 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It can be humbling here. Never heard of ATMOS, though it sounds readily obvious what it means. At one of Jerry's London concerts (or possibly two) I distinctly remember him talking up SACD CDs, and giving the system a very strong pat on the back. At least, I think it was SACD. How do these two upstarts work, anyone?
SACD (Super Audio CD) was supposed to be the successor to CD - a higher resolution version of the Compact Disc, with higher sample rates and bit depth, which was supposed to deliver better sound quality than standard CD. However, the format was never much of a success. It's still around today, but limited to a few releases from niche "audiophile" labels. Interestingly, after almost two decades of scientific testing, no one has been able to confirm any real benefit to high resolution recordings as a release format; the best scientific data shows that high resolution music is audibly indistinguishable from the same exact recording on standard CD. In a few experiments there have been a few audible differences found when playing back specially designed test signals, and even there, the differences have been on the threshold of audibility, mainly having to do with subtle differences in the variety of filtering used in D/A conversion.
However, there was one major upside of SACD, and its companion format, DVD-Audio (which had the same "improved sound" goal). The real benefit came from the fact that both formats also allowed for music to be mixed in up to 5 channel surround - a left, center, right front stage, plus left and right surround channels. Of course, this required five correctly placed speakers and additional amplification to drive them. This WAS a substantial improvement over CD. There are some extraordinarily good surround recordings out there, and science behind them is sound (no pun intended). Most of what we hear at a live performance is reflected sound from the performance venue - sound reflected off the ceiling, side and rear walls. With a good surround recording, the ambience of the concert hall can be realistically reproduced. With pop / rock / country recordings, it's possible to put you "in the band" with the various musicians all around you. Sometimes the surround format can be just "fun." I've heard some recordings where sounds are panned around all around you, starting in the left front speaker and moving all the way from side to side and front to back. This kind of thing is gimmicky, but can be immensely enjoyable.
For soundtrack and classical recordings, usually what is done is to put reverb into the surround channels and spread the orchestra across the front three speakers rather than just two. Again, this can give a very convincing sense of space and spaciousness. After all, when you go to the symphony the sound does not come from two point sources - it comes from the massed sounds of all the instruments combined with the live, reverberant sound of the space itself. The more speakers you have, the more accurately you can reproduce the massed sound of all those instruments in the space in which they were recorded.
Now we get to ATMOS, which adds a height dimension by putting additional speakers in or on the ceiling (this is also true of DTS-X and Auro, competing formats). ATMOS can support up to 34 channels (!) in its home configuration, and 128 channels in a theatrical configuration (though most installations use 32 to 64 channels). In a typical home theater scenario you might find seven speakers "on the floor" (left, center, right, left surround, right surround, left rear, and right rear) and four in the ceiling (left and right front height, left and right rear height). This increases spacial reproduction of music and movie soundtracks exponentially. In a film, sound effects can now come from almost anywhere in three dimensional space. One of my favorite ATMOS demos is GRAVITY - in the opening scene the voices of the astronauts and mission control all come from various places in the room as the camera moves in and around the action. You can hear George Clooney and Sandra Bullock's voices swirl all around you, with the voice of mission control coming from over your head. It's amazingly immersive.
Recently, we have started seeing the release of a great deal of ATMOS encoded music on disc and on streaming services like Tidal. It's amazing how well a good ATMOS remastering can "open up" a recording and give you a great sense of space. The new Beatles ABBEY ROAD remix is tremendous - during the "guitar battle" section of "The End," McCartney's guitar comes out of the left side surround, Lennon out of the left, and Harrison out of the center. Ringo's drum solo is placed squarely in the middle of the room. It's thrilling. The height channels are employed to lift the acoustic space so that the music appears to "float" inside the room.
Again, for an orchestral recording, a mix / mastering engineer might just add the sense of space you would get in a concert hall, by adding in height, surround and rear delay and reverb. It's quite amazing what can be done. I do ATMOS demos here all the time, and when you turn off the surround processing and the sound "falls back" into just a single pair of stereo speakers, there's a real sense of loss as the sound field collapses.
There is far more to talk about in terms of how ATMOS uses an "object based" approach to manipulating sounds in 3D space, but I think I've gone on here long enough. I'll close with a diagram of my own personal surround immersive surround setup (called 9.4.6 - nine speakers "on the floor," four subwoofers, and six height speakers) stolen from the Dolby website. 
Full details can be found on Dolby's website: https://www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I'm all up for a remastered and restored version of the Director's Cut for STAR TREK - THE MOTION PICTURE on HD Bluray. This is by far my favorite STAR TREK movie, I'd definitely get that.
One of the RARE times, NZ, you've beat me to the punch  . Not a Blurayer m'self so I will settle for a DVD of the Director's Edition with all this fancy shmancy audio improvement.
Hahaha.... is that SO rare? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
For listening outside the movie, I'm confident I'll never have to upgrade beyond LLL's 3-disc set. I've dipped my last on this title.
I'll second that!
Fully agreed, it's unlikely that I'd re-buy the soundtrack, simply because the LLL release is pretty much all I could want. (But by all means, re-release it too... should always be available.)
But I'd be all up for a new Bluray release of the movie (ideally, not just with remastered soundtrack but also improved picture quality) of the director's cut of the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SACD (Super Audio CD) was supposed to be the successor to CD - a higher resolution version of the Compact Disc, with higher sample rates and bit depth, which was supposed to deliver better sound quality than standard CD. However, the format was never much of a success. It's still around today, but limited to a few releases from niche "audiophile" labels. Interestingly, after almost two decades of scientific testing, no one has been able to confirm any real benefit to high resolution recordings as a release format; the best scientific data shows that high resolution music is audibly indistinguishable from the same exact recording on standard CD
Now, now, not so fast... We have been through this before, and this is absolutely not so. The most reliable scientific data without doubt shows that human ears are in fact able to differentiate the differences between high resolution music and CD sound on the exact same recording in the exact same setup. Now most people don't care, which is why SACD was never much of a success. Most people don't even care to hear the difference between MP3 and uncompressed sound, where it's actually obvious.
Now, in comparison to the differences between a stereo and a surround setup, where the differences can easily be heard even by untrained ears, the differences are obviously minuscule (but minuscule is not nothing).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2020 - 2:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
There is one thing about standard recordings which I find a little exasperating. Every now and then, you get overlap of instruments that, when 'etched' onto a single output media type, becomes a concurrently congealed mess. I can't think of a good example, but there are real situations where definition (a local section where the volume drowns out the definition of highly intricate detail) for a part of the orchestra goes out of the window. Now, I don't really know if recording on separate channels could help make this problem less intrusive when it comes to the crunch, however, it would be interesting if an ATMOS setup could enable separation of the sound elements to really positively enhance (by substitution) these 'would-be' definition destroying detractors.
On the other hand, if you still get a large amount of tape hiss, could this problem actually be substantially reduced via ATMOS, because it can, in any case, be highly magnified with standard CD capture on higher volume settings at maximum resolution of the source? In other words, would the bulk of historic soundtracks be best served on traditional CD anyway due to age considerations, etc? It seems to me there might be a limit to what can be extracted from old movie scores. More recently processed music does not have the same problem because one assumes the field of resolution at the point of capture is that much greater and an ATMOS build does not have 'in-between' artefact deficiencies to have to resolve. What I'm getting at is, does an ATMOS system magnify the deficiences in the original source in such a way it puts the brakes on the possibility of bringing our favorites up-to-date, or can the deficiencies be rubbed out for an altogether cleaner and more objective sound?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DUPLICATE POST
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most reliable scientific data without doubt shows that human ears are in fact able to differentiate the differences between high resolution music and CD sound on the exact same recording in the exact same setup. Now most people don't care, which is why SACD was never much of a success. Most people don't even care to hear the difference between MP3 and uncompressed sound, where it's actually obvious.
Now, in comparison to the differences between a stereo and a surround setup, where the differences can easily be heard even by untrained ears, the differences are obviously minuscule (but minuscule is not nothing).
Yup, here we go again Nicolai We are both "kind of" correct. There have been new papers published and new studies done since our last disagreement on this.
Are you familiar with Mark Waldrep, one of the original evangelists for high resolution audio? He literally sunk over a million dollars into a high rez recording studio and had been preaching the gospel of high rez for years. Part of his business was selling high rez recordings. Over those same years, he found that no one could hear any differences between his superbly executed high rez recordings and properly down-sampled versions of the same masters. He just finished a SECOND major listening test involving hundreds of people, and finally had to admit that he had been wasting his time on the "high rez" portion of the equation all this time. On the positive side, he did conclusively demonstrate that proper recording techniques and mastering are really the key to getting a good sounding result. From his synopsis:
Here’s the question: Would average music listeners be able to pick out a hi-res audio track over a Red Book standard CD version of the same master recordings using their own playback systems?...My research survey, conducted over these last 8 months, arrives at a different conclusion. Hi-Res Audio or HD-Audio provides no perceptible fidelity improvement over a standard-resolution CD or file. CD-spec and hi-res audio versions sound identical to vast majority of listeners through systems of all kinds...the responses present a picture that is undeniable.
As I’ve often stated in these articles, it is the production path that establishes the fidelity of the final master. Things like how a track was recorded, what processing was applied during recording and mixing, and how the tracks were ultimately mastered. If all of these things are done with maximizing fidelity as the primary goal, a great track will result. However, it’s very easy to destroy fidelity at any number of steps in the process.
So you can see I did not pull any quotes out of context, here's the original post: https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993
Now, here's some corroborating data from your side of the debate: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296&fbclid=IwAR2q8-NRZsybTZ0wpM5eDC-IoOo_2OlVw4WFme7u0r_9SN7w0jdhseklJf8
This is the paper I referred to about a small percentage of people being able to hear differences if a) specially trained to hear them, and b) using material designed to emphasize the differences. And it also seems that the differences very likely have to do with the filtering that takes place during mastering relative at the high end of the frequency spectrum, rather than from any intrinsic audible benefit of high rez in and of itself. I had a FB conversation with Dr. Sean Olive, who heads up the pure research division of Harman, and he had this to say about this study (since he knows some of the researchers). BTW, I added the bolded emphasis here:
"I don't disagree that the sound quality differences of high resolution audio are generally very subtle, and to hear differences generally requires trained listeners in controlled listening conditions using sensitive test signals. I think that was the conclusion of this meta-analysis of research on the topic written by Joshua Reiss. The J.AES.paper is linked and is open access (free).
I think it is important to point out that most of these studies in the meta-analysis aimed to measure whether ANY difference was audible in a statistically significant way. Establishing whether there is an audible difference is a different question than whether people generally prefer the differences.
I don't think that question of preference has been answered in any scientific rigorous way. If you can hear a difference, but the effect is so small a preference cannot be reliably formulated then what is the practical significance of high res? It comes down to a marketing benefit to help sell more media (much of it was re-released as upsampled material) and more new equipment that supports it. And if more media is release in high res formats then audio manufacturers are forced to support it to remain competitive."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is one thing about standard recordings which I find a little exasperating. Every now and then, you get overlap of instruments that, when 'etched' onto a single output media type, becomes a concurrently congealed mess. I can't think of a good example, but there are real situations where definition (a local section where the volume drowns out the definition of highly intricate detail) for a part of the orchestra goes out of the window. Now, I don't really know if recording on separate channels could help make this problem less intrusive when it comes to the crunch, however, it would be interesting if an ATMOS setup could enable separation of the sound elements to really positively enhance (by substitution) these 'would-be' definition destroying detractors.
On the other hand, if you still get a large amount of tape hiss, could this problem actually be substantially reduced via ATMOS, because it can, in any case, be highly magnified with standard CD capture on higher volume settings at maximum resolution of the source? In other words, would the bulk of historic soundtracks be best served on traditional CD anyway due to age considerations, etc? It seems to me there might be a limit to what can be extracted from old movie scores. More recently processed music does not have the same problem because one assumes the field of resolution at the point of capture is that much greater and an ATMOS build does not have 'in-between' artefact deficiencies to have to resolve. What I'm getting at is, does an ATMOS system magnify the deficiences in the original source in such a way it puts the brakes on the possibility of bringing our favorites up-to-date, or can the deficiencies be rubbed out for an altogether cleaner and more objective sound?
RE: your "congealed mess" comments. Yes, that's one of the major problems with stereo recordings (and bad mixing, for that matter). There are simply more opportunities to bring out detail in the recording when you have more channels to play with. This is called "spacial resolution," which is exactly what ATMOS, DTS-X and Auro are supposed to improve.
There are MUCH improved de-noise tools available these days for taking out tape hiss / noise / artifacts (Izotope's RX is the leader here). Years ago such tools sometimes also negatively affected high frequencies in the recording; these days the algorithms are much much better and the software user can tweak all the parameters. As some of the engineers who occasionally comment here can attest, it's now possible to eliminate all kinds of different recording problems that used to be game-enders (witness all the releases of THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, each time sounding cleaner and cleaner). But ultimately, a horrible recording is going to remain a horrible recording. The technology is not there yet to extract what wasn't there to begin with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you familiar with Mark Waldrep, one of the original evangelists for high resolution audio? He literally sunk over a million dollars into a high rez recording studio and had been preaching the gospel of high rez for years. Part of his business was selling high rez recordings. Over those same years, he found that no one could hear any differences between his superbly executed high rez recordings and properly down-sampled versions of the same masters. He just finished a SECOND major listening test involving hundreds of people, and finally had to admit that he had been wasting his time on the "high rez" portion of the equation all this time. On the positive side, he did conclusively demonstrate that proper recording techniques and mastering are really the key to getting a good sounding result. From his synopsis:
Here’s the question: Would average music listeners be able to pick out a hi-res audio track over a Red Book standard CD version of the same master recordings using their own playback systems?...My research survey, conducted over these last 8 months, arrives at a different conclusion. Hi-Res Audio or HD-Audio provides no perceptible fidelity improvement over a standard-resolution CD or file. CD-spec and hi-res audio versions sound identical to vast majority of listeners through systems of all kinds...the responses present a picture that is undeniable.
Ha, I don't really feel like going in depth on about this right now, but the very quote you write already contains a question that is not really asked, namely "would average(!) music listeners be able to pick out a hi-res audio track over a Red Book standard CD version". That's not the issue. "Vast majority of listeners" is also not the issue; heck, if just one person in such a test could distinguish between a high-res file and a red book standard file, it easily validates the format, since it can be inferred that for everyone who is be able to distinguish the difference in such a test, there are likely to be more people who can who did not participate. Also, it always really depends on how these tests are set up. Average music listeners should not even be included, as "average" music listeners are obviously not the target group when it comes to high resolution audio. So that's one thing. Another thing is that obviously, people should be familiar with the music, preferably the exact files, they are then going to listen to, which is also often not the case in such tests. They should have been able to listen to the file extensively, as that is a much more realistic comparison (people buy countless remaster versions of the same album only because they love the music in and out, an "average" (uninitiated) listener might not readily perceive such differences either, even if they are rather obvious in comparison.
However, obviously, there is a huge difference between stereo and surround to begin with, and the run-of-the-mill surround and a well configured Dolby ATMOS system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha, I don't really feel like going in depth on about this right now, but the very quote you write already contains a question that is not really asked, namely "would average(!) music listeners be able to pick out a hi-res audio track over a Red Book standard CD version". That's not the issue. "Vast majority of listeners" is also not the issue; heck, if just one person in such a test could distinguish between a high-res file and a red book standard file, it easily validates the format, since it can be inferred that for everyone who is be able to distinguish the difference in such a test, there are likely to be more people who can who did not participate. Also, it always really depends on how these tests are set up. Average music listeners should not even be included, as "average" music listeners are obviously not the target group when it comes to high resolution audio. So that's one thing. Another thing is that obviously, people should be familiar with the music, preferably the exact files, they are then going to listen to, which is also often not the case in such tests. They should have been able to listen to the file extensively, as that is a much more realistic comparison (people buy countless remaster versions of the same album only because they love the music in and out, an "average" (uninitiated) listener might not readily perceive such differences either, even if they are rather obvious in comparison.
However, obviously, there is a huge difference between stereo and surround to begin with, and the run-of-the-mill surround and a well configured Dolby ATMOS system.
Hey, know you don't want to go into depth, but I think we are just getting hung up on a small point. You say "if just one person could hear the difference...it easily validates the format." That is exactly why I put in this quote from Dr. Olive, who oversees the largest group of highly trained and critical listeners in the world, both at the Canadian NRC and at Harman:
"Establishing whether there is an audible difference is a different question than whether people generally prefer the differences.
I don't think that question of preference has been answered in any scientific rigorous way. If you can hear a difference, but the effect is so small a preference cannot be reliably formulated then what is the practical significance of high res?"
We have no data from the people who hear differences saying what they hear actually sounds better. And if you read the paper, the researchers say more research needs to be done in this area since differences that were heard could also be attributable to filtering processes used in the down-conversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, know you don't want to go into depth, but I think we are just getting hung up on a small point. You say "if just one person could hear the difference...it easily validates the format." That is exactly why I put in this quote from Dr. Olive, who oversees the largest group of highly trained and critical listeners in the world, both at the Canadian NRC and at Harman:
"Establishing whether there is an audible difference is a different question than whether people generally prefer the differences.
I don't think that question of preference has been answered in any scientific rigorous way. If you can hear a difference, but the effect is so small a preference cannot be reliably formulated then what is the practical significance of high res?
But what is "better" is a matter or preference and highly subjective. Most people were happy with 128kbps MP3s and preferred them for their smaller size, so they were "better" for them.
And audiophiles find the most comprehensive possible sound information "better", so they'd rather have files ten times as large to include 0.00786% of extra audible information that was not there before. That is why for "high resolution" tests, what "most people" prefer or find better is actually rather unimportant.
Another thing is, while one may discuss whether high-res files offer much of an actual audible advantage (they may, or may not, some people may hear it, some may not), one thing that is indisputably true is that they offer no disadvantages at all. So one might as well go for it. (Unless you consider the larger disc space a disadvantage, but personally I don't find that relevant anymore.)
There are some who claim LPs sound "better" than CD because CDs are lacking certain information. (Ironically, well, they then should turn to high-res, not to LPs, obviously. (Though I suspect they just like all the stuff LPs add to the sound. :-) )
But that's the thing: "better" is subjective. If somebody prefers the sound of a scratchy old LP to a 24/96 high resolution sound of the same recording, that's just what he thinks is "better".
One can of course study scientifically what kind of sound large groups of people find "better", but that has more to do with psychology, less with technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
