[gregorio]

[1] I'm talking about something really specific, but the replies keep flying off into theoretical, historical and technical tangents.[1a] I'm trying to be really clear and give examples of what I'm talking about, but the replies don't seem to even relate to the recordings I'm discussing.

1. Sorry bigshot but your response again resembles a typical sort of audiophile response. For example: "An audiophile USB cable should not make any difference", audiophile response "have you ever actually listened to a Norhost USB cable?". It obviously doesn't matter whether I've listened to one or not, the way that the USB protocol works means it won't make any difference unless the DAC has poorly designed or faulty USB receiver circuitry. What you're describing both misuses terminology and cannot be correct on the technical grounds of how Atmos and 5.1/7.1 systems operate.
1a. If my replies don't seem to relate to what you're talking about and your impressions of your recordings, you need to change how you're talking about and relating to your impressions of listening to your recordings.

[1] Are you familiar with any multichannel music recordings, particularly in the pop/rock field?
[2] Have you heard one of the new Atmos music albums (Sgt Pepper, REM Automatic For The People, Kraftwerk Catalogue) [2a] on a good home Atmos system? I would love to hear about that.
[3] I've only heard Atmos on 5.1. And it appears that different 5.1 systems render Atmos radically differently. [3a] (I already explained why.)

1. Yes, I am and I'm not just "familiar" with multi-channel music recordings but I've been involved in creating them professionally for 20 years! Mostly music for movies (both for cinema and for home surround systems), although I have worked on music only and music videos in surround, including on one occasion for a "big name" artist.

2. No, I haven't heard one of the new Atmos music albums. However, I did recently work in a Dolby Atmos mixing facility, consulting on the music for a movie. So although I can't call myself an expert, I do have a fair idea of how Atmos works, the facilities it provides and how to use them in practise. That's on top of a great deal of knowledge and practical experience with mixing in 5.1/7.1.
2a. I've only heard a home Atmos system briefly, playing a movie. Have you heard one?

3. Unless I've misunderstood your posts, what you've heard is a 5.1 mix on your 5.1 system, you've not heard a 5.1 system render an Atmos mix. To rephrase more accurately, you've heard an already 5.1 rendered (folded-down) mix on your 5.1 system, you have not heard your system render an Atmos mix to 5.1. To hear what that sounds like you would need a Dolby Atmos processor, a un-rendered/original Dolby Atmos mix and you'd need to "instruct" your Atmos processor that it needed to render/fold-down to 5.1. Even with an Atmos processor and mix, the 5.1 render/fold-down should not sound any different from an original 5.1 mix. Having said this, different home 5.1 systems playback 5.1 mixes radically differently, just as different stereo systems playback stereo mixes differently and the issues which cause such differences with stereo (speaker freq response, placement and room acoustics) are only multiplied with 5.1/7.1 and Atmos.
3a. Yes you did but using misappropriated terminology and incorrect assumptions and conclusions, which is why I responded in the first place!

[1] It's a shame because 5.1 and Atmos are the biggest advances in sound quality since the introduction of stereo, and
[2] multichannel audio opens doors for whole new ways of constructing mixes.

1. I personally would phrase that differently. There's no inherent advance in sound quality with surround formats over stereo, the sound quality of Dolby Digital 5.1 is technically actually lower sound quality than CD for example. However, 5.1 and other surround formats can certainly greatly enhance the experience of music (and sound) listening.

2. Not so much for me. I started in the recording industry in 1991, did my first commercial surround project in 1998 and probably around 70% of my work since then has been in 5.1/7.1. So I've got a pretty good handle on constructing mixes in multi-channel audio, although of course mixers are constantly finding subtle new ways and conventions for constructing mixes in 5.1, as they still are with stereo as well.

G

 

[bigshot]

The next month or two is going to be a big one for multichannel music. I've got three things coming... John Lennon's Imagine is on its way to me from the UK right now, and next month both The Beatles White Album and Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland are coming out.

 

[bigshot]

I got the new box of John Lennon's Imagine yesterday and listened to it. It's the third multichannel album I've found that has channels attenuated -6dB. This must be some sort of calibration error in mastering or something. The mix is OK, but I think some songs are better in the old quad mix and some are better in the new 5.1 mix. Thankfully, the box set includes both, along with the stereo remix. I'm not terribly fond of the way it was mixed. The front channels are totally discrete. All of the stereo information is in the various kinds of reverbs, which are spread between front and rear. The drums sound awful. I suspect this album wasn't lavished with a lot of care when they were recording it.

 

[jgazal]

(...) I'm not terribly fond of the way it was mixed. The front channels are totally discrete. All of the stereo information is in the various kinds of reverbs, which are spread between front and rear. (...)

When you describe that front channels are totally discrete, does it mean that voices and instruments are level panned between front left and right speakers but satellite speakers plays only reverb?

I guess that's the way illusonic up mixes stereo to multichannel

 

[bigshot]

The keyboards are all in the left channel. The center channel is just vocals and Lennon's guitar. The right channel is the lead guitar. The drums and bass appear to be recorded mono and are spread across the three fronts. Any stereo separation is between the front channels and the rears (reverb, slapback, the stereo presence on the upright piano on Imagine, etc.) When I first played it without adjusting the level of the rear channels, there was almost nothing coming out of the rears, and it sounded like an old "rechanneled for stereo" Beatles album. Really flat and dry sounding with elements hard right and hard left. When I boosted the rears, it got a lot more presence and depth. But not as much depth as if they had some stereo going on up front too.

In the book that comes with it, they say they were trying to simulate the listener being in the middle of the recording studio while the musicians were playing. It doesn't sound like that at all. I think it's just an engineer who doesn't know how to get the most out of multichannel. I think this is the same engineer who did "Let It Be Naked". I didn't care for that mix either. I like Spector's better than that one.

Thankfully, the set has the old quad mix, which is much more sophisticated than the 5.1. So I'm not stuck with just the half a loaf new mix.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

The keyboards are all in the left channel. The center channel is just vocals and Lennon's guitar. The right channel is the lead guitar. The drums and bass appear to be recorded mono and are spread across the three fronts. Any stereo separation is between the front channels and the rears (reverb, slapback, the stereo presence on the upright piano on Imagine, etc.) When I first played it without adjusting the level of the rear channels, there was almost nothing coming out of the rears, and it sounded like an old "rechanneled for stereo" Beatles album. Really flat and dry sounding with elements hard right and hard left. When I boosted the rears, it got a lot more presence and depth. But not as much depth as if they had some stereo going on up front too.

In the book that comes with it, they say they were trying to simulate the listener being in the middle of the recording studio while the musicians were playing. It doesn't sound like that at all. I think it's just an engineer who doesn't know how to get the most out of multichannel. I think this is the same engineer who did "Let It Be Naked". I didn't care for that mix either. I like Spector's better than that one.

Thankfully, the set has the old quad mix, which is much more sophisticated than the 5.1. So I'm not stuck with just the half a loaf new mix.

Yep...as someone who enjoys older music i appreciate incremental improvements that show off new tech,not complete teardowns just for the sake of showing off whats possible.... to the detriment of the original recording .

 

[bigshot]

I'm not sure that translating a stereo mix to 5.1 doesn't require a total teardown and repiecing together again. It just has to be good for the context you're mixing for. It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. You have to find a balance between too much and too little. You probably also have to understand the medium of multichannel, which I'm not convinced that all of the engineers producing these discs are in full understanding of. Enough of them are to make me excited about the future though.

 

[bigshot]

Today is a good day. The multichannel mixes of The Beatles White Album and Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland are arriving today. I will have a busy weekend.

 

[bfreedma]

Today is a good day. The multichannel mixes of The Beatles White Album and Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland are arriving today. I will have a busy weekend.

Looking forward to your feedback - if the mixes are good, I'll buy another copy of that content.

Last week was a good week as well. Steven Wilson released Home Invasion: Live At Royal Albert Hall and The Pineapple Thief released Dissolution - both on Blu Ray and both with very immersive surround mixes.

 

[bigshot]

If you like Tangerine Dream, Wilson leaked in an interview that he had just completed a big box set of early TD multichannel mixes. They're probably intending to compete with the successful Kraftwerk box.

 

[bfreedma]

I had heard that and am certainly looking forward to it. I'm not much of a Twitter user (I can count the number of tweets I've made on one hand), but do follow musicians I like. And chefs. Rarely do the two communities overlap.

If you haven't already signed up, Burning Shed's email list is another good way to stay informed regarding Wilson's projects. I also prefer to buy from them rather than Amazon as my understanding is that the artists get a little bit bigger slice of the pie.

https://burningshed.com/store/stevenwilson/bands-wilson/stevenwilson_mixes

 

[bigshot]

I’ve ordered from them in the past, but I don’t like their shipping policies. I have prime and Amazon offers no question returns so I stick with them

 

[bfreedma]

I’ve ordered from them in the past, but I don’t like their shipping policies. I have prime and Amazon offers no question returns so I stick with them

Understood - you definitely do wait a few extra days past the release date. There are some artists there that I'm familiar enough with to have high confidence that I'm going to like what they release, so pre-order there when it makes sense.

Sometimes Amazon doesn't do a great job of identifying the format for pre-release material. The Steven Wilson concert was a recent example - you couldn't tell on Amazon whether you were ordering the BR or DVD - Burning Shed was clearer. Can't say my instant gratification gene enjoyed waiting a few extra days for it to show, but at least I knew what I was going to receive.

Prime gets enough of my income - maybe too much!

 

[bigshot]

I don't like that they don't guarantee delivery on international orders.

 

[bfreedma]

I don't like that they don't guarantee delivery on international orders.

Wasn’t aware of that - that isn’t good.

So far, knock on wood, I haven’t had anything lost, but given the lack of guarantee, I definitely won’t order anything expensive from them.