Whether it's a gimmick, depends on if you end up just trying to hear the spatial effect rather than enjoying the music itself. A bit like 3D movies. They had that wow factor intially, but then you find yourself watching them just for the 3D effect rather than enjoying the movie.
i listened to it on a whim and i thought it sounded fantastic. Even some songs i didn't care for in the past were actually enjoyable now. I usually listen to high res flacs so its not like im going from low bit rate mp3 to spatial audio. I think more people need to listen to spatial audio music before deciding if they think its a gimmick or not cause i sure as heck don't think its one. full disclosure tho for some reason spatial audio sounds absolutely terrible in my car (it has a pretty banging sound system) but it sounds great on headphones and my 5.1 home theater system
I am a blind person from birth and I rely so much on sound. I think spatial audio is okay, but what's even better is binaural audio. I am a heavy headphone user. Binaural is the best when it comes to sounds all aroun. However, I did hear dolby atmos that's really good, but very inconsistent. The movie Gravity was the best I've hear and I wish all movies and all things dolby atmos could follow suit.
Convolution reverb and ambisonics are rocking 3rd order is what I use in musick... ..im not a huge fan of atmos... binaural smashes atmos...quadrature smashes atmos
Gimmick or not it definitely made a huge difference when I watched a Dolby atmos movie with my AirPod pros compared to watching with it off. Sounded worlds better on.
Absolutely. Even using headphones made for spatial audio on stereo mixes without Dolby Atmos like the airpods pros or the Galaxy buds pros still have way better instrument separation, clarity and the forward and back soundstage compared to high-end buds like the Sennheiser mtw2s which sound outdated in comparison. Turn on Dolby Atmos and then it's a whole other world
@@cooloutac Do you find that atmos is really dependent on the mix? Some songs are done well while others are unlistenable. I’m using AKG 712, could be my headphones.
@@wyw201 I wouldn't say unlistenable, but yes. Some sound way better then others while some sounds might be too muted for some in others. Particularly noticeable with vocals I find. This is with neither track specifically designed for atmos but ya its something in how the engineer is mixing them. Either way I'm used to the broader and airier sound stage its hard for me to listen without it because it sounds way narrow to my ears now. Even if I just have a virtualizer adding a little reverb without the upmixing lol.
I think there is a good chance it will become a standard if Apple is pushing it. And they can go back to record labels and say: “if you mix in spatial audio, you will get this many more streams”
It will only become a standard if the major record labels (half which are owned by Sony) adopt it. Apple are powerful but not that powerful enough to get Sony to push Spatial Audio over their own 360 Reality audio. This is a case of the market decides (unless Apple starts it's own record labels)
As someone who used to work for one of the “other” streaming music services, there is much power in being “featured” in the App Store and in Apple Music. How many HUGE hits have been an Apple commercial? Right now if I were an artist I’d be breaking my butt to do an Atmos version of my music to be featured by Apple.
@@thejasontlewis people have been upscaling stereo to surround sound for years. I haven't listened to music normally for many years so f*** what the artist intended haha. I'm the type of guy who even prefers airpod pros or Galaxy buds pros over buds like the Sennheiser mtw2s. Just for the way the drivers are built and tuned in them. Lol. The latter just sounds outdated and less clear to me in comparison. I mean s*** for years I've downloaded music from some artists mixing in their basement studios for surround sound that also have their lyrics inside the MP3 tags. Maybe I come from a different world than you but To say it's never going to be a standard in the future is quite a bold statement that makes you sound like a f****** caveman to me lmao
Spatial music is weird to me because there's rarely a time when music isn't just being played in front of you and being projected out at you from the same origin somehow. I don't go to a concert or a show and have someone playing instruments all around me (most of the time), and so I dunno what they're trying to recreate with this.
In theory, the ambience alone (reverbs) would do. Also in theory, a mix engineer can indeed create unreal situations for a listener, which sound cool and organic nevertheless. In practice, binaural on headphones doesn't work... :D
He's not talking about movies. Surround sound is already the standard, so adding a few more channels isn't that big of a deal on either the recording or playback end of it. Its not the same with music. The recording format for at least 99% of all music is stereo. As a format, stereo is based on reality, and must be 2 channels. Its a completely different situation. If you notice at the end of the video, he comments on how a well done stereo setup doesn't need any spatial enhancements because its already there. He's right. If you look into what stereo is, and why its used, you'll see what he means.
@@manart6506 As I said in my other post, I'm talking about music, not movies. The term stereo comes from eyesight. We see in stereo. That's why we don't see each eye independently. Our brain overlaps what each eye sees to create a seamless picture. This is also how we get depth perception. If you close one of your eyes, you lose it. A stereo recording emulates how we see. 2 mics are used and each one gets its own channel. That's where imaging and depth come from. Spatial information is encoded in the recording. On playback, a good system can reproduce all of this. As far as formats go, stereo is without question the most realistic way to listen to music. If done properly, you don't need surround sound. Movies are completely different. Engineers create the sound field. They can make sounds come from anywhere they want. With music, everything should be up front. Maybe things will change in the future, but right now, stereo is still your best option for music recording and playback. PS, I'm aware of multitrack recordings. I didn't mention them because its easier to visualize the 2 mic method. Also, I don't expect everyone to be with me on this. If you get better results with surround, then that's the way you should do it.
@@solarfall2728 technically a song isn’t recorded in stereo (2 mics) but a ton of microphones. One for the vocals, others the strings, there the drums, etc. Then it is mixed for stereo. So now it is being mixed in surround and there are some good atmos albums already.
@@manart6506 If you read the whole post, I did mention this. If your goal is fidelity, surround is not the way to get it. Having instruments coming at you from behind or the side, is not realistic. Again, if you prefer surround, that's fine. These things are subjective. But if you have a bunch of people listen to your system, not everyone will like surround better. Some will, some won't.
from my personal experience so far listening with the airpods pro, some songs do sound amazing and others sound considerably worse and weird. I dont know if it is bad optimisation or the original recording was just crap xD
@@rafaelrosal. try Lemonade (feat NAV) it sounds all kind of weak and weird; the bass sounds like it’s broken 🤣🤣 Many songs are like that, sadly they are just not optimised well for Dolby Atmos
So about 3 minutes in the video I thought back to the idea of “3D” cameras. Back in my art class in college my professor taught us that traditional cameras / phones flatten out pictures, hence why some people may look bigger or heavier set than some. Really interesting concept although I didn’t hear any noticeable differences with some songs.
When it is mixed well, Dolby Atmos (Spatial Audio) can really add to the experience. Listening to something like Tom Sawyer by Rush is wonderful. The song sounds great in stereo already but Dolby Atmos just really adds to the mix. There are some terrible mixes out there from the likes of Blink 182 and Fall Out Boy, the vocals sound far away and guitars washed out. I don't know whether this is because it was the early to mid 2000s when the loudness wars were at their peak and music was being heavily compressed. However, we had the same thing when moving from vinyl to CD, quite a few record labels just made a bad copy from vinyl straight to CD to make a quick buck. I am hoping in time when Dolby Atmos and spatial audio become more the norm and engineers, mixers, producers and musicians start to know how to get the best out of the technology and prices continue to fall then we should have more and more better mixes. The problem with previous audio standards is that there were no large hardware or software companies like Apple getting behind it. When you can experience it with an iPhone and a pair of headphones, you don't need a dedicated room or expensive home set up. If Spotify gets behind Spatial Audio as well then I believe it could eventually replace stereo as the standard. I would disagree with you that lossless is more important. In a blind listening test, I am sure 99% of people cannot tell the difference between lossless and a well encoded 256 kbps AAC. Whereas 99% of people will be able to hear the difference between Spatial and Stereo.
With the recent release of the Apple Vision Pro and their introduction of "spatial computing," this push for "spatial audio" makes a lot of sense. I am sure you're right that many audio producers will not be able to or interested in making such content but when the content is not music but is sound effects for a VR app, that changes things a lot.
Listening to The Beatles “Let It Be” album, the new 2021 remaster with lossless and Dolby Atmos with spatial audio on my AirPods Pro was a very cool experience. Right off the bat the mix is WAY less compressed than any version I have ever heard. Plus the vocal harmonies and interplay of the instruments is very subtle and with a huge soundstage. I am not an audiophile but I am a musician and can listen to music critically. It is definitely neat and I don’t think this new version of the Let It Be album is not the “definitive” version. It’s a new version that I like and allows me to hear something I know and love in a new way. To hear parts and instruments so clearly and being able to turn your head to seemingly listen closer to a part is very cool. That is all.
I could see this working if you had an omnidirectional microphone in the center of a live concert and all those channels are utilized so that you could hear as if you were in the center of that concert. Would also be a great thing to have for VR too.
For what’s up on Apple Music now, I much prefer lossless over spatial/atmos. I came to this conclusion after extended listening since launch via AirPods Max as well as Drop + HIFIMAN HE4XX and Sennheiser HD 600 S with portable amp. I now have Atmos toggled off in settings. For me, Atmos can’t compare to the original recordings. So I guess… gimmick, or at least partially so. Once studio recordings are made with Atmos up front, perhaps that will change.
The main thing that influences how pronounced the 3D effect is the method that Apple is using to make sound 3D. For context: the asymmetrical shape of the human ear means that sounds coming in from different directions will have to pass through and bounce off of different shapes and thicknesses of tissue. In doing this, certain frequencies will be diminshed or amplified. Our brain interprets these colourations in frequencies as different directions of sound. Every human will have a unique shape to their ear, which slightly alters the way that their ears amplify/diminish frequencies. The way that an individual's ear influences frequencies based on direction is called a Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF). For Spatial Audio, Apple scanned the HRTFs of several individuals of different ethnicities and ages to create a generic one-size-fits-most HRTF. It will match some people's very closely, making Spatial Audio sound really impressive for them, while it won't match so well for others. In order to solve this problem, in iOS 16, you'll be able to scan your ear with your iPhone's TrueDepth camera to create a personalised Spatial Audio profile, which will hopefully improve its accuracy.
Overall a good video, but I think your explanation of lossless is going to confuse some people. I understand your meaning, but the common understanding of lossless is different. For example, a CD is considered lossless. If you rip that CD to a wav file, its lossless too. Rip the CD to flac using compression, its still lossless. Rip it to an mp-3, and now its lossy. When you say lossless, I take it you mean whatever resolution was used in the studio, such as 24/96. If so, it would be technically correct to say that a 16/44 CD is lossy, because it goes though a decimation process. You are correct, but resolutions higher than CD (16/44) are typically called high res. I only bring it up because there's so much confusion with audio formats. Referring to CD quality as lossy will most likely confuse some people, even if technically true.
I noticed that too on some songs. I guess it’s because it was recorder and processed for stereo and then processed again for atoms. And in this situation in my opinion stereo version sounds better. But time will tell how this plays out.
I appreciate the frank discussion. I was getting worried about what felt like a 'if Apple does it it will be successful' attitude. I am old enough to remember the quadrophonic expirement - great idea but like you say - the buy in has to be way bigger than just Apple. I am only one person but I count on you for the straight dope - this video is much appreciated.
I wenttout to listen to some live jazz with an electric guitar and a large accoustic bass. There was no sound coming from behind me unless it was a delayed reverb. I don't see this as anything other than a gimmick. I'm still a 2 channel guy. I didn't realize this was a home theatre spot.
Thanks Jason. Always good to get a pro take of this kinda stuff. But like most things Apple, it’s only the beginning. We won’t see the bigger picture until Stage 2-3 of Apple’s implementation. That’s just my take.
Lossless sounds as though it’s a more pure experience. Yeah there’s a place for both perhaps lossless will be the stayer, maybe 🤔 Great honest review from somebody that understands music and sound.
Here's the thing that nobody is talking about : Stereo IS spatial audio. You heard that right : upper frequencies are literally perceived higher, and lower frequencies are literally perceived lower (think rumble from the ground VS bird squeaking for hundreds of thousands of years). Left and right in proper stereo are differentiated through the distance between our left and right ear, hence why stereo and dual-mono (same exact signal L and R with no delay) are two completely different things. And finally, the depth axis is simply implied with volume : the louder an instrument is, the more "in your face" it will be, and the quieter it is in the mix, the further away it sounds. Add reverb to this, and you can shape sound on 3 axis. The only thing you can't do is have sounds coming from corners in a stationary position - you can make sound "swirl around" in stereo with a very long reverb and an auto-pan... but at the end of the day, *all* audio playback is nothing but an illusion. And that's what makes it fun!!! No need for 13 speakers and impossible to implement set-ups. Atmos is big only because Apple can use their format to push their own tech, believe me : it's bad for 99% of consumers. First company to make a real-time binaural plug-in will win. Nobody listens with speakers anyway.
Hey Jason, I have some thoughts here: I believe music mixed for a movie, or even TV soundtrack would translate better to spacial audio / Dolby ATMOS. For quite a few years now movies have been mixed at least for 5 speakers and one sub. for the standard home setup. I think commercial theater can go up to 10, or 12. 1, or more. Maybe you can fill me in here. Either way: Some standard stereo recording do translate well, but others don't. So maybe if artists start mixing like they would for movie soundtracks, spacial audio might work better. You also strike me as the type of person who would have used Super Audio CDs. Those were designed with multi channel in mind.
True, but the audio and film recording worlds don't cross paths very often. Films are recorded with many channels intended for spatial mixing. Music would have to change the way it's done. Not impossible, but not easy either.
Honestly I’ve been listening too, and I would say I agree with you. This Spatial audio needs to be well constructed in music, some songs are so weird, but others are excellent. Latch by Disclosure to me is so weird whereas new album of Migos sounds incredible.
From what I can tell, recording methods wouldn't have to change *too* much vs stereo recording methods. When mixing Spatial Audio in Logic Pro, you manually position each track of your project. Recording intruments solo onto individual tracks is nothing new, the difficult part is just spatially mixing it well.
There are two distinct issues here: one is the use of computational acoustics to simulate a surround sound experience… and the other is music being offered in Dolby Atmos which can be fully appreciated in a multi-speaker surround-sound home entertainment system. I’m alternately impressed and sometimes disappointed by the former… but I’m less ambivalent and more enthusiastic about the latter. First of all, let’s acknowledge that there have been highly skilled and even legendary audio engineers mastering albums in surround sound for a while now. Giles Martin created 5.1 surround mixes of several Beatles albums for their 50th anniversary releases. Steven Wilson produced 5.1 surround mixes of albums by King Crimson, Roxy Music, Jethro Tull, Yes, XTC, Tears For Fears, among others. I have many of these 5.1 albums, as well as others by Genesis, Pink Floyd, and even the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds”. I enjoy them immensely. Unlike the Quadraphonic records of yore, it didn’t require me investing speculatively in hardware to support a new audio standard: they played using the exact same equipment I use for watching movies: Blu-ray or DVD discs… and my AVR. Not everyone has a home theater system with an AVR and a set of surround speakers, but many people do. It’s not a niche technology at all. So the barrier to entry for those who want to consume music in that format is low, and may even be already available. I was able to listen to Dolby Atmos tracks on Apple Music through my living room’s AppleTV via a high-bandwidth HDMI connection to my AVR on Day One. I don’t find the immersive experience offered by surround sound music innately gimmicky. Of course someone could artlessly pan sounds around the room in ways that are gimmicky and silly… just as happens with stereo panning in the hands of a hack. But well engineered surround mixes enhance my ability to pick out distinct musicians and singers on a wider soundstage. Only time will tell if these surround mixes become “the standard”… but I can say for certain that there were people casting doubt on whether stereo (and hi-fi, in general) was a flash in the pan. Same with color movies. I’m really grateful that some of my favorite artists are available in this format, whether it becomes a standard or not.
It is sort of a gimmick at the moment, but it’s a gimmick that could easily become the next standard in music. Being able to listen to music and hear the sounds come from all around you as if you’re in the studio is extremely cool. Also, if I could watch a concert (whether streaming or a Blu-ray) and the sound actually feel like I’m at the show sitting in the audience would be awesome. It’s much better than my 7.1 surround sound setup. With spatial audio couple with lossless and Dolby atmos I believe we are seeing the beginning of a new standard in audio.
Are you able to do so on headphones? Who is? Because stats prove that's the most used support to hear music (> 80% in US only), hence this makes a difference.
I think over priced audiophile material is more a gimmick than the actual Airpods max. These thing sounds great out of the box even without spatial audio. The sound stage is fantastic.
I don't own anything Apple, but the idea of 3D audio for headphones has interested me since I first heard old holophonic recordings. I feel at least in gaming it hasn't been "gimmicky" because it's quite beneficial to hear foot steps in CSGO and know exactly where they came from via HRTF or even surround sound movies mixed down to a Spatial audio or HRTF works good enough (in both mediums it made headphones more comfortable for me to listen to, though I still prefer speakers). In terms of music specifically I could see it being a "Gimmick", but I could imagine an Artist doing things like thinks Pink Floyd's holophonic explosions with the newer tech.
When it’s done well, it really adds an extra dimension, like e.g. Leonard Bernstein’s own recording of West Side Story that has been surprisingly well remixed for Atmos, or St. Vincent’s Daddy’s Home, which has been specifically mixed for Atmos… but when a piece of absolute Dolby Atmos garbage like Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is promoted just because The Beatles will draw in many listeners (?), a lot of people are going to think it’s not worth it. I’m primarily a headphones listener, so for me this extra sense of space Dolby Atmos brings REALLY is a worthwhile addition, so I hope the poor attempts are going to make way more and more for revelatory ones!
It works on anything. And it's already been the standard for us for many years for many people there are so many programs with eqs and sound drivers to upscale stereo to surround sound and now headphones with hardware built to enhance it in my opinion it's already the f****** standard this guy's just outdated. But he is talking about the artist actually mixing in surround sound which would be cool but I could give a s***. And I don't care what the artist intended. It's all subjective interpretation anyway. But it's definitely the future it's totally inevitable.
It's application would be for a virtual "live" show so I feel the technology is in its think tank stage. Make it so when you are wearing your VR set and you pay $100 for tickets to a virtual show front row and getting the full physical experience by tracking the audio with head movement. This is a primer. It will be algorithmic. Recording will go to more channels recorded at specific points in the space, digital space created, recording points accurately marked. Algorithm will adjust balances according to head tracking and mic tracking.
I've done a lot of experiments with Ambisonic and Binaural recording and if done well can produce a very convincing 3d sound field. The key is 'less is more' as in a cluttered sound field it's hard for the brain to position the 3d sounds. Atmos has an excellent binaural renderer that produces an excellent 3d sound field but it's only as good as the mix engineer. Too many objects flying around and the effect is diminished rather than enhanced. I'm recording in binaural or ambisonic for all my documentary work from this point forward as it adds so much to the headphone user. Spatial audio is great.
I think it's a gimmick when applied to making it work in headphones. As Atmos applies to home theater, that's a different story. It's just trying to reproduce theater sound in your living room. Nothing wrong with that. Engineers have been trying to get a "room sound" out of headphones for a long, long time and it works out fairly well sometimes, but for just the pure enjoyment of the music, I prefer a stereo mix. Having said all of that, I listened to some spatial audio tracks through my Audeze Mobius headphones with 3D sound and head tracking enabled. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't fun. Just not something I'd want all of the time.
I tried one of the demos and thought when they switched it to spatial it actually sounded worse than stereo. Some of the other tracks I listened to definitely sound cool, but if you compare to good hi res versions of songs in a collection, I feel like the spatial ones sound too processed. I have a feeling that it will favor new productions while well recorded/mastered albums will always sound better in the original version vs spatial. For people going from listening to airpods to spatial I think there's definitely an improvement in experience, but for someone who already has some decent equipment and hi-res tracks, I wasn't really wowed and I went into it with an open mind.
My issue with Spatial Audio is that demand isn’t coming from the consumer. When it comes to music, consumers aren’t buying and subscribing and listening to music based on the Spatial Audio characteristics. The general public listens to music for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the engineering. The engineering needs to be professional quality but other than that all it needs is to be bare bones. In my opinion, the demand is coming from companies who are producing this technology like Apple. They’re trying to wag the dog to make the consumer think they want this, but just like foldable phones, it’s not really catching on with consumers.
Spatial audio will absolutely become a standard - but for gaming and VR. Object oriented audio is already hear and it works well a new generation will just see at as normal. It’s here to stay. For music reproduction on headphones, spatial audio for headphones can work very well. It can create a less intense sound by replicating a speaker room environment and a more accurate stereofield. It is too bad Apple didn’t opt to make it so Dolby Atmos could be used on stereo tracks as well as the native Atmos media.
I'm way more interested in the Hi-RES audio files than Spacial Audio. I'm glad there is no extra charge for this new feature... now i will keep my Apple Music subcription just for that ;)
Came here just really to see if it was just something that could be accomplished with Stereo and wondered if it was just a different stereo mix but left wondering if there are indeed separate audio channels in the mix for positions then the idea of tracking the position of the user gets more important. It's hard to think this is useful if you are driving a car or moving around but if you have a fixed point of reference like a screen (be it a phone or TV) then it gets a bit more interesting... thoughts?
Theryre are equalizers to actually give you that effect bud. I use muzio player for example. And yes I always have it on and set to medium room setting. Dolby atmos on Galaxy phones though us much better. But with actual equalizers you can adjust how much of the effect you are getting.
I have a FiiO M11 and a lot of great headphones and mostly listen to balanced output Hi-Res FLAC files, so I was hesitant to give Dolby Atmos on my iPhone a shot. I turned it on and downloaded a bunch of music and plugged in my favorite headphones (with unbalanced to the Apple dongle) and was ready to be ultra skeptical. Even though the highest res I can get is 24/48, I was still shocked how much I enjoyed a lot of Atmos music. Even albums that I have that are Hi-Res FLAC on my M11 and just “lossless” Atmos on my iPhone…I enjoyed them more and certain songs I even found the separation was even better to bring out things that even the hi-res files didn’t make as clear. I liken Atmos to my Grado SR60’s. They aren’t my “best” headphones, nor do they have the frequency response of my AT MSR7’s, but dammit, they are a fun headphone that I just love listening to music with. And that’s what I’m loving about great Atmos mixes…it makes music fun to listen to.
Aureal made spatial audio a possibility in the late 90's with stereo (hrtf on headphones) or quadrophonic setups in the late 90's. It was a big thing for the dynamically changing positions of sounds in video games. There is something of value to having a sonic source describe position that can be translated to various speaker setups, but it's hardly new or compelling from a static movie or music listening environment and it doesn't have the sophistication of simulating virtual environment reflections. Object based audio whether dolby, dts, or windows sonic is all just reinventing some of what we already had afaik. Am I wrong?
Cool video, thanks. What are your takes on Spatial Audio for movies (Dolby Atmos)? In particular with the Airpods Max?? It’s so hard to find people talking about Atmos in this regard, so any info is very much appreciated.
It's hit or miss. Sometimes it can be really great. Other times it's not quite right. It's going to take a while. I have a video coming soon on my experience.
Binaural audio is a reproduction of how we hear sounds through our ears - its perceived externally rather than as a stereo image which is heard inside the head. So listening to stereo music is a bit like listening to your own voice (verbally for those who can imagine their voice in their heads), whereas binaural would be like listening to stuff outside your head, Spital audio is almost the same in many respects. When I was about 11 years old I tried headphones for the first time and was immediately drawn to the fact that I was hearing it inside my head instead of outside my head where I have been experiencing sounds all my life. Binaural audio heard for the first time with headphone users that are used to listening through headphones would experience the opposite experience, and would be surprised at hearing stuff externally. Binaural audio is awesome in my opinion, and I actually manufacturer a binaural microphone called the SR3D
I have a 2008 LG Hi-Fi stereo system that has a setting called VSM= Virtual Sound Matrix. This setting only sounds good when the audio is not compressed. The tragic reality on these AirPods though is that you cannot stream anything in lossless quality, Bluetooth can only transfer audio @ 320kbps. Apple really needs to consider launching a Wired Headphone Pro set to really experience Spatial Audio.
I tend to agree with you. It’s really cool, but will probably never be the standard, so yeah in that regard it’s kind of a gimmick. But still really cool (I think I said that already 🤣)
The question is, does the fact that Apple is doing it impact spatial audio's adoption by the industry? They are obsessed with it right now. It wouldn't be the first time they successfully told the public what they needed before they knew they did.
Spatial Audio and Dolby Atmos is impressive. If you watch a movie it is.. For music it’s a gimmick for sure. I like it but what I’ve noticed the last weeks listening to music mixed in Dolby Atmos, is that I quickly turn off the Dolby Atmos function so that it’s back in stereo again (on my headphones). I do have a Dolby Atmos home cinema setup in my living room, but funny enough I didn’t tried Atmos music on it. I will do so soon. In my home studio, I have a pair of Adam Audio studio monitors that play in stereo. No need for surround. The soundstage and depth these lovely studio speakers put out is incredible. A blissful experience to mix my music on. And that’s just stereo! I think most people have no idea how stereo should sound in the first place. Not blaming anyone though. It’s the fault of large manufacturers that make sound bars, Bluetooth speakers and other not so representative audio products for consumers. In the last 20 years I still bought CD’s and vinyl and listen to music this way. For me, lossless audio is far more preferred. Great video.
Btw, I listen to CD’s and vinyls through my not so cheap hifi setup. Amp, CD player, vinyl player, good cables, tower speakers and an active sub for the low frequencies the speakers can’t produce. Not using the sub for more bass. But rather for a extension in the low end. That’s the way it should be imho. Bye 👋
The music that sounded the best to me was music that was recorded with real instruments. Riders on the storm? Come on! How awesome was that?! Diana Krall sounded like she was singing in real life right into my ear. I can’t wait to hear acoustic music that I listen to on a regular basis in spatial audio. I just don’t think they’ll be mixing Tony Rice or Newgrass Revival in Dolby atmos any time soon.
Great video. If only that was true about the faithful nature of “lossless”. I have owned and operated studios since the 80’s, and funded and owned media labs and various research centers since the 90’s. The improvement of Lossless audio from even CD is a far cry from R2R master tapes; and due to recording and playback limitations (mic’s, monitors, rooms, etc) it is all a far cry from being there. This is all about to change… stay tuned.
Bro - the "one trick pony" company BSR had Spatial Enhancement down pat in the nineteen-freaking-eighties! Their Spatial Enhancer (model SE-One) is fanTASTIC! And while it will always sound much better through stereo speakers than headphones, there is still a noticable and positive effect when listening through headphones. So long as you have a stereo signal, the SE-ONE will make it sound better. Basically the unit adds a bit of reverb while also shifting the phase slightly between the two stereo speakers. You can select your input, turn the effect on or off, and adjust the intensity of the effect. It makes you feel like you are in a larger room, that your speakers are spaced further apart, and that the sound envelopes you as if you were listening to the musicians live. They are relatively common on ebay and similar for $20-40, and I strongly suggest picking one up to try it out. Plus the giant colorful mock VU meter is just an outstanding bit of 80's kichze. My uncle had one when I was a kid in the 80's and as an adult I sought one out for myself and still love it to this day in my 40's.
To answer your question though: for those looking for the most accurate/faithful reproduction of the original studio sound, spatial audio will never really be their thing. But for those of us who want the music to be as engaging and engrossing as possible, spatial audio has been a thing for a long time and will continue to be how I enjoy music for many years to come. Switching back to regular stereo just sounds so flat and lifeless anymore.
It’s here to stay and here’s why. Even audio/video that was recorded WITHOUT spatial audio mixing tends to sound ‘better’ to average (non audiophile) prople with spatial audio. Take this video for instance. There is a loss/change in the audio signature & fidelity of your voice when I turn on spatial audio. But that degradation is dwarfed by the improvement in how natural your voice sounds. It no longer sounds like it was recorded with a mic and played through earbuds. It sounds much more like your voice is just in front of me, In the room. If spatial audio required the content to be produced with it in mind, I don’t think it would survive. But the fact that Apple’s software is already good enough on version 1 to make most existing content actually sound more immersive, is a game changer that cannot be understated. Yes it is a ‘bastardized’ version of the intended audio in a lot of ways bevause there is heavy heavy processing, but it’s the same way filters have taken over on Snapchat, TikTok. Photos l & videos with filters are OBJECTIVELY far inferior products 99% of the time. But it simply doesn’t matter because they make the content more ENGAGING to the average consumer
Its like you say, I care about spatial audio where the track really is supposed to be understood in that way. I listen to asmr and ambient noise tracks sometimes and in these cases it makes sense - or I would love to hear something that is supposed to be like sitting in a folk or jazz session. However we do not intake most performative (rather than collaborative social) music that way even though we hypothetically could - we could put the audience in the middle of a show and have a whole orchestra around them but we don't. We put them on a single stage in most places, and face them, because we want to listen to the music, not be in it.
i have a serious peeve with phasing i produce my stuff mono first, then create every detail about the stereo image later, just to make sure the phasing isn't doing me in from some cymbal, oh my god stereo drums can be the worst to get right. i still like my 90s yamaha stereo amplifier, when music was the only thing that mattered. could never be bothered with 5.1 or 7.1 either. more concerned with matters like "2-way or 3-way speakers", and active subwoofers (i LOVE active subs, still using the old tape rec passthrough on a stereo amp after all these years). i guess it's fun for home theater, but i don't really watch movies at all, i listen and produce music, and i don't give a lick about anything beyond the damn stereo :')
Back in the day I had a quadraphonics stereo system. However it only worked with the turntable period and only certain artists like the Beatles actually recorded in quadraphonic stereo.
Stereo maybe be limited if you think about VR. Metaverse etc. it seems like with the web evolving to a more immersive space, apple is trying to have a foot in the door as it relates to the sonics of things
I agree that it’s very hard to adapt with all those artists out there without the proper studio equipments. However, spatialize stereo is going to make that irrelevant. It will start off terrible for many songs, but machine learning and computing power is only going to get better and better. Spatial/spatialized audio will be here to stay.
You should make an update video! I would really like to know if your opinion has changed. There are a lot more artists now trying to adopt Dolby Atmos and some people are even building studios from scratch with the only purpose of mixing in Atmos. Great video btw!
I absolutely love spatial audio and apple AirPods max did great job...only sad part is the headphones aren't working after 1 year ...movies sound better in spatial than stereo
Not a gimmick at all. With Atmos running I can hear the rounds and where they are coming from specifically with it off it sounds like a mush of sounds coming from a general direction the conclusion is that dolby atmos gives the listener a more realistic sound experience. If you can't hear the difference you just are not listening as a gamer I have compared and listened and atmos makes me have a major advantage, even on call of duty now they have a in game message saying they specially recommend dolby atmos for footsteps.
It’s definitely hit and miss with spatial audio, but hey it’s a good thing that it’s there. If I’m not digging it, just switch it off 🤷🏻♂️ Try Kraftwerk 3D catalogue 😳 actually blown away at how cool it sounds
I'm an old dude, and have had many audio devices of the years. Is spacial audio anything like the "sound comes from everywhere" like Bose's 901 stereo speakers of years ago. I like an accurate soundstage, meaning I don't want music coming at me from a 360 degree sphere. I want a stage like presentation where I can kind of point at singers and instruments by their various locations on stage (like my now long gone Pro Ac tower speakers). Maybe that is impossible using headphones, though some of my wired/amped/Dac sourced headphones come closer to that goal, vs. any of my BT headphones. Not surprising. In the end, it seem like spatial audio is a gimmick, hopefully we can turn it off on Apple Music.
I listened to Sony’s 360 yesterday on Tidal. Now that was impressive. What i also like is Binaural audio for headphones such as on the latest Jean Michel Jarre albums. But Spatial Audio on Apple Music hasn’t been able to fascinate me (yet).
a lot is riding on how well apple promotes their spatial audio format which doesn't have to be a standard or gimmick to try and replace stereo and the listener presently hears it but to help enhance the perception of various of the recording after when they were finally released. also it might be difficult for apple to figure out a way to put their digital music before the airpod max or a future audio headphones which they probably can,t do at this point that no bluetooth can,t convey unless they find a way to develope a new dac codac for apple music without financially $hooting themselves in the foot and becoming the laughing stock in the music industry and lose lots of money in the process which is a daunting ta$k to accomplish. time and evolution will eventually tell. excellent review jase!
Binaural has more of a future than spatial. The problem with spacial is that the number of speakers will always go higher, after all speaker manufacturers want to sell you more speakers. This means that spacial in headphones will always be a gimmick, and with speakers it will always be dependent on the quality of your home theater - something which most people don't have. For headphones, binaural would be preferable, and for speakers stereo. For home theaters and theaters I can see ATMOS gaining the upper hand, but that's only if the music is correctly mastered and recorded. But for headphones? I mean, you'd need to virtualize the audio. Basically put a virtual binaural head in a virtual theater and play the music through that. I mean, it might work... but games have been trying to do that for decades without any real success.
If Dolby could get car companies to sign on to Atmos by putting a few speakers in the headliner I think it would increase market share and you add drive inn theaters in to the mix it would help the nearly dead drive inn theaters a small boost.
on my old philips amplifier from the 90s it had an spatial button. back then i always turned it off, i didnt liked it then and i think this counts today aswell. Honestly imho >Dolby True HD on 2.1 so 2 stereo speakers and a sub sounds best for me in this time for music. but for making music this is another story, we have to go maybe to passive speakers.
How come you didn't mention Homepods? I use to be big fan of loseless. Then I tried spatial audio on Homepods and it was so good that I couldn't listen to stereo anymore (even lossless). Then I tried Airpods Pro and it was so pathetic that I went and bought Airpods Max. And it was also a disappointment, with Airpods Max I'm not even sure if i like spatial more than stereo
I see it becoming a big thing because of both cars and headphones, which for me is like 95% of my listening time (outside the studio). I would imagine mixes would be made with this in mind, and less with the idea of someone listening in a home theatre setup because thats pretty niche
Spatial Audio is great for movies, especially with headphones. I think your poll was flawed in that movies need it, music doesn’t (or didnt), but there is no distinction in your poll. Personally i don’t think the audio is mixed in Atmos, its been processed through Atmos after its been mixed. Have a listen to true surround mixed music and it sounds way more convincing.
Great video. Interesting and for once I agree with your assessments. Computer hardware manufacturers are blocking Hi-Res Lossless Audio. Android stops it on the chip unless you do something significant. Apple has removed the jack that would allow you to hear it. You now have to do some jiggery-pokery just to get the lossless audio out. The hardware manufacturers have stopped Lossless Audio from being a thing. LG had stepped in and made it something they would support. Unfortunately, no one bought their phones. Samsung and Apple reign supreme. They want us to go the Bluetooth route and wait until Bluetooth gives us what we want. They know if we spent time listening to lossless we wood listen to Bluetooth and be very disappointed. We might throw the buds away. Sony came with LDAC but this is still not Cd quality and CD quality is not lossless. Lossless is something else and with a good source, amp and speakers the experience can be game-changing - or so I am told. I don't have enough resources to get all the equipment needed to make the most of lossless audio. Spatial Audio is a Gimmick. It is the shiny thing we should look at while they fail to give us lossless audio. It is interesting but music is NOT recorded that way and the artists are not trying to provide us with a technical experience - they want to give us a 2 channel wall of sound. Even if they did want to - most of the listening public is NOT listening that way. Americans are but the rest of the world is not. In fact, the rest of the world makes do with a much-degraded quality of music and is fine. Pop artists are happy to have their tracks pumped out with mediocre quality. We shall see what happens next. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Will some people move to apple because of spatial audio? Will Google decide to stop cripling audio on 8the chip - hell, will they require a DAC amp which other OEMs will have to provide to give them security and peace of mind.
Maybe a little clarity here…I think you may be confusing Lossless with Hi-Res (like the master version). CD quality 16/44 in ALAC, WAV, or FLAC is indeed lossless as in “CD Quality Lossless”. And if you plug in a good set of headphones with the Apple DAC dongle, you even get “hi-res” 24/48 playback and I guess you’d be right saying playing 24/96 or higher is not technically lossless at that point, and yes that’s a bummer, but honestly on an unbalanced connection the differences between 24/48 and higher are harder to discern.
You Make good points I just realized Qualcomm removed aptx HD and only have aptx now? Let's be real most people won't notice the difference but with spatial audio its a drastic f****** difference. Artists need to realize most people have not been listening to what they intended in the studio for years now so they might as well modernize and catch up to the rest of society. Lol
I've been listening to surround sound on my Windows computer for years upscaling the stereo and I prefer it. You don't need the artist to mix it special but if you're a purest and prefer to listen to " what the artist intended" then that's on you lolbut spatial audio is the future. I use as an example the Galaxy buds pro vs the Sennheiser mtw2s. The Galaxy buds are clearer cleaner and more enjoyable to listen to in my opinion especially when it comes to movies and again the movie and music does not have to be mixed in surround sound to hear a more immersive sound and better instrument seperation in the stereo mix. Basically you're outdated,. It's been years since I preferred a more muddy bass with boomy vocals and hissing highs. It's literally like having two big ass old fashioned high-end speakers watching a movie compared to the avg scheap surround sound system. But I guess it's all preference. But again talking about people in their basement studios havinf to mix their track special for spatial audio sounds f****** completely hypocritical when you then talk about lossless audio where most people won't hear the difference no matter how much money the artist spent in the studio. When the opposite is true when using Dolby Atmos or drivers built for spatial audio with stereo music including the most poorly mixed tracks no matter the bitrate lol.
I don’t think it’s a gimmick for music nor movies BUT I think it’s a gimmick when the equipment we hear it from has only 2 speakers. When we have 4+ speakers, the sound is being reproduced AROUND YOU on a PHYSICAL space.
Good video but one note - lossless audio doesn't mean all of the ones and zeroes are preserved. It's compressed but in a way we don't notice any loss sonically.
When you talk about the Beatles getting wacky with stereo mixes in the early days, you do realize they were recording on a 4 track and ended up with reduction mixes, instruments and voices sharing tracks. So their options for panning was limited when they did the stereo mix, right?
@@thejasontlewis Bur it eventually became that so how can you say spatial audio won't be the standard for studio mixing in the future. I don't think artists realize how most of us have been upscaling their stereo mixes to surround sound for years anyway nobody is listening to the s*** as they intended. Lol.
Parlor trick or not, 40 years ago Bob Carver created the C9 Sonic Holograph. It was (and still is) quite impressive considering it doesn't depend on any signal processing in the recording, and only used two front speakers.
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](/img/1.gif)
Whether it's a gimmick, depends on if you end up just trying to hear the spatial effect rather than enjoying the music itself. A bit like 3D movies. They had that wow factor intially, but then you find yourself watching them just for the 3D effect rather than enjoying the movie.
Exactly my thoughts. 3d audio is good for movies. Not for music.
@@mohandark I don't think that's what he was saying bud.
i listened to it on a whim and i thought it sounded fantastic. Even some songs i didn't care for in the past were actually enjoyable now.
I usually listen to high res flacs so its not like im going from low bit rate mp3 to spatial audio. I think more people need to listen to spatial audio music before deciding if they think its a gimmick or not cause i sure as heck don't think its one.
full disclosure tho for some reason spatial audio sounds absolutely terrible in my car (it has a pretty banging sound system) but it sounds great on headphones and my 5.1 home theater system
I am a blind person from birth and I rely so much on sound. I think spatial audio is okay, but what's even better is binaural audio. I am a heavy headphone user. Binaural is the best when it comes to sounds all aroun. However, I did hear dolby atmos that's really good, but very inconsistent. The movie Gravity was the best I've hear and I wish all movies and all things dolby atmos could follow suit.
I taking it that you are not pitch black blind
Ambisonics is better in my opinion
I think it gives you so much mix room in experimental music.
Holophonic sound was awesome in mono... is psychoaccousticbased upon skull measurement .....
Convolution reverb and ambisonics are rocking 3rd order is what I use in musick... ..im not a huge fan of atmos... binaural smashes atmos...quadrature smashes atmos
Gimmick or not it definitely made a huge difference when I watched a Dolby atmos movie with my AirPod pros compared to watching with it off. Sounded worlds better on.
Yip I first noticed it when I watched WandaVision on Disney Plus.
Absolutely. Even using headphones made for spatial audio on stereo mixes without Dolby Atmos like the airpods pros or the Galaxy buds pros still have way better instrument separation, clarity and the forward and back soundstage compared to high-end buds like the Sennheiser mtw2s which sound outdated in comparison. Turn on Dolby Atmos and then it's a whole other world
@@cooloutac Do you find that atmos is really dependent on the mix? Some songs are done well while others are unlistenable. I’m using AKG 712, could be my headphones.
@@wyw201 I wouldn't say unlistenable, but yes. Some sound way better then others while some sounds might be too muted for some in others. Particularly noticeable with vocals I find. This is with neither track specifically designed for atmos but ya its something in how the engineer is mixing them. Either way I'm used to the broader and airier sound stage its hard for me to listen without it because it sounds way narrow to my ears now. Even if I just have a virtualizer adding a little reverb without the upmixing lol.
@@cooloutac Wonder how Atmos would sound on a home speaker setup
I think there is a good chance it will become a standard if Apple is pushing it. And they can go back to record labels and say: “if you mix in spatial audio, you will get this many more streams”
Unfortunately, Apple is powerful, but even they can't guarantee people will listen to music.
It will only become a standard if the major record labels (half which are owned by Sony) adopt it. Apple are powerful but not that powerful enough to get Sony to push Spatial Audio over their own 360 Reality audio. This is a case of the market decides (unless Apple starts it's own record labels)
Lol that’s not how any of this works whatsoever
As someone who used to work for one of the “other” streaming music services, there is much power in being “featured” in the App Store and in Apple Music. How many HUGE hits have been an Apple commercial? Right now if I were an artist I’d be breaking my butt to do an Atmos version of my music to be featured by Apple.
@@thejasontlewis people have been upscaling stereo to surround sound for years. I haven't listened to music normally for many years so f*** what the artist intended haha. I'm the type of guy who even prefers airpod pros or Galaxy buds pros over buds like the Sennheiser mtw2s. Just for the way the drivers are built and tuned in them. Lol. The latter just sounds outdated and less clear to me in comparison. I mean s*** for years I've downloaded music from some artists mixing in their basement studios for surround sound that also have their lyrics inside the MP3 tags. Maybe I come from a different world than you but To say it's never going to be a standard in the future is quite a bold statement that makes you sound like a f****** caveman to me lmao
Spatial music is weird to me because there's rarely a time when music isn't just being played in front of you and being projected out at you from the same origin somehow. I don't go to a concert or a show and have someone playing instruments all around me (most of the time), and so I dunno what they're trying to recreate with this.
In theory, the ambience alone (reverbs) would do. Also in theory, a mix engineer can indeed create unreal situations for a listener, which sound cool and organic nevertheless. In practice, binaural on headphones doesn't work... :D
Transitioning to atmos audio is hard? So it was changing cinemas’ projectors to totally digital but now we are there.
He's not talking about movies. Surround sound is already the standard, so adding a few more channels isn't that big of a deal on either the recording or playback end of it. Its not the same with music. The recording format for at least 99% of all music is stereo. As a format, stereo is based on reality, and must be 2 channels. Its a completely different situation. If you notice at the end of the video, he comments on how a well done stereo setup doesn't need any spatial enhancements because its already there. He's right. If you look into what stereo is, and why its used, you'll see what he means.
@@solarfall2728 stereo reality? We hear in surround.
@@manart6506 As I said in my other post, I'm talking about music, not movies. The term stereo comes from eyesight. We see in stereo. That's why we don't see each eye independently. Our brain overlaps what each eye sees to create a seamless picture. This is also how we get depth perception. If you close one of your eyes, you lose it.
A stereo recording emulates how we see. 2 mics are used and each one gets its own channel. That's where imaging and depth come from. Spatial information is encoded in the recording. On playback, a good system can reproduce all of this.
As far as formats go, stereo is without question the most realistic way to listen to music. If done properly, you don't need surround sound. Movies are completely different. Engineers create the sound field. They can make sounds come from anywhere they want. With music, everything should be up front.
Maybe things will change in the future, but right now, stereo is still your best option for music recording and playback.
PS, I'm aware of multitrack recordings. I didn't mention them because its easier to visualize the 2 mic method. Also, I don't expect everyone to be with me on this. If you get better results with surround, then that's the way you should do it.
@@solarfall2728 technically a song isn’t recorded in stereo (2 mics) but a ton of microphones. One for the vocals, others the strings, there the drums, etc. Then it is mixed for stereo. So now it is being mixed in surround and there are some good atmos albums already.
@@manart6506 If you read the whole post, I did mention this. If your goal is fidelity, surround is not the way to get it. Having instruments coming at you from behind or the side, is not realistic.
Again, if you prefer surround, that's fine. These things are subjective. But if you have a bunch of people listen to your system, not everyone will like surround better. Some will, some won't.
from my personal experience so far listening with the airpods pro, some songs do sound amazing and others sound considerably worse and weird. I dont know if it is bad optimisation or the original recording was just crap xD
Which one sounds weird or worse?
@@rafaelrosal. try Lemonade (feat NAV) it sounds all kind of weak and weird; the bass sounds like it’s broken 🤣🤣
Many songs are like that, sadly they are just not optimised well for Dolby Atmos
@@MF_OXF True. It sounds totally different.
Great discussion and great video. Thanks for sharing that knowledge.
Interesting video. If it sounds good, then it is good. Chasing greener grass just leaves you questioning everything instead of enjoying what you have.
So about 3 minutes in the video I thought back to the idea of “3D” cameras. Back in my art class in college my professor taught us that traditional cameras / phones flatten out pictures, hence why some people may look bigger or heavier set than some. Really interesting concept although I didn’t hear any noticeable differences with some songs.
When it is mixed well, Dolby Atmos (Spatial Audio) can really add to the experience. Listening to something like Tom Sawyer by Rush is wonderful. The song sounds great in stereo already but Dolby Atmos just really adds to the mix. There are some terrible mixes out there from the likes of Blink 182 and Fall Out Boy, the vocals sound far away and guitars washed out. I don't know whether this is because it was the early to mid 2000s when the loudness wars were at their peak and music was being heavily compressed. However, we had the same thing when moving from vinyl to CD, quite a few record labels just made a bad copy from vinyl straight to CD to make a quick buck. I am hoping in time when Dolby Atmos and spatial audio become more the norm and engineers, mixers, producers and musicians start to know how to get the best out of the technology and prices continue to fall then we should have more and more better mixes.
The problem with previous audio standards is that there were no large hardware or software companies like Apple getting behind it. When you can experience it with an iPhone and a pair of headphones, you don't need a dedicated room or expensive home set up. If Spotify gets behind Spatial Audio as well then I believe it could eventually replace stereo as the standard. I would disagree with you that lossless is more important. In a blind listening test, I am sure 99% of people cannot tell the difference between lossless and a well encoded 256 kbps AAC. Whereas 99% of people will be able to hear the difference between Spatial and Stereo.
With the recent release of the Apple Vision Pro and their introduction of "spatial computing," this push for "spatial audio" makes a lot of sense. I am sure you're right that many audio producers will not be able to or interested in making such content but when the content is not music but is sound effects for a VR app, that changes things a lot.
Listening to The Beatles “Let It Be” album, the new 2021 remaster with lossless and Dolby Atmos with spatial audio on my AirPods Pro was a very cool experience. Right off the bat the mix is WAY less compressed than any version I have ever heard. Plus the vocal harmonies and interplay of the instruments is very subtle and with a huge soundstage. I am not an audiophile but I am a musician and can listen to music critically. It is definitely neat and I don’t think this new version of the Let It Be album is not the “definitive” version. It’s a new version that I like and allows me to hear something I know and love in a new way. To hear parts and instruments so clearly and being able to turn your head to seemingly listen closer to a part is very cool. That is all.
I could see this working if you had an omnidirectional microphone in the center of a live concert and all those channels are utilized so that you could hear as if you were in the center of that concert. Would also be a great thing to have for VR too.
Nice to hear a informed and knowledgable review of technology. 95% of my friends have not set up proper sound systems.
For what’s up on Apple Music now, I much prefer lossless over spatial/atmos. I came to this conclusion after extended listening since launch via AirPods Max as well as Drop + HIFIMAN HE4XX and Sennheiser HD 600 S with portable amp. I now have Atmos toggled off in settings. For me, Atmos can’t compare to the original recordings. So I guess… gimmick, or at least partially so. Once studio recordings are made with Atmos up front, perhaps that will change.
The main thing that influences how pronounced the 3D effect is the method that Apple is using to make sound 3D.
For context: the asymmetrical shape of the human ear means that sounds coming in from different directions will have to pass through and bounce off of different shapes and thicknesses of tissue. In doing this, certain frequencies will be diminshed or amplified. Our brain interprets these colourations in frequencies as different directions of sound. Every human will have a unique shape to their ear, which slightly alters the way that their ears amplify/diminish frequencies. The way that an individual's ear influences frequencies based on direction is called a Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF).
For Spatial Audio, Apple scanned the HRTFs of several individuals of different ethnicities and ages to create a generic one-size-fits-most HRTF. It will match some people's very closely, making Spatial Audio sound really impressive for them, while it won't match so well for others. In order to solve this problem, in iOS 16, you'll be able to scan your ear with your iPhone's TrueDepth camera to create a personalised Spatial Audio profile, which will hopefully improve its accuracy.
In my case the HRTF doesn't fit at all. No front or back at all. Just weird out of phase feeling.
Overall a good video, but I think your explanation of lossless is going to confuse some people. I understand your meaning, but the common understanding of lossless is different. For example, a CD is considered lossless. If you rip that CD to a wav file, its lossless too. Rip the CD to flac using compression, its still lossless. Rip it to an mp-3, and now its lossy.
When you say lossless, I take it you mean whatever resolution was used in the studio, such as 24/96. If so, it would be technically correct to say that a 16/44 CD is lossy, because it goes though a decimation process. You are correct, but resolutions higher than CD (16/44) are typically called high res. I only bring it up because there's so much confusion with audio formats. Referring to CD quality as lossy will most likely confuse some people, even if technically true.
Many spatial music songs sound V shaped to me- spacious surround sound, but very recessed voices and recessed mid range.
I noticed that too on some songs. I guess it’s because it was recorder and processed for stereo and then processed again for atoms. And in this situation in my opinion stereo version sounds better. But time will tell how this plays out.
I appreciate the frank discussion. I was getting worried about what felt like a 'if Apple does it it will be successful' attitude. I am old enough to remember the quadrophonic expirement - great idea but like you say - the buy in has to be way bigger than just Apple. I am only one person but I count on you for the straight dope - this video is much appreciated.
I wenttout to listen to some live jazz with an electric guitar and a large accoustic bass. There was no sound coming from behind me unless it was a delayed reverb. I don't see this as anything other than a gimmick. I'm still a 2 channel guy. I didn't realize this was a home theatre spot.
Thanks Jason. Always good to get a pro take of this kinda stuff.
But like most things Apple, it’s only the beginning. We won’t see the bigger picture until Stage 2-3 of Apple’s implementation. That’s just my take.
The thing about these polls is most people answering don't have the headphone set.
Lossless sounds as though it’s a more pure experience. Yeah there’s a place for both perhaps lossless will be the stayer, maybe 🤔
Great honest review from somebody that understands music and sound.
Here's the thing that nobody is talking about :
Stereo IS spatial audio. You heard that right : upper frequencies are literally perceived higher, and lower frequencies are literally perceived lower (think rumble from the ground VS bird squeaking for hundreds of thousands of years). Left and right in proper stereo are differentiated through the distance between our left and right ear, hence why stereo and dual-mono (same exact signal L and R with no delay) are two completely different things. And finally, the depth axis is simply implied with volume : the louder an instrument is, the more "in your face" it will be, and the quieter it is in the mix, the further away it sounds. Add reverb to this, and you can shape sound on 3 axis. The only thing you can't do is have sounds coming from corners in a stationary position - you can make sound "swirl around" in stereo with a very long reverb and an auto-pan... but at the end of the day, *all* audio playback is nothing but an illusion. And that's what makes it fun!!! No need for 13 speakers and impossible to implement set-ups. Atmos is big only because Apple can use their format to push their own tech, believe me : it's bad for 99% of consumers. First company to make a real-time binaural plug-in will win. Nobody listens with speakers anyway.
Hey Jason, I have some thoughts here: I believe music mixed for a movie, or even TV soundtrack would translate better to spacial audio / Dolby ATMOS. For quite a few years now movies have been mixed at least for 5 speakers and one sub. for the standard home setup. I think commercial theater can go up to 10, or 12. 1, or more. Maybe you can fill me in here. Either way: Some standard stereo recording do translate well, but others don't. So maybe if artists start mixing like they would for movie soundtracks, spacial audio might work better. You also strike me as the type of person who would have used Super Audio CDs. Those were designed with multi channel in mind.
True, but the audio and film recording worlds don't cross paths very often. Films are recorded with many channels intended for spatial mixing. Music would have to change the way it's done. Not impossible, but not easy either.
Honestly I’ve been listening too, and I would say I agree with you.
This Spatial audio needs to be well constructed in music, some songs are so weird, but others are excellent.
Latch by Disclosure to me is so weird whereas new album of Migos sounds incredible.
Great video!
From what I can tell, recording methods wouldn't have to change *too* much vs stereo recording methods. When mixing Spatial Audio in Logic Pro, you manually position each track of your project. Recording intruments solo onto individual tracks is nothing new, the difficult part is just spatially mixing it well.
There are two distinct issues here: one is the use of computational acoustics to simulate a surround sound experience… and the other is music being offered in Dolby Atmos which can be fully appreciated in a multi-speaker surround-sound home entertainment system. I’m alternately impressed and sometimes disappointed by the former… but I’m less ambivalent and more enthusiastic about the latter.
First of all, let’s acknowledge that there have been highly skilled and even legendary audio engineers mastering albums in surround sound for a while now. Giles Martin created 5.1 surround mixes of several Beatles albums for their 50th anniversary releases. Steven Wilson produced 5.1 surround mixes of albums by King Crimson, Roxy Music, Jethro Tull, Yes, XTC, Tears For Fears, among others. I have many of these 5.1 albums, as well as others by Genesis, Pink Floyd, and even the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds”. I enjoy them immensely.
Unlike the Quadraphonic records of yore, it didn’t require me investing speculatively in hardware to support a new audio standard: they played using the exact same equipment I use for watching movies: Blu-ray or DVD discs… and my AVR. Not everyone has a home theater system with an AVR and a set of surround speakers, but many people do. It’s not a niche technology at all. So the barrier to entry for those who want to consume music in that format is low, and may even be already available. I was able to listen to Dolby Atmos tracks on Apple Music through my living room’s AppleTV via a high-bandwidth HDMI connection to my AVR on Day One.
I don’t find the immersive experience offered by surround sound music innately gimmicky. Of course someone could artlessly pan sounds around the room in ways that are gimmicky and silly… just as happens with stereo panning in the hands of a hack. But well engineered surround mixes enhance my ability to pick out distinct musicians and singers on a wider soundstage.
Only time will tell if these surround mixes become “the standard”… but I can say for certain that there were people casting doubt on whether stereo (and hi-fi, in general) was a flash in the pan. Same with color movies. I’m really grateful that some of my favorite artists are available in this format, whether it becomes a standard or not.
It is sort of a gimmick at the moment, but it’s a gimmick that could easily become the next standard in music. Being able to listen to music and hear the sounds come from all around you as if you’re in the studio is extremely cool. Also, if I could watch a concert (whether streaming or a Blu-ray) and the sound actually feel like I’m at the show sitting in the audience would be awesome. It’s much better than my 7.1 surround sound setup. With spatial audio couple with lossless and Dolby atmos I believe we are seeing the beginning of a new standard in audio.
Are you able to do so on headphones? Who is? Because stats prove that's the most used support to hear music (> 80% in US only), hence this makes a difference.
I think over priced audiophile material is more a gimmick than the actual Airpods max. These thing sounds great out of the box even without spatial audio. The sound stage is fantastic.
I’m digging my max headphones too 👍
I don't own anything Apple, but the idea of 3D audio for headphones has interested me since I first heard old holophonic recordings. I feel at least in gaming it hasn't been "gimmicky" because it's quite beneficial to hear foot steps in CSGO and know exactly where they came from via HRTF or even surround sound movies mixed down to a Spatial audio or HRTF works good enough (in both mediums it made headphones more comfortable for me to listen to, though I still prefer speakers). In terms of music specifically I could see it being a "Gimmick", but I could imagine an Artist doing things like thinks Pink Floyd's holophonic explosions with the newer tech.
Hi Jason, can you please make a video on Apple Hi-Res and Tidal MQA?
And Qobuz. Apple put noise in their "lossless" files. 16bit shows up as 24bit with pollution. Not bit perfect. Is audible in blind test.
If this is a gimmick so it was stereo… and thus it’s having more than one ear when with just one you can hear 👂 🙄
This English broke me lmao
When it’s done well, it really adds an extra dimension, like e.g. Leonard Bernstein’s own recording of West Side Story that has been surprisingly well remixed for Atmos, or St. Vincent’s Daddy’s Home, which has been specifically mixed for Atmos… but when a piece of absolute Dolby Atmos garbage like Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is promoted just because The Beatles will draw in many listeners (?), a lot of people are going to think it’s not worth it. I’m primarily a headphones listener, so for me this extra sense of space Dolby Atmos brings REALLY is a worthwhile addition, so I hope the poor attempts are going to make way more and more for revelatory ones!
Im confused as to whereas the music has to be mixed in atmos to be spatial or does it work on anything
It works on anything. And it's already been the standard for us for many years for many people there are so many programs with eqs and sound drivers to upscale stereo to surround sound and now headphones with hardware built to enhance it in my opinion it's already the f****** standard this guy's just outdated. But he is talking about the artist actually mixing in surround sound which would be cool but I could give a s***. And I don't care what the artist intended. It's all subjective interpretation anyway. But it's definitely the future it's totally inevitable.
It's application would be for a virtual "live" show so I feel the technology is in its think tank stage. Make it so when you are wearing your VR set and you pay $100 for tickets to a virtual show front row and getting the full physical experience by tracking the audio with head movement. This is a primer. It will be algorithmic. Recording will go to more channels recorded at specific points in the space, digital space created, recording points accurately marked. Algorithm will adjust balances according to head tracking and mic tracking.
I've done a lot of experiments with Ambisonic and Binaural recording and if done well can produce a very convincing 3d sound field. The key is 'less is more' as in a cluttered sound field it's hard for the brain to position the 3d sounds. Atmos has an excellent binaural renderer that produces an excellent 3d sound field but it's only as good as the mix engineer. Too many objects flying around and the effect is diminished rather than enhanced. I'm recording in binaural or ambisonic for all my documentary work from this point forward as it adds so much to the headphone user. Spatial audio is great.
I think it's a gimmick when applied to making it work in headphones. As Atmos applies to home theater, that's a different story. It's just trying to reproduce theater sound in your living room. Nothing wrong with that. Engineers have been trying to get a "room sound" out of headphones for a long, long time and it works out fairly well sometimes, but for just the pure enjoyment of the music, I prefer a stereo mix. Having said all of that, I listened to some spatial audio tracks through my Audeze Mobius headphones with 3D sound and head tracking enabled. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't fun. Just not something I'd want all of the time.
Thank you for the education 👍🏾
I tried one of the demos and thought when they switched it to spatial it actually sounded worse than stereo. Some of the other tracks I listened to definitely sound cool, but if you compare to good hi res versions of songs in a collection, I feel like the spatial ones sound too processed. I have a feeling that it will favor new productions while well recorded/mastered albums will always sound better in the original version vs spatial.
For people going from listening to airpods to spatial I think there's definitely an improvement in experience, but for someone who already has some decent equipment and hi-res tracks, I wasn't really wowed and I went into it with an open mind.
Spatial is definitely different. When I listen to it with headphones it takes a couple minute to adjust.
My issue with Spatial Audio is that demand isn’t coming from the consumer. When it comes to music, consumers aren’t buying and subscribing and listening to music based on the Spatial Audio characteristics. The general public listens to music for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the engineering. The engineering needs to be professional quality but other than that all it needs is to be bare bones.
In my opinion, the demand is coming from companies who are producing this technology like Apple. They’re trying to wag the dog to make the consumer think they want this, but just like foldable phones, it’s not really catching on with consumers.
That’s a really good point. Stereo was a consumer-driven change. Spatial Audio, quadrophonic speakers, etc. No one asked for that stuff.
Dolby Atmos in the car is magic.
This is this generation’s audio revolution akin to when mono went to stereo. Definitely not a gimmick it’s a massive industry shift that is occurring
IPhone - Onkyo HF Player or Apple Music Lossless - Chord Mojo - Toxic Cable to my Noble Kaiser Encore IEM’s. Nuff said. Drop the 🎤👊🏻
Highly recommend checking out sympathy for the devil with spatial audio - you really get a feel of the room they recorded it in
Spatial audio will absolutely become a standard - but for gaming and VR. Object oriented audio is already hear and it works well a new generation will just see at as normal. It’s here to stay.
For music reproduction on headphones, spatial audio for headphones can work very well. It can create a less intense sound by replicating a speaker room environment and a more accurate stereofield. It is too bad Apple didn’t opt to make it so Dolby Atmos could be used on stereo tracks as well as the native Atmos media.
It's like 3D TV. Some examples are pretty cool tech showcases, but it's overall annoying.
Beatles set my expectations for sound stage as a teen with an iPod and this explains why nothing sounds like it hahaha.
whats your opinion on the gaming headsets with multiple drivers in each can
I'm way more interested in the Hi-RES audio files than Spacial Audio.
I'm glad there is no extra charge for this new feature... now i will keep my Apple Music subcription just for that ;)
Apple put noise in their files qobuz dont
Came here just really to see if it was just something that could be accomplished with Stereo and wondered if it was just a different stereo mix but left wondering if there are indeed separate audio channels in the mix for positions then the idea of tracking the position of the user gets more important. It's hard to think this is useful if you are driving a car or moving around but if you have a fixed point of reference like a screen (be it a phone or TV) then it gets a bit more interesting... thoughts?
Social audio in its current state sounds like putting your stereo in the bathroom.
Theryre are equalizers to actually give you that effect bud. I use muzio player for example. And yes I always have it on and set to medium room setting. Dolby atmos on Galaxy phones though us much better. But with actual equalizers you can adjust how much of the effect you are getting.
I have a FiiO M11 and a lot of great headphones and mostly listen to balanced output Hi-Res FLAC files, so I was hesitant to give Dolby Atmos on my iPhone a shot. I turned it on and downloaded a bunch of music and plugged in my favorite headphones (with unbalanced to the Apple dongle) and was ready to be ultra skeptical. Even though the highest res I can get is 24/48, I was still shocked how much I enjoyed a lot of Atmos music. Even albums that I have that are Hi-Res FLAC on my M11 and just “lossless” Atmos on my iPhone…I enjoyed them more and certain songs I even found the separation was even better to bring out things that even the hi-res files didn’t make as clear.
I liken Atmos to my Grado SR60’s. They aren’t my “best” headphones, nor do they have the frequency response of my AT MSR7’s, but dammit, they are a fun headphone that I just love listening to music with. And that’s what I’m loving about great Atmos mixes…it makes music fun to listen to.
Aureal made spatial audio a possibility in the late 90's with stereo (hrtf on headphones) or quadrophonic setups in the late 90's. It was a big thing for the dynamically changing positions of sounds in video games. There is something of value to having a sonic source describe position that can be translated to various speaker setups, but it's hardly new or compelling from a static movie or music listening environment and it doesn't have the sophistication of simulating virtual environment reflections. Object based audio whether dolby, dts, or windows sonic is all just reinventing some of what we already had afaik.
Am I wrong?
Cool video, thanks. What are your takes on Spatial Audio for movies (Dolby Atmos)? In particular with the Airpods Max?? It’s so hard to find people talking about Atmos in this regard, so any info is very much appreciated.
It's hit or miss. Sometimes it can be really great. Other times it's not quite right. It's going to take a while. I have a video coming soon on my experience.
@@thejasontlewis Oh wow, that’s good to know. Looking forward to that video. Thanks man!
Binaural audio is a reproduction of how we hear sounds through our ears - its perceived externally rather than as a stereo image which is heard inside the head.
So listening to stereo music is a bit like listening to your own voice (verbally for those who can imagine their voice in their heads), whereas binaural would be like listening to stuff outside your head, Spital audio is almost the same in many respects. When I was about 11 years old I tried headphones for the first time and was immediately drawn to the fact that I was hearing it inside my head instead of outside my head where I have been experiencing sounds all my life.
Binaural audio heard for the first time with headphone users that are used to listening through headphones would experience the opposite experience, and would be surprised at hearing stuff externally. Binaural audio is awesome in my opinion, and I actually manufacturer a binaural microphone called the SR3D
Spatial audio for music: gimmick
Spatial audio for movies: not gimmick
where can i test for specific movies and stream app?
@@anggasuryo9591 Apple TV and AppleTV + app.
@@atgred just try it out and yesss it works like its on another level audio (on apple tv) thank you!
@@atgred and bad quality for apple music (some songs)
I have a 2008 LG Hi-Fi stereo system that has a setting called VSM= Virtual Sound Matrix. This setting only sounds good when the audio is not compressed. The tragic reality on these AirPods though is that you cannot stream anything in lossless quality, Bluetooth can only transfer audio @ 320kbps. Apple really needs to consider launching a Wired Headphone Pro set to really experience Spatial Audio.
I tend to agree with you. It’s really cool, but will probably never be the standard, so yeah in that regard it’s kind of a gimmick. But still really cool (I think I said that already 🤣)
The question is, does the fact that Apple is doing it impact spatial audio's adoption by the industry? They are obsessed with it right now. It wouldn't be the first time they successfully told the public what they needed before they knew they did.
Spatial Audio and Dolby Atmos is impressive. If you watch a movie it is.. For music it’s a gimmick for sure. I like it but what I’ve noticed the last weeks listening to music mixed in Dolby Atmos, is that I quickly turn off the Dolby Atmos function so that it’s back in stereo again (on my headphones). I do have a Dolby Atmos home cinema setup in my living room, but funny enough I didn’t tried Atmos music on it. I will do so soon. In my home studio, I have a pair of Adam Audio studio monitors that play in stereo. No need for surround. The soundstage and depth these lovely studio speakers put out is incredible. A blissful experience to mix my music on. And that’s just stereo! I think most people have no idea how stereo should sound in the first place. Not blaming anyone though. It’s the fault of large manufacturers that make sound bars, Bluetooth speakers and other not so representative audio products for consumers. In the last 20 years I still bought CD’s and vinyl and listen to music this way. For me, lossless audio is far more preferred. Great video.
Btw, I listen to CD’s and vinyls through my not so cheap hifi setup. Amp, CD player, vinyl player, good cables, tower speakers and an active sub for the low frequencies the speakers can’t produce. Not using the sub for more bass. But rather for a extension in the low end. That’s the way it should be imho. Bye 👋
The music that sounded the best to me was music that was recorded with real instruments. Riders on the storm? Come on! How awesome was that?! Diana Krall sounded like she was singing in real life right into my ear. I can’t wait to hear acoustic music that I listen to on a regular basis in spatial audio. I just don’t think they’ll be mixing Tony Rice or Newgrass Revival in Dolby atmos any time soon.
Great video. If only that was true about the faithful nature of “lossless”. I have owned and operated studios since the 80’s, and funded and owned media labs and various research centers since the 90’s. The improvement of Lossless audio from even CD is a far cry from R2R master tapes; and due to recording and playback limitations (mic’s, monitors, rooms, etc) it is all a far cry from being there. This is all about to change… stay tuned.
Bro - the "one trick pony" company BSR had Spatial Enhancement down pat in the nineteen-freaking-eighties! Their Spatial Enhancer (model SE-One) is fanTASTIC! And while it will always sound much better through stereo speakers than headphones, there is still a noticable and positive effect when listening through headphones. So long as you have a stereo signal, the SE-ONE will make it sound better.
Basically the unit adds a bit of reverb while also shifting the phase slightly between the two stereo speakers. You can select your input, turn the effect on or off, and adjust the intensity of the effect.
It makes you feel like you are in a larger room, that your speakers are spaced further apart, and that the sound envelopes you as if you were listening to the musicians live.
They are relatively common on ebay and similar for $20-40, and I strongly suggest picking one up to try it out. Plus the giant colorful mock VU meter is just an outstanding bit of 80's kichze.
My uncle had one when I was a kid in the 80's and as an adult I sought one out for myself and still love it to this day in my 40's.
To answer your question though: for those looking for the most accurate/faithful reproduction of the original studio sound, spatial audio will never really be their thing. But for those of us who want the music to be as engaging and engrossing as possible, spatial audio has been a thing for a long time and will continue to be how I enjoy music for many years to come. Switching back to regular stereo just sounds so flat and lifeless anymore.
@@justinkashtock333 Sh!!! Apple invented it! 😉
It’s here to stay and here’s why. Even audio/video that was recorded WITHOUT spatial audio mixing tends to sound ‘better’ to average (non audiophile) prople with spatial audio.
Take this video for instance. There is a loss/change in the audio signature & fidelity of your voice when I turn on spatial audio. But that degradation is dwarfed by the improvement in how natural your voice sounds. It no longer sounds like it was recorded with a mic and played through earbuds. It sounds much more like your voice is just in front of me, In the room.
If spatial audio required the content to be produced with it in mind, I don’t think it would survive. But the fact that Apple’s software is already good enough on version 1 to make most existing content actually sound more immersive, is a game changer that cannot be understated.
Yes it is a ‘bastardized’ version of the intended audio in a lot of ways bevause there is heavy heavy processing, but it’s the same way filters have taken over on Snapchat, TikTok. Photos l & videos with filters are OBJECTIVELY far inferior products 99% of the time. But it simply doesn’t matter because they make the content more ENGAGING to the average consumer
Its like you say, I care about spatial audio where the track really is supposed to be understood in that way. I listen to asmr and ambient noise tracks sometimes and in these cases it makes sense - or I would love to hear something that is supposed to be like sitting in a folk or jazz session.
However we do not intake most performative (rather than collaborative social) music that way even though we hypothetically could - we could put the audience in the middle of a show and have a whole orchestra around them but we don't. We put them on a single stage in most places, and face them, because we want to listen to the music, not be in it.
Lossless audio still not showing up on the Android Apple Music beta...
Hmmm.
i have a serious peeve with phasing
i produce my stuff mono first, then create every detail about the stereo image later,
just to make sure the phasing isn't doing me in from some cymbal, oh my god stereo drums can be the worst to get right.
i still like my 90s yamaha stereo amplifier, when music was the only thing that mattered.
could never be bothered with 5.1 or 7.1 either.
more concerned with matters like "2-way or 3-way speakers", and active subwoofers (i LOVE active subs, still using the old tape rec passthrough on a stereo amp after all these years).
i guess it's fun for home theater, but i don't really watch movies at all, i listen and produce music, and i don't give a lick about anything beyond the damn stereo :')
I hope apple adds special audio to GarageBand / Logic Pro creation. I would love to remaster my music into this format.
That would be great but you can still just turn on doolby Atmos to get a more immersive effect.
Back in the day I had a quadraphonics stereo system. However it only worked with the turntable period and only certain artists like the Beatles actually recorded in quadraphonic stereo.
Nothing beats a clean mono record. Of course, I listen to 30's and 40's music.
Stereo maybe be limited if you think about VR. Metaverse etc. it seems like with the web evolving to a more immersive space, apple is trying to have a foot in the door as it relates to the sonics of things
i dont use spatial audio or spatialize stereo for music but when im watching atmos content on apple tv or netflix 🔥🔥🔥
I agree that it’s very hard to adapt with all those artists out there without the proper studio equipments. However, spatialize stereo is going to make that irrelevant. It will start off terrible for many songs, but machine learning and computing power is only going to get better and better. Spatial/spatialized audio will be here to stay.
You should make an update video! I would really like to know if your opinion has changed. There are a lot more artists now trying to adopt Dolby Atmos and some people are even building studios from scratch with the only purpose of mixing in Atmos. Great video btw!
Jason what changes generally would a recording studio need to do in order to record and make the most of Dolby Atmos/Spacial Audio?
I absolutely love spatial audio and apple AirPods max did great job...only sad part is the headphones aren't working after 1 year ...movies sound better in spatial than stereo
Not a gimmick at all. With Atmos running I can hear the rounds and where they are coming from specifically with it off it sounds like a mush of sounds coming from a general direction the conclusion is that dolby atmos gives the listener a more realistic sound experience. If you can't hear the difference you just are not listening as a gamer I have compared and listened and atmos makes me have a major advantage, even on call of duty now they have a in game message saying they specially recommend dolby atmos for footsteps.
It’s definitely hit and miss with spatial audio, but hey it’s a good thing that it’s there. If I’m not digging it, just switch it off 🤷🏻♂️ Try Kraftwerk 3D catalogue 😳 actually blown away at how cool it sounds
I completely agree.
I'm an old dude, and have had many audio devices of the years. Is spacial audio anything like the "sound comes from everywhere" like Bose's 901 stereo speakers of years ago. I like an accurate soundstage, meaning I don't want music coming at me from a 360 degree sphere. I want a stage like presentation where I can kind of point at singers and instruments by their various locations on stage (like my now long gone Pro Ac tower speakers). Maybe that is impossible using headphones, though some of my wired/amped/Dac sourced headphones come closer to that goal, vs. any of my BT headphones. Not surprising. In the end, it seem like spatial audio is a gimmick, hopefully we can turn it off on Apple Music.
I listened to Sony’s 360 yesterday on Tidal. Now that was impressive. What i also like is Binaural audio for headphones such as on the latest Jean Michel Jarre albums. But Spatial Audio on Apple Music hasn’t been able to fascinate me (yet).
a lot is riding on how well apple promotes their spatial audio format which doesn't have to be a standard or gimmick to try and replace stereo and the listener presently hears it but to help enhance the perception of various of the recording after when they were finally released. also it might be difficult for apple to figure out a way to put their digital music before the airpod max or a future audio headphones which they probably can,t do at this point that no bluetooth can,t convey unless they find a way to develope a new dac codac for apple music without financially $hooting themselves in the foot and becoming the laughing stock in the music industry and lose lots of money in the process which is a daunting ta$k to accomplish. time and evolution will eventually tell. excellent review jase!
Binaural has more of a future than spatial. The problem with spacial is that the number of speakers will always go higher, after all speaker manufacturers want to sell you more speakers. This means that spacial in headphones will always be a gimmick, and with speakers it will always be dependent on the quality of your home theater - something which most people don't have. For headphones, binaural would be preferable, and for speakers stereo. For home theaters and theaters I can see ATMOS gaining the upper hand, but that's only if the music is correctly mastered and recorded. But for headphones? I mean, you'd need to virtualize the audio. Basically put a virtual binaural head in a virtual theater and play the music through that. I mean, it might work... but games have been trying to do that for decades without any real success.
If Dolby could get car companies to sign on to Atmos by putting a few speakers in the headliner I think it would increase market share and you add drive inn theaters in to the mix it would help the nearly dead drive inn theaters a small boost.
on my old philips amplifier from the 90s it had an spatial button. back then i always turned it off, i didnt liked it then and i think this counts today aswell.
Honestly imho >Dolby True HD on 2.1 so 2 stereo speakers and a sub sounds best for me in this time for music. but for making music this is another story, we have to go maybe to passive speakers.
How come you didn't mention Homepods? I use to be big fan of loseless. Then I tried spatial audio on Homepods and it was so good that I couldn't listen to stereo anymore (even lossless). Then I tried Airpods Pro and it was so pathetic that I went and bought Airpods Max. And it was also a disappointment, with Airpods Max I'm not even sure if i like spatial more than stereo
does spatial audio works with other headphones rather than airpods?
All headphones
@@newfontherock thanks!
I see it becoming a big thing because of both cars and headphones, which for me is like 95% of my listening time (outside the studio). I would imagine mixes would be made with this in mind, and less with the idea of someone listening in a home theatre setup because thats pretty niche
Spatial Audio is great for movies, especially with headphones. I think your poll was flawed in that movies need it, music doesn’t (or didnt), but there is no distinction in your poll. Personally i don’t think the audio is mixed in Atmos, its been processed through Atmos after its been mixed. Have a listen to true surround mixed music and it sounds way more convincing.
Great video. Interesting and for once I agree with your assessments.
Computer hardware manufacturers are blocking Hi-Res Lossless Audio. Android stops it on the chip unless you do something significant. Apple has removed the jack that would allow you to hear it. You now have to do some jiggery-pokery just to get the lossless audio out. The hardware manufacturers have stopped Lossless Audio from being a thing. LG had stepped in and made it something they would support. Unfortunately, no one bought their phones. Samsung and Apple reign supreme.
They want us to go the Bluetooth route and wait until Bluetooth gives us what we want.
They know if we spent time listening to lossless we wood listen to Bluetooth and be very disappointed. We might throw the buds away.
Sony came with LDAC but this is still not Cd quality and CD quality is not lossless.
Lossless is something else and with a good source, amp and speakers the experience can be game-changing - or so I am told.
I don't have enough resources to get all the equipment needed to make the most of lossless audio.
Spatial Audio is a Gimmick. It is the shiny thing we should look at while they fail to give us lossless audio.
It is interesting but music is NOT recorded that way and the artists are not trying to provide us with a technical experience - they want to give us a 2 channel wall of sound.
Even if they did want to - most of the listening public is NOT listening that way. Americans are but the rest of the world is not. In fact, the rest of the world makes do with a much-degraded quality of music and is fine. Pop artists are happy to have their tracks pumped out with mediocre quality.
We shall see what happens next. The gauntlet has been thrown down.
Will some people move to apple because of spatial audio?
Will Google decide to stop cripling audio on 8the chip - hell, will they require a DAC amp which other OEMs will have to provide to give them security and peace of mind.
Maybe a little clarity here…I think you may be confusing Lossless with Hi-Res (like the master version). CD quality 16/44 in ALAC, WAV, or FLAC is indeed lossless as in “CD Quality Lossless”. And if you plug in a good set of headphones with the Apple DAC dongle, you even get “hi-res” 24/48 playback and I guess you’d be right saying playing 24/96 or higher is not technically lossless at that point, and yes that’s a bummer, but honestly on an unbalanced connection the differences between 24/48 and higher are harder to discern.
You Make good points I just realized Qualcomm removed aptx HD and only have aptx now? Let's be real most people won't notice the difference but with spatial audio its a drastic f****** difference. Artists need to realize most people have not been listening to what they intended in the studio for years now so they might as well modernize and catch up to the rest of society. Lol
I've been listening to surround sound on my Windows computer for years upscaling the stereo and I prefer it. You don't need the artist to mix it special but if you're a purest and prefer to listen to " what the artist intended" then that's on you lolbut spatial audio is the future. I use as an example the Galaxy buds pro vs the Sennheiser mtw2s. The Galaxy buds are clearer cleaner and more enjoyable to listen to in my opinion especially when it comes to movies and again the movie and music does not have to be mixed in surround sound to hear a more immersive sound and better instrument seperation in the stereo mix.
Basically you're outdated,. It's been years since I preferred a more muddy bass with boomy vocals and hissing highs. It's literally like having two big ass old fashioned high-end speakers watching a movie compared to the avg scheap surround sound system. But I guess it's all preference.
But again talking about people in their basement studios havinf to mix their track special for spatial audio sounds f****** completely hypocritical when you then talk about lossless audio where most people won't hear the difference no matter how much money the artist spent in the studio. When the opposite is true when using Dolby Atmos or drivers built for spatial audio with stereo music including the most poorly mixed tracks no matter the bitrate lol.
I don’t think it’s a gimmick for music nor movies BUT I think it’s a gimmick when the equipment we hear it from has only 2 speakers. When we have 4+ speakers, the sound is being reproduced AROUND YOU on a PHYSICAL space.
Good video but one note - lossless audio doesn't mean all of the ones and zeroes are preserved. It's compressed but in a way we don't notice any loss sonically.
Yes, it does mean they are preserved by definition. Otherwise it's lossy or there is a bug.
When you talk about the Beatles getting wacky with stereo mixes in the early days, you do realize they were recording on a 4 track and ended up with reduction mixes, instruments and voices sharing tracks. So their options for panning was limited when they did the stereo mix, right?
Yes, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that stereo wasn’t treated as the “mix that mattered”.
@@thejasontlewis Bur it eventually became that so how can you say spatial audio won't be the standard for studio mixing in the future. I don't think artists realize how most of us have been upscaling their stereo mixes to surround sound for years anyway nobody is listening to the s*** as they intended. Lol.
Would AI help with position audio?
Spatial audio on my higher end headphones are horrible. But when I use them for movies, they are amazing.
Parlor trick or not, 40 years ago Bob Carver created the C9 Sonic Holograph. It was (and still is) quite impressive considering it doesn't depend on any signal processing in the recording, and only used two front speakers.