Gaslighting Your Fans w/ Dolby ATMOS™ 

And you'll have to spend, like, 3x the amount of time needed to get to it sounding like shit! (mine usually takes anywhere between 2 and 5 hours).

hey!

“Almost there….” *sets track to mono* “…PERFECTION”

@@JBATahoe oh god Forget about having a marching band 🤣😂 no cap

Yes

Buys $30,000 Atmos system…. Streams MP3s from a Plex server

@@nickcarter4006You are really not far from the truth in that…although, I do try to take advantage of Plex’s support for FLAC* files. Plex Amp is easily my favorite music streaming app. Simple, functional, supports my extensive personal library of purchased music from the days before digital distro, and really a beautiful UI. \*My phone *really* wanted to autocorrect this to say “flaccid”.

@@silverXnoise so analog?

@@colourbasscolourbassweapon2135 Flannelog

@@silverXnoise lol dude

I feel like that'd be a very stressful listening experience lmao Like, I wanna listen to music comfortably, not feeling like I'm in the ocean being circled by sharks

I hopped on Tidal with my XM4s to see if this spatial audio thing was legit. I tried both Dolby Atmos and Sony 360 Reality Audio. It's like Benn said, there's sound coming from all directions but it feels incoherent and unnecessary, almost as if it was tacked on after the fact by a corpo. I prefer stereo.

It's fun twice and then gets old. Exactly like 3d movies

it doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds cool.

@@jassykatRight, it’s not like those “8D immersive audios” on RU-vid where they pan the the singing voice left and right. When it’s done right, it feels like you’re in the room with them while they’re recording.

$ay it ain't $o!

They don't stick the name on cosumer products, the brands buy the license from Dolby if they think it adds value to their product. You are always free to choose a product with a different feature set mate

@@rolandmdill ahhh yes, pedantry totally disproved the op

These consumer electronics companies need some kind of new label to put on their product marketing page. They don't care if it works well or not. And if they don't put that label on their product they know consumers will go and buy the one that has the label.

@@jn1211 wow that's not pedantry at all lmao

Corporations are leeches

To be fair, most of the customers for this tech only listen to music on subscription platforms. The only people "paying for" Atmos mixes are people buying special edition Blu-Ray releases, and those work without any stupid subscription fees.

F that shit no cap

You'll pay for everything and own nothing.

@@ThetaReactor ill pay nothing and own everything because im a filthy pirate lmao

Is there any music you actually recommend? I've heard a few 5.1 mixes of music and its always like you said, extremely forced seemingly to show off what they can do, rather than actually add anything to the experience. In fact the only time I've been impressed is using Pro Logic IIz on stereo tracks with exceptionally good dynamic range/sound stage (in other words, very rare), that allows it to perform absolute magic on it for a fully immersive experience.

@@alexatkin Anything that includes a technology just for the sake of using a new technology is always going to sound gimmicky. There's nothing miraculous that 5.1 or any other multi-speaker system does that you couldn't hypothetically do with a set of headphones and a binaural audio engine.

@@dustinbrueggemann1875 That's simply not true. Headphones may pull all the tricks with your ears but cannot fool your sense of touch. Any concert I've ever been to had a tactile experience where you can feel the vibrations in your clothes or in your seat or in your chest. Speakers can recreate this experience unlike headphones. It's my opinion that 2 speakers in a fully acoustically treated room with the correct balance of absorption, diffusion, and reflective surfaces creates the most immersive audio experience.

​@@alexatkin Randomly "Don't worry be happy" is pretty epic in atmos haha, Fleetwood mack albums, The Queen stuff, UB40's Best Of Labour Of Love album, Bob Marley legend album is great, Jamiroquai - cosmic girl, Chaka's - Ain't nobody, Thriller album, Whitney's dance with somebody is randomly pretty epic also. There is a lot nowadays as understandably producers have become better with the change and gotten over the gimmick side of it.

@@alexatkin I really like the BluRay copies of the Alan Parsons Project stuff and the DVD-A copies of Stone Temple Pilots "Core", Frank Zappa's Quadiophiliac, and Nine Inch Nails "The Downward Spiral". Those are all pretty solid surround mixed/mastered albums that don't sound incredibly awkward.

xD

i laughed so loud i scared my cat!

One of the few practical benefits of atmos is that many albums mixed in atmos has better dynamic range and seems mostly unaffected by the loudness war thing. But unfortunitely, Dolby's decoder on mobile devices (esp. on android + windows) has it's own dynamic range compression which can not be disabled and it sounds bad. A properly encoded bineural track sounds great though.

Sooooo... Is DTS any better, or should I just stick with my 13 year old Denon 5.1 Amp and the collection of Bose 301's and 151's I've been using all along? (Actually, budgeting concerns have answered that question for me, as my daughter has an expensive college bill coming up... Guess I'm sticking with the current setup a little while longer.)

Haha... I just bookmarked this video for the same purpose, sending to clients wanting masters in Atmos 🙂

Should probably be on a t shirt

My housemate totally lost it over that one.

I guess it's... partially physically impossible? With the exact right reflection/absorption level of materials, a really weird and expensive speaker array that can do strategic cancellation/addition, and a detailed LIDAR scan of the room, maybe you could halfway manage. But yeah, it's scammy advertising. Not going to work in your real-world living room unless maybe you're one of those minimalist influencer types and just got lucky with your wall materials and room geometry.

I loved that bit and I want it played on repeat anywhere they sell soundbars. Soundbars are perfectly fine if one wants anywhere from stereo to 3.1 audio that's better than their TV's built in speakers, but will never come close to a real surround system with multiple speakers physically located around the room when listening to actual surround content, no matter what the salesman at Best Buy might claim.

& then he wonders why there’s no height effect from his 5.1 setup. He said it himself…

Agreed, they seem to like to talk about their gear more than actually listening to songs.

@@bicyclelife7088 and how do you think we are listening to those songs?

@@olimphus26 "these songs" are usually benchmark songs or "reference hi-fi tracks" that every audiophile tests their equipment against :)

@@evilj nope, im listening to music in my $10k system right now.

@@olimphus26 cool, happy that you enjoy it

RIP to the eleven people listening on a real setup though. You should definitely mix on the best thing you have available to you because the artifacts from your crappy speakers will hide the artifacts of the song. If you really have to kludge it, mix on your car speakers since that's going to be the nicest set of speakers most people own, and also probably the real most common way people listen to music.

@@dustinbrueggemann1875 thier is no such thing as a "real" setup. it's all placebo. and techbro.

@@dustinbrueggemann1875 If you have a high end source set up, then even the shittiest gear will be transparent enough

Mix on decent Studio monitors. Then tune it later on more accessible setups.

i mean all you really need to do is add a little more frequencies or saturation to your low end to make sure its audible by anything without a subwoofer or bass extension

“8d 16k ultra quality 4d ulra hdr audio”

Those videos were awesome. I'm happy a good chunk of the cool stuff about this is accessible to a bog-standard pair of headphones. I hope it gets another surge of popularity

how dare you downplay the importance of Crab Rave 8D, i love crabs in my walls ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Oh_lCBCQOAQ.html

"with all the instruments just panning around for no reason" It's like 3d movies, the producers and directors just can't let it be 3d, they're compelled to have things flying directly into the camera lens whether it's relevant or not, because just seeing things in 3 dimensions would be 'too boring'.

THIS. most mixers have Pan knobs that let you control how much in the left andor right ear a sound is. if you're doing it live and people move around you can just have 2 microphones too.

I discovered this when I cobbled together a sound system out of spare parts and hooked it up in my tool shed. ❤️

I exclusively use the speaker of my 2015 iPhone SE to listen to music. It's perfect. 🌈 ​@@cromagnon305

​@@cromagnon305I'm sorry, it's a 2016 smartphone, not 2015 haha 🌈

Sometimes I'll crank a low fidelity youtube music video over laptop speakers just for the joy of hearing the song again and I've already heard it in good quality a thousand times anyway.

And yet for 5 mins of the video he seems frustrated it’s not working, after just explaining it’s a hoax. Unless that was the joke… but it’s not. That’s his argument, “there was no height experience”… well no shit, you bought a 5.1 setup that was Atmos enabled not a 5.1.2 or 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 or 7.1.4

Haven't those "strange magic box with many small speakers in front of you magically projecting an entire surround sound system around you" systems been a thing since the '00s? Sales pitch didn't seem particularly convincing back then either.

@@keithwilliams88 sure, the modern capitalistic “accept or die” & “it’s everywhere” approach is despicable, I was just poking holes in his argument because I believe Atmos will stick around going forward, not as a replacement for stereo, but coexisting as a uniquely appealing alternative to tradition (for various reasons). I’ve invested not even a dollar into Atmos, but if I do I‘ve got to make sure I don’t have any blindness from bias. It could fuck my entire life up. So, I’m always curious to hear other opinions. This video seems like a rather personally-charged take that wasn’t fully thought out. The problems lie elsewhere, let’s say. If you know, you know.

@@daviduribe5897 That's a bit cryptic. Can you give any hints?

most new headphones are digital and produce 3d sound where its an option. even cheap ones

​@@pazsion yes... that's why I like analog ones. most music is in stereo... which means that it's either gonna flatten the left-right difference to emulate 2 speakers (which I don't like) or it's gonna fake the effect, getting the surround info from nothing. It's even more pronounced in games. it's easy to make a game work with headphones, and vast majority of them will do it correctly. and unless such headphones would appear as more complex setup on a driver level, a given game can't even send proper info as it only compresses it down to stereo, while the "3d effect" is again faked on headphones themself. bottom line is that ignoring your head movement relative to monitor, headphones have only 2 channels for 2 receptors that are your ears, so a good source is very much enough with them.

😩😩You are precisely the type of person Atmos is targeting - people who don't have the technical know-how to get stereo imaging out of consumer speakers

​@@b1zzler that's bs. You don't even have any idea which headphone buddy is using lol. A ton of headphones can get awesome imaging, especially open-back ones. I run a SHP9500 / HD599 / HD600 (I gotta sell at least one of them tbh) setup with a DAC+AMP setup and they're amazing. Other than that, I have a pair of (probably considered low-end) Edifier MR4s which sound beautiful as well. There's really not a lot of work or need for "technical know-how" when you have a decent set-up my man. I've tried quite a few of these effects and whatever, ATMOS, DTS stuff, everything. None of it sounds good to me, I always end up returning to my basic preferred EQ settings after 1 or 2 days after the novelty wears off.

@@LoneWanderer905 ?… Of course you can get good imaging with headphones. That’s my entire point. The problem is that he says he hasn’t been able to get imaging out of consumer loudspeakers. That’s generally a problem with speaker selection, speaker placement, AVR/DSP selection, and DSP tuning. Most people can’t be bothered to do all that so they throw in the towel and stick to plug and play solutions, which is precisely what headphones are. Atmos is trying to make in-room spatial audio as “plug-and-play” as headphones are so non-technical consumers can get a pretty close approximation to what mastering engineers are hearing in their Genelec/ATC/B&W rooms. That’s what I was getting at. Not that headphones are bad.

I once described playing live as being like moving all your equipment across town so you can not hear it, hope you are playing the right thing, having no idea what others are hearing, then taking it all back home and telling yourself that was a success. ....So I've been not quite so sure people actually would want to hear songs like musicians do. Careful what you wish for. But hey, if you want to develop the True Musician Experience Right Channel Noise Codec specially designed for home theater missing half the speakers, and broken monitors that give the true experience...I'm all in with ya. :D

@@AveragePicker Ya see...I know, pretty much for a fact, my stereo imaging is shit. I spend almost no time on it at all. But people say it sounds fine. What we hear and what non-musicians hear is totally different. They like it...but they can't tell you why they like it. its so subjective as to make any standard meaningless.

Fellow deaf artist, I always consider going the hard pan route

I am not completely def in one ear, but pretty damn close, it happened because I wanted the perfect guitar tone and raised my 1x12 cab to head level on one side.

Almost same here. I ended up deciding that all releases I'll do will either have almost no steeeo or have a mono alternative mix, just cuz Windows forced mono fucks everything up.

Couldn't that limit technically be expanded upon by HDMI over Ethernet? Obviously it's not a consumer grade upgrade but I presume it's possible? (This is coming from the background of the limitations of DMX512 [Lighting protocol] being worked around through Ethernet transfer rates. I haven't personally delved deep enough into audio docs to know whether or not that'd be possible. (I know a lot of live theaters run audio out of Ethernet for multiple channels, I'm referring directly to Atmos here)

@@gambitman7158can you even differentiate between 32 different sound sources simultaneously in your real environment? Most people will track a couple at most. You switch to the important ones. Mixing can group by distance and importance and stay below (way below) the limit.

​@MadsterV I can barely do 2... If there's loud music & someone screams something at me I'll be hearing both with no way to differentiate between the 2... I.E. I'm hearing noise 😂

No but you can differentiate between more than 32 directions in a 3d space.​@@MadsterV

​​@@gambitman7158hdmi can carry way more raw data than a cat6 cable can, to test cables, we recently had to purchase a new tester that does 48gbps because our old one only did 40. I believe 48 is for 8k video, if i remember correctly, 60fps 4k at 4:4:4 should be 18gbps, this excludes audio! So yeah, ethernet yes, but maybe with 100gbps fiber transceivers in the not too distant future.

And his pitch to buy a membership to his channel wasn’t? Btw, literally every product released by Dolby, Apple and Microsoft is a money making opportunity.

True - but not all new tech is successful. Only time will tell if Atmos is a commercial driver or falls by the wayside similar to 3D,

@@chromatec4311 Well, as far as developers of apps for the creation of audio content, DAWs like Pro Tools, Nuendo, Logic Pro, MIR Pro 3D, etc.. they all now support Atmos, (they’ve built in the Atmos renderer and support the large channel formats like 7.1.2, etc. One misconception about Atmos compared to traditional surround formats like 5.1 is that the listener doesn’t have to have the same speaker setup as the creator. Because Atmos uses object instead of channels, the decoder figures out how to place the sounds with the given speaker setup. So, from the creative side, the industry I work in, Atmos has already won. One of my partners just had an Atmos installation done in his studio. We’re composing in Atmos. Personally, I think all surround formats are a pain, although I think Ambisonics and Binarual technologies are fascinating. Many movie theaters, music halls, performance halls, or anywhere there is an installed playback system, they’re all moving to Atmos, at least in the US. There’s other formats like Aura 3D, but the DAWs don’t support it natively. I’m not sure if consumers will buy into it, but with Apple Music supporting Spatial Audio with headphones, I think that will be one of the more bankable markets.

Kind of the corporate version of “publish or perish”.

Completely not true.

You hit the nail on the head. They ran out of stuff to sell. Nobody needed dolby surround as soon as we were able to run digital multichannel uncompressed audio. Atmos was a hail Mary for them.

abolish the patent system!

@@plankton50Great idea if you have no intellectual property to protect and everything to gain from stealing other people's work. Without patents there is zero intensives for inventing anything or innovating. Let somebody else invent it and just steal that. Why would anyone put their life's work and possibly life savings into coming up with something new that anyone could just take it. All forms of IP Copyright are vital, especially to musicians. You are watching this musician's youtube channel. Benn Jordan wouldn't be able to make a living or make these videos without revenue from IP copyright. I left the 'you dumb ass' off the end of the last sentence to make sure my reply stayed polite.

That's so annoying wtf 😭

I'm with ya until your last statement. I would argue edm benefits more than most genres of music through Atmos. Just because you don't understand the culture or music, does not give you right to kick dust on it. Also I suggest you do not speak for an audience you are not part of; you're making assumptions you have no way of substatiating, all in frustration for Dolby Atmos.

@@somethingsoupy speaking of "not having the right to kick dust on it" what on earth gives you the right to assume I don't understand EDM or the culture? It's both by my living and my passion. I've been to all the clubs (most of which sum to mono for good reason), I've taken the drugs, I grew up on rave music in its country of origin the UK, I've engineered, played, written and produced it professionally for over a decade. Instead of making assumptions, all you have to say is "I disagree, here's why" and actually share your opinion on why you think it's a good fit, a debate doesn't have to start by tearing into someone you don't know, just present your counter argument! Having said all that here I'm talking about "pop/EDM" as one genre. I'm talking about commercial chart style tracks with full vocals and a dance beat, not separate genres.

​@@Bthelick I was not trying to tear you a new one, but I do disagree and believe what you are stating is untrue. It was my opinion, that you did not understand the culture, because what you said is often stated by jaded 50 year old's that mix the same shit every day, be it in post-production or live sound. Obviously, based on your channel, you are part of the community and it was my mistake for making that assumption. I gave you a subscription, your tutorials are very helpful. I hear what you are saying about Pop/EDM, but Pop is just as effective, imo. When I read EDM, I don't think of chart toppers, I think of the guys with 100-10,000 listeners that are pushing the genre to its limits. Apologies for coming off crass, but I think you were being hypocritical as you were attacking a community and people in it. I only sent that same energy back to you. If you had presented that argument and left out the insults, I would have moved on. It was because I saw someone that could not defend themselves, from a person that seemed ignorant in the moment, that I commented. Have a nice day.

@@Bthelick oh and you make some of the best track breakdowns and production tutorials I’ve watched.

Agreed. I have a discrete 5.1.2 system powered by a Marantz NR1609 and it sounds pretty great in movies, everything else is meh. I'm also a bit crazy I guess because I bought all of this originally when I was living in a 450 sq ft Manhattan apartment! I've since upgraded to an 850 sq ft apartment in Miami, the living room is an odd shape though so the speakers stick out/are crammed close together.

I have the Samsung Q990D Atmos Bar with rear speakers. It sounds incredible. It has a feature that calibrates to your rooms dimensions and it is works. Also supports the other Dolby formats and even DTS:X, no need to calibrate anything. Just set the channel sound level for the speakers to your likings and then the SpaceFit setting will adjust the individual sound levels to your rooms dimension for optimal surround, the built in microphone measures the sound feedback and knows what to adjust.. Music on this thing also sounds really great, especially the remastered tracks (like Dire straits or Phil Collins. Of course, this is not a $500 system but rather $1599,-. Probably the best purchase i've made in a long time. I previously used a Bose 3.2.1 system (over 2 decades) and it served well as a general stereo setup for my tv and music. The 656 Watts this thing can put out is basically overkill for my apartment living room, i haven't had the balls to go over "25" on the sound level... and it goes up to 100.. The doors literally start shaking.. might need to have a look at that.. rubber strips along the sides maybe? I do hear a clear difference in sound between DST:X and Atmos. When playing a movie via pc, i sometimes switch to DTS:X as that sometimes sounds more crisp and less boomy. But when you watch a movie like Mad Max: Fury Road... Atmos is your friend. The engines firing up and roaring when they come past you.. it's just a real nice experience.

Hey, job security.. nice

Like in IT in general.... We have 16 standards, someone makes a universal standard so we can have fewer standards... Now we have 17 standards...

i thought atmos was just about the height(atmosphere) speakers. 7.1/5.1 were already 'here' i have a linkin park dvd of re:animation that is 5.1....

@@caliginousmoira8565 As mentioned, "in theory" its about letting the final mixes object positioning be handled by the equipment at the end user, so it can more accurately be adapted to the speaker setup and room acoustics. It actually is the first time I managed to get a truly impressive surround experience in my small room, specifically having phantom rears actually works better than real rear speakers - as I was always sat too close to them. This is in spite of a lot of time it being PC games I play which probably are only using Atmos to send a channel-based output to my receiver - but the receiver is doing a better job of recreating those virtual speakers positions. It really shines in movies, particularly UHD Bluray that isn't restricted to the streaming services limited bitrates. Although I do find Atmos usually isn't really flat sounding like streaming services often are for legacy surround mixes vs Bluray. The problem is, you need to have the right equipment to make this work and as mentioned in the video there's lots out there that doesn't have this room calibration (or does it poorly) so is missing out on the entire point of HAVING object positioning handled at the end user. So they end up with a worse experience than a well mastered channel based mix.

@@SioxerNikita And then every company takes the universal standard, half implements it, changes the serial clock by 2%, makes up some 'im 12 and this is edgy' name for it, and now we have a common low cost device artificially walled in and price inflated with 17^(16+1) standards to decypher. And drivers for every one of them, for every current version of windows, no linux option, and none of the drivers get along with any of the other drivers...... "Here at [insert literally any computer parts manufacturer here], we care about the customer experience..." ...My pimply fuzz covered ass. 🤬

Why? Don’t have Atmos setup?

I'd love to try to actually make a song in Atmos because the songs I have heard in the format are usually rhythm/lead in front, ambient/background in the rear/height, even when a sound is clearly supposed to circle around you.

It is often the chems and good techno making a great rave lmao. No body would understand if there was an atmos system

Also, the Dolby Atmos version sounds pretty bad too, just in a more full-bodied way. I actually prefer the crap stereo one.

Saw "One Love" in the theater and thankfully the mix was mostly two channel. The previews were terrible with all that multi-channel crap going on!

the stereo mix they used was very good I don't know what you're talking about

These are the facts

Same with head-tracking headphones. What do they do? Where is the problem they want to solve? When I'm watching RU-vid and I'm too drunk and the sun hasn't come out yet and I can even barely keep my eyes open, but still want to know where my laptop is? Playing an electric organ on a huge turntable to experience some crazy Leslie effect? Myy hearing ability varies due to my tinnitus so depending on the changing condition I could angle my head a bit while watching TV to equalize sound levels. Maybe you guys got some ideas?

I would like elevation data when playing games but that would also require floor speakers. It's already impractical. They were doing weird things with QSound back in the day...

No it's not

In the world of startups the saying is ”Solution In Search of a Problem” short SISP. 😊

To be fair, it’s possible the artist will make more money by rendering an atmos mix of their stereo mix just to have the “atmos” stamp, and who doesn’t want that?

@@talonsid Provided we as studio owners can afford to invest $30-$60K in interface/speaker studio construction upgrades and manage to write that off in depreciation and still come out ahead. Not likely at all.

some of the "binaural" stuff from the 70's is pretty cool - 2 microphones placed on a "fake head" where the ears would be, and you listen to it on headphones. Pretty sure everything else since then is just a gimmick. I only have 2 ear holes where sound goes in - therefore everything you could possibly hear is captured by 2 microphones placed where your ears would be, and 2 speakers later placed where the microphones were.

I have a digital copy of this. Binaural recording, done right, is astounding.

I've heard a really-good version 'The Mist' which was done like a radio play instead of audiobook. Now I'll be looking for that cassette in secondhand stores.

​@@gorak9000 Yeah, but your ears _aren't_ microphones.

Binaural convolution is awesome for things like audio books, radio plays, etc

Roomba™ audio. Sounds 3D already!

You're listening the way the vacuum manufacturer intended.

Maybe I should stop getting my boosters.

Atmos is a sound format, not a company.

@@ryankramer oh thank god you were here to clear that up.

@@BigPlasticPlant It’s only a big deal if you make it one. 🤷🏼‍♂️

@@ryankramer It's only a big deal when you start whining about not getting enough credit for stating the obvious

Did you mean passionate lol

thats why they get re mixed for atmos with it in mind

Movies are delivered with multichannel streams, and originally mixed with discrete channels for multichannel sound. What music source are you listening to that delivers multichannel audio?

@@SoundOfYourDestiny I used to subscribe to Tidal and Qobuz. I don’t remember which one had music in atmos.

@@kevofyb Those albums were written, arranged, produced, mixed and mastered to be listen to on two speakers. When you mix a record you try to reproduce the live experience. THe band is in front of you, one guitar on a side and the other guitar on the opposite side. Everything in the back is just a distraction. If an artist want to do an "immersive" record it's his call, not Apple's.

@@casaroli Thanks for the reply. I think I was asking which device you were using to stream music that also offered multichannel output (in addition to the service, though, which is interesting info).

We got front row seats, boys

even if youtube supported 5.1, I doubt that most youtubers would want to spend the time to mix their videos in 5.1. It's a lot more work invovled and for a lot of content on youtube where it's just a personality speaking, it doesn't even make sense to mix in 5 channels.

​@Melodic Fables true, but as a wishful thinking speculation, I'd love to watch a Suzanne Ciani concert in surround. There are some videos where it would be extremely nice.

@@CatFish107 Awesome idea. A lot of the classic modular synth stuff is in quad. It would be a dream if YT would be able to handle that.

@@TheChillMelodist actually, i'm pretty sure youtube silently added support for 5.1 user generated content a few months ago

@@TheChillMelodist isn’t there where ai comes to play?

LoL... my exact thoughts and already have forwarded this video to several 'family'n'friends 😆

I posted a royalty free track on freesound and it got used in a movie, I even got a credit. You can do it king

I think surround sound music is cool, provided you do it well, but I'm not pretending like it works on a phone or speakers. It's dedicated to a physical surround sound system. I imagine Atmos would be the same, but they ruined it by slapping the label on things like phones, earbuds, laptops, TV screens, etc. that clearly can't actually handle it.

Totally. Even if your music ends up in the movie, it makes no sense to use anything else than stereo. The only exception that could make sense would be a live performance. Otherwise, surround/ambisonic sound effects from the movie + surround/ambisonic music would collide and confuse everyone. "Oh, I can hear explosions behind me, gunshots in front of me and a drummer playing on the right side of the battlefield" :D

@@BattleAngelSound that would definitely confuse the audience! lol 😂

I feel like if you're gonna go beyond Stereo for music, you should be doing something experimental enough where the positioning of sections is integral to it. Or like the type of ambient music that's trying to immerse you in a specific environment I guess lol. Either way, it's kinda weird to do it on pop music

7.2 is as high as I would ever go for cinematic surround sound, and 5.1 for music

​@collinbeal 7.1 requires a specific room and seating layout to properly enjoy, 5.1 can make any audio better in any kind of room with different seating IMO

​@@samuelhildebrandt9074also 5.1 in smaller rooms allows the same side back effect as 7.1 whitch is only required in larger open spaces as the soundnpasing back and forth isn't separated and flows perfectly well inn5.1 in a average living room

Center channel removes all height perception as compared with stereo. The image shrinks vertically to a narrow band!

I have a 5.1.2 setup just so I could get a taste of every feature without going too crazy. I can confirm that, even in movies with surround sound, the rears and heights are barely used. I think 3.1 is a huge upgrade when watching movies because of the LFE (like you said) and the ability to turn up the center channel to hear dialog better.

Be careful discounting Atmos because of this guys video. It's controversial so gets lots of eyes (not saying this is why he did it). Don't work with the fear of getting left behind but make sure you go expierience a good atmos setup with music somehwere (not a theater...they don't' eq the sound correctly and it's way to fng loud). You may be surprised. It should sound like a stereo mix with a litle icing on the cake at certain times. If it doesn't, it hasn't been set up properly. It's unfortunate this guy hasn't heard a decent atmos setup in his own home. The out of the box stuff doesn't cut it. Just like he wouldn't buy an out of the box complete studio tracking and mixing setup!

​@@NakeanWickliff I just think it's more trouble than it's worth depending on where you are in your career. If you start getting requests for atmos mixes then sure, withdraw your overhead and make the switch. There are great DIY atmos rigs out there that more than do the job if cost is a factor. I also don't think stereo is getting left behind. I think stereo is in it's early adoption phase just as much as surround tends to be implemented in home theatres mostly. 2.1 and 2.2 systems need to be widely adopted first. Alot of people are listening to music on soundbars, mono speakers and consumer grade headphones. Part of the job is archiving things right? For alot of us, atmos can wait.

@@noahhonore2022 I completely agree with all of your points. I just don't like that the OP basically said Atmos is garbage, cause it's not. It's a faulse pretense for a correct decision and others shouldn't make the decision because "atmos sucks" (because it doesn't).

​@@NakeanWickliff The concept is fine. Yet another proprietary codec that is inferior to open codecs though? *very* unwelcome. Atmos real does not offer anything that couldn't be done before and at such a high price even professionals balk at it. Consider other problems with proprietary tech that ends up defacto standards, it allows for even less consumer control. No thanks.

Stereo and 2.1 will always be the best ways to listen to music IMO.

I miss sound coming from behind the screen in cinemas :(

I was a cinema projectionist and enjoyed surround, up to a point. I also worked in a 100+ year old cinema where we had mono+surround. LOL. Hey it worked well, as long as I kept things aligned. Clear dialog and some nice surround effects.

I remember that the Quadraphonic mix of Dark Side of the Moon was the primary demonstration album. Deep Purple’s Machine Head was also released in quadraphonic. Smoke on the Water in quad? If there was ever a song that had no business being mixed in a surround format, that was the song.

Yes but tbf if you spend too much time looking up "perfect sound" you'll find people saying you have to rebuild your entire house

With a home theatre system like this, you would still need to keep an old stereo system to enjoy your favorite music

All I can recommend is getting at least a real 3.1 system. The center channel and sub help a lot, and you don't really need to rearrange your life.

​@SamuraiGuy At least get a real receiver. My Denon 1600h can do Atmos, mono, stereo, quad, and basic surround. It's the decision to go with a bespoke solution like a soundbar or home theater in a box that is creating the issue of stereo sound not working well. Not that it's primarily the purchaser at fault here, the marketing for this stuff is manipulative at best. Unfortunately home theater receivers are expensive, but the upside is that you can use any speaker with them and upgrade only some components as desire arises, instead of having to replace it all at once.

@@webby2275 "real" systems are more expensive, but also take more space and time to learn how to pick parts and put them together. I did put together a system fully utilizing a 960h, and I'm glad I did, but when most people don't care to use anything more than their TV speakers, a simple soundbar gets most of the way there. I just want people to get the center channel and sub because they're probably an upgrade most people will appreciate.

Living performances generally use mono audio for everything because they can't predict where each audience member is standing. So, aside from the immersiveness of the venue and crowd, the audio is even less immersive than a stereo mix.

@@JustinLesamiz immersive is the full experience of attending a live show, not just the technical aspects of audio.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Cjjsz14hL48.html

@@JustinLesamiz Definitely this, I've found it pretty rare that an artist has their audio nailed at a venue. AC/DC, Foo Fighters, Deadmau5, and Computer Magic (Danz) come to mind of acts where it was actually dialed in very well. Dozens of other performers, many having toured for decades, I thought were generally better served by listening to the albums first so you can counter the imbalances in your head (and a lot of that is just who runs the venue). Live is definitely more for appreciating the artists as people and seeing the fans.

@@LeMicronautit depends on the listener, genre, the band, the engineer, venue, there’s a lot of factors that come into play that make a performance. Comparing studio and live is apples and oranges, there’s a lot of people who prefer only studio or only live versions of songs because of how different or close they are. Me personally I’m fine with sacrificing stereo width and fidelity so I could hear a unique version of a song in a room with fans. There wouldn’t be a demand or need for live albums and bootlegs if they weren’t immersive or good

Is there some place to read or otherwise learn more about what you are describing here? thank you

@@arpaddanos9416 idk offhand but there's a free vst called DearVR Micro that you can play around with! I have to exercise restraint to not overuse it haha - before this I used to use an oculus vst plugin that accomplished the same thing

​@@asmrengineering3710 There used to be hardware for this too. I used to have a vinyl demo that was impressive even by modern standards. It was just too expensive and deemed unnecessary at the time.

Do you have an example of a song like this available on Apple music? I have not heard a single song that I have enjoyed with spatial audio on earphones, though I do really enjoy it on my genelec system about half the time if the mastering is good.

​@@stevenswall sure! some tracks I've done this on: Cul-De-Sac by G Brenner at about 3:00 on uses it pretty overtly, as well as some textures in the background of the track Pluperfect Mind by Dear Laika - also various percussive blips from Dog Ears by scuttlefuzz that wiggle in the stereo field - the use of the panning doesn't really call attention to itself (or provide "immersion") but It adds a lively texture that I like a lot, especially when things move around

Fun fact: Beats was a Monster product before Apple acquired Beats. But maybe I’m kicking open een open door here. Great comment bij the way… 👌🏻

I have a vintage Sansui 5500 receiver and the QS-500 rear channel amp attached to it. I have 15 or so quad encoded LPs, not all of them encoded in QS (the version of quad encoding that Sansui developed). Some are SQ so I can't decode those or the CD-4 encoded ones. So maybe I have 5 QS encoded LPs. I got them not because I was looking for them, but I just came across them at goodwill or where ever. I do have Sly & The Family Stone's greatest hits in quad that I also have a stereo pressing of, and it's a pretty good record. A fun listen even if I'm not a rabid fan, but it's in SQ. Womp womp. As for CD-4, that's supposedly results in the best "real" quad experience because unlike the others which are matrix encodings (not true discrete 4 channel) CD-4 does actually encode the 2 additional discrete channels, but there''s a catch. (We'll ignore that stereo records do not contain a discrete left and right channel, but a left channel and a difference channel from which the right channel comes by applying it to the discrete left channel signal that requires no prossesing or demodulating or matrix mathing to get to the actual signal). The CD-4 signal is modulated to 38khz carrier signal (or something near that), which in itself isn't an issue. Demodulating carrier signals is how we get stereo over the FM frequency band and we all love how that sounds. The problem is that your average stylus is not designed to pick up frequencies that high. They go to 22khz maybe. So you need a special (read expensive) stylus of the finest teeny tiny point of contact that gets down and can pick up those frequencies. Then you need special "ultra low capacitance" phono cables so they don't accidentally filter out that frequency. once you got the very low high frequecy signal in your CD-4 pre-amp then you are set becaus the demodulation process is simple and you've got your 2 rear channels. That is if the 50 year old record still has the high frequency data and it hasn't been "scrubbed" off the grooves by your shity conical stereo stylus/cart that you have tracking at 5gms. I've heard that og dolby pro-logic (a 4 channel surround tech, FL. C. FR. RL and RR are just the same single read hannel) uses the same methods as CD-4 to get it's 4 channel signals, and so it can decode a CD-4 signal (I've heard. Could ne wring an evne so it's only the OG Dolby Pro logic version 1 that might work). I aint spending the $400 for a shibata styus just for Sly.

I'll say that as a gamer, it is sad to me that multi-speaker headphones are a rare nitch thing. I think that could all turn around fast if android or apple advertised bluetooth headphone to stream in 4.1 or 6.1 as a standard feature and got a streaming service on board with it. I'm amazed how many people watch movies on their phone instead of a laptop or tv nearby. They select HD on youtube, so it seems logical to have auto surround sound too.

As a consumer I dipped back from 5.1 to stereo because it was always terribly done over the top in games and film. Half the time you had to manually set it to stereo to actually consume the media, and infact you got better positional audio too because it was actually done right instead of lazily as a gimmick.

You're totally right about it being all guys, and those guys work very hard to ensure it stays a boys' only club. I used to call myself an audiophile, as a teenager who just thought it meant you appreciated good quality speakers and headphones. The Audiophiles laughed me out of online spaces because I hadn't spent £20k on an amp and wasn't putting the special felt marker on my CDs, and I was GASP using the analogue audio out on my CD player. I never called myself an audiophile again even though I do certainly seek out the flattest frequency response curve in headphones and stuff like that - stuff I didn't know about as a teen but certainly was never informed about by those Audiophiles. It's musicians who taught me about all that. Musicians care to distinguish the snake-oil in a way those guys just don't.

I wish stuff was reliably produced at different levels of fidelity. Sure, crank out a hella compressed version for mobile. Maybe make it mono! Then consider an audiophile 2 channel mix, with actual dynamics. Maybe then extend that to an immersive object-based format. I think the reason this doesn’t happen is mostly that the value doesn’t flow back to the artists well enough. There’s a market for those higher fidelity versions, but it’s small and difficult to reach. 😕

I have a similar thought process, and always have since Dolby surround sound first came out for consumer home theater. It would be cool to make music in surround, but it'd only be for me and the random few people who can afford and have a surround set up, and I would NOT want it to be the only way to listen to it, nor it to be forced down peoples throats. I see it as it's own thing, not a replacement for stereo, but something for people with specialized interest in new/exciting audio experiences and money. Not as some standard across the board. Hyper aggressive marketing only works if there's some core level of adoption by a big enough % of the base of stereo listeners, and that just isn't the case. It's hard enough getting people to listen to your music on a decent pair of stereo speakers so they can hear the bass, let alone 24 of them so they can hear sound behind them and above their heads! I've heard someone argue "well Atmos is in Tesla and Mercedes cars now!" and I'm like .. what about "Toyota, Honda, Chevy, Ford, Nissan, Dodge, Mazda..." and all the other more common brands of cars that aren't upmarket and account for the majority of consumer cars? Just because 2 or 3 expensive brands now put these sound systems in their cars doesn't mean it's become widely adopted or normalized in the slightest, nor does it mean it will become so in the future (which was the point they were trying to make). Sure there's a market for it, but it's not big enough to become an overarching standard audio format, when 99% of people will be listening to the folded down 2 speaker version if it did anyway. That's the definition of uneconomic and wasteful, poring so many resources into something that will, for the most part, be completely underutilized in it's intended format. But hey, who'd of thunk Apple would of been at the forefront of ramming something down your throat you don't want or need, to the point of them trying to break/make obsolete something that worked perfectly (stereo) just to force you to buy something most people wont use fully (Atmos wrapped up in Apple spacial audio). At least USB C is cross compatible I suppose, although headphone 3.5mm jacks are still just as useful and haven't gone anywhere, despite their attempt to remove them from existence!

I got a $400 (probably $500 now) Yamaha bundle with an actual 5.1 avr and all 6 speakers. Works really well. Has 4k HDR HDMI and everything. I think Yamaha is the best entry point to actual AVRs, they have the same software as the high end models on the cheaper ones so they have fully fleshed out features.

So I have a device, that in theory.. will.. in theory.. with many extra steps that have insured it's not been taken out of the plastic.. switch RCA into HDMI.. theoretically... Apparently this is just something that they really don't want you to do LOL.. and I've never used HDMI for anything audio.... Especially as a PC gamer that's always had a sound card where the outputs have always been analog LOL.. like the HDMI thing happened and, it was like cool story bro.. that'll be great if I don't want to hook up speakers and I'm using a TV (which I do, but for displaying purposes, I treat it like a monitor which I wouldn't want to have audio anyways LOL just add more pass-throughs for heaven's sake LOL..) What's really frustrating is I have a near perfect audio setup for to the point where I've set it up in a way that should I wish to improve it I would have to spend significantly more money and as long as I don't hear anything like that.. I'm at the top of where I need to be LOL.. and it was based around the problem of needing to find RCA for surround on my sound card.. No I don't like center channels and I don't like subwoofers.. I don't need them either LOL I have full range floor speakers that each have 12 in woofers.. and if I was going to set up subs, I would have to do a whole bunch of things that I don't want to do LOL when I can get at the very least consistent surround low channels in surround.... and also honestly like center channels are kind of pointless.. if I was doing a 5.1 setup then yeah I would wanta center channel probably because we're talking about midget speakers at that point.. and then yeah I would have to get a sub because it would need to start doing all the sub things to compensate for the fact that the center channel is almost universally going to be limited in range, just on the mixing and never mind the output end... Of course, ghosting the center channel has never been a problem in PC world, as has full range surround never been a problem.. it just does the thing, but that translation is very sad that my production computer, has not so much lacking the DRM handshakes as all of the components in the chain have the DRM handshake of the Dolby and the DTs.. including the receiver.. including the television which is not in the chain and because I don't want to watch my content on a cell phone.. the best way to get quality is to either buy a Blu-ray or torrent a Blu-ray as streaming services don't really provide you with the surround sound on the computer.. or even the 4K or any number of things... One of these days I'm going to set up XP, if I can figure out how to find that 64-bit version that I had always tried to get to work but never could.. and just see if I was just remembering things wrong.. I feel like I I wasn't, but it was because I wasn't looking for it, I wasn't told that it had it I just remembered it having it and I remember it not having it when unreal 3 got really popular.. LOL I just remembered that being jarring having somebody in a house on the floor above me sound like he was behind me.. I was like well that's bad sound design why doesn't it do up and down....lol.

@@jakedill1304 Yeah as someone who mixes and makes tracks, but also games, I use HDMI audio only when I am using my PC for youtube or am not playing a game where I need to listen for footsteps etc, or if I CBA to turn my speakers on, or it's late at night or something. It's useful to not have extra wires, but that's about it really. I had exactly the same experience with DVI+fiber optics digital out to my monitor except it had 2 wires instead of one (it's basically the same thing, HDMI = DVI+digital audio).

HDMI was invented to push HDCP copy protections onto consumer devices. The read single cable AV standard is SDI using industry-standard 50 ohm coax with BNC connectors.

@@jamesphillips2285 HDMI and DVI-D are two standards for the transmission of digital image signals, each with different protocols, but in part the same type of conductor which, among other things, also makes them compatible with each other. The difference is primarily that DVI is a computer monitor standard and not prepared for sound transfer. The DVI protocol is somewhat more sensitive to noise and therefore cannot cope with as long cables as HDMI. HDMI is a newer standard and designed for multimedia transmission and the protocol therefore has more options and control signals than DVI (including things like HDCP).

Do bass sound different than other fish when getting cooked?

This is hilarious because bass frequencies cannot have much spatial clarity, it's a physical and physiological limitation that can't be overcome... unless you make your head bigger. 😅

@@tungtobak I heard they sing for their lives

@@jordanrodrigues1279 atmos doesn’t give the bass spatial depth but boosts the low frequency so it sounds more “rumbly”

its all about the bass knowledge

Haha. Turn it down 1db and watch the quality explode.

The video should have been titled Dolby Atmos for Music because it has nothing to do with the movie side of it where it works just fine.

That was creative labs, not Dolby.

@@IDrinkLava my bad, you're right

Windows breaking driver compatibility every 6mo is what killed creative. You can only take so many years of having to rewrite and refix stuff you've already sold before it's not worth it anymore.

Music maker to the stars

Always felt that money spent on a pair (or trio, with a sub) of really good stereo speakers is better bang for the buck.

@@EversonBernardes Honestly, that may be the way we go, as the house I'll be moving into has pretty much nothing but long, narrow rooms, and the room the TV will go in can realistically only be set up one way, so we don't even really have room for anything behind the couch.

This guy is a tool, if you are building a HT at home with a proper setup set it up for Atmos. After upgrading my 5.1 setup to add atmos speakers on the ceiling it was a notable improvement on well mastered atmos films.

@@sakumisan found one in the wild

@@bb-sw6ur He's not completely wrong. Benn Jordan makes a good argument in pointing out that slapping atmos on all sorts of shitty consumer products is literally just to fleece the customer since you cannot reproduce proper spatial audio without a proper setup. BUT, If you are able to put in actual ceiling speakers into your setup, atmos will sound awesome, and it's the format most content that's setup for "immersive audio" is going to be in. I have a 5.1 setup myself, and I would never setup 7.1, or atmos, or whatever, because I am a poor and it's out of my budget. The problem here lies with making poor people think that they can reproduce accurate spatial audio with cheap consumer hardware to make more money. Your budget should determine how you step up in the audio tiers, and yea you gotta do a little research to figure out what you should actually be getting, and stop letting advertisers sell you fancy buzzwords.