love Atmos and generally immersive audio (as my Yamaha RXA8A also has some nice upscalers/dsps itself in addition to Auro-3D etc) Using it for Netflix/Movies/PS5 games is not something I would like to do without. But for music? Nah, Quality over quantity for me :) My 2c...
Yup. Atmos does take effort and cash but is well worth it.
Honestly, I've turned off the Atmos function when listening to Amazon Music HD. I primarily listen on my Focal Clear hooked up to Topping DX3 Pro+. Atmos definitely sounds different, but not "better." All of the tracks sound like they are simply pushing the vocal center-forward, which I don't particularly like. Also, Steve is spot on that Atmos tracks are louder.
well I can tell you the Doors played back on the Smyth A16 via headphones in the 10.13.1 Dolby Atmos mode is much better than any 2 channel setup
Awesome viewer system of the day. I wonder what the owner rates his own overall system at on a ten point scale. I find most audiophiles to be pretty honest about the value/virtue/quality of their own stuff. We're pretty critical people.
I find even stereo to be somewhat gimmicky. I'm fully into headphones because of how much better the stereo effect is in them - how the channel separation is complete. That being said, mono is not the answer either. Having the sound vary from different directions in a room really ads to the complexity and enjoyability of the listening experience. I just know that it rarely adds up to any kind of decent imaging. Sure you can get a really good image if you sit still in the right spot, or you can get fair imaging if you set up a much wider sweet zone. But most stereo recordings aren't even done in a way that produces very realistic imaging, so it's mostly an academic pursuit without much practical result. However, the effect of having speakers in two places in the room ads to the complexity and that's a cool effect, even if the placement of the sounds is rarely tangible. What I still think really works well and it's much more practical is 3-channel, like Steve mentions. I've heard that with some kind of electronic processing of a stereo recording that plays only the common signal/program through the center channel and the effect is far more tangible and pronounced than a typical two speaker setup. I'm sure that 5, 7, 9, 11 etc. are better, but in my limited experience with more than two channels, I found three to be remarkably convincing and useful to producing a good two dimensional sound stage. I think it would be really useful for the audiophile hobbyist community to get more into three channel setups. Three channel let's you move your head and not lose the image. Three channel sweet spots can be much larger - almost the entire width of the space between the left and right speakers. It can trick your brain much better into the 2D image because when you turn your head you still get a presentation that's too complicated for our two channel brains to interpret as distinct points in the room. We can easily identify two points, but our ears don't seem to be able to count to three. Tricky systems like various dipoles, Bose 901, Walsh Ohm, DCM Time Window, et al, certainly can disappear in terms of not sounding like two distinct sources of sound in a room, but I've never heard those types of speaker do a clear stereo image. Again it's a neat effect, but not at all a realistic soundstage. Three channel can be done with stereo recordings. I would really like to see us try more of that.
Dolby Atmos is getting alot of attention from music producers and mixers - so there will be no lack of music for this new format, like quad and surround 5.1 had.
It would be really interesting if the Audiophiliac could listen to a Atmos set up with similar speakers instead of mixing brands with different voicing. And also real hight speakers - upfiring speakers seem like a severe compromise. Direction of sound is at the core of the immersive experience and bouncing sound is something audiophiles normally avoid. Having the sound to arrive at the proper time even seem doomed.
So please have a try with a proper set up - I love to hear your reaction!
As the owner of the system in question there is a lot I'd do if I wanted to listen to lots of surround/Atmos music. It's fun, but it's like a carnival ride. You can only do so much of it. I agree with Steve in that the biggest benefit is the center channel. I was sitting out of the sweet spot during some of his tests and still got a central image.
Dolby 'atmos' is an ultra-encoded lossy format. Why would anyone into sound quality be interested in it?
Looks like you have a nice personal setup, but it is certainly not one that anyone should base their opinion if atmos music on, and to a greater extent use to make a review video on an entire format on. You have some great stuff, but a truly put together atmos system would be an exponentially different listening experience….and you might change how many times you want to ride the Ferris wheel. 😉
Totally agreed about it being a lossy format. Personally I find Auro 3-D to be a better music format, but they just don’t have the market share, so we deliver in the format that the consumers can listen to.
@@dbssound1 Thank you for your comments. Is there a "right" system though? For any type of music whether it be stereo or surround? Most people will hear Atmos music through AirPods, and Steve did try a couple of different systems. I'm not saying my system is the best out there. But it's better than a soundbar which was another option.
I have about 50 multi channel cd's (DVD-audio/SACD) and have listened to some Atmos mixes from streaming services. You are spot on when you say the average listener has no idea what imaging is and get wowed by multi channel playback. I play multi channel music occasionally for something different but much prefer a good stereo recording. No offense to your friend but those up firing speakers are far from ideal for reproducing height information.
Please do a review about indonesia's SB acoustic speakers please
I was excited to see you chime in on this. I can afford to use it with my AirPod pros for specific albums like Dark Side of the Moon
It seems that least on some songs the ATMOS mix seems to sound better probably because of less compression and better separation. But yes, a well recorded and well engineered stereo mix can be magical and that has always been the case. So it's rather silly that better mixing and engineering has to be marketed as a special feature.
I’m with you. Some of the mixes are great. Some less so. Overall, I really enjoy a lot of the atmos music I’ve listened to. But I like a good stereo mix as well. There’s room for both.
This idiot said the reason the Atmos sounded better was MORE compression. I love Atmos and it certainly isn't because of MORE compression.
@@chrisd6736 A poor Atmos mix will always sound poor, just like stereo. A great Atmos mix, like Rider's on the Storm will always sound more epic than the stereo version, no matter how good the stereo mix is.
PS - Nimbus Records in the UK made a considerable library of Ambisonic (UHJ encoded) classical recordings using a single array of microphones that were the precursor of the classic Calrec Soundfield Microphone. They're outstanding recordings, whether heard in stereo or surround.
I have a few Ambisonic LPs & CDs & I recall that they decoded well with my old Sanyo quad unit (now gone), sounding better than the SQ records I had. Steve Hackett's "Till We Have Faces," a rock album, & Relativity's "Gathering Pace," a Celtic/World Music LP are both in that format.
Steve. I was so excited to finally listen to a Magnepan 1.7 today near Charlotte, NC. And what a disappointment. The sales people didn't know why I thought it sounded poor. I told them what you said about them being picky about amps. They said this one was powered by an Anthem amp with 400 watts per channel. A piano that sounds gorgeous on my old Paradigm Studio 102s sounded clanky and shrill on the Maggies. Sibilants were harsh with voices. When they hooked up the GoldenEar 1s, the sound got much better, with higher resolution and soundstage. I bought a pair. Why do million $ hi-fi stores have Maggies hooked up to amps they aren't compatible with? Does it take a 75 year old man with hearing aids to hear the difference?
Like you I could not afford a Quad system. I did and still do the old Hafler (matrix) surround wiring truck. More info is on Wikipedia if anyone is interested. There is also a great photo of Frank Sinatra in front of his 3 channel home system on the internet.
Steve, remember that the original Klipsch Heresy was design as the center for its bigger siblings and turns out it also works well as part of PA in the gym. That multichannel things always pop up as audio evolves and we have to say it’s getting better each round. What will they think of next? 😄
If you use really tall loudspeakers you need no height channels. I once ran a horn theater using 7 giant vintage theater speakers front was 2 RCA shearer horns center RCA LC1A I greatly enjoyed it for movies but for music I kept going back to stereo and for many movies 3.1 was better to me. Later I took the horn theater down and just enjoy moves played through giant theater style horns in stereo. This beats the surround sound audio I hear at my friends homes even the 1 with 6 ML CLS 2 Z. To sum 2 very large speakers may just beat out 7-11 small in surround. As with all things YMMV.
I had my 7.2.2 theater in a 10 x 12 room. Saving Private Ryan was amazing to watch on it. That along with other movies. But after setting that up I longed to go back to 2 channel and did. I took my theater apart till I could find a bigger place to have a theater. May not happen anytime soon.
Are you using a phone camera to film this? It looks incredibly good I'd think you used a camera instead. Great video as always :)
I use an iPhone 13 pro to shoot all my videos.
You nailed it Steve! Great video.
Steve that was remarkable, but I myself find the distraction of multi channel causes a confused feeling for me, much like a VR headset, I get all disconnected from the performance. I am convinced I'll never have a multi channel system. I've wasted money on Quadraphonic, Dolby and Atmos, now I'm done forever, I'm just doing the calming 2 channel audio. And I have headphones but use them 5-6 hours a year at best.
The dolby upmixer does magic with 2 channel sources in my system. Not all music sounds great with it. But many of my standbys sound brilliant up upmixed w atmos. Im not a fan of the dts x upmixer however. Not my thing
Way way back when sound was being developed for the movies. MA BELL found that 3 channel was the best format for sound reproduction in theaters. When I first heard Kornerhorns it was with a Corn wall in the middle to give the best imaging over a large horizontal space. I have been doing three channel since the middle 60's. You add a bit if there is a whole in the middle using left plus right for the center, if the middle is to strong between two speakers you use L-R to add ambience to tone down the middle presented by the L and R speakers. I have used a form of line array speakers since I built my Symphonies in 63. I used a form of 302 for the middle of my Bozak systems. Today I use Mcintosh line arrays for my stereo system and there is wall of sound not just two small speakers producing sound. Point source speakers just don't do it for me. In fact I get tired of voices always being the center. IF ITS A QUARTET OR LARGER SPREAD THEM OUT BETWEEN THE SPEAKERS. Does Sara Vaughn or Ella, or Joe Williams sing in the center when being in front of the Basie Band. No they are off to the left side near Basie and his rhythm guitar player. So put them off to the side on the LP's or CD's or what ever. Line arrays can present to strong of a phantom center sometimes because they focus the sound so well. Even more so than horn loaded speakers with large dispersion angles.
If you are into space movies or movies where people fly or do acrobatics then where is the sound from underneath? You would be actually experiencing as I did flying in Helicopters or open cockpit air craft with my dad. So Atmos is all wrong to begin with. Where are the floor speakers and the speakers that rock the floor. Subs don't cut it unless you have drivers that modulate the floor, too. So that 19 speakers spread over how many channels. Oh where is the elevation speaker for the center channel and the floor speaker for the center channel ?. How many speakers is that. 21 not counting the subs for the space and the modulators for the floor. Spread over how many channels?
Personnally give me the three channels across the front and one surround channel for the side and rears like the movie houses back when Ampex and Ray Dolby were all about tubes and analog. Did you know Ray developed Ampex master equalization way back when which was a form of Dolby B but with out the modulation capability. He also helped with SEL Sync to synchronize multi channel sound with live sound.using a record head as a play head to sync the previously recorded track with the live sound being recorded without degradation like sound on sound.
Atmos is just another gimmick on the road to total surround sound. The more channels the less definition you will hear from the front channels. If you can't understand the spoken or sung words from the front what is the point. Play it louder so you will damage your hearing even more than it is all ready. Were you happy with the surround sound from Disco-tech systems? It was just two pair of stereo speakers in an X pattern. L, r, l, r as you spun in the middle of the floor with subs kicking your thighs to make you want to dance all night long and till sunrise the next morning, TOO.!!!!!.
Nope. Sorry gramps. Check out a good Atmos mix before posting next time.
So what music streaming service and what headphones should i use for the best audio experience?
TIDAL prices have been lowered recently. For £10.99pm. as well as Lossless stereo, one can also stream object-based audio (Atmos) but tbh Dolby Atmos discs sound a little better.
Stanley shaff of San Francisco had a place called 'audium'. It was/maybe is billed as a space and sound experience in an enclosed environment.
An array of sound reproducers (types of speakers and sound generator's ) piloted by an engineer that conducted a program of new listening compositions to small groups of new music attendee's.
Idiomatic like , it had/has elements of positional source, uncanny fade and presence.
At moments John cage like and electronic with urban and human injections of familiar sound(s). All performed in darkness.
Darkness that surely freed listening.
Listening is worth thinking about.
It would be sad if Dolby Atmos disappeared. I've used a multi channel for years and it's surprising good.
"Gravity" 2013 justified a lot of stuff that had been just a gimmick until then, primarily 3-D. Literally the only movie that was worth wearing the glasses.
But as for the sound, it was true to space in that sound in the vacuum of space wasn't heard but the music and the dialogue mixing was incredible.
Steve, mixing 3-4 brands of speakers and different sizes is not ideal for Dolby (Atmos).