Steely Dan - Two Against Nature - DTS 5.1 [DVD]

I heard this on an expensive system and it was stellar.

Dolby Atmos is the big thing in the audio industry. If it's done right, it sounds spectacular on a 7.1.4 system.

But I'm not sure it will be successful in the long run for a couple of reasons.

1. I doubt that many consumers will invest in a 7.1.4 system to enjoy the full potential of Dolby Atmos.

2. The binaural downmix is nice in a way ... but far from the full Atmos experience. Probably not great enough for most consumers to actively pick Atmos content over classic stereo content.

3. Dolby seems to be very focussed on streaming platforms. There's no easy way to produce and "sell" physical copies that actually play on consumer systems. And streaming platforms encode and stream Atmos "joint object coded", which is a pretty significant reduction of 3D resolution.

Personally I did Dolby Atmos for a little while but the whole ecosystem isn't open enough to become a widespread standard any time soon, imho.

When you figure out how to install the drivers seat in the center of the car it might work. 😀

Quote from Finally

When you figure out how to install the drivers seat in the center of the car it might work. 😀

That’s the excuse I’ve been looking for to get one of these 🤣

As soon as I wrote that I thought of the F1. Then I thought with the size of the cab it would be like listening from inside a closed back cab. 🙂

Quote from BayouTexan

lightbox didn't they say all that stuff when we went from AM to FM? No one is going to invest in 2 speakers when you only need one.

I have 8 speakers in my car now. LOL. My wife's car came with 8 speakers from the factory. All we need is a Surround Sound toggle switch. Ha!

1. Where has 3D movies or 3D TV gone? It was a short hype and now it's pretty much gone.

2. Going from mono to stereo was relatively easy, just one more speaker, a second amplifier and done. From stereo to full blown Atmos is a different beast ... going from 2 speakers in front of you to 12 speakers all around you ... and don't forget the 12 amplifiers to drive these speakers, plus all the cables, stands, wall/ceiling mounts or in case of active speakers 12 times power supply cables everywhere.

3. All these soundbars on the market try to reduce the complexity of a decent setup so the average Joe can handle it ... but I tend to call this "fake Atmos surround" using heaps of psychoacoustic trickery. I doubt we would have to do full-blown Atmos productions to achieve that.

Either way, the main problem is that we all can produce AND deliver stereo content in pretty much every way we want ... from vinyl to CD, DVD, BluRay, pendrive ... we can even use it in videos or selfmade livestreams, or send the files to friends or clients and everyone can listen the way they want.

With Dolby Atmos you're very limited to distribution on some streaming platforms, with VERY little (and widely unknown) exceptions.

As a simple example ... you want to produce a song that is not intended for publishing on streaming platforms, it's just for family and friends or maybe just for yourself. You'll have a hard time with Atmos while stereo is easy.

Quote from BayouTexan

lightbox didn't they say all that stuff when we went from AM to FM? No one is going to invest in 2 speakers when you only need one.

I have 8 speakers in my car now. LOL. My wife's car came with 8 speakers from the factory. All we need is a Surround Sound toggle switch. Ha!

My car has 12 speakers in it, from the factory. It is a Sony system.

Quote: “Have you ever listened to music in Surround Sound? Do you prefer it over Stereo? Is Surround Sound recordings the next leap for music to make?”

I have a fondness for mono. 😊

Perhaps its because it was the format I grew up with, and when done well has many advantages.

Stereo and multi-channel playback systems require the listener to be placed and remain in the sweet spot.

Only in that area can they properly appreciate both the balance of sonorities within the mix and the complexities of ambience.

Coming from a background where my sound engineers loved to play about panning drum fills to the right and left.

You may appreciate that in major concert halls and stadiums alike, I prefer everyone in the audience that bought a ticket, to be able to appreciate a properly balance sound, regardless of wherever they are.

It’s a simple, practical point, that to my mind overrides many other technological factors.

Just because we can do something in a more sophisticated manner, its doesn’t mean that doing so, is the ideally optimal solution, for each and every situation.

I would never argue with anyone who favours multi-channel systems.

For instance, my son, who likes the latest movies and games, has an ATMOS system in his home.

I think that problem I have with such systems, is that I personally knew individuals, intimately involved with their earliest development.

And had access to the foremost pioneering commercial quadrophonic Hi-Fi systems and recordings. Left completely underwhelmed by their genuine contribution to the enjoyment of music.

People like Michael Gerzon who invented Ambisonic’s and with Peter Craven developed the Soundfield Microphone, would visit me at work and were always charmingly enjoyable company, discussing such matters.

Michael Gerzon Audio Pioneer (michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk)

The Michael Gerzon Story | Into The Soundfield (ox.ac.uk)

25 Years After His Death, a 3D Sound Pioneer Finally Gets the Mic (pcmag.com)

Michael saw himself as the natural successor to Alan Blumlein and was involved with Ray Dolby early in his development of noise reduction systems.

Coming up to date a bit, a great mentor of mine, with an eye to the future, has for several years; whenever he mixes a new album, instead of simply making a stereo mix, after he has finished.

Whilst everything is in place on the large format recording console, all the reverbs set up etc. He would also produce a 5.1 mix purely for archive purposes, in the belief that the format may become a future standard.

Instead of having to revisit all his old master tapes and archived digital files, set up everything again at the request of a record company, he has a multi-channel offering ready to give them, if and whenever it might be requested.

If I might diverge momentarily.

Often a mix presented to a record company that wishes to release it will be met with the sort of comments that follow: “we love the song and it’s a great mix, but can you do another with the vocal just a little louder?”

Alternatively, the comment might be: “we love the song and the mix is terrific but can you do another with the Bass just a little louder?” Or “we love the song and it’s a great mix but we would really like the vocal and the bass to be just a little louder before we release it!”

So, if one’s produce’s the ideal mix, and whilst everything is in place produces and alternative mix with the vocal 1 dB higher, another with the bass 1 dB higher, and another with the vocal and bass both 1 dB higher. One can meets their demands, and charge them for it, without never having to revisit the mix at all.

The time this takes is comparatively small, whilst the potential rewards great, and I think my mentor viewed multi-channel sound in much the same spirit.

The history of recording involves continual transition to new formats.

Every Thursday, the engineers making ATMOS recording shave a get together via computer link, and share ideas and tips, where they are gaining improvement in this technology.

Record companies have huge cash cows made up of immense back catalogue material. So lots of the reissued ATMOS recordings are produced by placing multiple speakers of the same type around a high calibre live room.

Playing back the original recordings digitised, in an ideal acoustical environment. Micing them along with the acoustical environment, re-recording original material to a multi-channel format for release, for those wanting their favourite recordings, on the latest format.

Of course, brand new recordings and games with their incredible sound effects are an entirely different matter altogether, which is why people like my son and others are drawn to the concept.

Forgive me if I appear sceptical, but I lend toward the notion that for record companies especially, the purpose of new formats is to remonetise existing recordings, many of which they no longer have to pay anyone anything much for.

I have made live recordings involving the addition of a biaural dummy head that have been commercially successful, but generally prefer mono or stereo recordings myself.

I can appreciate that if one is travelling along in a metal, glass and plastic bubble, the complexities of multi-channel audio in such a challenging acoustic environment is a wondrous achievement quite in itself.

I think I simply like to hear recordings played back on systems that are faithfully similar in concept to those on which the recording was made.

Early stereo was ping pong in effect. Good to the left and right but not in the centre. So, the three-channel tape recorder was invented and the centre channel used to reinforce the centre.

Some time ago I was contacted by a Mastering Engineer in New York looking for a three-track machine in working order. He had the job of re-mastering early Rolling Stones three-track recordings for their Anthology release.

Studios get upgraded and all too often old equipment is thrown away. Decades later it is needed. Eventually console designers learnt how to address the weak centre issue electronically, and the pan control was invented along with 4, 8, 16, 24 and 32 track tape machines.

The salient point being, all these advancements and new formats simply represent technological development.

The question for me is, do they represent a genuine improvement in audio playback, or have they been introduced chiefly, as a way to monetise existing catalogues of music material in a new format?

C.D. – Super Audio C.D.

DVD -BluRay

Etc et al.

I never pan things hard in a live mix, but just a bit of separation with things like rhythm guitar, BVs, and keyboards seems to make me smile more.

I also want my rotary effect to have L/R component to make them feel spacious. I can't imagine a Pink Floyd show in mono.

Quote: “I believe '"stereo" is a vast improvement over mono with music.”

I appreciate your excellent viewpoint and would never disagree.

It’s just that with complete respect, some things seem very straightforward, but are in fact, rather more complex, examined closely.

The sheer groove level on many original mono recordings made them sound far superior to early stereo recordings by comparison, because of its more complex groove.

Some recordings, for instance, the early Beatles recordings, rehashed into a stereo format in America for release on that continent, were notoriously bad in comparison to the original mono mixes. A total embarrassment.

The Beatles in Mono - Wikipedia

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with listening to a recording, hearing it as it was actually intended to be heard, just as George Martin originally mixed it.

Instead of asking myself “what format am I hearing?” I ask myself “how does this recording sound.” I genuinely want to be bowled over with killer sound and have found that usually coincides, with the use of a well-established, mature technology.

Early digital recording sounded terribly sterile. It took a long time to sort out the issues with digital. Hence, some artists have later re-recorded their early digital release’s, recording them to tape; then transferring them to digital, so that the quality of their recording legacy will better stand up to scrutiny in years to come.

In my experience, artists desperately want their recordings to sound the very best they can. A while back I was playing bowls on the grass with one of our foremost singer songwriters Kate Bush. She for instance has re-recorded many of her vocals on digital recordings using mature analogue technologies, then transferring them to digital. Her studio is adjacent to our family estate and she has brilliant technical chops.

Director's Cut (Kate Bush album) - Wikipedia

All of my recordings are stereo you will glad to hear.

My fundamental point was there are definitely situations where the absolutely optimal solution for everyone to hear a perfectly balanced mix, is to present the audio in mono.

Performing in Stadiums and large concert halls that makes perfect sense, but for some, will no doubt seem a revolutionary notion altogether.

Quote: “I have not heard music mixed directly for 5.1”

A former colleague and mentor, a very good engineer, recorded “Diana Krall Live in Paris” available on DVD or BluRay with 5.1 Surround Sound.

Diana Krall - Live In Paris [DVD] [2008] [2002]: Amazon.co.uk: Various Artists: DVD & Blu-ray

Like me, he used to enjoy watching old black and white movies, with great plots and acting. Maybe we were just old guys sentimental about the world we grew up it. 😊

An era today regarded, as golden for great recordings and guitars alike. 😊

Quote: “I never pan things hard in a live mix”

I’m sure with very good reason.

I have a pal who when recording, tends to put everything in the Centre, or panned hard Left or Right. LCR.

I don’t follow this axiom myself, but he has produced a great many hit recordings for a huge number of well-known Artists and Groups.

So, it may be something worth trying sometime. I think the idea is associated with how consumer stereo systems operate, in an absolutely optimal manner.

He’s way better than I am, so I share that, as it may be useful to someone.

Quote: “I can't imagine a Pink Floyd show in mono.”

In 1972 my group played at the humongous Earls Court Area, the week following Pink Floyd’s Concert there. I was playing lead guitar at the time.

We were blessed by the manner in which Floyd’s experts had addressed the acoustical properties of that singularly particular building and left in place which we benefitted from.

The thing is, it’s not simply a matter of mono verses stereo, but rather how one presents stunning special effects in such a vast audience context, whilst simultaneously delivering a well-balanced sonic performance, to everyone in the building.

If it were to be explained regarding some of the complexities of the acoustic problems in that huge building, it would be possible to appreciate that it is necessary to think somewhat outside of the stereotypical (forgive the unintended pun) boxes, that can so easily frame our basic comprehension of such matters.

As Rupert Neve would say: “Implementation is Everything!”