|
Post by AGD on Jun 12, 2023 2:40:12 GMT -5
Back in the early seventies, I remember the full page ads for Virgin albums in the NME had a special section headed as follows: Artifical Head Records (for people with four ears).
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jun 12, 2023 9:20:25 GMT -5
Interesting. Of course there are piracy places to go to where movies can be downloaded that contain Atmos files, but .. Atmos music files??? That's a new one on me. But what would prevent others to use non-Atmos techniques (with their protected proprietary strategies) to devise their own surround sound techniques, to unpack work already out there. It looks like a wide-open field. You can't copy their technique but people can always come up with their own with their own particular inventiveness. You'll have to pardon my ignorance about sound techniques, and I apologize in advance, but when I see these magic headphones I think of trying to run Windows on an ipad, in an "emulator" fashion. And how could already owned surround sound DTS play a role, for personal use? But, I am still in favor of hearing it in a theater where someone way smarter than I, has it all set up and I just have to close my eyes and listen. Someone else did the hard work.
|
|
|
Post by boogieboarder on Jun 13, 2023 9:49:08 GMT -5
I remember reading that in the 1940s or 1950s when stereophonic music recording was developed, studies at the time showed that seven speakers surrounding the listener were required to provide the most realistic soundscape for listening. Of course, just a two speaker system was the minimum and cheapest possible way to achieve stereo for home use, and it became the standard for decades until surround sound was finally available much more recently. But that’s mainly used for movies. Two channel stereo is still pretty much the standard for music today for, I would guess, 99.9% of all listeners.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jun 13, 2023 12:05:16 GMT -5
I remember reading that in the 1940s or 1950s when stereophonic music recording was developed, studies at the time showed that seven speakers surrounding the listener were required to provide the most realistic soundscape for listening. Of course, just a two speaker system was the minimum and cheapest possible way to achieve stereo for home use, and it became the standard for decades until surround sound was finally available much more recently. But that’s mainly used for movies. Two channel stereo is still pretty much the standard for music today for, I would guess, 99.9% of all listeners. Is this different from quadrophonic after we had some kind of simulated stereo? How is quadrophonic different or was it made in the 8 track era. As I keep trying to find out more, it seems there is a weird (or not) pushback but those who are afraid of being left behind-the-times. It was devised for movies for special effects. One of my newer TVs has Dolby Vision - whatever that is besides a licensed technology. They talk about it (Atmos) as "object" surround sound. Please tell me like I am 5 years old.
|
|
|
Post by boogieboarder on Jun 13, 2023 12:24:15 GMT -5
I remember reading that in the 1940s or 1950s when stereophonic music recording was developed, studies at the time showed that seven speakers surrounding the listener were required to provide the most realistic soundscape for listening. Of course, just a two speaker system was the minimum and cheapest possible way to achieve stereo for home use, and it became the standard for decades until surround sound was finally available much more recently. But that’s mainly used for movies. Two channel stereo is still pretty much the standard for music today for, I would guess, 99.9% of all listeners. Is this different from quadrophonic after we had some kind of simulated stereo? How is quadrophonic different or was it made in the 8 track era. As I keep trying to find out more, it seems there is a weird (or not) pushback but those who are afraid of being left behind-the-times. It was devised for movies for special effects. One of my newer TVs has Dolby Vision - whatever that is besides a licensed technology. They talk about it (Atmos) as "object" surround sound. Please tell me like I am 5 years old. Yeah, quadrophonic was a 70s thing that came and went. There are some legacy quad releases you could get on discreet 4-track or 8-track tapes, but for LPs they had to squeeze the four channels into two-track stereo LPs by using something called a "Matrix encoder", and then the decoder would reconstruct the 4 channels by extracting the data, which I think was just the channels mixed out of phase from each other. Some albums already had out of phase data accidentally in them, and so magically appears to be quadrophonic when played through the decoder (Sunflower and Surf's Up were examples).
|
|
|
Post by Chuck's rewind on Jun 13, 2023 13:19:50 GMT -5
Back in the early seventies, I remember the full page ads for Virgin albums in the NME had a special section headed as follows: Artifical Head Records (for people with four ears). You old mudder flusher ? Good one though.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jun 29, 2023 10:48:10 GMT -5
As this Atmos thing rolls along with all this deceptive and confounding Dolby "Audio/Vision" branding, I found a Roku device called the Ultra which is supposed to decode Atmos rather than the "pass through" as it is called with one of the Roku 4K sticks. There is a lot of info on the Roku community discussions. It seems you have to be careful with what settings you set up with the device. But, some progress is better than no progress. And there are a bunch of YouTubes out there that can help to set it up.
Some are claiming on the Roku forum that some of the 4K sticks from around 2021 have had a "secret Dolby Atmos support" setting. That is so above my pay grade and others here know so much more than me. But, I just discovered that a tv I already own is branded Dolby Atmos (imagine my surprise?) so that is another potential for a work around.
Here's hoping...the branded Dolby Atmos Roku Ultra (hockey puck version) is #RO-4802R.
|
|
barnsy
Kahuna
Posts: 198
Likes: 299
|
Post by barnsy on Jul 16, 2023 10:59:54 GMT -5
A MOJO journalist went to the London event and has an article in the August issue. It includes some quotes from Giles Martin and one relates to Brian - the article says 'Brian remotely followed the Atmos process, and requested that backing vocals were raised in the mixes. “Always more backing vocals,” Martin stresses. “So this is what he wants. He’s heard it and is happy. He was really blown away.”' Steve Hoffman is also quoted - it starts off “There is only one version of Pet Sounds and that is the version that Brian Wilson prepared for release in 1966,” he argues. “Anything else is just mucking around.”
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jan 25, 2024 10:15:31 GMT -5
Here is the full Atmos mix for Pet Sounds, which can be listened to on regular headphones. Forgive me if this has previously been linked to. I am seriously unimpressed. Here are my initial thoughts whilst listening. (Feel free to disagree, these are subjective musings). 1) The album has lost the dynamic "oomph" present in both the mono and stereo mix. (Just listen to when the full ensemble enters at the beginning of WIBN). Giles has inexplicably panned the track containing the bass to the left in many songs, which leads to this lack of dynamic focus. The bass should be centred. 2) The volume in some parts has been turned right down. The backing vocals and strings in many tracks are barely audible. In other cases they are mixed too loud. It is completely inconsistent in approach. 3) As a seasoned Pet Sounds listener, I heard nothing I hadn't heard before. Whilst there was some increased clarity in some parts, particularly the lyrics, this was often at the expense of other parts. 4) In many vocal parts, they have been presented dry (no reverb), which makes them very immediate and close. I found this distracting. 5) Sloppy editing in the bridge of Here Today, and in the train FX at the end. Deary me! It brings it home to me listening to this how much Pet Sounds was made for the mono format. Whilst I have love for the stereo mix (whose dynamic and volume of parts was based on the mono mix), this Atmos mix is, (in my opinion) truly dreadful. Giles has on the whole done a good job on the Beatles remixes. What may work for the Beatles however, does not work for songs whose arrangements are vastly more complex (such as Wilson's output). 3 out of 10, Giles. A poor effort. Stay in your lane.
|
|
|
Post by sailorwailer123 on Jan 25, 2024 15:33:25 GMT -5
Agreed. People who have Dolby Atmos selected by default on Apple Music and stuff will really imagine this is what Pet Sounds is.
I suspect most people are not self-consciously audiophiles and don't give a fig about mixes and mixing, but their ears will be able to tell and some will go away not liking it, for reasons relating to the poor mix.
This should not be underestimated. People like music for the sonics, as well as the quality of the songwriting etc.
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jan 25, 2024 17:58:07 GMT -5
A MOJO journalist went to the London event and has an article in the August issue. It includes some quotes from Giles Martin and one relates to Brian - the article says 'Brian remotely followed the Atmos process, and requested that backing vocals were raised in the mixes. “Always more backing vocals,” Martin stresses. “So this is what he wants. He’s heard it and is happy. He was really blown away.”' Steve Hoffman is also quoted - it starts off “There is only one version of Pet Sounds and that is the version that Brian Wilson prepared for release in 1966,” he argues. “Anything else is just mucking around.” So the backing vocals were originally even softer??? They can barely be heard in some tracks as it is! Perhaps Brian should have overseen these mixes. Even with one ear and 81 years under his belt, he'd have done a significantly better job.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Bartlett on Jan 25, 2024 18:40:48 GMT -5
Geez! It sounds like it's missing half of it's components. Lead vocals are pushed to the front, background vocals are at times almost inaudible! What the hell? I probably overuse the term a lot, but this is a 'trainwreck'! The mixes sound incomplete and unbalanced. Seems like the echo chamber was 'out of order' too when it came to mixdown. If people were confused about Brian's original vision, newbies discovering are gonna hear this and be even more puzzled and further question the album's integrity. Just because we can mess with these things, does that mean we always should? Nothing will hold a candle to Brian's original 66 Mono Mix.
|
|
|
Post by mfp on Jan 25, 2024 20:47:25 GMT -5
Whenever I want to hear Pet Sounds in a different way, I play the "Don't Talk..." isolated strings, "WIBN" backing vox & track, the spanish vox from "IJWMFTT", etc., or the isolated extracted 5.1 channels.
|
|
|
Post by Al S on Jan 25, 2024 23:22:40 GMT -5
Agreed. People who have Dolby Atmos selected by default on Apple Music and stuff will really imagine this is what Pet Sounds is. I suspect most people are not self-consciously audiophiles and don't give a fig about mixes and mixing, but their ears will be able to tell and some will go away not liking it, for reasons relating to the poor mix. This should not be underestimated. People like music for the sonics, as well as the quality of the songwriting etc. Nice one, I agree with you - I think the real thing thing subsequent mixes lack, even the nice Mark L stereo mix, is the real sonic punch and power of the original mono mix. Brian's original mix bangs like the 16 cannons of the 1812 Overture.
|
|
|
Post by Al S on Jan 25, 2024 23:24:04 GMT -5
Whenever I want to hear Pet Sounds in a different way, I play the "Don't Talk..." isolated strings, "WIBN" backing vox & track, the spanish vox from "IJWMFTT", etc., or the isolated extracted 5.1 channels. All at the same time? LOL, great to read you, old buddy, mfp is in da house!
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jan 26, 2024 4:16:00 GMT -5
Geez! It sounds like it's missing half of it's components. Lead vocals are pushed to the front, background vocals are at times almost inaudible! What the hell? I probably overuse the term a lot, but this is a 'trainwreck'! The mixes sound incomplete and unbalanced. Seems like the echo chamber was 'out of order' too when it came to mixdown. If people were confused about Brian's original vision, newbies discovering are gonna hear this and be even more puzzled and further question the album's integrity. Just because we can mess with these things, does that mean we always should? Nothing will hold a candle to Brian's original 66 Mono Mix. Whilst I fully agree that the mono mix is the most dynamically potent mix, I do feel a good spatial mix is possible, just as a good stereo mix was possible. What disappointed me with this one is that it fell really short of the mark. So to answer your question "Just because we can mess with these things, does that mean we always should?", we don't know until we hear the results. In this case, no. It is possible with binaural mixing to give the aural illusion of having elements surrounding the listener over headphones. When I think of all the separate vocal tracks, it would have been possible to position these around the listener. This is what I was expecting from the mix. Also, as we've all noticed, the balance was way off, which was the overriding problem with this mix. This really wasn't helped by positioning the bass to the left. It is also possible with head tracking technology to present spatial headphone mixes where the listener can explore the mix via their head rotation and position. A well balanced spatial mix would allow the listener to autonomously explore the mix, and move their head towards elements they wish to examine further. Such a presentation of Pet Sounds would be of great interest to scholars. Whilst you can hear the separate tracks and vocals on the boxed-set, you do not hear the contrapuntal relationship between the parts. An explorable full mix would allow one to find new relationships by changing the balance and spatiality, which were not present on either the mono or stereo mixes. As this interaction occurs bodily, it is a fluid and intuitive way of listening to music. When such a mix is presented in VR, one feels one is cognitively and bodily present within the mix! As an interesting side note, during one of my experiments with psychedelics in the early '90s, the mono mix of WIBN once separated into all its component parts and manifested around my head. Whilst this would be impossible without a vast improvement in audio extraction software, it is nonetheless my yardstick for assessing potential spatial mixes of Pet Sounds.
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Jan 26, 2024 8:22:02 GMT -5
Here is the full Atmos mix for Pet Sounds, which can be listened to on regular headphones. Forgive me if this has previously been linked to. I am seriously unimpressed. Here are my initial thoughts whilst listening. (Feel free to disagree, these are subjective musings). 1) The album has lost the dynamic "oomph" present in both the mono and stereo mix. (Just listen to when the full ensemble enters at the beginning of WIBN). Giles has inexplicably panned the track containing the bass to the left in many songs, which leads to this lack of dynamic focus. The bass should be centred. 2) The volume in some parts has been turned right down. The backing vocals and strings in many tracks are barely audible. In other cases they are mixed too loud. It is completely inconsistent in approach. 3) As a seasoned Pet Sounds listener, I heard nothing I hadn't heard before. Whilst there was some increased clarity in some parts, particularly the lyrics, this was often at the expense of other parts. 4) In many vocal parts, they have been presented dry (no reverb), which makes them very immediate and close. I found this distracting. 5) Sloppy editing in the bridge of Here Today, and in the train FX at the end. Deary me! It brings it home to me listening to this how much Pet Sounds was made for the mono format. Whilst I have love for the stereo mix (whose dynamic and volume of parts was based on the mono mix), this Atmos mix is, (in my opinion) truly dreadful. Giles has on the whole done a good job on the Beatles remixes. What may work for the Beatles however, does not work for songs whose arrangements are vastly more complex (such as Wilson's output). 3 out of 10, Giles. A poor effort. Stay in your lane. I could be wrong but I don't think YouTube can properly output Dolby Atmos mixes currently. Someone may have uploaded the Atmos mix but YT crushed it with heavy compression and forced it into stereo. In any case I wouldn't go by this link to judge the Atmos mix. 🤷🏼♂️
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jan 26, 2024 11:07:45 GMT -5
I did consider that Awesoman, and you may well be right. However, YouTube manages other binaural mixes fine, such as 8-D presentations. I've also heard Kylie Minogue's Padam Padam as an Atmos mix on both Tidal and YT, and they rendered identically.
Can anyone make a comparison between the Pet Sounds Atmos mix on YT, and the ones on streaming sites? It would be interesting to see if the YT upload has indeed been compromised. I don't seem to be able to access PS on Tidal here in the UK!
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Jan 26, 2024 11:38:00 GMT -5
I did consider that Awesoman, and you may well be right. However, YouTube manages other binaural mixes fine, such as 8-D presentations. I've also heard Kylie Minogue's Padam Padam as an Atmos mix on both Tidal and YT, and they rendered identically. Can anyone make a comparison between the Pet Sounds Atmos mix on YT, and the ones on streaming sites? It would be interesting to see if the YT upload has indeed been compromised. I don't seem to be able to access PS on Tidal here in the UK! Understood and again please don't quote me on this as I've gotten mixed information on the subject, but to my understanding YouTube outputs audio at around 128-256kbps which equates to basically average MP3 audio. It's well below the quality and fidelity that Atmos mixes (or hell, even standard lossless redbook CD audio) are supposed to reach. And I'm also dubious that YouTube can output audio accurately for anything more than stereo (although allegedly it can according to some sources I've read). So I don't believe you're going to get an accurate or fair representation of what Atmos audio can do on YouTube (at least for now). But in any case even if I'm incorrect in my assessment here, keep in mind that the link you provided did not even come officially from the Beach Boys but rather some guy named "Mr Spelleps" so I would take the quality of his video with a grain of salt. Bottom line is that if you really want to make an accurate critique of the mix, you should seek the album on Spotify where you can hear the quality natively (with Atmos-compatible speakers). Amazon Music claims to have the same mix too but I've been skeptical that they have been accurately handling the correct mixes of the songs.
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jan 26, 2024 13:55:15 GMT -5
I did consider that Awesoman, and you may well be right. However, YouTube manages other binaural mixes fine, such as 8-D presentations. I've also heard Kylie Minogue's Padam Padam as an Atmos mix on both Tidal and YT, and they rendered identically. Can anyone make a comparison between the Pet Sounds Atmos mix on YT, and the ones on streaming sites? It would be interesting to see if the YT upload has indeed been compromised. I don't seem to be able to access PS on Tidal here in the UK! Understood and again please don't quote me on this as I've gotten mixed information on the subject, but to my understanding YouTube outputs audio at around 128-256kbps which equates to basically average MP3 audio. It's well below the quality and fidelity that Atmos mixes (or hell, even standard lossless redbook CD audio) are supposed to reach. And I'm also dubious that YouTube can output audio accurately for anything more than stereo (although allegedly it can according to some sources I've read). So I don't believe you're going to get an accurate or fair representation of what Atmos audio can do on YouTube (at least for now). But in any case even if I'm incorrect in my assessment here, keep in mind that the link you provided did not even come officially from the Beach Boys but rather some guy named "Mr Spelleps" so I would take the quality of his video with a grain of salt. Bottom line is that if you really want to make an accurate critique of the mix, you should seek the album on Spotify where you can hear the quality natively (with Atmos-compatible speakers). Amazon Music claims to have the same mix too but I've been skeptical that they have been accurately handling the correct mixes of the songs. I have it on good authority that Mr Spelleps is one of Al Jardine's many sock puppet pseudonyms.
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Jan 26, 2024 15:18:18 GMT -5
Understood and again please don't quote me on this as I've gotten mixed information on the subject, but to my understanding YouTube outputs audio at around 128-256kbps which equates to basically average MP3 audio. It's well below the quality and fidelity that Atmos mixes (or hell, even standard lossless redbook CD audio) are supposed to reach. And I'm also dubious that YouTube can output audio accurately for anything more than stereo (although allegedly it can according to some sources I've read). So I don't believe you're going to get an accurate or fair representation of what Atmos audio can do on YouTube (at least for now). But in any case even if I'm incorrect in my assessment here, keep in mind that the link you provided did not even come officially from the Beach Boys but rather some guy named "Mr Spelleps" so I would take the quality of his video with a grain of salt. Bottom line is that if you really want to make an accurate critique of the mix, you should seek the album on Spotify where you can hear the quality natively (with Atmos-compatible speakers). Amazon Music claims to have the same mix too but I've been skeptical that they have been accurately handling the correct mixes of the songs. I have it on good authority that Mr Spelleps is one of Al Jardine's many sock puppet pseudonyms. No idea whether or not that's true that it's Al's YouTube channel incognito, but given the fact that other than the Pet Sounds album there is no other Beach Boys material present on said channel (a hodgepodge of different artists such as Daft Punk), and as well that Jardine himself has never been much of a "techie" guy and probably wouldn't even know how to upload a video to YouTube, I must say I'm completely skeptical of this claim. But that point is entirely irrelvevant anyway because regardless as to whether or not it's his channel, it doesn't invalidate the fact that YouTube will compress the hell out of any content you upload to it and there is currently no indicator that the audio retains the Atmos mix (my vote is that it doesn't). Again you're not getting an accurate or fair representation of the audio quality and mix accessing anything from this particular YT channel. Which is why Spotify is the accruate way to listen to this mix proper and give a fair review of it.
|
|
|
Post by mfp on Jan 26, 2024 16:34:39 GMT -5
Whenever I want to hear Pet Sounds in a different way, I play the "Don't Talk..." isolated strings, "WIBN" backing vox & track, the spanish vox from "IJWMFTT", etc., or the isolated extracted 5.1 channels. All at the same time? LOL, great to read you, old buddy, mfp is in da house! Hiya Al!
Well, the way I wrote it sure is a different way to immerse myself in those pet sounds
|
|
|
Post by sailorwailer123 on Jan 26, 2024 16:36:26 GMT -5
I can verify that it does sound near enough exactly the same as it does on Apple Music etc. Same balance. Same mix.
So it's a fair representation, although I haven't used Dolby Atmos compatible headphones, but from what I've read that doesn't really matter anyway.
Also, if you need Atmos-activated headphones for this particular mix to sound decent, what's the point? I've listened to some Atmos mixes by Elton John and so on, and they all sound comparatively much richer and had a balance that worked very well for the music.
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jan 26, 2024 19:01:58 GMT -5
I can verify that it does sound near enough exactly the same as it does on Apple Music etc. Same balance. Same mix. So it's a fair representation, although I haven't used Dolby Atmos compatible headphones, but from what I've read that doesn't really matter anyway. Also, if you need Atmos-activated headphones for this particular mix to sound decent, what's the point? I've listened to some Atmos mixes by Elton John and so on, and they all sound comparatively much richer and had a balance that worked very well for the music. Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't think it was down to YT compression as there are other binaural mixes on there which sound fine. You don't need special headphones unless you want head-tracking. All spatial headphone mixes are run through a binaural renderer, regardless of what speaker format they're mixed for.
|
|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jan 26, 2024 19:05:00 GMT -5
I have it on good authority that Mr Spelleps is one of Al Jardine's many sock puppet pseudonyms. No idea whether or not that's true that it's Al's YouTube channel incognito, but given the fact that other than the Pet Sounds album there is no other Beach Boys material present on said channel (a hodgepodge of different artists such as Daft Punk), and as well that Jardine himself has never been much of a "techie" guy and probably wouldn't even know how to upload a video to YouTube, I must say I'm completely skeptical of this claim. But that point is entirely irrelvevant anyway because regardless as to whether or not it's his channel, it doesn't invalidate the fact that YouTube will compress the hell out of any content you upload to it and there is currently no indicator that the audio retains the Atmos mix (my vote is that it doesn't). Again you're not getting an accurate or fair representation of the audio quality and mix accessing anything from this particular YT channel. Which is why Spotify is the accruate way to listen to this mix proper and give a fair review of it. As far as I know, Spotify don't stream Atmos mixes, not here in the UK anyway. Tidal and Apple are the places to go, and even they don't seem to be streaming PS where I am. The Jardine comment was a joke btw.
|
|