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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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"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.
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!!!
(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?
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.
@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!!
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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… 🤟😎
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
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.
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.
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.
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😎
Steve, thanks for the great topic on surround sound and for music. I have built up a large 5.2 surround sound system using Revel Ultima Salon 2 mains, with matching center and surround speakers, along with two large subs. The surround music I listen to is all Blu-ray based concert material, of which, some of it is good, but most of it actually sounds better when I select the stereo mix offered on the blu-ray recording. I have found that the best sounding multi channel music recordings utilize mostly the phantom center mix for the primary vocals with only a little of that vocal going to the actual center channel speaker. When the mix is edited with all of the main vocal aligned to the center channel speaker, the sound quality is compromised due to most center channel speakers not being able to match the sound quality of an equivalent vocal playing over the main left/right channel as a so-called phantom center. Even with my large sized Revel Ultima center channel speaker, it cannot compete with the vocal coming from the main left/right speakers. Just my two cents worth of experience listening to music mastered in surround mode…
I am enjoying TWO separate systems in my home. One is a 7.1 Atmos compatible setup in my “media” room. I enjoy Atmos sound here. The other is my stereo sound system in my “music” room with separates, two Thiel speakers and a sub. I THOROUGHLY enjoy traditional stereo sound here. I believe there is a place for Atmos in the AV world for sure. Nice video as always - I enjoy your channel!
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!
I'm old enough to have seen lots of surround sound formats come and go but there is one big difference with the current Atmos/spatial audio push: its requires no new purchase so the barrier to entry is practically zero. Apple, Amazon, Spotify etc only have to flip the switch and we all have access to spatial audio mixes. We don't have to repurchase our music in some new format or buy new amps or more speakers (if you don't want to). You can use your existing headphones, you can use whatever set up you have (5.1, 3.1, 2.0, 5.1.2, 7.2.4, etc). To me thats a huge difference between Atmos and Quadraphonic, 5.1/7.1 DVD surround mixes, SACD, and all the other failed non stereo formats that have come and gone over the years. They all required significant investments in new equipment or new media. The mixes are getting better too I feel like we are in the early stages (mid 60's) of stereo where engineers didn't quite know how to handle the mixes yet. But many I've heard lately have been stellar. And yes, one of them is Jerry Harrisons new Atmos remixes of the Talking heads studio albums.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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
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.
Steve, you are 100% right! I've got a treated room, diffusers and absorbers, properly placed and tuned 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup..which sounds amazing for theatre and many friends love the opportunity to hear music in Atmos..and it's great. However, a well tuned, setup, dialed in stereo system, with the right components connections, subwoofers perfectly aligned etc... Simply cannot be beat. Atmos is awesome for theatre and can be great for music, but stereo IS the pinnacle.
Steve makes a good point that also goes back to the '70's for me. In high school when I was a 2-channel purist and good high school/audio buddy wrote "Quad is in" in my yearbook. We still joke about that today. Bottom line is that I have a "Frankensysten" that tries to accommodate 2 channel hifi and multi-speaker movie soundtracks simultaneously. It's a tradeoff and like Steve, I'm not crazy about multi-channel but it can be fun to mess with. It can also be like running the mixing board at a Chili's concert so it's not for the audio purist.
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 can’t speak of Dolby Atmos but I recently upgraded my very good 2 channel stereo system to basic 5.1 surround. Like anything else, some surround recordings are done very well and some not so well, the same with 2 channel stereo also. As much as I am an old school high end 2 channel stereo guy, I do enjoy good surround music recordings also. No it’s not normal to hear guitars or drums etc. playing behind your head at a live performance, BUT you DO get the huge sound and ambiance and reverb from the back of the hall or venue that you don’t get with 2 channel recordings which all contribute to the live music experience. Especially on live recordings with the people in the audience cheering and clapping behind your head. I recently bought the Dire Straits Brothers in Arms surround SACD and this recording is fantastic, very immersive. Highly recommend for any Dire Straits fans owning a good surround system. The ambiance and air of saxophone on the forth song on this disc is the best rendition of a live saxophone performance I have ever heard to date on any recording I have ever played on my home system. I still love good 2 channel recordings but anyone who dismisses it as a gimmick and has not really heard a good surround recording on a good surround system in a good room is really missing out on an immersive experience. In the end it’s all about enjoying the music experience with whatever system you have, but for me, surround has really opened up another avenue in the home music experience.
I definitely think spatial audio has its place. I created a library of 20 albums or so from Apple Music. When I go on my daily walk I wear my Apple ProPods Pro 2, and enjoy the spatial element going around my head. As you mentioned The Talking Heads are really good in this context, especially Speaking in Tongues, and Billie Eilish’s When We All Fall Asleep album is a lot of fun. Richard N.
Never had any desire for surround or home theater but in my earlier years, I sat in on a demo of a digital delay set-up from ADS. This was in the late 70's or early 80's while living in Kansas City. I had purchased a pair of ADS L810 II speaker from that store, so I got an invite to the demo. That experience made my jaw drop. It was really interesting when the shut it down how the sound field collapsed. I did not have the financial means at the time to buy one but it was a fascinating experience.
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.
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 experienced audio only surround done right for the first time 20 years ago via the Theta Casablanca's matrix surround mode, which was an updated version of the Hafler surround circuit that produces ambiance extraction for surround speakers. Matrix surround was very effective for three reasons: 1-It worked with any stereo source with ambiance in the recording (ie: live). 2-(Relates to 1): There was no need to produce a surround mix as ATMOS does. 3-The front channel stereo signal was untouched, so performers stayed up front as they do during stereo playback. Only ambiance, the sound of the space was sent to the rear speakers. IMHO, the matrix surround effect was superior to the stereo version of it, and it was easy to test by simply pressing the surround button on my remote. With matrix active on a live recording I felt like I was at the event. When I turned it off while the track was playing it had the negative effect of collapsing a realistic 3D soundstage to 2D. I sold the Blanca a long time ago due to moving a lot at the time and not wanting to haul a delicate, 45 pound prepro around. But I've missed it's surround capability until now... I just purchased the Schiit Syn surround preamp, and it has a similar surround circuit to the one in my Blanca. FYI: Longtime, respected engineer Mike Moffat was involved with the design of the surround circuits for the Blanca and the Syn. I've only had the Syn for a few weeks but the surround magic has returned! The Syn sounds surprisingly good given it's price point as standard stereo DAC-preamp. But in surround mode, I have joy of realistic 3D sound back in my space 20 years after the fact. PS: IMS, Steve mentioned the Schiit Syn recently, though I'm not sure if he did a full review of it.
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.
I love surround sound and appreciate very much not only S. Wilson's work but also what Giles Martin did, specially on Abbey Road. Regarding the past, the clocks ticking in Pink Floyd's Time were made for and sound magical in quad systems... Regarding the present, BPhilarmonic and others are bringing home the live experience. To me there is no turning back.
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 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.
I had people over for a party not long ago and people had been watch some stuff on RUclips. I wasn't in the room when they switched it back to music. I came in from another area and realized something wasn't right. A few button presses and I switched the input to stereo via my Ares 2 and stereo amp from the surroundsound they had been using. The whole room said "Whoaaaaaa!!!!!" at once.
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.
Good review Steve. Use Dolby Atmos via my Sonos system. The Sonos system is used for home theatre and distributing casual listening music through the home. For more serious music I use my PrimaLuna Evo 300 Integrated Amp, Klipsch Palladium P-37F speakers, Rega P3, Lindemann LimeTree DAC/streamer. Marantz CD6001 CD player and Nakamichi LX-3 cassette deck (circa 1983) for my many music recordings on tape(cassette). Cheers Tony
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.
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!
I don't know if you remember, but there were Quad 8-track tapes, I owned in the early 70s a Pioneer Quad player. I had it installed in in my 59 Chevy Impala, which was needless to say not a great soundstage. But it was a great party wagon, we listened to Pink Floyd meddle, Moody Blues, and Ten Years After. Theater would be about it on my old Denon 6.1 surround. So, now I guess I have 3 audio formats. Theater, analog, and streaming, which I just leaped into. The stereo analog preamp I have, my C-4000, has delayed speaker outputs for small rear speakers to lengthen sound stage, it's an option I've never tried.
Knowing how difficult it is to set up a stereo pair of speakers to really get that spectacular soundstage and even bass, setting up 12 speakers in a 7.1.4 is next level of complexity - and to do that in a home compromising with other uses of the room and spouse approval etc is for most of us a challenge. Room correction and acoustic treatment is very much recommended.I imagine the full potential of atmos for music is reached only by a selected few. Also, I've found that listing to multichannel music requires relearning to listen to speaker music. It just takes time to get used to. Not there yet... I agree, the Talking Heads mixes are really great, but there are other great mixes. Morten Lindbergs record label 2L has many fine acoustic recordings e.g.
yeah Steve, the engineers at Columbia remixed existing recordings and placed things around the room in places that they weren't in reality, as well as bringing up the level of some of the recorded instruments. i think that this is like what they did with some stereo recordings with the lefty-righty mixes so people would feel like they were getting their stereo dollar's worth. when I first heard quad, I had no idea what the intent of it was. this included Dynaquad. it didn't make sense to me and too many people demonstrating quad had no idea what it should sound like either or what to listen for. THEN a friend did the demo for me with Dynaquad using the Tomita recordings and WOW! i got the picture immediately. i used it for decades and may go back to it, even though it doesn't do all of the hat tricks that 5.1 through 7.1 can. Schiit Audio seems to have gone down a path in a similar fashion with their Syn component. ...hifitommy
Steve, fascinating topic and your opinion is also very valuable! Thanks so much. If i may, i would add Dolby Atmos is all about the quality of the mix and the personality of the band sound. Not all bands are designed for Atmos of course. Also, most of the people that I know with Dolby Atmos capabilities have either headphones or sound bars that are not really fully capable of creating the same experience of a complete Atmos setup which it is costly. If you have a chance, please listen and review the Dolby Atmos version of The Seeds of Love by Tears for Fears remixed by Steven Wilson. Cheers!
I believe that quadraphonic was a mixed bag. When it was first shown it was the classical music people pushing it. The idea was that you could recreate the soundstage of an auditorium just like you were there in person. AR (Acoustic Research) had a listening room set up in Grand Central Station in NYC where you could audition the speakers and check out the 4 cannel experience. Rock enthusiasts wanted to place the instruments all around and move the sound. For the former you only needed smaller speakers and amp for the rear channels. For this you would need an amp with equal output for all channels(or matched stereo amps) and preferably matched speakers all around for this experience. I saw Pink Floyd in concert exhibit this - the sound came from all around the auditorium and then moved all around. Way cool.
Yeah and EMI of England were one of the main 1960s 4-channel elite brands and had a speaker that was wound with wire on both sides of the speech coil former and uh that was the early 1970s EMI LE3ss (surround sound) but they were elitist and nobody still alive today you know, (except Steve and Herb) remembers these long lost times. EMI had always been able to conjure a phantom sound stage when no others could, except Bozak of the USA. EMI had its own SQ processor but wasn't mass-market like so many others and harman/kardon of New York is credited with being the best 4-channel of the 1970s time.
I’ve really enjoyed my setup here. 7.1.4 and I use it for everything, music, movies, and gaming. I’ve had a surround setup for about 22 years and agree that some mixes just aren’t worth it! But would highly recommend some of the Zappa, Gentle Giant, Crimson, Genesis, and Yes surround mixes. Anything Steven Wilson works on is at least not too much of a departure from what you’ve heard, whereas Nick Davis made a lot of “choices” on the Genesis surround mixes and he was maybe somewhat unfairly roasted for that. But all enjoyable “alternative” experiences!
@@patbarr1351 I agree! With the exception of a few moments, I really enjoyed the whole 5.1 run! Maybe Nick will get another crack at it for the Atmos mixes.
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 often play with a track between stereo and multichannel, as Yamaha receivers make this easy and Yamaha itself has done a lot of work in offering acoustic “dimensions” that (ahem) reflect the reverb from different venues. When I prefer multichannel it is because the side to side and height dimensions are better represented, not because I hear instruments behind me AND the mix is compensating for the “beaminess” in the main channel tweeters (or in my current case AMT drivers handling treble). But more often than not I prefer the immediacy and faithful timbre inherit in my main channel (Emotiva T2) towers alone.
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.
I love listening to Atmos music on my theater room rig . Like anything some mixes do it right while others just miss the mark completely. This is similar to when stereo first became the new big thing and you would have engineers just bouncing stuff back and forth between channels. When done right the soundstage is absolutely massive and can extend beyond the side walls with truly believable height. I enjoy it and I know it has become very popular with headphone users. This format is here to stay based on the amount of content on Apple Music.
Thanks for watching, do you think about mixing surround, it's not a new thing anymore. That's the point of this video, is the aesthetic for surround mixing never really happened.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac Thanks for the reply and I do enjoy your channel. I get what you are saying and I do understand that surround has been around for awhile and over the years there have been some great movie mixes and some disasters like anything else. I guess what I am saying is, that I have heard quite a few recordings even back when SACD came that were a great experience. In the past two years there has been exponential growth in multi-channel content which has resulted in larger catalogue of good content. I listen in two channel as well and certainly enjoy that presentation often. It’s great having the flexibility to do both.
@@chrishamilton5960 The big difference this time around with Atmos that all the failed past surround formats didn't have is immediate reach. Apple, Amazon, Spotify simply have to flip the switch and millions of people start listening to Atmos music. No need to buy new equipment (for headphones) or buy new media all over again. And since non headphone playback works with more types of surround systems (3.1, 5.1.2, 7.2.4, etc) and Atmos enabled speakers with height channels are beginning to be made Isuspect you will see more adoption in non headphone listening as well. And I totally agree, it's like we are in about 1965 now when mono still dominated stereo. Give it 5-10 years and I think spatial audio will be the norm for most people who use streaming audio services (which is most listeners).
I agree, and I'm old enough. Quad: Around 1974, Marantz, 4 JBL100's. Putting one speaker in each corner of the room and sitting in the middle put you in a very immersive listening position, Santana Abraxas and a lot of other music of the day sounded awesome. It was clearly not 'pure'. LP's were amost all stereo sources, and the Marantz could be selected (Vari-Matrix I think) to extract signal from the left front channel to right rear, and right front to left rear. The other view of this was that being in the middle of it all was an unrealistic position, one that you would never actually be in. So? And, though I had a 4 ch reel-to-reel deck and a few pre-recorded tapes mastered for 4 ch, and listening with the speakers arranged broadly in front still didn't sound right, or wrth the added expense. Quad was what it was. It helps to remember that Surround was introduced for movies, not music, though it did add 'ambiance' to music if you wanted to use it that way. The rear speakers were mono and not full range, thus the small surround speakers. It evolved to discrete and full range rear channels, and these were mixed in soundtracks as 'effects' channels. And in home theater, subwoofers are tellingly referred to as LFE - low frequency effects - not a way you might labelling them for music. Home theater has always clearly addressed an increasingly immersive experience directly for movies, not music. It can for some listeners and sources make music and concerts a different experience than stereo. Every AVR/Receiver I've seen can be switched to 'Direct' or 'Stereo' to get two channel. So, multi-channel for heap good for movies and, if one prefers, two channel for music. We always end up with the bottom line that what we hear doesn't sound exactly as it did when performed, so multi-channel is just another option we can control personnally. :)
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:>
By and large I agree with you 👍🤣 Surround / Atmos for music is a NO NO ..simply not necessary . For movies , perhaps even live concerts with a big screen , then yes it has the thrill factor . However I do feel SACD was a missed opportunity for better sound and some of my SACD surround music discs , Rumours FM , Avalon RM represent some of the highest quality music I’ve listen to in my home . The afore mentioned Steven Wilson has also IMO knocked it out of the park with some of the PT surround mixes . Interesting stuff ..as always Fantastic channel ..Thanks 👍
I haven’t heard Dolby Atmos, but these new ways of listening come up from time time and they rarely catch on. I have several surround sound mixes on disc, and I enjoy them from time to time, but my stereo is still so much better.
I made quadrophonic setup out of my analog stereo hifi with 2 bluetooth speaker to fill the room with the sound and I must say that I'm really enjooying it. The bass sounds so cool now and I'm so happy with it because it's no dolby bullshiit, but classic stero just doubled. I think that is still ok to liisten to music this way and it's sounds like having headphones on, but with speakers.
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.
One issue that may be important here is that ideal set up for HT vs multi channel music is often different… speaker placement, range etc… most HT systems are not full range all around, nor are the speakers spaced equidistant but at different specific angles as per dolby specs… but multichannel music often specifies full range speakers all around and equidistant from the listener. My system is a 5.2.4 system… NOT laid out perfectly due to architectural elements in the room… so far from ideal… the system is geared more towards music than movies… I DO like some surround mixes and ATMOS mixes… I generally like them for progressive rock… and I really like the Steve Wilson mixes. The Pink Floyd mixes are also very good (Animals and DSOTM)… my ATMOS speakers are far from ideally set up… but usually I feel like they either make no difference or a slight improvement… just adding a bit of space to the mix… some height… some separation… very rarely are they utilized in an aggressive way in music (DSOTM is an exception) I think a good set up and mix will help situate the listener into the music… but as there are so many variables it is probably hard to get it right and right for a majority of systems… a simple 2 channel mix is much easier to manipulate and tweak to fit a broader range of systems and rooms. If I was to do it all over again… I might go with a better 2.1 system and forgo the rest… not sure… also multichannel becomes more important when there is more than one seating position to please ( a family for example)… most audiophile setups have one sweet spot… harder to share with others… HT set ups often have a row of seating at least or in my case a couch worth of seating… and hopefully sounds pretty good in each seat… that is harder to do in stereo only… more possible in multichannel…
Marantz 4230 back in the mid-70's. I think there were a few FM stations in the Detroit market trying to broadcast quad. (I know WWWW was). I only had a few quad LP's....Toys in the Attic and Billion Dollar Babies. Lasted about a couple of years and went back to regular stereo and have stayed there. My brother had some Pioneer quad headphones that he picked up in Japan. Dual stereo 1/4 jacks.
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. 🙋♂
I’m just completing my surround sound set up. I have 3 amplifiers. One does stereo on the mains. One does stereo in the back. The last does 5.1 surround sound. I enjoy music, tv, and movies in surrounded sound. Also two channel stereo.
The Dolby atmos version of dark side of the moon on Apple Music brought a new experience to my life. But not all atmos experiences are great. Some suck. Glass animals is another amazing experience with atmos. Similarly some stereo recordings suck. So I would say if a talented sound engineer can get a hold of the recording - it’s amazing.
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
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 have "a proper stereo set up" that blows me and many others away! It's part of a 7.2.5 system that sounds fantastic in 2 channels. However, it also sounds fantastic in Dolby Atmos. Generally speaking, I think that remixing 2 channels into multi-channel music should follow two basic concepts. A bit of salt adds flavour while too much salt can wreck the meal, and just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. As Steve suggests, widening the soundstage or giving greater separation to instruments can really improve things. There are some Dolby Atmos recordings of just a single piano and it only adds to the sense of "being there". Sting has some good recordings like that that don't go crazy. Having said that, we rarely go to a concert and have row 9 seats in the center. Sometimes we just want to enjoy the music without worrying about "the band in front of us" and as such, I really enjoy a lot of very active Atmos mixes that have things in different speakers and not just in front of me. That doesn't mean "I"m not an audiophile", it just means I have more choices and can enjoy a variety of things. Listening to headphones is different again, but can still be very enjoyable.
The sphere will feature 164,000 speakers,[66][67] and the sound system will deliver sound through the floorboards.[65] 4D features, including scent and wind, will also be used.
Saw& heard the David Bowie movie in the cinema, in atmos. Was great!! It's not for music playing at home. I have 4 speakers in front, on a+ b. on a Marantz stereo amp.
I am mixed on the DolbybAtmos-fine in a PROPERLY set up movie theater. You sit truly in the one of the MIDDLE chairs in the theater-then the Atmosphere is very good. Now I don’t go to theaters anymore-mainly from COVID and cost. For the price of the theater ticket you can BUY at 4k DVD of the movie and play it thru your 4 k tv-same resolution as you get at a theater. And I can play the movie when I want to-no other people fiddling with their phones and talking thru the movie you PAID to watch. Most movies I watch are older movies before multichannel sound came about. I use a Dolby Atmos sound bar-JBL my similar Samsung got taken out by a thunderstorm.
Still rocking my 7.1.4 (Steve’s preferred multi channel) with all 1989-1994 vintage Infinity Speakers (Steve’s preferred West Coast Speaker Mfg, because he remembers their deep humility.) Steve! I thought this was gonna be the build up for the surround mixing session you attended, then we never got the story! So : what the heck happened? I’m dying to hear all about it! 😅
I worked with Dolby on testing Atmos in nightclubs such as Ministry of Sound in London and a club in Chicago. People loved it, although they were having a pretty good time anyway! I don’t think it translates to home audio so easily. The people who are most engaged with audio quality are the audiophiles and they know what a quality two channel set up is capable of. Feels like a solution looking for a problem.
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. ;)
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!
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.
I love my surround 5.1 and Atmos mixes. Pink Floyd’s DSOFM in Atmos is brilliant, as are the new Peter Gabriel tracks.
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.
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"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.
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!!!
(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?
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
Woh! Steve’s Line Magnetic system was beautiful. Looked awesome. Very cool…
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
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
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.
I gave up multi-channel stuff around 2008. Honestly, I love stereo for movies and 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.
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.
Good Atmos mixes sound way more immersive, large and enveloping than stereo. But not all Atmos mixes are on the same level yet
I'm a stereo all the way ...running naim with B&W speakers. It's what I'm used to hearing ..stereo .big love.
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.
Very cool audiophiliac viewer systems today! Like the DIY
Steve, thanks for the great topic on surround sound and for music. I have built up a large 5.2 surround sound system using Revel Ultima Salon 2 mains, with matching center and surround speakers, along with two large subs. The surround music I listen to is all Blu-ray based concert material, of which, some of it is good, but most of it actually sounds better when I select the stereo mix offered on the blu-ray recording. I have found that the best sounding multi channel music recordings utilize mostly the phantom center mix for the primary vocals with only a little of that vocal going to the actual center channel speaker. When the mix is edited with all of the main vocal aligned to the center channel speaker, the sound quality is compromised due to most center channel speakers not being able to match the sound quality of an equivalent vocal playing over the main left/right channel as a so-called phantom center. Even with my large sized Revel Ultima center channel speaker, it cannot compete with the vocal coming from the main left/right speakers. Just my two cents worth of experience listening to music mastered in surround mode…
I am enjoying TWO separate systems in my home. One is a 7.1 Atmos compatible setup in my “media” room. I enjoy Atmos sound here. The other is my stereo sound system in my “music” room with separates, two Thiel speakers and a sub. I THOROUGHLY enjoy traditional stereo sound here. I believe there is a place for Atmos in the AV world for sure. Nice video as always - I enjoy your channel!
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.
I'm old enough to have seen lots of surround sound formats come and go but there is one big difference with the current Atmos/spatial audio push: its requires no new purchase so the barrier to entry is practically zero. Apple, Amazon, Spotify etc only have to flip the switch and we all have access to spatial audio mixes. We don't have to repurchase our music in some new format or buy new amps or more speakers (if you don't want to). You can use your existing headphones, you can use whatever set up you have (5.1, 3.1, 2.0, 5.1.2, 7.2.4, etc).
To me thats a huge difference between Atmos and Quadraphonic, 5.1/7.1 DVD surround mixes, SACD, and all the other failed non stereo formats that have come and gone over the years. They all required significant investments in new equipment or new media.
The mixes are getting better too I feel like we are in the early stages (mid 60's) of stereo where engineers didn't quite know how to handle the mixes yet. But many I've heard lately have been stellar. And yes, one of them is Jerry Harrisons new Atmos remixes of the Talking heads studio albums.
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.
Thank you man. Thought I was nuts; like what's the big deal? To each his own for sure.
Surround is great for movies period. That's why l have an audio and a video system. Thanks again Steve!
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.
My left ear need a left speaker and my right ear need a right speaker , thats it, simple. Stereo for life!
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
Steve, you are 100% right! I've got a treated room, diffusers and absorbers, properly placed and tuned 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos setup..which sounds amazing for theatre and many friends love the opportunity to hear music in Atmos..and it's great.
However, a well tuned, setup, dialed in stereo system, with the right components connections, subwoofers perfectly aligned etc... Simply cannot be beat.
Atmos is awesome for theatre and can be great for music, but stereo IS the pinnacle.
Steve makes a good point that also goes back to the '70's for me. In high school when I was a 2-channel purist and good high school/audio buddy wrote "Quad is in" in my yearbook. We still joke about that today. Bottom line is that I have a "Frankensysten" that tries to accommodate 2 channel hifi and multi-speaker movie soundtracks simultaneously. It's a tradeoff and like Steve, I'm not crazy about multi-channel but it can be fun to mess with. It can also be like running the mixing board at a Chili's concert so it's not for the audio purist.
Ha! I have that T-shirt! You have good taste in audio, music AND fashion! 😅
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 can’t speak of Dolby Atmos but I recently upgraded my very good 2 channel stereo system to basic 5.1 surround. Like anything else, some surround recordings are done very well and some not so well, the same with 2 channel stereo also. As much as I am an old school high end 2 channel stereo guy, I do enjoy good surround music recordings also. No it’s not normal to hear guitars or drums etc. playing behind your head at a live performance, BUT you DO get the huge sound and ambiance and reverb from the back of the hall or venue that you don’t get with 2 channel recordings which all contribute to the live music experience. Especially on live recordings with the people in the audience cheering and clapping behind your head. I recently bought the Dire Straits Brothers in Arms surround SACD and this recording is fantastic, very immersive. Highly recommend for any Dire Straits fans owning a good surround system. The ambiance and air of saxophone on the forth song on this disc is the best rendition of a live saxophone performance I have ever heard to date on any recording I have ever played on my home system. I still love good 2 channel recordings but anyone who dismisses it as a gimmick and has not really heard a good surround recording on a good surround system in a good room is really missing out on an immersive experience. In the end it’s all about enjoying the music experience with whatever system you have, but for me, surround has really opened up another avenue in the home music experience.
I definitely think spatial audio has its place. I created a library of 20 albums or so from Apple Music. When I go on my daily walk I wear my Apple ProPods Pro 2, and enjoy the spatial element going around my head. As you mentioned The Talking Heads are really good in this context, especially Speaking in Tongues, and Billie Eilish’s When We All Fall Asleep album is a lot of fun.
Richard N.
Hey Steve Guttenberg Audiophiliac Thanks Much !.......
Nice channel. My first visit. Early morning here in Jakarta. Avantgarde UNOs and Cary Rocket 🙂
Welcome Mat!
The Hafler matrix system from the 70s sounded pretty good
Never had any desire for surround or home theater but in my earlier years, I sat in on a demo of a digital delay set-up from ADS. This was in the late 70's or early 80's while living in Kansas City. I had purchased a pair of ADS L810 II speaker from that store, so I got an invite to the demo. That experience made my jaw drop. It was really interesting when the shut it down how the sound field collapsed. I did not have the financial means at the time to buy one but it was a fascinating experience.
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.
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’m a two channel guy. With only two channels with a properly tuned system, just Left and Right can be totally immersive. 180 degree sound stage.
I experienced audio only surround done right for the first time 20 years ago via the Theta Casablanca's matrix surround mode, which was an updated version of the Hafler surround circuit that produces ambiance extraction for surround speakers. Matrix surround was very effective for three reasons: 1-It worked with any stereo source with ambiance in the recording (ie: live). 2-(Relates to 1): There was no need to produce a surround mix as ATMOS does. 3-The front channel stereo signal was untouched, so performers stayed up front as they do during stereo playback. Only ambiance, the sound of the space was sent to the rear speakers. IMHO, the matrix surround effect was superior to the stereo version of it, and it was easy to test by simply pressing the surround button on my remote. With matrix active on a live recording I felt like I was at the event. When I turned it off while the track was playing it had the negative effect of collapsing a realistic 3D soundstage to 2D. I sold the Blanca a long time ago due to moving a lot at the time and not wanting to haul a delicate, 45 pound prepro around. But I've missed it's surround capability until now... I just purchased the Schiit Syn surround preamp, and it has a similar surround circuit to the one in my Blanca. FYI: Longtime, respected engineer Mike Moffat was involved with the design of the surround circuits for the Blanca and the Syn. I've only had the Syn for a few weeks but the surround magic has returned! The Syn sounds surprisingly good given it's price point as standard stereo DAC-preamp. But in surround mode, I have joy of realistic 3D sound back in my space 20 years after the fact.
PS: IMS, Steve mentioned the Schiit Syn recently, though I'm not sure if he did a full review of it.
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.
Roy Orbison: A Black and White Night……… DTS. Fantastic mix.
I love surround sound and appreciate very much not only S. Wilson's work but also what Giles Martin did, specially on Abbey Road.
Regarding the past, the clocks ticking in Pink Floyd's Time were made for and sound magical in quad systems...
Regarding the present, BPhilarmonic and others are bringing home the live experience.
To me there is no turning back.
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.
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 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.
I had people over for a party not long ago and people had been watch some stuff on RUclips. I wasn't in the room when they switched it back to music. I came in from another area and realized something wasn't right. A few button presses and I switched the input to stereo via my Ares 2 and stereo amp from the surroundsound they had been using. The whole room said "Whoaaaaaa!!!!!" at once.
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.
Good review Steve. Use Dolby Atmos via my Sonos system. The Sonos system is used for home theatre and distributing casual listening music through the home. For more serious music I use my PrimaLuna Evo 300 Integrated Amp, Klipsch Palladium P-37F speakers, Rega P3, Lindemann LimeTree DAC/streamer. Marantz CD6001 CD player and Nakamichi LX-3 cassette deck (circa 1983) for my many music recordings on tape(cassette). Cheers Tony
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.
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!
I don't know if you remember, but there were Quad 8-track tapes, I owned in the early 70s a Pioneer Quad player. I had it installed in in my 59 Chevy Impala, which was needless to say not a great soundstage. But it was a great party wagon, we listened to Pink Floyd meddle, Moody Blues, and Ten Years After. Theater would be about it on my old Denon 6.1 surround. So, now I guess I have 3 audio formats. Theater, analog, and streaming, which I just leaped into. The stereo analog preamp I have, my C-4000, has delayed speaker outputs for small rear speakers to lengthen sound stage, it's an option I've never tried.
If Klipsch bookshelf speakers are good enough for Viewer Ed then they're good enough for me.
Knowing how difficult it is to set up a stereo pair of speakers to really get that spectacular soundstage and even bass, setting up 12 speakers in a 7.1.4 is next level of complexity - and to do that in a home compromising with other uses of the room and spouse approval etc is for most of us a challenge. Room correction and acoustic treatment is very much recommended.I imagine the full potential of atmos for music is reached only by a selected few. Also, I've found that listing to multichannel music requires relearning to listen to speaker music. It just takes time to get used to. Not there yet...
I agree, the Talking Heads mixes are really great, but there are other great mixes. Morten Lindbergs record label 2L has many fine acoustic recordings e.g.
yeah Steve, the engineers at Columbia remixed existing recordings and placed things around the room in places that they weren't in reality, as well as bringing up the level of some of the recorded instruments. i think that this is like what they did with some stereo recordings with the lefty-righty mixes so people would feel like they were getting their stereo dollar's worth.
when I first heard quad, I had no idea what the intent of it was. this included Dynaquad. it didn't make sense to me and too many people demonstrating quad had no idea what it should sound like either or what to listen for. THEN a friend did the demo for me with Dynaquad using the Tomita recordings and WOW! i got the picture immediately. i used it for decades and may go back to it, even though it doesn't do all of the hat tricks that 5.1 through 7.1 can.
Schiit Audio seems to have gone down a path in a similar fashion with their Syn component.
...hifitommy
Steve, fascinating topic and your opinion is also very valuable! Thanks so much. If i may, i would add Dolby Atmos is all about the quality of the mix and the personality of the band sound. Not all bands are designed for Atmos of course. Also, most of the people that I know with Dolby Atmos capabilities have either headphones or sound bars that are not really fully capable of creating the same experience of a complete Atmos setup which it is costly. If you have a chance, please listen and review the Dolby Atmos version of The Seeds of Love by Tears for Fears remixed by Steven Wilson. Cheers!
I believe that quadraphonic was a mixed bag. When it was first shown it was the classical music people pushing it. The idea was that you could recreate the soundstage of an auditorium just like you were there in person. AR (Acoustic Research) had a listening room set up in Grand Central Station in NYC where you could audition the speakers and check out the 4 cannel experience.
Rock enthusiasts wanted to place the instruments all around and move the sound. For the former you only needed smaller speakers and amp for the rear channels. For this you would need an amp with equal output for all channels(or matched stereo amps) and preferably matched speakers all around for this experience. I saw Pink Floyd in concert exhibit this - the sound came from all around the auditorium and then moved all around. Way cool.
Yeah and EMI of England were one of the main 1960s 4-channel elite brands and had a speaker that was wound with wire on both sides of the speech coil former and uh that was the early 1970s EMI LE3ss (surround sound) but they were elitist and nobody still alive today you know, (except Steve and Herb) remembers these long lost times. EMI had always been able to conjure a phantom sound stage when no others could, except Bozak of the USA. EMI had its own SQ processor but wasn't mass-market like so many others and harman/kardon of New York is credited with being the best 4-channel of the 1970s time.
I’ve really enjoyed my setup here. 7.1.4 and I use it for everything, music, movies, and gaming. I’ve had a surround setup for about 22 years and agree that some mixes just aren’t worth it! But would highly recommend some of the Zappa, Gentle Giant, Crimson, Genesis, and Yes surround mixes. Anything Steven Wilson works on is at least not too much of a departure from what you’ve heard, whereas Nick Davis made a lot of “choices” on the Genesis surround mixes and he was maybe somewhat unfairly roasted for that. But all enjoyable “alternative” experiences!
Nick's mixes of *Trespass* and *Selling England* are beautiful!
@@patbarr1351 I agree! With the exception of a few moments, I really enjoyed the whole 5.1 run! Maybe Nick will get another crack at it for the Atmos mixes.
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 often play with a track between stereo and multichannel, as Yamaha receivers make this easy and Yamaha itself has done a lot of work in offering acoustic “dimensions” that (ahem) reflect the reverb from different venues. When I prefer multichannel it is because the side to side and height dimensions are better represented, not because I hear instruments behind me AND the mix is compensating for the “beaminess” in the main channel tweeters (or in my current case AMT drivers handling treble). But more often than not I prefer the immediacy and faithful timbre inherit in my main channel (Emotiva T2) towers alone.
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.
I love listening to Atmos music on my theater room rig . Like anything some mixes do it right while others just miss the mark completely. This is similar to when stereo first became the new big thing and you would have engineers just bouncing stuff back and forth between channels. When done right the soundstage is absolutely massive and can extend beyond the side walls with truly believable height. I enjoy it and I know it has become very popular with headphone users. This format is here to stay based on the amount of content on Apple Music.
Thanks for watching, do you think about mixing surround, it's not a new thing anymore. That's the point of this video, is the aesthetic for surround mixing never really happened.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac Thanks for the reply and I do enjoy your channel. I get what you are saying and I do understand that surround has been around for awhile and over the years there have been some great movie mixes and some disasters like anything else. I guess what I am saying is, that I have heard quite a few recordings even back when SACD came that were a great experience. In the past two years there has been exponential growth in multi-channel content which has resulted in larger catalogue of good content. I listen in two channel as well and certainly enjoy that presentation often. It’s great having the flexibility to do both.
@@chrishamilton5960 The big difference this time around with Atmos that all the failed past surround formats didn't have is immediate reach. Apple, Amazon, Spotify simply have to flip the switch and millions of people start listening to Atmos music. No need to buy new equipment (for headphones) or buy new media all over again. And since non headphone playback works with more types of surround systems (3.1, 5.1.2, 7.2.4, etc) and Atmos enabled speakers with height channels are beginning to be made Isuspect you will see more adoption in non headphone listening as well.
And I totally agree, it's like we are in about 1965 now when mono still dominated stereo. Give it 5-10 years and I think spatial audio will be the norm for most people who use streaming audio services (which is most listeners).
I agree, and I'm old enough. Quad: Around 1974, Marantz, 4 JBL100's. Putting one speaker in each corner of the room and sitting in the middle put you in a very immersive listening position, Santana Abraxas and a lot of other music of the day sounded awesome. It was clearly not 'pure'. LP's were amost all stereo sources, and the Marantz could be selected (Vari-Matrix I think) to extract signal from the left front channel to right rear, and right front to left rear. The other view of this was that being in the middle of it all was an unrealistic position, one that you would never actually be in. So? And, though I had a 4 ch reel-to-reel deck and a few pre-recorded tapes mastered for 4 ch, and listening with the speakers arranged broadly in front still didn't sound right, or wrth the added expense. Quad was what it was. It helps to remember that Surround was introduced for movies, not music, though it did add 'ambiance' to music if you wanted to use it that way. The rear speakers were mono and not full range, thus the small surround speakers. It evolved to discrete and full range rear channels, and these were mixed in soundtracks as 'effects' channels. And in home theater, subwoofers are tellingly referred to as LFE - low frequency effects - not a way you might labelling them for music. Home theater has always clearly addressed an increasingly immersive experience directly for movies, not music. It can for some listeners and sources make music and concerts a different experience than stereo. Every AVR/Receiver I've seen can be switched to 'Direct' or 'Stereo' to get two channel. So, multi-channel for heap good for movies and, if one prefers, two channel for music. We always end up with the bottom line that what we hear doesn't sound exactly as it did when performed, so multi-channel is just another option we can control personnally. :)
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:>
So how does this relate to Omni directional speakers, if you dont like surround sound can you still enjoy "omni-directional" sound?
By and large I agree with you 👍🤣
Surround / Atmos for music is a NO NO ..simply not necessary .
For movies , perhaps even live concerts with a big screen , then yes it has the thrill factor .
However I do feel SACD was a missed opportunity for better sound and some of my SACD surround music discs , Rumours FM , Avalon RM represent some of the highest quality music I’ve listen to in my home .
The afore mentioned Steven Wilson has also IMO knocked it out of the park with some of the PT surround mixes .
Interesting stuff ..as always
Fantastic channel ..Thanks 👍
I haven’t heard Dolby Atmos, but these new ways of listening come up from time time and they rarely catch on. I have several surround sound mixes on disc, and I enjoy them from time to time, but my stereo is still so much better.
I made quadrophonic setup out of my analog stereo hifi with 2 bluetooth speaker to fill the room with the sound and I must say that I'm really enjooying it. The bass sounds so cool now and I'm so happy with it because it's no dolby bullshiit, but classic stero just doubled. I think that is still ok to liisten to music this way and it's sounds like having headphones on, but with speakers.
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.
One issue that may be important here is that ideal set up for HT vs multi channel music is often different… speaker placement, range etc… most HT systems are not full range all around, nor are the speakers spaced equidistant but at different specific angles as per dolby specs… but multichannel music often specifies full range speakers all around and equidistant from the listener. My system is a 5.2.4 system… NOT laid out perfectly due to architectural elements in the room… so far from ideal… the system is geared more towards music than movies… I DO like some surround mixes and ATMOS mixes… I generally like them for progressive rock… and I really like the Steve Wilson mixes. The Pink Floyd mixes are also very good (Animals and DSOTM)… my ATMOS speakers are far from ideally set up… but usually I feel like they either make no difference or a slight improvement… just adding a bit of space to the mix… some height… some separation… very rarely are they utilized in an aggressive way in music (DSOTM is an exception) I think a good set up and mix will help situate the listener into the music… but as there are so many variables it is probably hard to get it right and right for a majority of systems… a simple 2 channel mix is much easier to manipulate and tweak to fit a broader range of systems and rooms. If I was to do it all over again… I might go with a better 2.1 system and forgo the rest… not sure… also multichannel becomes more important when there is more than one seating position to please ( a family for example)… most audiophile setups have one sweet spot… harder to share with others… HT set ups often have a row of seating at least or in my case a couch worth of seating… and hopefully sounds pretty good in each seat… that is harder to do in stereo only… more possible in multichannel…
Marantz 4230 back in the mid-70's. I think there were a few FM stations in the Detroit market trying to broadcast quad. (I know WWWW was). I only had a few quad LP's....Toys in the Attic and Billion Dollar Babies. Lasted about a couple of years and went back to regular stereo and have stayed there. My brother had some Pioneer quad headphones that he picked up in Japan. Dual stereo 1/4 jacks.
I always figured I’d use the money for five speakers upgrading my current 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. 🙋♂
I’m just completing my surround sound set up. I have 3 amplifiers. One does stereo on the mains. One does stereo in the back. The last does 5.1 surround sound. I enjoy music, tv, and movies in surrounded sound. Also two channel stereo.
I’ll send an email eventually.
The Dolby atmos version of dark side of the moon on Apple Music brought a new experience to my life. But not all atmos experiences are great. Some suck. Glass animals is another amazing experience with atmos. Similarly some stereo recordings suck. So I would say if a talented sound engineer can get a hold of the recording - it’s amazing.
Dolby Atmos makes my JBL Flip sound like Pink Floyd is giving me a personal audition of DSOM!!!
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
Great viewer jams!
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 have "a proper stereo set up" that blows me and many others away! It's part of a 7.2.5 system that sounds fantastic in 2 channels. However, it also sounds fantastic in Dolby Atmos. Generally speaking, I think that remixing 2 channels into multi-channel music should follow two basic concepts. A bit of salt adds flavour while too much salt can wreck the meal, and just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
As Steve suggests, widening the soundstage or giving greater separation to instruments can really improve things. There are some Dolby Atmos recordings of just a single piano and it only adds to the sense of "being there". Sting has some good recordings like that that don't go crazy.
Having said that, we rarely go to a concert and have row 9 seats in the center. Sometimes we just want to enjoy the music without worrying about "the band in front of us" and as such, I really enjoy a lot of very active Atmos mixes that have things in different speakers and not just in front of me.
That doesn't mean "I"m not an audiophile", it just means I have more choices and can enjoy a variety of things. Listening to headphones is different again, but can still be very enjoyable.
Thanks Kelvin!
The sphere will feature 164,000 speakers,[66][67] and the sound system will deliver sound through the floorboards.[65] 4D features, including scent and wind, will also be used.
Saw& heard the David Bowie movie in the cinema, in atmos. Was great!! It's not for music playing at home.
I have 4 speakers in front, on a+ b. on a Marantz stereo amp.
I am mixed on the DolbybAtmos-fine in a PROPERLY set up movie theater. You sit truly in the one of the MIDDLE chairs in the theater-then the Atmosphere is very good. Now I don’t go to theaters anymore-mainly from COVID and cost. For the price of the theater ticket you can BUY at 4k DVD of the movie and play it thru your 4 k tv-same resolution as you get at a theater. And I can play the movie when I want to-no other people fiddling with their phones and talking thru the movie you PAID to watch. Most movies I watch are older movies before multichannel sound came about. I use a Dolby Atmos sound bar-JBL my similar Samsung got taken out by a thunderstorm.
Still rocking my 7.1.4 (Steve’s preferred multi channel) with all 1989-1994 vintage Infinity Speakers (Steve’s preferred West Coast Speaker Mfg, because he remembers their deep humility.)
Steve! I thought this was gonna be the build up for the surround mixing session you attended, then we never got the story! So : what the heck happened? I’m dying to hear all about it!
😅
I worked with Dolby on testing Atmos in nightclubs such as Ministry of Sound in London and a club in Chicago. People loved it, although they were having a pretty good time anyway! I don’t think it translates to home audio so easily. The people who are most engaged with audio quality are the audiophiles and they know what a quality two channel set up is capable of. Feels like a solution looking for a problem.
Accuphase does not do multi-channel. 👍
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. ;)