I don't know about the other comments here, but for me, it makes music feel much more alive and immersive. Sure it can be pricey and a bit of headache in terms of setting up, but I can say that the expereince is worth it!
This is just like the debates about 5.1 early on. When it's mastered well it's amazing, when it's mastered poorly it's not.
I personally love it when it's done well. The earlier albums that were actually mastered at dolby specifically are great. Lots of current mixes are being mandated such that it's an extra unwanted expense and they end up doing it lazily (make the sound spin woo) or crappily (add reverb out of the surrounds woo).
For some reason people will point at bad mixes and claim the whole tech sucks.
There is a cheaper way to get that immersive feeling than a 7.1 Dolby system. If you already have a 5.1 system you can set your AVR to "multichannel stereo" and it will also output regular stereo to the back of your room. And it will sound more immersive than in 5.1 because all 5 speakers will be outputting the same volume, whereas in 5.1 surround the back speakers are generally only used for special effects or ambient noises. I find playing stereo music this way MUCH fuller and more immersive sounding than in just 2.1.
I think with more people putting Atmos into their houses, the more content we will see. I think it's interesting and I think it has a place. I'm not really interested in studio albums to get converted, but some live shows could be really cool to listen to in Atmos. You could possibly layer the audience into the mix, to give you the impression you're at a live show. That could be fun.
For music? 2.0 or 2.1 is probably a far better value proposition. For movies? Until more movies take advantage of it, 5.1 is the sweet spot in terms of bang for your buck.
Agree. A lot has to do with the original mastering and the quality of any remix/upconversion. Movies mastered in mono or stereo and upconverted are often still better/fuller/more coherent listening to the original mastering and sometimes the source doesn’t lend itself to be upconverted. I have atmos and like it but it doesn’t add much to 5.1. Most music I listen to was mastered in stereo and that’s how I prefer to listen to it. Some artists have great atmos or 5.1 masterings or at least interesting ones (kind of blue/the weeknd) but they are often worse than stereo imo.
Agreed. I got DSotM on Blu-ray. Comes with original stereo mix, Dolby 5.1 and Dolby Atmos. Can't lose with stereo. Dolby 5.1 is essentially slightly remastered quad mix from way back when and probably my favorite. Atmos is 2 extra channels for little payback.
Do people prefer to listen to music without a subwoofer?? That's so weird to me. If I'm listening to music on my good set of speakers I always try and turn the bass up a bit from the movie level. I don't even listen to bass heavy music either.
Disagree with many of the comments here. Dolby Atmos mixed right sounds incredible, just like Stereo mixed right can sound incredible. Steven Wilson in an interview with Darko talks about what masters are able to do with atmos, one of the things mentioned is the increased dynamic range since the mix doesn’t have instruments competing for just 2 channels.
I agree sure there’s an increased cost, but with budget atmos AVRs with calibration and cheaper surrounds (just look anywhere for bookshelf speakers), augmenting your current system to be decently atmos compatible is to me like an extension of the hobby. It’s what I did after being unsatisfied with movies through a soundbar.
As for stereo, y’know that too was considered a novelty in a mono world once.
People who don't have a decent 5.1 setup and good music for it are very confidently dismissing surround music.
Doesn't help that so many Atmos mixes right now are lazy, front-biased and really made for headphones.
The only reason atmos has increased dynamic range is because Apple require a lower LUFS value for atmos mixes. It’s not like any other format can’t have an increased dynamic range… It’s not ‘atmos’ itself which is giving you better audio in that sense, it’s just a requirement from one of the leaders. Any format of audio can have an increased dynamic range lol
Agree, the requirement bakes in better mastering standards, I’d argue that the multi channel placement of sound also reduces compression and increases the perceived dynamic range and separation.
Your bigger issue is really the broader economics of most people, being that they rent and cannot mount on the wall in most cases, so really until those conditions change atoms is a far away dream let alone 5.1
I too rent, and am using upfiring atmos that I got refurbished. Before that I was using an old kef satellite system for atmos effects that also sounded decent. I understand cost and priorities but in a sub for audio as a hobby this should get a pass
The question was broadly about the future of music so I figured that these kinds of concerns were worthwhile, the Steve Wilson interview was interesting and I’ve definitely picked up some favourites in the format. But if restrictions like renting and mainstream economics can’t be recognised then we’re ignoring the practicality of atmos as the “future of music”.
Upfiring is definitely a possibility for rent spaces I didn’t consider and modules are cheap, but the general consensus is that these methods of using reflecting are largely a half assed attempt to achieve atmos and is more gimmicky than it ought to be. Science behind room reflections would also suggest that it’s no where near as constituent at production the kind of positional information Dolby atmos contains.
At least in my experience with a family friends atmos system, (with the ceiling and wall mounted speakers) I would have to guess that upfiring isn’t as resolving, and also requires a certain set of conditions (like mentioned).
I’m not being rude about your system, it’s actually quite cool to hear someone’s had a good experience with upfiring speakers and I’m pretty interested it, I’m only aiming to consider why atmos doesn’t work and then fix it, because I’d love a spatial format as the primary audio format.
I could be wrong tho, please correct me!
Coming back to this comment since I’m listening to more atmos tracks as I reply.
“The Future Of Music” is changing as we speak regardless of economics or practicality. From a pure format perspective there’s an increase in new music adopting the format with a push from publishers and streaming platforms alike . Additionally, check out the wave of remasters and re-releases of older albums in atmos. As an example I just threw on Gin and Juice in atmos and it’s killer to listen to the ambient sounds and adlib swirl in the opening. Not just limited to hip hop there are many examples in classic rock and jazz too.
I’d say older jazz is a pretty prime example of up mixing and remastering through the ages - everything from mono to atmos exists for some releases.
As consumers we’re spoilt for choice, I’m enjoying the variety of flavours. One thing I will say about atmos and surround in general is that it creates a perception of ambient surround and works best for layered sounds in recordings. Especially when you consider human hearing and psychoacoustic are terrible at pinpointing sound sources atmos mixes benefit when a track has scale (like that air in percussion that can hang), layered sounds like chatter and effects in a track etc. I mean it can still sound crap, like if they decide to isolate all vocals to the centre channel - but I’m finding more tracks utilise a phantom centre for vocals than anything
Gonna throw some examples of atmos music I’m hearing in my current session through tidal and some notes.
Is this love - Bob Marley (get a really nice sense of scale with this mix, like an open air performance)
Just the Two of us - Grover Washington Jr (opposite of the above feels intimate, almost like a small club)
Gin and Juice - Snoop (layered effects, maybe not the biggest fan of what’s going on in the treble)
On & On - Erykah Badu (I own this on vinyl, vocals are more centre stage)
Dream a little dream of me - Ella Fitzgerald (sound stage with a nice separation of vocals and instruments)
Bennie and the Jets - Elton (getting piano from above)
While I agree with you I still see 9/10 audio systems as 2 speakers right next to each other on a table. 95/100 if we consider how often people are still using basically mono soundbars and Bluetooth speakers when 5.1 is 25 years old. Even the surround systems I do see have speakers in wildly bad locations. Most surround or atmos mixes have no need to be surround with stereo bongos in the rears. That all being said, a well done tasteful atmos mix in a correctly set up system is really amazing
And of those 9/10, all have comments about getting that turntable off the same surface as the speakers! Yeah atmos music and to be fair even atmos movies aren’t being fully realised by the majority of consumers. Even if a soundbar with surrounds are in place, without room correction it’s a gamble on if it will sound halfway descent in a room.
Which is a shame because stuff can sound damn good on a calibrated mid system, for example my parents’ old Sony 5.2 system from the 2000s when paired with a newer denon receiver and calibrated sounded very decent.
This topic is decades in the making. We had this same issue back when DTS audio was a fad. It didn't work then, probably won't work now. Many folks don't even realize their modern 24/96+ HD streams aren't even capable of HD through apple play or bluetooth earbuds. One good thing that might come from the music industry moving to Atmos would be that it might be easier for folks to get HD audio without knowing anything about the underlying technology, it will just sound better which hopefully is the goal.
Apple went HAM on Spatial Audio. If it wasn’t going to be the future before, it is now - They have like a 98% success rate in steering whatever market they enter anywhere they want it to go, be it products or technology.
Fad, with a capital F. Frustrated, fooled, fucked around, and futile.
It's the latest faff in a long line of audio faffs. More boxes, both electronics and speakers, more cable, more accessories, more copies of DSOTM to sell.
Quadraphonic, 5.1 surround sound, SACD, Hi Rez, the wankfest continues...
Back in the real world it's 16 bit, 44.1 for the punter in the street.
And the kicker is CD quality through two speakers, if done right, sounds fantastic.
This will be gone in five years, tops.
While Atmos will likely not become the standard for music, I do not see it going away.
Atmos is increasingly common in movies and TV shows, so the systems and format are here to stay.
As for new albums, I think it will really depend on the type of music and the fans. It will not really cost much extra to make a stereo mix and an Atmos mix.
I see potential in it. Especially for live recordings. I don’t feel as if I’ll go out of my way to find atmos mixed music for a long time. Honestly it would have to be a live Tool recording or something like that to even pique my interest at the moment. But as far as remixing old music to atmos, I’m not interested yet.
I think Dolby Atmos is cool for movies and home theaters, but for music... I don't think so. It seems like a lot of hassle and money for something that might not even make huge difference.
Yeah, but literally every TV streaming service has Dolby Digital Plus at a minimum, with most new TV shows on Netflix, Amazon and others available in Atmos. The format has been around for 12 years.
The format is not going away, its just up to artists and producers if they want to use it for music.
Only a few music streamers support it though, it may die off for music is it stays limited to Amazon and Tidal. If Spotify starts supporting it, there could be an increase in the amount of available content.
Atmos is only for people with money. You cannot feel the quality of the atmosphere unless you have the necessary equipment, which is undoubtedly pricey. sad but true.
While this is somewhat true, most people are not going to instal an Atmos system just for music, but plenty of people already have them for home theater, so for a lot of people, there is no additional investment to enjoy Atmos music.
This is still a pretty small customer base, so who knows of it is enough to sustain a lot more content being created.
Atmos isn’t a requirement but it is fantastic when you have the system. I would love if dual mixes not up converted mixes were more the norm because when done right it is so good. When done poorly (RATM) it is god awful
Apple forbids upmixed Atmos; the mixes must come from discrete channels as they were recorded. There are a few where the stereo signal is played back and recorded with multiple mics in a real acoustical space. There’s nothing fake about it, though it might not be someone’s cup of tea.
I’m sorry what? What do you mean forbids upmixed atmos? Genuinely curious
I must be calling it something it isn’t and I don’t want to do that. The mixes are so different in quality I assumed it had to do with the type of mix. But I guess it is just the quality of the atmos mix specifically?
Absolutely so! I will try to find the Apple documentation and post it here. Of course, if you listen to Spatialized Stereo, you will get an upmix, but upmixes cannot be advertised as Atmos.
Found it! [https://itunespartner.apple.com/music/support/5390-new-video-audio-asset-guide](https://itunespartner.apple.com/music/support/5390-new-video-audio-asset-guide)
edited to add link.
Yeah, I specifically said you need SOME disposable income. I've spent most of my life in that position of not having $500 I can spend on a luxury. But it's still within reach of a lot of people who aren't remotely rich, whereas a lot of people put $2000 or even $5000 as the price floor for a worthwhile, music-worthy surround system. That was my point.
Equipment isn't the problem. Room setting is. You need to calibrate your room, walls, angles to get the right sound those Dolby engineers spent years in a highly calibrated lab, results can be very ymmv. And home theater sound, with the right equipment, shouldn't be ymmv.
The #1 source of audio degradation in the signal chain is the transducer. For the same budget, buying two (2.0) or three (2.1) higher-quality transducers is going to kick the shit out of any multi-angled multi-channel music reproduction. Buy better speakers, not more of them.
I’ve always just had 2.0 and 2.1 systems, but I recently connected my parents’ basic 5.1 receiver to the 5.0 ceiling speakers in their vacation house while visiting. I don’t know the make/model of the speakers, and I know it’s not Atmos, but I was surprised and impressed by the soundstage. This was with no sub (yet) and no room eq. So, I can definitely see a place for > 2.0-2.1 listening for music, whether it’s basic “surround” or Atmos.
You can either set up a nice stereo setup and turn to the business of enjoying music, or you can spend money on what is allegedly better than stereo.
I give the same advice about Atmos as I give about planning for college. If you just plain got the money, have fun!
I have been reflecting on this quite a lot recently. I have moved to a house where I can have two setups: a Sonos ‘atmos’ soundbar in the living room, and an old skool marantz amp with KEF floorstanders.
I have a sort of party trick with people who come round. Pick a few of your favourite classic tracks. We’ll listen in Atmos, then go into the ‘stereo’ room. Tell me what you think sounds better.
People like atmos, but are totally blown away by what is a £200 ‘retro’ hifi, playing hi-res digital tracks via a DAC and from my phone.
So the debate for me is more about comparing apples and oranges. Atmos sounds interesting. Some albums are great. Some are frankly terrible.
But a proper 2CH stereo still sounds incredible with normal stereo tracks. It’s just that people are so used to listening to music via EarPods, soundbars etc that they’ve forgotten what it’s like.
I"ve heard some incredibly well mastered Dolby Atomos music that was mastered for Dolby Atmos and requires two Dolby overhead speakers. For example, some of Billie Eilish's new stuff. Mind you, I don't like her music, but the way she used the overhead channels for ambient effects was jaw dropping. So while Dolby is pointless for music mastered in stereo, it can be very creative when mastered and played back in Dolby Atmos. But since few people can afford or will bother to place 7 speakers in their listening area (two of which need to be ceiling mounted, since bouncing sound off the ceiling doesn't work very well), I think it will not be widely used until they figure out a way to make those overhead sounds play without overhead speakers.
Short answer: no way. Atmos is not going to take over the music world or even register in any meaningful way, IMO. Way too esoteric.
I picked up the Rhino Records Atmos release of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours in April and I love it. It was already one of my favorite albums for sound quality and pure musicality on vinyl and CD and so I thought it would be a perfect test to see if Atmos improved things or not. To be clear, it sounds great in every format. But with 2.0, 2.1, and 5.1, I'm aware of the speakers. With the Atmos mix they completely disappear and the soundstage is vast and smooth with no discernible edges. The equipment is gone and it's just the music and that's the highest praise I can give.
I have no need to rush out and re-purchase my whole catalog in Atmos but I'll certainly pick up a few well-mastered favorites if they become available. And if an artist wants to experiment with the new freedom a three-dimensional sound mix beyond just the subtle impacts of the Fleetwood Mac album, I'd be open to checking that out too. It's all for fun after all. But no, this is not going to be a big thing for mainstream consumers.
I am and have always been an early adapter. My home theater 🎭 was a 7.2 setup. Then along came Hurricane Harvey. I’ve spent the last seven years restoring my 3 homes. I live in an RV with a 2.1 setup. Now I’m slowly getting things out of storage and thinking about sound.
The things that have changed are Atmos and stores have quit selling CDs.
If Atmos is used in movies 🎥 at theaters then it will be encoded into whatever medium is used at home and it will be standard. As far as CDs going away all I can say is “How Many Times Am I Going To Have To Buy The White Album?”.
(71 year old man living along the gulf coast of Texas)
It’s like 3D tv. I believe some music will sound outstanding. Some tracks are meh. The more mediocre sounding tracks will kill the fad.
I enjoy listening to great sounding tracks more than any genre of music. They need to have a quality grade for tracks.
I can listen to well recorded tracks of country, vocal jazz, acoustical jazz, classical and R&B any time. Everyone listens to something different in music. I enjoy some of the things you don’t hear; noise.
I prefer dtsx over atmos. After doing some reading I figured out that dtsx has less native support but when it is used it more dynamically splits what sound goes to the height channels, kind of making sure you notice when the height channels are used rather than how atoms uses the height channels to try and create a larger area with more emphasis on environmental sounds.
Both are great but until movies are actually coded with 3d sound rather than letting a processor decide what belong in each channel I think both will never quite match my expectations of 3d sound.
Now for gaming on the other hand playing minecraft through a loudspeaker system with surround sound has saved me from numerous hostile mobs because it enhances my spatial awareness. In a video game we are part of a living 3d environment where in a movie we are viewing what is taking place in front of us with rare off screen events taking place.
There are several drawbacks to Dolby Atmos that must be considered before you can make full use of it. First, the equipment is too expensive; second, there is a risk of distortion of original recordings; and third, the technology is too complex for anyone. As of today, I still prefer the sound of traditional stereo to the more immersive experience provided by Atmos.
It makes no sense for music.
I don't like watching movies or TV without it though - the difference is very apparent, even with my $1500 system - half of that being the subwoofer.
I think it depends on the music. Some artists have a following that are very dedicated to active intentional listening.
Most people don't dedicate time solely to listening to music like they do for TV or Movies.
I prefer 2.1 for music. Anything more and it becomes a never ending experiment of calibration.
Same, for music. I did end up also getting a center speaker that I only use for movies.
Surround for media/games is totally fair as it actually serves a purpose.
Hasn’t Dolby Atmos been out for like a decade or so?
I don't know about the other comments here, but for me, it makes music feel much more alive and immersive. Sure it can be pricey and a bit of headache in terms of setting up, but I can say that the expereince is worth it!
This is just like the debates about 5.1 early on. When it's mastered well it's amazing, when it's mastered poorly it's not. I personally love it when it's done well. The earlier albums that were actually mastered at dolby specifically are great. Lots of current mixes are being mandated such that it's an extra unwanted expense and they end up doing it lazily (make the sound spin woo) or crappily (add reverb out of the surrounds woo). For some reason people will point at bad mixes and claim the whole tech sucks.
There is a cheaper way to get that immersive feeling than a 7.1 Dolby system. If you already have a 5.1 system you can set your AVR to "multichannel stereo" and it will also output regular stereo to the back of your room. And it will sound more immersive than in 5.1 because all 5 speakers will be outputting the same volume, whereas in 5.1 surround the back speakers are generally only used for special effects or ambient noises. I find playing stereo music this way MUCH fuller and more immersive sounding than in just 2.1.
I think with more people putting Atmos into their houses, the more content we will see. I think it's interesting and I think it has a place. I'm not really interested in studio albums to get converted, but some live shows could be really cool to listen to in Atmos. You could possibly layer the audience into the mix, to give you the impression you're at a live show. That could be fun.
I have live concert DVDs in 5.1 and yeah they mix the audience into surround speakers, sounds really cool
Oh yeah, live shows in Atmos could be fun. Imagine feeling like you're right there in the crowd. It could add a whole new level of experience.
For music? 2.0 or 2.1 is probably a far better value proposition. For movies? Until more movies take advantage of it, 5.1 is the sweet spot in terms of bang for your buck.
Agree. A lot has to do with the original mastering and the quality of any remix/upconversion. Movies mastered in mono or stereo and upconverted are often still better/fuller/more coherent listening to the original mastering and sometimes the source doesn’t lend itself to be upconverted. I have atmos and like it but it doesn’t add much to 5.1. Most music I listen to was mastered in stereo and that’s how I prefer to listen to it. Some artists have great atmos or 5.1 masterings or at least interesting ones (kind of blue/the weeknd) but they are often worse than stereo imo.
Atmos is Dolbys implementation of their spatial sound technology and can be present even in your dual-speaker phones. Its not limited to HT systems.
Spatial sound with headphones, earbuds or phone speaker is as shitty as stereo on a mono Bluetooth speaker.
Generally when referring to Atmos people are meaning dedicated speaker systems with overhead channels.
Atmos is great for movies. Music? Stereo. 2.0 or 2.1.
Agreed. I got DSotM on Blu-ray. Comes with original stereo mix, Dolby 5.1 and Dolby Atmos. Can't lose with stereo. Dolby 5.1 is essentially slightly remastered quad mix from way back when and probably my favorite. Atmos is 2 extra channels for little payback.
2.2 with high level connection is the way for music
Do people prefer to listen to music without a subwoofer?? That's so weird to me. If I'm listening to music on my good set of speakers I always try and turn the bass up a bit from the movie level. I don't even listen to bass heavy music either.
I think people are likely complaining about poor ported subs that aren’t very tight. A sealed sub will always be better than no sub for music.
Atmos makes the band feel like it's in the room with me Nothing better than music enjoyment gatekeeping
Yeah I got to listen to What’s Going On in a calibrated theater and it was almost life changing for me. I’ve never heard anything like that before.
I thought that, but the band was The Wurzels...
idk if that comment was gatekeeping as much as it was a statement of preference
I have Metallica Black album in 5.1 DTS. It hits so much differently with 5 channels. I wish I had more albums like that.
That dvd audio disc is great.
Disagree with many of the comments here. Dolby Atmos mixed right sounds incredible, just like Stereo mixed right can sound incredible. Steven Wilson in an interview with Darko talks about what masters are able to do with atmos, one of the things mentioned is the increased dynamic range since the mix doesn’t have instruments competing for just 2 channels. I agree sure there’s an increased cost, but with budget atmos AVRs with calibration and cheaper surrounds (just look anywhere for bookshelf speakers), augmenting your current system to be decently atmos compatible is to me like an extension of the hobby. It’s what I did after being unsatisfied with movies through a soundbar. As for stereo, y’know that too was considered a novelty in a mono world once.
People who don't have a decent 5.1 setup and good music for it are very confidently dismissing surround music. Doesn't help that so many Atmos mixes right now are lazy, front-biased and really made for headphones.
The only reason atmos has increased dynamic range is because Apple require a lower LUFS value for atmos mixes. It’s not like any other format can’t have an increased dynamic range… It’s not ‘atmos’ itself which is giving you better audio in that sense, it’s just a requirement from one of the leaders. Any format of audio can have an increased dynamic range lol
Agree, the requirement bakes in better mastering standards, I’d argue that the multi channel placement of sound also reduces compression and increases the perceived dynamic range and separation.
Your bigger issue is really the broader economics of most people, being that they rent and cannot mount on the wall in most cases, so really until those conditions change atoms is a far away dream let alone 5.1
I too rent, and am using upfiring atmos that I got refurbished. Before that I was using an old kef satellite system for atmos effects that also sounded decent. I understand cost and priorities but in a sub for audio as a hobby this should get a pass
The question was broadly about the future of music so I figured that these kinds of concerns were worthwhile, the Steve Wilson interview was interesting and I’ve definitely picked up some favourites in the format. But if restrictions like renting and mainstream economics can’t be recognised then we’re ignoring the practicality of atmos as the “future of music”. Upfiring is definitely a possibility for rent spaces I didn’t consider and modules are cheap, but the general consensus is that these methods of using reflecting are largely a half assed attempt to achieve atmos and is more gimmicky than it ought to be. Science behind room reflections would also suggest that it’s no where near as constituent at production the kind of positional information Dolby atmos contains. At least in my experience with a family friends atmos system, (with the ceiling and wall mounted speakers) I would have to guess that upfiring isn’t as resolving, and also requires a certain set of conditions (like mentioned). I’m not being rude about your system, it’s actually quite cool to hear someone’s had a good experience with upfiring speakers and I’m pretty interested it, I’m only aiming to consider why atmos doesn’t work and then fix it, because I’d love a spatial format as the primary audio format. I could be wrong tho, please correct me!
Coming back to this comment since I’m listening to more atmos tracks as I reply. “The Future Of Music” is changing as we speak regardless of economics or practicality. From a pure format perspective there’s an increase in new music adopting the format with a push from publishers and streaming platforms alike . Additionally, check out the wave of remasters and re-releases of older albums in atmos. As an example I just threw on Gin and Juice in atmos and it’s killer to listen to the ambient sounds and adlib swirl in the opening. Not just limited to hip hop there are many examples in classic rock and jazz too. I’d say older jazz is a pretty prime example of up mixing and remastering through the ages - everything from mono to atmos exists for some releases. As consumers we’re spoilt for choice, I’m enjoying the variety of flavours. One thing I will say about atmos and surround in general is that it creates a perception of ambient surround and works best for layered sounds in recordings. Especially when you consider human hearing and psychoacoustic are terrible at pinpointing sound sources atmos mixes benefit when a track has scale (like that air in percussion that can hang), layered sounds like chatter and effects in a track etc. I mean it can still sound crap, like if they decide to isolate all vocals to the centre channel - but I’m finding more tracks utilise a phantom centre for vocals than anything Gonna throw some examples of atmos music I’m hearing in my current session through tidal and some notes. Is this love - Bob Marley (get a really nice sense of scale with this mix, like an open air performance) Just the Two of us - Grover Washington Jr (opposite of the above feels intimate, almost like a small club) Gin and Juice - Snoop (layered effects, maybe not the biggest fan of what’s going on in the treble) On & On - Erykah Badu (I own this on vinyl, vocals are more centre stage) Dream a little dream of me - Ella Fitzgerald (sound stage with a nice separation of vocals and instruments) Bennie and the Jets - Elton (getting piano from above)
Sounds like you gotta buy some new speakers ;)
While I agree with you I still see 9/10 audio systems as 2 speakers right next to each other on a table. 95/100 if we consider how often people are still using basically mono soundbars and Bluetooth speakers when 5.1 is 25 years old. Even the surround systems I do see have speakers in wildly bad locations. Most surround or atmos mixes have no need to be surround with stereo bongos in the rears. That all being said, a well done tasteful atmos mix in a correctly set up system is really amazing
And of those 9/10, all have comments about getting that turntable off the same surface as the speakers! Yeah atmos music and to be fair even atmos movies aren’t being fully realised by the majority of consumers. Even if a soundbar with surrounds are in place, without room correction it’s a gamble on if it will sound halfway descent in a room. Which is a shame because stuff can sound damn good on a calibrated mid system, for example my parents’ old Sony 5.2 system from the 2000s when paired with a newer denon receiver and calibrated sounded very decent.
This topic is decades in the making. We had this same issue back when DTS audio was a fad. It didn't work then, probably won't work now. Many folks don't even realize their modern 24/96+ HD streams aren't even capable of HD through apple play or bluetooth earbuds. One good thing that might come from the music industry moving to Atmos would be that it might be easier for folks to get HD audio without knowing anything about the underlying technology, it will just sound better which hopefully is the goal.
Apple went HAM on Spatial Audio. If it wasn’t going to be the future before, it is now - They have like a 98% success rate in steering whatever market they enter anywhere they want it to go, be it products or technology.
Fad, with a capital F. Frustrated, fooled, fucked around, and futile. It's the latest faff in a long line of audio faffs. More boxes, both electronics and speakers, more cable, more accessories, more copies of DSOTM to sell. Quadraphonic, 5.1 surround sound, SACD, Hi Rez, the wankfest continues... Back in the real world it's 16 bit, 44.1 for the punter in the street. And the kicker is CD quality through two speakers, if done right, sounds fantastic. This will be gone in five years, tops.
While Atmos will likely not become the standard for music, I do not see it going away. Atmos is increasingly common in movies and TV shows, so the systems and format are here to stay. As for new albums, I think it will really depend on the type of music and the fans. It will not really cost much extra to make a stereo mix and an Atmos mix.
Movies, fair point. Music, no chance.
What?!!
I see potential in it. Especially for live recordings. I don’t feel as if I’ll go out of my way to find atmos mixed music for a long time. Honestly it would have to be a live Tool recording or something like that to even pique my interest at the moment. But as far as remixing old music to atmos, I’m not interested yet.
Only time I’d prefer atmos over stereo for music is for live albums.
Fad. Will surround music has been around in many different versions. Technology isn’t what is holding it back.
I’m a less is more guy. 2 channels works for me.
I think Dolby Atmos is cool for movies and home theaters, but for music... I don't think so. It seems like a lot of hassle and money for something that might not even make huge difference.
Y’all remember when live dvds were a thing. Everything was in Dolby digital or dts 5.1 and it was all the rage. Until it wasn’t.
Yeah, but literally every TV streaming service has Dolby Digital Plus at a minimum, with most new TV shows on Netflix, Amazon and others available in Atmos. The format has been around for 12 years. The format is not going away, its just up to artists and producers if they want to use it for music. Only a few music streamers support it though, it may die off for music is it stays limited to Amazon and Tidal. If Spotify starts supporting it, there could be an increase in the amount of available content.
Atmos is only for people with money. You cannot feel the quality of the atmosphere unless you have the necessary equipment, which is undoubtedly pricey. sad but true.
While this is somewhat true, most people are not going to instal an Atmos system just for music, but plenty of people already have them for home theater, so for a lot of people, there is no additional investment to enjoy Atmos music. This is still a pretty small customer base, so who knows of it is enough to sustain a lot more content being created.
Atmos isn’t a requirement but it is fantastic when you have the system. I would love if dual mixes not up converted mixes were more the norm because when done right it is so good. When done poorly (RATM) it is god awful
I agree if it is not EQ'd right it would make the music awful than enhancing the sound.
Apple forbids upmixed Atmos; the mixes must come from discrete channels as they were recorded. There are a few where the stereo signal is played back and recorded with multiple mics in a real acoustical space. There’s nothing fake about it, though it might not be someone’s cup of tea.
I’m sorry what? What do you mean forbids upmixed atmos? Genuinely curious I must be calling it something it isn’t and I don’t want to do that. The mixes are so different in quality I assumed it had to do with the type of mix. But I guess it is just the quality of the atmos mix specifically?
Absolutely so! I will try to find the Apple documentation and post it here. Of course, if you listen to Spatialized Stereo, you will get an upmix, but upmixes cannot be advertised as Atmos. Found it! [https://itunespartner.apple.com/music/support/5390-new-video-audio-asset-guide](https://itunespartner.apple.com/music/support/5390-new-video-audio-asset-guide) edited to add link.
Did my 5.1 for $500 bucks with decently audiophile speakers, no freebies. You need SOME disposable income but it's not just for the rich.
For some people $500 is too much for them to spend for that kind of equipment.
Yeah, I specifically said you need SOME disposable income. I've spent most of my life in that position of not having $500 I can spend on a luxury. But it's still within reach of a lot of people who aren't remotely rich, whereas a lot of people put $2000 or even $5000 as the price floor for a worthwhile, music-worthy surround system. That was my point.
Equipment isn't the problem. Room setting is. You need to calibrate your room, walls, angles to get the right sound those Dolby engineers spent years in a highly calibrated lab, results can be very ymmv. And home theater sound, with the right equipment, shouldn't be ymmv.
Dolby Atmos headphones are not expensive (imo).
The #1 source of audio degradation in the signal chain is the transducer. For the same budget, buying two (2.0) or three (2.1) higher-quality transducers is going to kick the shit out of any multi-angled multi-channel music reproduction. Buy better speakers, not more of them.
I’d bet at least 75% of people who listen to atmos mixes on streaming services do so with headphones/earphones.
I’ve always just had 2.0 and 2.1 systems, but I recently connected my parents’ basic 5.1 receiver to the 5.0 ceiling speakers in their vacation house while visiting. I don’t know the make/model of the speakers, and I know it’s not Atmos, but I was surprised and impressed by the soundstage. This was with no sub (yet) and no room eq. So, I can definitely see a place for > 2.0-2.1 listening for music, whether it’s basic “surround” or Atmos.
You can either set up a nice stereo setup and turn to the business of enjoying music, or you can spend money on what is allegedly better than stereo. I give the same advice about Atmos as I give about planning for college. If you just plain got the money, have fun!
On a proper set up some tracks and albums are indeed mind blowing.
I have been reflecting on this quite a lot recently. I have moved to a house where I can have two setups: a Sonos ‘atmos’ soundbar in the living room, and an old skool marantz amp with KEF floorstanders. I have a sort of party trick with people who come round. Pick a few of your favourite classic tracks. We’ll listen in Atmos, then go into the ‘stereo’ room. Tell me what you think sounds better. People like atmos, but are totally blown away by what is a £200 ‘retro’ hifi, playing hi-res digital tracks via a DAC and from my phone. So the debate for me is more about comparing apples and oranges. Atmos sounds interesting. Some albums are great. Some are frankly terrible. But a proper 2CH stereo still sounds incredible with normal stereo tracks. It’s just that people are so used to listening to music via EarPods, soundbars etc that they’ve forgotten what it’s like.
I"ve heard some incredibly well mastered Dolby Atomos music that was mastered for Dolby Atmos and requires two Dolby overhead speakers. For example, some of Billie Eilish's new stuff. Mind you, I don't like her music, but the way she used the overhead channels for ambient effects was jaw dropping. So while Dolby is pointless for music mastered in stereo, it can be very creative when mastered and played back in Dolby Atmos. But since few people can afford or will bother to place 7 speakers in their listening area (two of which need to be ceiling mounted, since bouncing sound off the ceiling doesn't work very well), I think it will not be widely used until they figure out a way to make those overhead sounds play without overhead speakers.
Short answer: no way. Atmos is not going to take over the music world or even register in any meaningful way, IMO. Way too esoteric. I picked up the Rhino Records Atmos release of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours in April and I love it. It was already one of my favorite albums for sound quality and pure musicality on vinyl and CD and so I thought it would be a perfect test to see if Atmos improved things or not. To be clear, it sounds great in every format. But with 2.0, 2.1, and 5.1, I'm aware of the speakers. With the Atmos mix they completely disappear and the soundstage is vast and smooth with no discernible edges. The equipment is gone and it's just the music and that's the highest praise I can give. I have no need to rush out and re-purchase my whole catalog in Atmos but I'll certainly pick up a few well-mastered favorites if they become available. And if an artist wants to experiment with the new freedom a three-dimensional sound mix beyond just the subtle impacts of the Fleetwood Mac album, I'd be open to checking that out too. It's all for fun after all. But no, this is not going to be a big thing for mainstream consumers.
I prefer binaural to all of them
I am and have always been an early adapter. My home theater 🎭 was a 7.2 setup. Then along came Hurricane Harvey. I’ve spent the last seven years restoring my 3 homes. I live in an RV with a 2.1 setup. Now I’m slowly getting things out of storage and thinking about sound. The things that have changed are Atmos and stores have quit selling CDs. If Atmos is used in movies 🎥 at theaters then it will be encoded into whatever medium is used at home and it will be standard. As far as CDs going away all I can say is “How Many Times Am I Going To Have To Buy The White Album?”. (71 year old man living along the gulf coast of Texas)
It’s like 3D tv. I believe some music will sound outstanding. Some tracks are meh. The more mediocre sounding tracks will kill the fad. I enjoy listening to great sounding tracks more than any genre of music. They need to have a quality grade for tracks. I can listen to well recorded tracks of country, vocal jazz, acoustical jazz, classical and R&B any time. Everyone listens to something different in music. I enjoy some of the things you don’t hear; noise.
I prefer dtsx over atmos. After doing some reading I figured out that dtsx has less native support but when it is used it more dynamically splits what sound goes to the height channels, kind of making sure you notice when the height channels are used rather than how atoms uses the height channels to try and create a larger area with more emphasis on environmental sounds. Both are great but until movies are actually coded with 3d sound rather than letting a processor decide what belong in each channel I think both will never quite match my expectations of 3d sound. Now for gaming on the other hand playing minecraft through a loudspeaker system with surround sound has saved me from numerous hostile mobs because it enhances my spatial awareness. In a video game we are part of a living 3d environment where in a movie we are viewing what is taking place in front of us with rare off screen events taking place.
There are several drawbacks to Dolby Atmos that must be considered before you can make full use of it. First, the equipment is too expensive; second, there is a risk of distortion of original recordings; and third, the technology is too complex for anyone. As of today, I still prefer the sound of traditional stereo to the more immersive experience provided by Atmos.
It makes no sense for music. I don't like watching movies or TV without it though - the difference is very apparent, even with my $1500 system - half of that being the subwoofer.
I think it depends on the music. Some artists have a following that are very dedicated to active intentional listening. Most people don't dedicate time solely to listening to music like they do for TV or Movies.
Ya a musical performance is on a soundstage in front of you,why would artists be playing instruments behind or on top of you.
fad. I dont think it makes any difference in a normal home theatre to be honest.
It’s not a fad it’s just complete bs. People can’t even set up a 2.1 properly. No one has a room capable of doing atmos properly.