Elliot Scheiner on Dolby Atmos
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 фев 2022
- Veteran producer and mix engineer Elliot Scheiner voices his disapproval of music being mixed in Dolby Atmos.
--
Watch the full episode: • Having a GAS with...El...
--
Listen to the podcast here:
Apple: apple.co/3bVTHsQ
Google: bit.ly/3qmmVJS
Spotify: spoti.fi/3BZOB9l
--
Having a GAS™ is the podcast that talks to the great and the good of the creative industries, and in particular finds out what makes great music for film, for TV, for advertising; for dancing to, for cooking to, f*cking to, and more...
--
GAS™ Music is a music production agency in Manchester, UK. We compose and produce original music, create awe inspiring sound design and have a fully integrated audio post-production studio. We also have a great record collection, and welcome any additions, recommendations or criticisms.
--
www.gasismusic.co.uk
--
© GAS™ Music 2021
#DolbyAtmos #Podcast #MusicProduction 
Видеоклипы
Watch the full episode here: ruclips.net/video/9KUy6FYwHPk/видео.html
Listen to the podcast here: Apple: apple.co/3bVTHsQ Google: bit.ly/3qmmVJS Spotify: spoti.fi/3BZOB9l
thank you
kind of ironic that an interview about sound should have such terrible sound quality...
@32discodave yes but not as much as amazon
I'd like to hear Elliot rant about the Melodyne and the deliberate compression pumping ...lol. I used to mix for George Clooney's Dad, Nick Clooney. He had a LIVE show....THAT would give you a few ulcers. Even though I got the "only a 3" speaker" at lot I strived for a recording studio sound. From 48 years ago; ruclips.net/video/oKwvKdFwspY/видео.html
If someone touched my mix after I approved of it, I would flip. Labels are crazy!
I was lucky to work with Elliot many times in the nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties. He was the finest engineer I ever knew. I agree with with his assessment on Atmos . . . Np
Same! I loved working with this guy!!!! Disagree with his assessment though.
If you remember the 60's you weren't in the sixties. I was in the 60's. I don't remember you.
@@fgoindarkg You weren't in the sixties.
He's right, it works for theatres but not for music. I'm a pro composer and I need to be creative for it to sound authentic and not just a gimmick. Yes, Rocket Man bla bla but at the end of the day, you walk out of that studio into the real world. Mr Scheiner is giving us the real world.
It doesn't work for music, because it's "all over the place" with atmos and 5.1 etc. Stereo mix is deep, wide,clear and "thight" at the same time. It has to have "un-reachable" component, "larger then life" feel, not a feel like your neighbour came to borrow some sugar, right in front of you :)))
Personally I'm not sure if it works that well for theatres, either. The problem is that your eyes are fixed in one direction (for the foreseeable future anyway, I think) and then you hear a sound from behind you and you turn to look and see the back of the hall. Which, eh... Is not very immersive, if you ask me.
And then there's the whole thing of changing the camera angle. You've got a certain sound coming from behind you. The camera angle changes and the sound source is logically elsewhere - and so it will be in the in the sound system. Again you have to ask if that's as immersive as they think.
It seems to work for something of an echo gimmick or an airplane flying over you but... that's it, right?
In music the harmony and balance tend get screwed up if the sounds don't blend correctly. And in the end, too much stuff will be too much stuff, the layering gets meaningless because we've got all of two ears.
Sorry to subject you to my vent.
You have to remember, today, the vast majority of music is listened to via headphones, or even a car. The concept of listening at home via stereo loudspeakers is long lost on millennials and Gen Z'ers. So Atmos can work. The problem lies with who is mixing for this, and the streaming services maintaining Seperate Atmos and legacy stereo mixes.
@@conchobar Legacy stereo mixes ... That's a good one. We didn't reach even 25% of "full potential" in a stereo mix as what is possible with today's technology and they are already going on more than 2 speakers. They've tried in 2000's it didn't work, it will fail again. Especially with "new generations". Even mono is too much for them. Stereo is 3 speakers already, left, right, and center, and all the space in between (360 deg radius - panning); you can make a mess with this thing already. Maybe for classical music, movies 100%.
Works great for music with the right equipment. Actual speakers behind you and upfiring drivers. It's amazing to listen to music hearing sound coming from the ceiling and all around you, I don't want to go back.
I dig this man’s honesty!
In this industry there are two types of consumers: those who listen to audio and those who listen to music. As an example, think of Beatles mono mixes versus stereo mixes. Theatre surround is for visual enhancement and ATMOS has its place
I worked on a movie where the producers didn't want me to mix the songs in stereo. They wanted the entire movie stems, including song parts be mixed in 5.1 and then downmixed to stereo as needed.
I had to do what was asked. Bollywood songs came up sounding like a new-age soundtrack. Did the stereo mix again after that.
Sound in movie is about collocation of sounds and pictures. You should not "mix songs", you should show what in (or outside of) the picture is a source of it. Isn't it so?
@@NataliaBazj I have no idea what you’re talking about. Elaborate.
@@NataliaBazj In Bollywood movies you have a few musical scenes. So there are "songs" in the movie, and the scene is the actors performing the song, so you'd want the music to come entirely from the front, with just reverberation and whatever ambient noise to come also from side and rear speakers.
The labels have run this scheme a half-dozen times over the years. Quadraphonic, 5.1, SACD -- now Atmos. They think they're going to re-mix these all in Atmos and re-sell customers their entire music catalogs. All a business gimmick to keep shareholders happy. And Elliot is right: way cheaper to pay some recording school grad a few thousand bucks to do some panning jiggery-pokery off a master reel, than to sink money into developing new talent.
You forgot 7.1 trend that started in 2010ish.. 😂
5.1 is enough for me for a home cinema theatre. I will never buy or set up a atmos 13.1.1 or whatever the number that is. Plain stupid.
@@rabarebra Yeah, they tried that briefly, too. The studios and manufacturers think they're real bright. But the cat is long out of the bag. The Walkman killed widespread hi-fi setups forever. Your average kid now has thousands of songs at the click of a button that they can feed directly into their ears anywhere in the world. That's true power, not being able to play music out of three more speakers.
"Re-sell?" You cannot buy an Atmos track. It's not a new UPC or ISRC either. There's zero additional dollars made from Atmos "sales." There may be renewed streaming revenue from those interested in the format but that'd be about it - for now.
For music, absolutely.
PC had sorta the same thing. Wavetracing used here and there, all over these fancy new Sound Blasters. Sound sources panning all over the place, 128 objects with up to 32 filters each on a simple MMX 400Mhz. Amazing.
I can type out or copy paste a whole esssay but long story short: up to a few objects using Dolby Atmos, _must_ be used over HDMI and HDMI only with some bigass reciever which fits nicely with the more compact sweet pc's being sold more and more, and they prefer to sell headphone Dolby for which you gotta pay Dolby 4× what licensing for a receiver is.
DTS is not much better, also HDMI required, also nothing in software allowed except heapdhone app in Windows Store only, and also no flexibility at all much like Atmos in placing the speakers, just a mess.
All sound engines defaulting their mix to 7.1.4 too for some reason. Here is to hoping MPEG-H 3D Audio is going to do better, transport over usb is actually allowed, implementations for decodding and encoding in software are here, but for some reason DTS and especially Dolby are keen to keep that shit out. Wonder why.
I actually did tear open a cheap soundcard and ripped out the input area of an EPQ304 and put in the usb soundcard. So I had 4 channels to play with, 2 front 2 rear and phantom centre (because you are always in the exact same spot and screen is in the way). Works like a charm. I think they could get at the market here but no such products. Also for pc I expect some flexibility with placement. No space for rear? Front stereo and front wide. Cant place overhead? Front stereo plus front height.
Another thing is music has a stage, and that stage has no real play with height, which is what Atmos is for. If you are watching Chevaliers du Ciel or Fury Road there is tons of height there, if you are in the middle of Metro: Exodus or Cyberpunk 2077 there is tons of use for height there.
I actually liked the 3 or 4 quadrophonic records I've heard. My friend's dad had a listening room with quad speakers. The mixes from the 70's were great.
Great to hear another wise guy take a good punch at this lunacy. Elliot is spot on. They don't know shit about music. Never did. This is just an attempt at regaining control over the industry. Hopefully it will flop. Real music lovers don't care about gimmicks. In fact, gimmicks detract from the music, not enhance it.
Ever so often "real music lovers" have the opportunity to attend a session in which they'll be sitting right amongst
an ensemble of musicians playing, or (say) in between a church organ and a choir. Dancing in a drum circle...
And they tend to love the immersive nature of it! I know I do.
It (literally) gives you an extra, even emotional dimension no other arrangement will.
How would you recreate that feeling if not for atmos? In my opinion that would be a totally legitimate purpose
for this technology. Not a "gimmick" at all, but the most true to life reproduction of that experience possible.
Admittedly I'm new to the whole idea, I never heard atmos in my life. I'd like to though. Any thoughts?
@@mourlyvold64 How can it be true to life? Nobody sits in the middle of an orchestra. Maybe one or two privileged people. Most sit in front of it. There is no such thing as a real life immersive musical experience. Our ears are fairly directional. There's a reason for them being pointed side and forward, so even if you were sitting in the middle of a performance, you would lose volume of some of the instruments behind you and you would hear those closest to you the loudest, which may not be what the writer of the piece had in mind. This immersive thing is an artificial creation. It doesn't really exist acoustically speaking. The location and array of a symphony orchestra (or even a rock band), are geared to be in front of the audience, not surrounding it.
@@piscesman54 "How can it be true to life?"
Exactly in the manner I described in the comment you reacted to,
rare as it may be...
@@mourlyvold64 You explained nothing. As I said, it doesn't exist in real life.
@@piscesman54 Not here to argue. Have a nice day.
Wow. So good to hear it from someone who’s been around and knows.
Just think, when it gets to a point where they can no longer come up with any more electronic music gimmicks, some guy is going to be laughed out of the industry for saying, “I know, why don’t we try live performances?”
Art isn’t dead. The audience is just numb.
Gianni❤
No, the audience is right... whether you like it or not. The audience is always right.
The audience is just DUMB?
@@Todd_Manusthere's a difference between being right and being pandered to for paying the bills.
The sooner you learn that, the sooner youll find out you've been eating crap.
Calling Atmos a gimmick is.... just wow.
@@dougaltolan3017 You worded that beautifully. I tried - then skipped it.
I agree with him on remixes of established stereo recordings, because the remixed versions usually try a little too hard to lean on the potential of Atmos. There is a lot of benefit to be had for precise placement of sounds in an Atmos context, both for binaural renders and the speaker-based equivalent. But you're also adding a lot more potential for problems. It's hard enough to get a 2-channel rig properly set up for listening, and when you add in the 9 additional speakers one needs to truly get movement/placement in Atmos' 3-D virtual space in the panner, that's even more potential for acoustic issues. And when we hear those tracks we're familiar with redone with all of these crazy pans, our brain inherently goes, "Yeah, something's wrong here."
But then you hear music mixed for Atmos out of the gate like Billie Eilish's catalogue, and there's a haunting quality that the regular 2-channel mix is just MISSING. Take the track Bury A Friend, for example. The track starts with Mekhi Raine's voice behind the listener. Then the main vocals come in dead center, but with 2 separate sets of backing vocals panned wide between mains/surrounds on either side. When you get to the refrain, she sings "Step on the glass" and you hear a glass breaking above and to your left, then "staple your tongue" and you hear a stapler above and to the right, then "bury a friend" and you hear the sound of a shovel behind and to the left. When she's singing "I wanna end me", a sound is panned left main to left surround and back through toward center and right through to right surround. There's a ton of carefully placed and subtle sound to appreciate in that mix when heard in a properly set up and calibrated Atmos layout, or even the binaural printout.
Do I think you need Atmos for all genres? Certainly not. Most of the punk rock or metal stuff doesn't benefit from it at all, and classic rock tends to get over-panned and gimmicky. But occasionally, you hear something like Steve Miller Band's Abracadabra that is additive to the mix in an interesting way, and you hear the potential of it. And that's the thing here: Atmos has great potential for many genres of music when done well. But as with all formats, a bad mix is ultimately just a bad mix, no matter how many speakers it's done for.
Love ya, ELS ... A lot of us are starting to speak out, and when Elliot speaks, people listen.
It will never become standard in music unless every bedroom producer out there can get a atmos setup for cheap. And even then people wouldnt bother, and I'm fine with that
we should worry about "bedroom producers"?
You could have framed it differently, the point is Who is going to fill their house with a dozen speakers just to listen to music when most listen to music on headphones. Immersive films I understand but then the sounds don't sound full it makes the film sound empty and it distracts from the movie in my experience. I would like Dolby Atmos in a car but what benefit is that really?
At 55, I've had the opportunity to experience virtually every surround sound format imaginable. But today If I have the choice, I always go for stereo (2.0) for music and Dolby Digital/dts (5.1) for movies. It's more than enough and always satisfying. When it comes to movies, my only recollection of a landmark audio innovation is when Jurassic Park was released in digital 5.1 (dts in this case). Dolby Atmos is really the last thing on my mind.
Wisdom. Love Elliot Scheiner. 👍🏻✨
Most people have never heard music on a high end system and are unaware of the amount of spatial information already there. and when you listen to Atmos, the reverse happens. It destroys a lot of that information for fake-spatial effects.
it be sounding good on apple music tho. 99% of Atmos music sounds at least just as good as the original
@@josha8715 what kind of system are you listening on?
@@xfloodcasual8124 I listen with my Sony Signature Series MDR-Z1R headphones and TA-ZH1ES amplifier + Ag Axios Headphone kable from Kimber Kable
Even though I'm an avid stereo music listener I also happen to run a Atmos setup as well. I've tried Atmos music on Tidal and on Apple. At frist Atmos music sounded kinda refreshing but an hour hadn't passed before I realised Atmos music is not for me. In fact as time went on it was actually starting to me a headache! At the time I thought I'd better leave my height speakers for the movies. One things for sure there's no long listening sessions with Atmos for me. Besides one can't beat stereo imaging from 2 channels...
ruclips.net/video/xvdqI5qZa6g/видео.html
@@josha8715I have the same setup with the Tazzy and ZR1, honestly I’m not a fan of Atmos for headphones. The soundstage feels narrow and constricted, like I listened to the Stones “Paint it Black” on Atmos which Apple features in their “made for Atmos” section and I lose all the great stereo panning effects like the banging drums in my left ear. It sounds less 3D to me, almost like when you take a mono song and try to crossfeed it to stereo, everything is just equal on both channels it doesn’t sound like true stereo. It feels like the same thing here, everything sounds like it’s coming from the middle and mushed together.
As someone who mixes Atmos music often (new david kushner stuff, kirk franklin, and others), i have to say this assessment is pretty accurate. however, it comes down to creating a certain environment. the reason why it works in theaters is because the physical environment is adequate. listening to physical spatial audio as opposed to “stereo downmixes” of the atmos version like he was mentioning with srgnt peppers, is actually quite amazing. its just not for mainstream consumption. having choirs and orchestration all around you absolutely enhances the music listening experience in a physical room, and it is up to the engineer to keep the integrity of the stereo mix without just “panning stuff around”
Good news is they no longer are making music rooms or engineers be certified. Thank you, Eliot. I think they heard you.
They are requiring on-site certficiation for TV/film work, which creates a potentially fuzzy line on this issue.
Thats admitting the whole idea is an effects box gimmick for anything other movie theaters
I think it's only to get back control of the music industry. Seems like another barrier to separate the industry giants from the independent labels. I hope it backfires on Apple though and people stop using there streaming platforms because their favorite independent artists aren't on there anymore. The listeners don't care about Dolby.
Nope as long as the bass is pumping and the singer can hold a note and it sounds good to my ear i dont care about Dolby although I would like to go to a fair where they have a dolby room then buy some candy floss and go home.
Bingo. That's what it's all about. It's just a power grab, or at least, an attempt at it. But like you say, hopefully it will backfire on them.
Recently I heard a recording from the 70’s with the entire drum kit panned hard right. It was incredibly easy to listen to. More is not always better.
try PET SOUNDS in MONO! It is amazing and Deep. When you liten in headphones you can hear depth and width. Go figure. Mixing well matters.
Boooooooring!
+ The kit reverb panned hard left.. *chefs kiss*
Check out the first Van Halen album
Lol, those hard-panned albums from the 60s sound like crap and are a nightmare to listen to with headphones. They were a total gimmick by people that didn't know how to effectively use stereo.
Hey, 3d audio expert here. I'm happy to see a video where the hype is demystified. I agree that Atmos is great for films, but ont necessarily for music. But I disagree that it 2:06 "I don't think it works for music". This is true for most of the mixes out the currently, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. I know people (Ammermann, Lindberg) that have been working in the field for more than a decade and know how it's done. But as Elliot says the approach to just taking stereo stems and upmixing them to Atmos isn't the way to go. Composing and producing in 3d audio is where the holy grail is. I wrote a very detailled article on my blog.
And please don't forget: immersive audio can do so much more than "music" - storytelling, VR, AR etc. and this is very it's not just a gimmick, but can overcome the boundaries of stereo. Cheers!
I believe some labels and distributors are rejecting engineers simply sending them upmixed Stereo turned into Atmos. I assume they're looking at the object count and binaural settings of the ADM file which does show if it's spatial remixing or simply stereo upmixing.
@@SamHocking interesting, do we have a source on that? I was told there is a QC lady sitting somewhere in New York, but Dolby has more interest in growing the catalog than rejecting mixes that are a matter of taste. But sure, technical flaws get rejected, which is something
@@MartinRieger Both were comments from Atmos engineers saying it. I believe it's more about a label ensuring they got what they paid for and the distributor maintaining standards and not simply alloing the stereo run through upmixing plugins.
@@SamHocking cool, thanks for letting me know that's a good sign!
"Composing and producing in 3d audio is where the holy grail is" ok but you won't be able to use any analog gears and it will sounds lifeless (and don't tell me plugins are equal to analog :D. So I don't see how you can skip to export stems for that reason but I could be wrong and will be happy to read your thought about that ;)
They come up with these new things to keep out up and coming artist, producers and mixers.
I mean most people listen to music on bluetooth speakers or airpods, often only one of them in. If we are mixing for consumers we should basically just go back to mono at this point. Not saying there is no market for immersive audio but that will always be a niche market imo.
@chetsenior7253 lol
Totally agree. I steer clear of remixes of any kind. If I love an old album, it's partly because of how it sounds. If it ain't broke etc. Record companies are pretty clueless at times. Just trying to cash-in on their catalogue again and again.
So do I but Steven Wilson Remixes of my favorite classic prog music is an exception. Not better but its an alternate perspective that is crafted with care and intent
Sadly for a lot of so called Atmos mixes I have heard, Elliot is spot on. Especially older recordings. My assumption was that the stereo, or even mono, was shoved though up-mixing software, just like happened in the early days of stereo & 5.1 (in TV at least). Sometimes the result is quite pleasant, sometimes it sounds like stereo, but it’s never the original mix you are listening to.
That said a well recorded Atmos mix done properly is wonderful, giving a feeling of actually being in the auditorium. Listen to Lost Voices of Hagia Sophia by Cappella Romana, or just about anything mixed by Steve Wilson
I suspected Dolby would probably require certification of the mix room, it was the same in the days of Dolby Digital & THX dubbing rooms. But certification of mix engineers is a step to far.
Surely the best option is for the person who mixed the album, to produce Atmos mix stems, take that to an Atmos dubbing suite where an Atmos qualified engineer can give it the once over & ensure the mix works in atmos, just like we used to do in ten days of vinyl when the cutting engineer would make sure the mix worked on vinyl, but of cause all under the supervision of the album’s producer who has the final say not the certified Atmos engineer or record company.
The reason modern music mix engineers struggle with this is because we think of locality in mixing as a feature of the phantom image. In surround sound, locality is literally based on which speakers a sound is coming from. It's hard to retrain your brain to think in this way. You can use phantom imaging to bring sounds off the wall but you cannot give them specific location with phantom imaging alone.
One practical example notated in stereo pairs of speakers.
Rhythm guitar:
All the same level
Front: Panned 55R
Height Front: Panned 55R
Sides: Panned 55R
Height Middle: Panned 55R
Rhythm Guitar Delay:
All the same level.
Front: Panned 100R
Height Front: Panned 100R
Sides: Panned 100R
Height Middle: Panned 100R
The result is a guitar that is clearly localized in the front right corner of the the room that is off the wall just a bit.
You'd think that pushing this format into EDM and electronic heavy pop music would be way to go, as the fresh out of college engineers are far more familiar with the music and since the soundscapes of the music were orignally engineered in the board rather than in a room, there is less to lose and more to gain.
theres nothing to be gained for any kind of music by using this format for any situation other than surround, and 5.1 was not broken before it
@@Teambr00klyn What?!?!?! The overwhelmingly majority of music today is listened to on surround sound systems (Car audio and Headphones). I primarily listen on a dedicated 2 channel hi-fi system, but not delusional enough to think people like me make up even 10% of music listeners. Atmos is designed to downmix to fewer speakers. Lets not forget Dolby moved on from 5.1 20 years ago with Dolby Digital EX, so whatever 5.1 recording you think you are listening to is really just downmix. While remixing classics and downmixing to stereo is utterly stupid, EDM is actually limited by legacy acoustic sound staging for stereo, that simply isn't relevant to any part of the creative process, from the artist composing to the end user listening.
We already see artists like Billie Eilish mixing her songs specifically to benefit headphone wearers. The problem lies with the industry and even Dolby recommending home theater style monitoring setups to mix music that will be primarily listened to in cars and headphones.
@@conchobar sorry bud, this is audiophile speak. I'm a mastering engineer. you seem to be sufferring from reading bs marketing. no one needs special 'sound staging' from these money making enterprises. they use a spherical harmonic matrix (basically middle side technique across xyz) with a set of filters to provide occlusion. It's virtual air that can be quite useful to place you in a space of vr emitters to help position sounds but there is a quality trade off. Do we need to know exactly where billie eilish's guitar is? no not for the quality compromise taken. If she was in fortnite and i needed to know where she was so I could shoot her that might be a different use case.
I suspect that the money is to be had from people listening to The Beatles, not from people listening to EDM. The buying power is with the boomers.
Perfectly summarized. "Immersive (re)mixes" is a great business model for labels, which relies on the average listener's lack of understanding of audio.
Very well put.
I wanna to get an atmos soundbar for movies, but I'd still keep my stereo setup for music. Most music is recorded in stereo, so that's how I prefer to hear it.
its impossible for a soundbar to be atmos
The majority of music is mastered in stereo, however when listening to movies which are rendered in 5.1 (or better) the listening experience (soundtrack) can be quite something. But for long listening sessions IMO one cannot beat two-channel stereo music.
"Most music is recorded in stereo, so that's how I prefer to hear it."
If it were recorded in atmos, would that be how you prefer to hear it?
Probably boils down to who makes the mix. A guy like Steven Wilson makes these mixes as a labour of love.
And Steven Wilson learned to mix in 5.1 when Elliot mixed In Absentia
In addition, I'll say that a lot of the "atmos" mixes on Apple are artificially upmixed from 5.1 or 7.1 ...and then downmixed right back to stereo.
And one more thing, recent 4K releases of old movies are including atmos as the default audio, with theatrical mixes and longstanding 5.1 offerings being buried in the settings. The paradox is that while 4K has made studios care about film restoration done right, these atmos tracks can be APPALLING at times.
Special derision goes to Heavy Metal. The animation retains its original gritty underground comix look without being smudged or punched-up, but the music is all remixed in a way where it somehow fits in the movie worse than the original '81 stereo mix, the voice acting sounds like it's in a booth instead of in the movie, and one of the songs (Stevie Nicks - Blue Lamp, plays in the background when Harry Canyon is at the NYPD station) is either completely missing or mixed so subtly way up in the ceiling speakers that it's less audible than the bass in Metallica's And Justice For All
Elliot Scheiner and Steven Wilson should talk. And we would listen.
I find this to be a very close minded take. YEs, there are lots of bad mixes, and many albums that don't work for Atmos at all, and the current push for Atmos with no regard for quality is a shame. But there are albums that work very well in Atmos, like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and Ambra's Prism of Life. When engineers learn how to mix in Atmos, and artists learn how to write music for Atmos, it unlocks a huge amount of potential for musical experiences people have never heard before.
Indeed.
This model all started with the licensing for Dolby B and it they have never wanted to stop the money train for licensing. Of course when the cassette deck business died so did that money train.
Precisely, atmos is about licensing deals, not what *sounds* best. It's not even a certification or minimum standard.
When the CD was introduced, record labels rushed to get content out, causing many artist to have to step in and force the labels to involve them in the remastering process (Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin).
When DVD Audio was introduced, labels rushed to get content out, causing recalls because they completely botched it, even using the wrong tracks (Eric Johnson).
Why am I not surprised that labels would do the same with Atmos.
They launched CDs without properly mixing them for CD. Later, they improved or made it worse, and resold people the same shit with other colors.
@@Rondo2ooo I don't know if I'd criticize the industry for "selling the same shit" as cassettes and vinyl would wear out and degrade, and are overall inferior. They did actively ruin the public's perception of "digital", a once banner of high tech quality, by engaging in what has come to be known as the "loudness wars". I find it difficult to listen to an entire album produced after 2006 because of ear fatigue.
@TruthAndMoreTruth I understand your point. Maybe I have a less positive take on labels, but I can say that my old vinyls (which didn't wear out really), still sound better than some of early CD releases. Back then, I thought exactly like you describe but the issue was rather a bad record player. CDs gave in immediate improvement, even (edit: on players) in its cheapest version. Now, with decent equipment and decades of following up remix/remaster versions (even on vinyl!), I changed my opinion to what I mentioned initially. Take care
exactly, great points made here
Agreed, perfect assessment, thanks Elliot.
Totally agree with your view on DA for music.I always listen to music n 2.1 or 2.0 stereo
Thank you for sharing -- point well taken...
I've not heard Sgt. Peppers in Atmos but I have heard Giles Martin's 2017 remix which is superb. TBH, Geoff Emerick's 1967 stereo mix was done in rush, done on a budget and sounds harsh and thrown together. If you've only ever hear the 2017 remix, you really not missing out on anything. Atmos version - who knows?
Stereo was fancy and new to them back then, and they did nasty sounding things like panning whole instruments and entire drums hard left and right because it was louder. Mixing techniques for stereo were in their infancy.
@@georgerosebush9754 I absolutely agree, and so is mixing in Atmos. I've heard very bad ones but also very nice ones. Nobody forces you to listen to Atmos. There's an option to bypass spatial audio in Apple Music - turn it off, and you will hear the standard stereo mix, notably not the stereo down-mix!!
Legend is, Geoff Emerick only did the Mono mixes, and stereos were done by the assistants afterwards.
fully agree. i have front height speakers in my living room ceiling and i have not heard a music mix that i liked in atmos at all, yet. i can say otherwise for 5.1 mixes though - bt's this binary universe and even the quadraphonic live by suzanne ciani are both great (the latter is cool because you can decode it with dolby surround on a modern receiver)
Most music today don't have enough music in their songs for atmos anyway. Maybe classical or other orchestra type music will work
wrong.
Preparing a room for Atmoz, costs more than the gear that makes the music. I friend of mine told me, that his studio was build for Atmoz, says enough? The room had lines on the ground, walls, sealing. As reference. They called him crazy, but he was far beyond than the other studios.
I like him. He speaks so interesting and I am hooked about this now.
You have to respect when legends speak.
damned right
I fully agree with Elliot. Movie experience is one thing. Listening to Music is another.
What a legend 🙌
I like 5.1 and will produce this kind of music. I believe 24b/96k is the best stop off point.
im preferable of 88.2 because it renders down to 44.1 better than 96. i get that 99.9999999% of people won't know the difference but as an engineer i rest easier knowing the math isn't gonna break anything.
Atta Boy Elliott ! (Great to see you)
At the end of the day atmos is just a format created to sell consumers products. It’s not based out of demand or necessity.
I’ve been dealing with surroundsound for over 15 years and Atmos now for almost 5. I watched this interview when it came out, and I was dumbfounded. So hard to see one of my early sound heroes so disconnected from actual reality and understanding of immersive audio and how it relates to and IS how we perceive sound in real life. It’s actually how we hear in real life (ITD, ILD). Binaural engines are finally starting to actually sound good...and keep getting better even a couple times each month (per Dolby) as the algorithms keep getting better and better. . Eventually (because of the very fast development of game engines) we’ll be mixing the lower hemisphere of sound as well for full life-like experiences as/when needed. Till then, at least it’s all headed in the right direction.
I still don’t understand how Elliott could be so myopic about this. Many of his comments are so off base. Immersive and spatial audio does not belong to a company. It literally is how we experience life aurally. Atmos (which I use and mix in) is not immersive Audio in and of itself. Atmos is simply a delivery playback container that allows for automatic/proper crash down to whatever speaker configuration/system is being used for playback including headphones at which point it switches to binaural representation of the full immersive mix.
If Dolby went out of business tomorrow, immersive audio would continue. Immersive simply allows us to create audio mixes that go beyond the horizontal plane. Last time I checked humans appreciate being able to hear sound spherically. Check out the album from Peter Gabriel in Atmos (called i/o), also Quest For Fire by Skrillex. Two fantastic examples of what happens when people understand how to mix music in an amazingly artistic way that puts the listener inside the experience rather than just having sound pushed at them with traditional stereo or surround. It’s incredible on a full Atmos speakers based system, but it is also absolutely fantastic in just earbuds or headphones in binaural.
For the record, I’ve been dealing with making music and sound for 3D/4D film for almost 15 years and I have never been a fan of surroundsound because of how limiting it is . When something flies over your head it should actually sound like it’s flying over your head..
Immersive audio for cinema was such a game changer and audiences are impacted by it, but don’t realize it because it matches how we hear in nature so well, that we don’t even think about it. If they were to unplug the top speakers in the middle of a gentle immersive audio rainforest scene or a high impact action scene, both would be noticed dramatically.
If Elliott spent 15 minutes in my studio listening to some music mixed in Atmos, he would undoubtedly modify his statements, and I would be the first to give him full license to do so. Reality is after the first song that I would specifically choose for him to listen to we would be on the same page.
Maybe those guys at the record companies should hire someone whose good at remixing recordings für dolby 5.1 to atmos. go and ask Steven Wilson, he did this für king crimson and some other recordings as well as his own and it sounds great! but he's always starting by taking the original studio recordings and getting the sound as near to the original sound as possibel before messing around with all those possibilities of which direction which sound should come from...
Dolby has achieved something unique: Binaural hrtf headphone content. Yep it can sound better (than non-binaural stereo) and lots of people listen on headphones so it probably will succeed in this area.
They are going to give a student in college a James Taylor record? Most Atmos mixes they are doing have very little panning or "weird factor" Mostly (90%) are super tame and just wider versions of the originals. I love the format, and is amazing if its done well (and you can listen in a good environment) Sure there are many problems with the delivery, but in my opinion to bash the format itself is not helpful, it is not stereo, it is ATMOS and I dont care what Elliot says, music sounds insane when done well and heard on a good atmos system
Buy the record, buy the cassette, buy the CD, buy the remastered CD, buy the remastered record, buy the CD with extra tracks, buy the MP3, buy the lossless, buy streaming, buy atmos... it will never end.
All the while newer artists don't get a chance for even one album, so they gotta go indie.
..., buy the connection on which to share this comment.
You have a choice...
Engineers are not going to invest in $10,000-50,000 worth of gear to do 'immersive' audio remixes as free bonus tracks (Something that record companies are now demanding)...consumers are not going to buy the decoding claptrap etc.. needed to hear it either. Great for keeping the cinema industry going though.
You are 100% correct they started seeding music studios here in Nashville subsidizing the costs of the build so they could use that as a “hey look at what so & so is doing”, none of those mixes are using any analog stereo gear. Everything is in the box., you have to build a second room to do your atmos mix….. the people who have tried to integrate analog into their Atmos mixes like Vance Powell-it’s a train wreck…. And finally no end-user is going to make an investment in 16, 20 or 26 speakers….. essentially it’s the Ultra Wide button from your old 80s boom box on the beach
That's literally all it is, hey we took 5.1/7.1 and added more speakers, and it's so much better!!
This is such a good interview: and all the gimmickry going on: whoa good for Elliot Schreiner!
3 acoustic panels in the background? yeah this guy definitely knows what he's talking about.
I have noticed that movies mastered with atmos sound both dead and abrasive even on an excellent stereo 2 channel system.
films with high fidelity stereo master audio generally sounds very impressive on a good stereo.
Are you being serious about the “3 acoustic panels” thing?
@@JordonBeal it strikes me as funny, but I'm not kidding about it. It shows that he obviously cares about making music and about the listening experience. If I can trust anyone's scathing review of an audio codex, I can trust the guy with 3 acoustic panels on his wall.
@@naneek2 oh man, I’m sorry. I interpreted that in the wrong way. I thought someone was saying “psh, he only has three small panels on his wall, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
My bad, and 100% agree!
I agree with Mr. Scheiner...it's almost like when they re-mixed stuff for SQ, QS and CD-$ Quad, the whole punch and feel were lost somewhere. The Dolby people didn't like it when I pointed out their warnings about changing anything about a dolbyized track; no compression, frequency disparities, distortion, etc. but then introduced compression to the dolbyized L-R channel for TV stereo. It's actually "half Dolby" so the guy says since it's half Dolby it's only half wrong...Lol.
His assessment makes perfect sense
The two big reasosn Atmos doesn't work as well for music as movies are (1) because most people (for better or for worse) experience music passively, such as while driving or working (2) movies are a more complicated/expensive project with budgets to match. The more nimble creative nature of music gets erroded when complexity is added.
Having said that, I take issue that there isn't a lot of music that can't sound better in an immersive format, it's just harder to do. Stop worrying about panning objects and just treat it like an environment space you want to recreate with higher acuracy.
I used to work in a hifi/a/v store. As much as I liked surround on movies, I was never convinced on music. It was OK (but not really an improvement) if it was used to just add ambience at the back, but as soon as instruments started flying around the room the intent of the music was lost. I'm not a luddite who thinks we should go back to mono, but I just think we shouldn't ruin things that were made in one technology by trying to make them fit another.
couldn't agree more!
Listening to music and watching a movie is totally different !
I have an atmos setup for music listening. When recreating the 3D space of a live performance (classical, jazz, etc), it can be exceptional. EDM or ambient can be very good when created with this format in mind. Most other studio content sounds disturbingly wrong.
I'm just a music listener, but you summed it up perfectly.
This is where DG / Decca, Naxos and Brilliant Classics shine! They know that classical music CD (yes, Audio CD, not vinyl) has to simply yet efficiently replicate a symphony on stage -- stage in front where all musicians would be assembled. Idiots who want Atmos and such other surround formats for music don't know that in real life, you wouldn't find the entire string section in one end of the stage and clarinets flying about and cymbals clinging from roof.
Riders on the storm with the rain above you was pretty awesome though in Atmos
Hearing a stereo down mix from atmos, which it’s self was made from an original stereo source is downright scandalous! Tim Cook needs to take note of this error asap.
Spot on. As the real industry talent has gone down; the gimmicks have gone up to try and make up for it. My single biggest pet peeve is AutoTune.
i think he’s got a very valid point on panning, specifically in reference to acoustic music/microphone captured music. In the field of electronic music, atmos is somewhat exciting as the majority of mix innovations over the last few years have been illusions which could be more realistically represented with an atmos system. that isn’t to say that it’s insufficient for the reason alone that no one can afford an atmos system, and the binaural unfolding algorithm in spatial headphones is still not accurate and likely never will be until you consider multiple drivers in an open-ear system.
I think as this dies down over the next decade, we’ll see a slow return to atmos mixes that sound stereo, with most of the surround activity being convolution reverbs etc. think natural sound staging in reference to concerts…
A Bud of mine just recently set up a surround sound for music. A couple of the discs were cool, but on many of them some sounds that you know are there just disappear entirely.
It works well in classical recordings. Creating the illusion of being the conductor and hearing it like that. Its a curiosity. Ultimately, we hear in stereo human definition. Thats it.
conductor listen instruments from front, left, and right which is a stereo
Dolby wants to monopolize surround sound to continue receiving licensing income now that patents have expired on their previous codecs or they have been replaced. They should remix Thomas Dolby's "Flat Earth" to add height speakers and make it round gain. Surround usually allows to experience more dynamic range when the stereo mix has been intentionally crushed by the loudness war.
Yep. I've explained a long time ago why Atmos is not for music and why it's never going to catch on no matter how badly Dolby wants to make it happen. There will be experimental albums here and there just like there were with Quad and 5.1 and so on, but the general public isn't going to care about music in anything more than two channels, because that's how music is performed in person: directly in front of us. Because that's where we best HEAR things: directly in front of us.
A bad song is still a bad song in Atmos. But what that really means is, not everyone likes all genres or all artists. I hate EDM, my son loves it. Someone isn't going to like something just because it is "immersive".
I always say, remember quad. And since when have the record companies ever gotten anything right, ever? They see music as gimmick for selling something.
the problem is that atmos (unlike quad), is almost enforced to be used by sound engineers...that is the old man said.
Spot on! I have had a simular experience with Atmos. Not sure it's going to thrive.
So many go for whatever is new or well advertised.
I've only ever heard one good spacial mix (and only good on certain hardware so it's not "good" but it's "good for that hardware config") and it was Paramore's "This Is Why". Not the whole album, just the titular single.
Best part about it was that it sounded like I was sat there in the studio. Didn't have things flying around in an unnatural way.
Yo...this message needs to be put out there😊..pass it around 😊
Thanks Doc, with your help more people get to see this
Clear as water
I was able to listen to some very exclusive Atmos mixes of stuff like Elton John, Kanye, etc...the absolute top of the top stuff at one of the premier Atmos rooms in LA. Came away entirely unimpressed.
I have a question about using Dolby Atmos as a tool to look into a proof of concept for object oriented live music delivery in large live venues.
The problem we are addressing is where the venue needs multiple speakers to provide the required SPL, detail can be lost. For example, many musicians report that, when playing large venues, they have to simplify some of their parts because the more complex elements of the music get lost in these performances.
The assumption we are making is that the brain has difficulty in processing the multiple path lengths of the audio from the line arrays.
The brain can handle multiple path lengths, and does so every time we are in a room. The assumption that we want to test is that the brain of the average audience member is not familiar with the multiple path lengths from a line array and has difficulty processing this information. This produces the result that clarity is lost on the audience.
The solution would be to have single speakers for each performer. Then have multiple speakers in the venue, preferably at the walls of the venue where the audio for each performer is delayed by the path length from each performer to each loudspeaker. d&b audiotechnik have already been doing something similar to this for several years for theatre productions.
We want to test our assumption. It is possible that this problem is due to different issues such as bad acoustics, for example. So rather than write our own code to test this, it would be good to use something like Dolby Atmos or Ambisonics to provide the calculations for delay for each object (performer) to each speaker. We would not need to use the ceiling speakers for this just the side and back speakers.
The question is: can Dolby Atmos provide a condition where we can align the delays from each object to produce a coherent waveform from each loudspeaker in a live venue?
Given that cinema theatres have different dimensions, does Dolby Atmos provide a way of dealing with these delay calculations? Or would we need to place our speakers in specified location? Which would not be a problem for us, we would just stick to the specified placements of the speakers.
The main argument against using distributed speakers is that the many speakers will interfere with each other. It is possible that d&b audiotechnik has already proven this to be wrong, but it would be good to prove this ourselves for the case of live music with our loudspeakers, which have been designed with this issue in mind.
The other questions we need to answer are, does the audience or performers care about being able to solve this problem? It’s better to find the answers to these questions by using someone else’s software rather than writing our own.
And kind of the same happens with independent films. Not EVERY single film REQUIRES to be experienced in ATMOS infrastructure. Maybe blockbusters do but not us, a whole bunch of artists creating sound for art/indie films.
I love this take, but I have to wonder if ambient music / soundbath-type compositions would work nicely in Atmos. I have never experienced it, and the cost is too high, but I bet that specific genre would be transcendent
Yes, for certain types of music, i.e. electronica or ambient I will mellow my hard line "no Atmos for music!" stance. If the music was created with Atmos in mind it could be an enjoyable experience.
@@Darrylizer1 good point! that would be from the composer's POV~
@@Darrylizer1Brian Eno's FOREVERANDEVERNOMORE was made with Atmos. I would love to hear that on a theatre sound system. It sounds amazing as it is in stereo.
@@bcj842 Interesting, that's what I'm talking about. Other people have told me that acoustic music such as classical or jazz can benefit from Atmos as well. I suppose it's largely about the spacial cues?
I agree with Elliot, the greatest music of all time was recorded in either mono or stereo, stop trying to reinvent the wheel, great music should be enjoyed in stereo period
For music nothing will (probably) ever beat a great stereo mix and setup.
You can take the probably out of it. Even though Atmos works for movies it certainly doesn't work for music. Two channels is where it's at.
I’ve been expressing this for a while now…that goes for everything you download it’s not going to be in the original material state at which it was created
dolby has been desperately gripping onto the industry since we stopped using tape lol
💯 he's completely right
Dio’s HOLY DIVER ~ PROCESSED USING NPDT PROCESS ~ now available for purchase
Yes, ATMOS is for movies, not music. Apple is crazy for requiring all new Apple Music music to be mixed in ATMOS.
I write songs and I work in Apple Logic Pro. Atmos was added as a feature to the DAW. I won’t touch it. Mixing in stereo is delicate and precise enough without additional complexity.
I also DESPISE the remastered versions of many records. All nuance and subtlety are smashed. A lifeless, withered, bloated corpse is all that remains.
Dont worry, soon the AI will be auto mixing all of the audio panning. They will get what they want, even if its not comfortable or peaceful to listen to.
While i agree with the atmos argument, I've had a blast with Steven wilson remixes of Yes catalog. Holy crap such a work of love. But then, that's Wilson.
It is really "impressive" how companies do not think from the consumer's perspective. Only revenue driven, short-sighted, "doesn't matter if we sell music or a pair of socks" thinking.
Ah man, I love crazy panning, dissapointed when I finish a surround album and the ability to spin around the room wasn't taken advantage of!
Best Surround Album I own is Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral on SACD.
Atmos I have to pirate to use, but I'm into it! Thanks pirates!
SACD was never going to take off if Pink Floyd couldn't sell everyone on it.
Lots of comments here saying "I agree with Elliot. Surround sound is a gimmick!" Which is not at all what he's saying.
I have Atmos in my HT room. It is a small room no bigger than 10x15. Have a 5.1.2 system and Atmos Music sounds fantastic, way more involving than stereo. Of course, some mixes suck. But when done right….wow. Elliot does know that stereo started in the movies too, right?
And what is the end user gonna listen to it on? Apple headphones? PLUHEEEZE. It sounds like shit. Phasey and incoherent. most of the music atmos upmixed mixes i've heard dont sound as good as stereo. And most end users (The reason we do this for) agree. No one gives a shit about Atmos for music, It's a film/TV based thing, which it works incredibly well for, but will go the way of the dodo for music. You'll see it die on the music side in the next 18 months.
What a strawman...
Mixing houses are doing Atmos in 7.1.4 or 9.1.6, your tired little front overheads don't do the original mix justice, for one. And second, this isn't a conversation solely about the enjoyment of a more spatial mix.
@@R0bstar-YT ha ha ha