DOLBY ATMOS, Not 4 AUDIOPHILES + 6 Viewer Systems!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- My MUSIC surround sound journey, from QUADRAPHONIC To DOLBY ATMOS!
Patreon: / audiophiliac
Twitter: @AudiophiliacMan
Instagram: / steve.guttenberg
#dolbyatmos #surroundsound #hifi
Went multichannel for years until I listened to a proper stereo set up and my god I was blown away ..I felt like I had been decived to all my life ..never looked back ..even for movies I listen in stereo
Old movies are better in stereo or mono, this artificial 5.1 surround for old movies is just a gimmick. BTW I heard the new Stones record in Mono and I actually like it better than stereo
I used to agree stereo was superior to multi-channel audio. But now that I have a properly setup, 9.2.4 Atmos system at home, it's hard to go back. Stereo is 2d. We like to imagine there is some "image" there with stereo, but if you really listen critically, it's a 2d experience. With Atmos, that's all changed and you're in a 3d environment. But it takes multiple speakers, and expensive electronics, and a lot of space in your room. So, it isn't for most. But once you have that sort of setup, Atmos is king. For live recordings, you're IN the crowd with echo around you. For studio recordings, the singer is directly in front of you, but the band is placed around you as if you were, actually there, in the room, between each instrument and singer. If you're listening to some recording in a church, the reverb, and echo, comes from behind you as it normally does.
And, Atmos, even though it's in its infancy, is still far more of an accepted standard than any previous multi-channel standard that has come before it. So, it's not going away. It's used for music and movies. And the longer it exists, the better the tracks are going to be mixed too. Stereo has been around since '67? Atmos is what, 5 years old or so? So, give the mixers time to get up to speed, and I think a lot of people will shift to really enjoy Atmos.
Yup!!!.....especially when you take your time to tweak the placement. Once those walls start to dissapear, ow my goodness it's amazing. The bass just rolls over you like it should. I never had that experience with Surround, maybe on a hifi-show, maybe. It sounded okay, but you would need an extra room for that! LOL
Not to mention the fact that in stereo, the sound image merges really well with what the eye sees. -> Proper height of the speakers. I noticed when I tweaked the height for music (listening for the position of the vocalist), the merging sound image improved for movies significantly!
you're just in there. And it makes the room sound huge.
@@joshpeters7392 Why would I want to stand inbetween the band? I will never get that.
I like to watch a band perform in front of me.
@@pedrofernandez8729 You know ... I should say that in the city we heard all the systems for surround and there were cheap ones that were pretty bad. But I had SONY Pascal, the SAW, Super Advanced Woofer, 5.1 system and it was awesome with a video picture. The 5 channel stereo is absolutely not a gimmick, maybe if you have inferior equipment, it will be but, the 5.1 surround is superb and the truth is that nobody wants us to say that 5.1 is good. It's just not welcome to say 5.1 is awesome. I found that at the time, it came out, nobody wanted to share how good it was, it was a secret if you like.
2 channel Stereo for life!
I'm a stereo all the way ...running naim with B&W speakers. It's what I'm used to hearing ..stereo .big love.
You reported on the Schiit SYN recently, but am curious what you think about it as an Atmos “replacement”, ala Jason Stoddard’s epiphany. I have both set up in my house, and am enjoying exploring the differences between one room’s Sonos Atmos system (Arc + Sub + surrounds) vs another’s AppleTV to HDMI extractor to SYN with analog Magnepan Surround setup. I like them both for different use cases, but it feels like the world is moving in an either-or direction.
Dolby Atmos is ABSOLUTELY CRAAAZY for movies, it takes a sound and moves it to a place in the room. My uncle has a personal theater in his house he built in one of his spare rooms. He upgraded to full Dolby Atmos and watching a movie in that room is ABSOLUTELY ABSERD! Everytime I watch and learn more about what "audiophiles" like and want the more I look at yall and think, you guys suck 😂 yall don't like anything fun.
I'm way too late with this comment, but, if I'm hearing you right, you're saying you don't like most multichannel mixes of old music you have heard, and therefore--in the headline at least--condemn the underlying technology of multichannel reproduction as "Dolby Atmos, Not 4 Audiophiles." That's quite a stretch. Ever go to a concert at "Big John" (Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine) on Amsterdam Ave., when the music calls for antiphonal ranks of the organ? Or another kind of concert that included music that was specifically written for immersive effects? I've wanted to hear Edgar Varese' Poem Electronic swirling through 233 AR3's in the space designed by Le Corbusier for the Philips exhibit at the Brussel's World Fair ever since I first read about it. The traditional, pop performance practices/venue layouts hold back the development of music as an art form.
I listen to a very wide range of music through my Anthem MRX540 and have tailored the ARC brilliantly to make it almost sound like headphones but still have that vibrant wonderful sense of having the sound waves hit you in the chest. I am not an audiophile and I get where you are coming from but I can't afford mega bucks on a high end system and the Anthem compensates magnificently for the sound I want without the high cost. Also it was quite interesting to hear that the Munich High End Hifi Show did not have one surround manufacturer/display.
I love my surround 5.1 and Atmos mixes. Pink Floyd’s DSOFM in Atmos is brilliant, as are the new Peter Gabriel tracks.
I enjoy listening to Dark Side of the Moon on SACD 5.1. It is the only one I have. It is well mastered.
I have the ATMOS bluray 2023 remix. Its better than all the others but exposes its original 1970's limited recording master quality. Modern ATMOS albums like Hans Zimmer live in Prague really show off the possibilities of the medium when using a new 2020 recording technology......cant wait for more
The best !
Steve, it's not true that when you hear live music, it's all coming from in front of you. Your ears are also taking in spatial cues from wall, ceiling, and floor reflections. Although it's possible to make a gimmicky MCh recording that puts you in the middle of the performers, it's also possible to use the surround channels to pick up hall ambience. When it's done well, it can accentuate the feeling of "being there." Many classical MCh SACDs do this quite well. But Dolby Atmos music "mixes" tend to be mush with poor imaging, even when heard over an appropriate headphone system, such as Apple EarBuds Pro 2.
Initial Atmos music mixes were iffy, just like initial stereo mixes with ping ponging stereo effects in the mid 60's. But in the last few months I've heard tons of really great Atmos mixes from new and old music. St. Vincent, Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Neil Young, The Beatles, absolutely amazing Frank Sinatra mixes, Fever ray mixes that sound like the roof is going to blow off your listening room, etc.
When it is done right, Atmos is most certainly better! Unfortunately, hard to find ‘done right’ content as it is diluted with definitely not done right. I anticipate a strengthening of the format in the future for better sound quality to appease audiophiles, and mixing engineers will improve their craft. When it works, magical!!!
I"m a long-time audiophile with pretty good gear. I stream Apple music and listen to Dolby Atmos on a 7.1.5 setup. I've taken a "let's have some fun with this" approach and like most of the mixes. Some I don't but the beauty is that I have the option. If I want 14 channels, I"ve got it. If I want 2 channels I've got it. So the consumer is winning in this case because they get to choose.
Earlier today I experienced 4 minutes and 21 seconds of Pure Unadulterated Joy when I listened to Rush's YYZ in Dolby Atmos! Avalon by Roxy Music is another classic, not to mention the Dark Side of the Moon album. Everyone used to geek out over "Moby Dick" when John Bonnam was panning back and forth from left to right on his drum kit back in the day. This is just taken to another level. Can it be overdone? Sure. When it is, just enjoy the 2 channel version like everyone else.
It does require you use good speakers (matching) all the way around, which isn't always practical or affordable - but well worth it.
I'm older too (53) but I've always been progressive when if comes to technology. Ive seen a lot of surround music formats come and go but Atmos/spatial audio is the first that really has sticking power because it's available to everyone straight out of the gate. All you need is a set of regular headphone and/or whatever multichannel setup you may have (3.2, 5.1.0, 7.2.4, etc). No need to buy your music all over again. Streaming companies just flip the switch and thats it, you have spatial audio.
I have to admit a lot of the naysaying in the comments here has bit of a "get off my lawn" vibe to it. Not surprising I guess given the average age of audiophiles these days. But the truth is this isn't the demographic that will decide the format's success or failure. It's the average streaming music listener. If people listen it will continue to be available. Given so many listen with headphones these days I think it has a good chance.
(Deja Vu!) I've had my own multichannel journey but, unlike many posters here, I kept going through SQ quad (my cute li'l 1976 Sanyo decoder), Dolby Surround with one big ol' rear channel (I miss good old Harman-Kardon receivers), Ambisonics (o-o-o, this works on my old quad decoder!) & finally 5-channel. I never buy discs just because they happen to be in surround, but I'm ever anxious to hear favorites in that format. Elton John's *Honky Chateau* (mix by Greg Penny) is amazing when the horns kick in from the rear in a kind of acoustic counterpoint. Porcupine Tree's "How Are You Feeling Today?" has the gentle la-la-la voices coming from different speakers that seem to be haunting the singer lamenting his lost love. The colorful spread of instruments on Chicago's wondrous Quadio Blu-rays of 4-channel recordings from the '70's are fun but the creative use of 5 speakers in Mike Oldfield's *Tubular Bells 2003* is truly intoxicating! I have a nice setup, but not an expensive one: a 2010 Cambridge Audio receiver, Cambridge universal disc player & 5 Golden Ear speakers. We attend performances typically on a stage in front of us but the world we live in surrounds us, so why not our music as well?
I’d rather Thomas Dolby than Dolby Atmos.
You're blinded by science.
🤘😁🤘
I totally disagree with you…but that was funny
That's why, for me, this earth is flat....
She hit you with technology and you didn't get up.
What I love most about surround sound mixes is that they can give me a totally new perspective on recordings I've already heard a gazillion times.
Everything is going to be dependent on the music. If artists start producing with Atmos in mind it will do well. Not everything needs to be on Atmos. When the music calls for it and it’s mastered well - yes it’s worth it.
Immersive audio formats like Dolby Atmos are for home theater movie playback. For instance a character or the characters walking through a forest with rain coming down from above. That is what the immersive channels are for.
one question... have you heard a good Atmos music mix on a properly set up system? I bet not or you would know better.
@@brucebosler1216 That's newfangled technology most audiophiles like 2-channel stereo. 🤦♂️
Actually surround with atmos is amazing for music. It gives immersion and sound stage a 2.0 channel could only dream of. Most people that are stuck on 2.0 channel music make negative comments about multichannel music without even trying a properly set up multichannel system….
It’s awesome! I hardly ever turn on my 2.0 ch rig for music anymore.
@@Audiodreamer192-24 is it up mixed?
I don't imagine there's a lot of content that's actually audio music for Dolby Atmos.
@@Geerladenlad blue ray music has a lot for native encoding. Also upmixing on modern receivers is very good. The software is way better then it used to be.
I do both, love how it puts you IN the music instead of it just coming at you.
Some people don’t like surround listening, some do…
I actually love it and also love atmos.
When the doors “riders on the storm “ is playing the thunder is up above and distant, and Rays solo with key boards pours down over you like a water fall it’s pretty amazing.
Very cool, but not for everyone I suppose.
They older crowd never like changes…
🤟😎
Any other examples besides riders on the storm?
Ya sure……
Steve miller fly like an eagle
Pink Floyd welcome to the machine
Led zeppelin dazed and confused
Fleetwood Mac little lies
Pink Floyd signs of life
Pink Floyd
Happiest days of our lives
( helicopter moves right over your head)
Enya only time
I could go on and on how many I can think of that are spectacular with surround and atmos but honestly for sound stage and immersion 2.0 ch simply can not compete with multichannel.
@@marcgabor9690
If your at all interested, you should check out audioholics and life in surround.
I have a nice 2.0 channel rig as well ,and I like it too but I find more and more I use my surround system for listening to hi res music. To each their own
Good Atmos mixes sound way more immersive, large and enveloping than stereo. But not all Atmos mixes are on the same level yet
I enjoy every now and then listening to classical sacd that has been recorded with surround sound in mind. I have a 4.0 setup, 4 identical tower speakers. Sounds wonderful like I am at the hall/church.
I like surround music. It’s an extra dimension and sounds great if it’s mixed well. Some mixes fail dismally (Oasis). But others are wonderful. Hotel California. Dark Side of the Moon.
I hope that Atmos mixes take off as long as they are done well
Also. There are still purists who like mono!
And the Eagles live in Melbourne was so much more with a surround mix!
The Dark Side of the Moon (2023 remaster) sounds fabulous on headphones in binaural, way better (to my ears) than the stereo mix.
@@sebguyader I would love to hear it. I have an SACD surround mix but could not find a reasonably priced DSOTM in the new mix.
5.1 treats me well.
My journey was similar to yours. My 1st real system was a Marantz quadraphonic receiver, Dual Turntable and Altec Santana 2 speakers. After that I left the hobby for several years. Then when home theater got popular, I got a 5.1 theater system that I also used for music. Then it was 5.2, then 7.2, then 7.2.4. That was the end for me. I think atmos and most of these new processing systems are pure marketing to sell gear. I still have the home theater, but have not made any upgrades for years and it still sounds fine. I have a separate dedicated music room with a high quality stereo system. I have a good bit of surround music, but I never listen to it. All my music listening is in the stereo room. The surround system is only for movies. I think that is how it should be.
If you never listen to music in surround, how do you know if you do or don't like it?
@Pat Barr I should have said that I never listen any more. Until i got the stereo, I listened to it all the time, but the stereo is so much better, I never play it any more.
Bill, I 100% agree. I have a not very trendy surround system (6.1??) for my home theatre which still sounds great for immersion purposes, and am working on building a dedicated listening only stereo hifi (2 channel) system in my living room. I have a lot of work to do and learn but am excited!!
Old man talking😂 new stuff sucks😆 when stereo came out a bunch of hifi people said it suck and mono was the best thing and they where right stereo sucked when it came out and that never changed,
it got bether but it still sucks, Dolby Atmos is more lively.
If Klipsch bookshelf speakers are good enough for Viewer Ed then they're good enough for me.
I gave up multi-channel stuff around 2008. Honestly, I love stereo for movies and music.
I bought a "5.1 SACD-Stereo" in the end of 2013 and started to buy SACDs then so now I've bought 286 SACDs the last 9,5 years and I've also upgraded (had to because of speaker placement & their size) to a 7.1 and what I can say about the music on multichannel SACDs is that not many who mix those multichannel discs seems to care about what they're doing.
Some are fantastic but there are more of them that you think that plain stereo sounds better.
I love multichannel in general and Im ready to break free from the 2 channel bubble when there are better and more mixes. Im all for upmixing too. Wont be long before we get REALLY good upmixers.
Pink Floyd has a great 4-channel version of Dark Side of the Moon out there.
It reminds me of the PF concert I went to (Animals tour) in Montreal Canada - in an 80,000 seat stadium that also had 4-channel sound - sadly, I was sitting near one of the rear channels and got overloaded by it - and it was VERY distorted. They were inovaters and visionaries, though.
I also have a full HT system, and enjoy surround as much I can. - Cheers!
The DSOTM original tour I saw at the Hampton Roads Coliseum had 4 channel sound...bird cries from another album flew around the theater.
Surround only makes sense for movies and video games. I also prefer sticking to stereo for music.
Back in the day - pre-surround sound... We use to run 4 speakers. A pair in the front and a pair in the rear and wire the pair in the rear out-of-phase.
Love the possibility of listening to STEREO classic music with 5 loudspeakers (in stereo, no dolby, otherwise multichannel stereo). Augments the immersion as listening to a classic concert live😎
So true. Those who have not experienced the music this way are missing that concert feeling- but then again, they don’t know what they don’t know.
The 5.1 SACD of Brothers I Arms sounds like ur in a venue, as opposed to the regular 2 channel CD that is just the music.
Since headphones are a well-established way of enjoying music, it would be interesting to have more music produced or processed in binaural sound. It's really an extension of stereo, rather than multichannel.
I too love my Chesky binaural 124/192 downloads (e.g. Amber Rubarth), or 2 channel SACDs, OOPO 83, via i2s, Pontus II, Jot 2, Arya phones. But when Apple temporarily killed the photo dongle for iOS output (iOS16.5 now needs 20w USBc chargers) my bedtime listening had to change to iPods 2 pros...I discovered that with noise cnx. and transparency OFF, the custom tuned "Spacial Audio" actually created binaural like sound separation! Radio Paradise is great to fall asleep to (timer on); of course the wired system is still superior but I'm impressed with the little pods wide separation.
Im pretty sure binaural concepts are what is driving headphone playback of Atmos music.Thats why Apple scans your outer ear shape to better customize the sound for your particular ears when you use Airpod Pros. Its all using phasing trickery to create 3d spatial sense on the fly and the gyroscopes in the headphones to keep track of your head placement. It's not perfect but its a whole lot more sophisticated than what we were able to do just 10 yers ago. I like to think of it as "computational audio" in the same what that the images we take with smartphones are now "computational photography".
My experience of Atmos is that well mastered Atmos on disc is great, but streamed Atmos, such as from Tidal is crap. Steven Wilson's Atmos mixes are excellent.
Now I have gotten to that part of the video, I'm glad you agree.
I was looking for your comment Jim 😁
@Carlito Melon You know me so well, my American friend. Just bought Michele the new Atmos version of The Hurting by Tears For Fears. Not heard it yet.
audiophile is always 2.0 and 2 speakers
Hi Steve. This is just my opinion about Dolby Atmos. I hate listening to D.A if I'm going to listening to MUSIC. There stereo rules completely. But if I'm going to see a great movie, D.A rules totally.
The difference watching a movie in D.A and stereo, is like night and day. You get a feeling, like you are in the middle of the movie yourself. Hearing music this way, is confusing and weird
I understand you dont like listening to music in D.A. But I dont understand you dont like it to movies.
Thanks for your great channel. 🙋♂
Sorry Steve but you’re wrong about Atmos music. You may have been right about what you heard in the studio at that instance. But I have an ESL based Atmos system with Simaudio amplification and DIRAC Live and I’ve heard some Atmos mixes which blow away the 2 channel based mixes (I’ve also heard some Atmos which suck). Given that Atmos is object based rather than discreet multi-channel, it adds another dimension of potential tweaking as the technology continues to mature. I’ve A/B Atmos/DiRAC against the Moon 280D for hours and I’m convinced it was worth all of the effort to integrate Atmos into the system.
Steve G. Very well said and thoughtful commentary on multi-channel audio. I have had a long journey with the various attempts to add dimension to audio. I am 70 years old and began my audio journey at age 10 with the help of The Beatles and my Dad. I had a career in corporate communications and and still involved in tracking, mixing and mastering high res music, mostly pipe organ recordings these days. Here are a few observations:
When stereo developed in the 50s onward it was crap except for the enlightened engineers at Decca. Pop music until the late sixties was mostly split left/right recordings. Real stereo with dimension in popular music took until the early 70s, hence the popularity of many monaural mixes like the early Beatles music.
I had a quadraphonic system in my dorm room in 1972 with the ability to play back QS, SQ, and discrete real to reel tape. Sadly, like early stereo, the recordings were crap, unfortunately quad didn’t last long enough for the engineers to really figure out how to use it as you noted in your commentary about Dolby Atmos, but there were a few exceptions.
Over the last 20 years, I’ve built multiple home systems, including 5.1, 7.1, 7.2, 9.2.4, and I even maintained a four channel quad system , but when listening to music I spend 90% of my time listening to stereo.
If any of these multiple formats would actually last more than say 10 years, I am imagine a few enterprising engineers might actually figure out ways to mix music, so they sound interesting. But sadly given the way, the formats continue to change the technology out runs the skills of the engineers, and the mixes continue to sound like crap .
When listening to the home theater mixes, I would say that 20% of it is well done and sadly 80% of it is also crap.
This may sound like a very negative indictment of the state of the art but it’s actually not. If you consider classical music that we listen to today, the reality is they probably 90% of the compositions were crap and 10% of comprises the song book of classical music that is very high-quality and honestly that’s what we listen to over and over again. And, the same thing could be said for the American songbook, and jazz and Pop music.
Why be in front of the stage, when you can be on the stage. I like surround..
Steve, I listen to Dolby Atmos via Apple Music and Apple Classical on my home theatre system, and my Beats Fit Pro headsets. I found Deutsche Grammophon to be the best source for material. Their approach to live recording and mix does convey the ambient sounds of being in a large concert hall listening to the Berlin Philharmonic and their other artists such as Alice Sara Ott. Alice’s solo piano work especially makes you feel like you are sitting on the bench as she plays. The effect is subtle but noticeable if you have played the piano and/or attended a live concert.
When it comes to other genres, especially pop, it’s not the same. I have yet to find an example that compares to the the DG approach.
Interesting, Classical is probably not enough reason for me to seriously consider Atmos. But glad to hear there’s a good musical application and not just home theater.
That’s interesting. I’ll have to try that with DG recordings. Just to confirm, you stream them from Apple Music on an iDevice via Airplay to your AVR, correct?
I thought about that, but actually assumed it’d lose the Atmos information via Airplay. I’ve been playing around with SACD 5.1 mixes through a Sony Blu-ray player for a while now and quite like it, especially for Classical music.
Hmm, just tried to Airplay a recent Shostakovich album that is available as Dolby Atmos on Apple Music to my Pioneer AVR (that supports Atmos), but only got Stereo through my 5.1 setup. I suppose I’d have to have an Apple TV as an Atmos-capable receiver connected to the AVR via HDMI for this to work.
But then, the Multichannel-Layer DSD files of SACDs play just fine on my network to a SONY Blu-ray player, used as a streaming transport, and most sound fantastic.
Totally agree Steve. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Dolby Atmos makes no sense for music listening--period. Gimmicky as far as I'm concerned. I have a true surround system of Golden Ear speakers for Dolby Atmos when listening to movies and TV shows but for music only a 2.1 system. Movies and TV sound fantastic with Dolby Atmos but when it comes to Rush, The Cure, Bach, and Dave Brubeck it just gets WEIRD. Maybe some people have not been to live events but everything comes audibly to you from the front. Whether in a church, small venue or large stadium it all comes from in front so I find it strange when a bass line starts behind you and rolls to the front. That is not realistic at all. The performer is in front of you so.... Dolby Atmos is fantastic for certain media, especially PC gaming, but for music it's a big no. It does not sound realistic at all. Thanks for your videos and opinion. I'm sure this one is kind of a hot potato:>
Dolby Atmos? For me it's just a gimmick- you end up listening to the elements of the mix rather than the music- just like 3-D movies- I was intrigued by the technology at the expense of the movie narrative. I remember watching AVATAR and being so impressed but 10 minutes later I couldn't remember a thing about the storyline. Same for ATMOS.
The wonder with Atmos and surround in general is with and for movies.
In my opinion...
The problem is that if i could choose, i would want one system for movies with atmos and surround 16.4
And another system entirely for music and that offcourse 2 chanel or 2 chanel with 2 subs.
The main problem for me and many others is that have the room for that at my living space (or my economy for rhat sake) is not possible.
I guess many as me actually would like to have both but in lack of money and space dont can achieve it. Sometimes like me they fall somewhere between with really good sounding front speakers, subs, and maybe bi amp them with a more "hifi sounding" amp. Using the pre amp only in the reciver when listening to music only.
But yes its not optimal by any means.
The main problem is that many of us dont want choose between movie theater or hifi. And we dont are able to have both...
Ive gone thru selling all of my home theater gear and buy only 2 chanel gear. To long back to home theater and sell everything and go back to that...
Im jealous to them who both have the living space to have different rooms for both and the money to finance it....
I would guess many others share this experience and thoughts. :)
Thankyou for a great chanel. Best wishes from Stockholm Sweden/ J
C'mon, Steve-O! If you're unmoved by surround mixes of Dark Side of the Moon, Avalon, or Jeff Wayne's Warnof the Worlds, I respectfully need to check you for a pulse.
Not for MUSIC. Audiophile or not.
A well designed 2 channel system is all one needs for music.
2 ears. 2 speakers.
Atmos was not designed for music. Ask an audio engineer.
They are trying to force it down our throats though.
I never liked multichannel, not even for movies. I listened to dvd-a and sacd many times, but - call me old-fashioned - what I really like is the stereo sound. I like the music coming only from the front of me, not the front, sides and back. I never felt comfortable with the multichannel, not even the "Dark side of the moon" running around me with the bells and alarm clocks of 'Time' on the sacd that I heard at the time of its release here in Brazil about two decades ago. But anyway, I'm not against multichannel, I just don't like it.
Eh, you're just too set in your ways. Plus, your ears aren't as good as a younger person's. Yeah yeah you'll quote me your 18k hearing response (bs), but that's your problem--your two old ears aren't up to speed to handle multichannel audio. Maybe you'll like mono even better than stereo.
I have a very small room. Having a Denon receiver in 5.1.2 simple make me believe my room IS as Big as the venue it was recorded at.....provided it was an ok mix. Very much so with "John Williams in Vienna". Would I subscribe to Apple though ? No, I mostly listen to my music through headphones or with near-field speakers/monitors.
I think once you hear a good stereo sound stage then why would you want any surround sound, it can never sound correct so there's no point. I have a Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 system, sounds great when watching 4k films and that's the only time I listen to it oh, and when I stream films although most of these are only 5.1.
I have 7.1 Atmos for movies and stereo for music. It's hard to find good sources of music for Atmos, Tidal has a couple of mixes... few of them really shine.
I can understand Atmos for home theater but I feel it's a bit overblown for music. Not really necessary in my opinion. And home theater can be such a hassle. My Marantz 9ch quit outputting sound from the right front channel. Swapped the front speakers. Still no right side. Figured the internal amp was the issue so I bought a standalone 2ch amplifier for used my receiver pre-outs. Still no front right channel. Just a hiss. This leads me to believe something failed within the sound processing circuit. Went to find a comparable receiver and didn't want to buy another considering I just bought an amp. I just went back to stereo and I don't miss the surround all that much.
I was saying the same thing who wants to listen to music in Dolby Atmos when I listen to a live band I don't see the bass player flying over my head and drummer playing behind me music is meant to be played in stereo you just pan the instrument left or right or keep it in the center it's all about the stereo sound field.
If stereo sometimes is regarded as "artificial", surround music is more artificial then.Mostly is like trying to reproduce a sculpture with a dome 3D projection.
Steven Wilson has said that he starts with the original mix.
Maybe what would be a more fun use of multichannel media for audiophiles would be to provide the discrete multitrack material from a recording so one could roll their own mixes.
A great idea, but the industry (as it stands) would never go for it. I had a 5 disc courousel player with SA-CD support which had 5.1 analog outputs. From each speaker I could hear a tiny bit of bleed-through from the other channels. After investigating I discovered it was a 'feature' -- they didn't want people to have clean, isolated tracks that could be copied or sampled. Typical Sony BS.
Completely disagree. I love the Atmos mixes from Amazon and Tidal.
Thank you man. Thought I was nuts; like what's the big deal? To each his own for sure.
Some SACD 5.1 sounds really good, Pink Floyd are great, Nora Jones, Miles Davis etc, but you really need decent equipment. I don’t think any of the Atmos sounds good, it all seems very random, but the 5.1 SACDs make sense when someone has spent a lot of time arranging the sound to be coherent rather than for gimmicks.
"I gotta make a video about this because this SUCKS" bahahahahhahahahahahahahahahha
Music should be 2:1. Stereo or Mono, anything else is a gimmick.
Respect to all. What it takes is just a switch to Stereo and Atmos.
My left ear need a left speaker and my right ear need a right speaker , thats it, simple. Stereo for life!
No multichannel surround for music for me. We have 7.3 for movies and shows in surround, no Atmos, in basement family room. And 2.0 for music (digital and vinyl) in main room.
I'm never impressed with Dolby anything
Ha! I have that T-shirt! You have good taste in audio, music AND fashion! 😅
Hey Steve. I totally agree that it REALLY depends on the mix. I have a Klipsch RP 7.4.2 system - and when mixed to just expand the sound stage I prefer it… or for electronic the more dramatic mixes I like (kraftworks, daft punk etc…). But it really depends on how it’s mixed.
I DO care! Sorry for being an audiophile, and you're not.
I'd rather Quadrophenia than Quadrophonic.
I love Thomas Dolby for music and Atmos for movies. I think Atmos for music on Apple Music with headphones is wonderful for people and attainable without spending thousands for those who enjoy it and not for people who don’t. Musically the initial intention of the artist’s inspiration combined with the engineers mix is at the core the best. But like you mention Porcupine and Talking Heads versions of surround are top level because they keep the music first not the gimmicks. That’s said Atmos does an excellent job with vocals on some and I repeat some mixes on Apple Music. I think it’s great that the industry still is trying to find the next new thing. My guess is it’s the Dirac systems for music not the Atmos so much for music. But again Atmos is great for movies.
I have a surround system ( pre ATMOS) with a big AV pre pro, OPPO 203, two laser disc players, 7 speakers all powered by Aragon amps, 2 Rel subs a big LG OLED and hundreds of movies. But these days I almost never watch movies. I just listen to stereo CDs, LPs & streaming. So now I'm looking at adding a Luxman integrated with home theater passthroughs.
I’ve never got surround, much the same with 3d TV.
A music setup in a surround system can help to enjoy some music. For example: the recordings that Bruce Springsteen from who I’m aware and that I know are when the E streetband plays full time are to much a wall of sound, to closed, to boxed. But when I bought a Blu-ray Disc recorded in DTS surround the music had much air between the instruments and I could enjoy the music, however when I played the same disc in stereo on the same equipment it became again to boxed. In classical music I had sometimes the same experience for example with : the firebird from Stravinsky. A good recording in surround can sound fantastic even more than in stereo.
Greetings Ludo
I have found that multi-channel mixes are as variable as stereo mixes. If done right they can be really good but that's not very common. Lots of stereo mixes are not that great either. A good mix on a good system is what we all want to hear - that elusive sonic nirvana. ;)
My TV setup has 5 speakers. My stereo listening setups all have 2 speakers (at any one time).
AND when I listen to stereo in my TV room I almost allways set the receiver to STEREO and LISTEN TO TWO SPEAKERS!! !! !!
Roy Orbison: A Black and White Night……… DTS. Fantastic mix.
I think your Atmos poll results are skewed because this is a 2 channel audience. Go ask the 1 million members of AVSforum and see what you get. If you have an Atmos home theater why listen to music in stereo when you can have a fully immersive 7.2.4 experience? Well mixed surround and Atmos music always wins for me.
2 good speakers are expensive enough, no need more 🤭
Couple of things, I am old enough to remember Quad (I am 67) but I have never really heard a quad system. I did have for awhile a Dennon DVD player that played both DVD-A and SACD. Played it through my 5.1 home theater system. Interesting you showed Chicago II, the surround mix for that was weird, band up front horns in the back, like the mullet of mixes. Surround is great for movies, music, I think I am sticking to stereo. Now I do have the Air Pod Pro’s which support Dolby ATMOS, they are mostly for wearing while I am walking the dog, it is sort of bugs me that when you turn your head, the instruments move where they are at in the head set and I am not sure if the sound is really that much better.
The object of my audio hobby has always been to experience the most lifelike experience reproduced in my listening room. Stereo usually works best for music (though I have heard exceptions), but for movies, I find the channel separation in 7.1 surround to produce a more lifelike recreation of the movie in my room, and I enjoy this (I see nothing wrong or unsophisticated with enjoyment). In my experimentation, Dolby Atmos has not yet impressed me, though someone might produce better Atmos movies in the future -- at which time I will enjoy it if it is more lifelike to me. Those who look down on the fun and enjoyment of surround sound in movies are free to indulge in the sense of superiority that they seem to enjoy.
2 CHANNEL AUDIO FOR ME PLEASE!!!
I always figured I’d use the money for five speakers upgrading my current speakers.
Surround is great for movies period. That's why l have an audio and a video system. Thanks again Steve!
Woh! Steve’s Line Magnetic system was beautiful. Looked awesome. Very cool…
It should be defined up front that we're talking about music first and formost, here.
I would say two things:
*1.* Unless the mix has been intentially made for surround ... well, ok, there's a point there. It's the concept, it's the point.
*2.* Technically (and this is 20% troll, sorry, Steve) ... but if you're talking about the music coming from "there" ... well ... technically ... you're talking about mono, no? 😉However, I would say this ... surely a surround encoded concert (even at the gig!) will actually have different sound from different parts of the stage ... which would entail having discreet endpoints there.
Glad you mentioned Steven Wilson. One of the most talented musicians and producers of the last two decades, at least. Wonder if you dig Porcupine Tree and his solo work as well
I prefer his approach to surround mixing to his music. Prog rock isn't my thing.
It may not be for you but leave the rest of us out of this😂
Steve, it would seem you're fine with multi-channel, it's the artistic intent you rarely resonate with.
I've had a multi-channel rig for 20 years. First the promise of SACD, now ATMOS.
To a lesser extent I too complain about mix decisions, but there's now so much great material.
I've experienced some powerfully immersive multi-channel moments.
Stereo and multi-channel have diverged down two separate paths.
Playback purity and simplicity, ... vis-à-vis ever more powerful DSP contouring, manipulation, and presentation.
The trend line on heightened experiences with elevated immersiveness is steadily increasing.
Dolby Who Atmos Cares?
Totally agree.
#highfiaudiofriends
I've always felt like that about souround sound. Yep the Sansui Quad was different and at first I liked it, but then it became distracting. And it challenged my focus and the enjoyment of the music was reduced. I would quit listening for months at a time. And the several Atmos systems I heard was really good for movie's. But I don't really watch any movies.
Then the Kenwood THX processor and 6 channel amp(terrible for music) never again. 2 channels only for me till I'm gone.
OK Steve, I am very much in agreement with your current assessment of the surround system for music. But all my friends swear by their 5.1 setups and expensive SACD collections as the source. It's not that they don't have any respect for my 2 channel system. They just claim that the 360 degree sound is more immersive. So I had the opportunity to replace the 5.1 receiver in one of their systems just a few days ago, and I was really impressed with it. The remixed and remastered 5.1 of Electric LadyLand and the Beatles recently released LOVE album were astounding. It did not replicate a live show in any characteristic, but fidelity and individual definition of instruments and voices were great. And, of course, the psychedelic stuff on the Hendrix was WAY over the top cool. So I grabbed up some stuff from around the house and made a small nearfield 5.1 "test" system. My first real drawback is when listening to a finely tuned setup of 2.1 and images and stage are maximized, when adding the center and rear channels the forward image is reduced, smeared might be a good word, and that's not something I want to give up. Even when using a synthetic rear channel surround, or just adding rear channel delay and ambiance the front loses something. Perhaps this negative effect might be minimized with DSP timing tricks but so far it's not for me.
I wonder if having the speakers so close diminishes the surround effect. I think the music needs more breathing space. My rear speakers are near my listening position, but 3 feet above. The front 3 are about 7 feet away & my room is small (about 10 X 12). I normally listen to true surround recordings, not using DSP.
Many here have already made good points on either side of stereo versus Atmos. But I will say this: if you are forming your opinions about Atmos music mixes based on comparing them to the original stereo mixes or to a live music performance (stage forward), it's the wrong way to look at it. Atmos mixes (or remixes) should present an entirely new experience. It should not simply be 'enhanced' stereo. Stereo and Atmos both present unique experiences. I happen to like both. I am a studio engineer/mixer and still like mixing in stereo. However, I love listening to many of the new Atmos and 5.1 mixes (I agree that Steven Wilson's are among the best) because they reveal things you may have never noticed in the original stereo mixes, given the inherent limitations with positioning large numbers of elements in a limited stereo field. That's why a lot of progressive music from the past and present is ideal for an Atmos treatment where many layered elements can be spread out in very discrete ways from of 5, or 7, or more speakers. An Atmos remix done right should deliver the intent of the original stereo music, but extend the experience in a different and exciting way. For me, it often lifts the music into a new emotional realm. And that doesn't always mean having instruments dramatically positioned all around you. Even classical music can be given more realism by placing the ambience of the concert hall above, beside, and behind you. Can't do that with stereo. If you don't like the experience, that's fine, it's personal taste. And I don't dispute the magic of a great stereo system. But for me, I think the re-emergence of popularity of surround music production is a huge benefit to music lovers that choose to experience it by investing in a 5.1 or 7.1.4 audio system.
I'd agree with you for the most part, but I think surround sound's best contribution to listening to music and films is the center channel. When stereophonic sound was first introduced in the fifties, it was mostly heard in 3-channel theater mixes and it was the center channel that created a true wall of sound from the front stage (including directional dialogue) for me. Three channel sound is still more than satisfactory for lifelike sound reproduction at home. Speakers all around the room can be less impressive and generally distracting (and overhead sound is just plain gimmicky for the most part). Listening to Dolby Atmos at home is almost always far less impressive than it sounds with overwhelming amounts of speakers in a theater auditorium . I found that the best audio experiences for me peaked with Todd-AO 70mm in the sixties (20th Century Fox really got it right starting with CLEOPATRA in 1963) featuring five speakers across the front wall and basically atmospherics and ambience for surround transducers. Sony basically tried to revive this type of mix with SDDS but most theaters didn't embrace it and no home electronics were involved as far as I know. Anyway, mostly in accordance with your views, I'd welcome more sound transducers enhancing the front stage and less emphasis on rear and roof effects.
I would love to hear the Talking Heads, Jerry Harrison multi-channel mixes over a good system, but don't ever expect that to happen. Did see Jerry and Adrian Belew perform, Remain in Light last weekend with a kinda' strange back up band and it was pretty good. Never caught the multi-channel bug though. Great viewer systems!
Good lord. I'm so ashamed of audiophiles right now. It's become a bunch of slowly deafening old men yelling at the sky about how things are moving away from antiquated systems . If you think that sound is directly in front of you in a live situation, you have a fundamentally not understood how sound reflection works.
I worked in recording studios for years and listening to audiophiles jobber on about how they somehow know what it is "supposed" to sound like is hilarious. You weren't there and your pretend expertise is literally you making things sound how you "like" them.
Get over it, the world has moved on from the Beatles and the grateful dead, and no... Those albums don't sound " incredible" they are simple recordings of simple music, so it's just clear.
Music and tech had nived on from old hippies who have aggressively diminishing hearing.
And yes, I'm 50 and I'm well aware that even I'm not relevant to the discussion.
Noone cares what you and your old friends listen to.
This is why the younger generation isn't interested.
Two thumbs up for quadraphonic. The grandfather of all that is surround sound. Sure, it had its hardware drawbacks, but when it's properly set up and running, it is really something special
I’m into STEREO.
Always listen to 2 channel. Relented and bought an atmos system just to try. Cost $$$$ because most atmos systems use cheap speakers that do not provide the resolution, air, etc, of good stereo systems and I wanted to maintain at least as much resolution and performance I could get. Not impressed. I listen mostly to jazz and classical with little rock. Sold the atmos at a loss. Continue with my two channels.
Discrete separate channel speaker configuration placement is the only 'real' surround sound system that actually gives you the effect. Everything else is a psychoacoustic trick.
....Dolby Atmos is a name like Kleenex ( instead of tissue ) - .. it's a monopoly style marketing machine. atmos sound bar? .. GTFO.
DTS:X and Auro 3D both have REALLY great upmixing to multi-channel immersive sound systems. ( mounted height channel ideal )
Yeah but Steve what about Isao Tomita music?
I love his electronic music. He recommended you listen in surround sound because it's how he composed it.
Trouble is running playback through a surround sound processor degrades it a bit and in the end what it gains from multi channel is lost in the purity of straight stereo
Clair De Lune is AMAZING!
@@tubefreeeasy it is especially considering it was created using analog synthesizers and analog tape in 1970s . He used a 4 channel setup swirling the sound around. He recommended listening to the sound on a 4 channel setup. All his music is available in multi channel format (quad, Dolby surround)
I've recently been very much enjoying the Quadraphonic reissues of classical music from Michael Dutton at Vocalion in England. Many of his other reissues are of easy listening music, which does not interest me. There are a few popular titles I bought from Vocalian. and my favorite, by far, is the Earth, Wind, and Fire double album. I also have been enjoying Tacet's "Real Surround" classical albums from Germany. Tacet also has stereo recordings made with all tubed recording equipment.
Very cool audiophiliac viewer systems today! Like the DIY
As a consumer... who gives a crap about this. We have enough of putting more and more speakers in a room. All you need really is maximum 4.1 the rest is total junk.