Immersive Audio and How to Achieve It


100% of music listeners prefer live music to recorded playback, why? A live performance "immerses" you and frees you up to move around the room, the dance floor and still be immersed. The goal posts have moved away from two speakers to an array of speakers all around as well as above you to reproduce the illusion of a LIVE performance. Why, in 2023, would anyone voluntarily use only two speakers to recreate this illusion of a live performance in a large room?

Even the artists themselves are using immersive audio in concert to WOW their audience, why not do it at home:

https://www.mixonline.com/live-sound/venues/on-the-cover-las-vegas-takes-immersive-live-part-1

 

kota1

@brianlucey

First, your reply is very welcomed, thanks. Next, I am just a consumer with preferences, like everyone else. Now, you got a dog in the race so if anything, feel free to take this discussion down 30% and I’m happy to engage.

As for 100% this or that, let me state it like this. 100% of the time I can tell the difference between a live orchestra and a recording of an orchestra as well as most people on the planet (maybe not 100% but close). Your point is well taken and I will tone down the usage of absolute anything.

Now, you have the luxury of using a personally curated immersive playback system with actual master tapes that "most" (I avoided the use of 100% of us, I’m learning) will never have access to.

I’m in, what will help pioneers and engineers like you perpetuate a helpful image of immersive audio?

@kota1 

As I'm a music lover first and foremost, what I'm "immersed in" is the music -- melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, emotion -- rather than the sonic presentation. A more true-to-life sonic presentation certainly makes listening more enjoyable, but for me, it's the cherry on top -- not the cupcake. 

 

Da Vinci used to teach his students the skill of "seeing in" to a scene, even if it was a stucco wall -- so they could lose themselves in it and then release their imagination's free play capacities.

When I think of the requirements for "immersive" experience, I think of tonal and timbral accuracy -- an oboe sounding like an oboe. The notion that the gear must push me into immersion seems like a way of releasing myself from the necessary mental skill which Da Vinci was trying to teach his students. It's a way of game-ifying and Disney-fying the sound.

The best surround sound mixes I like are generally but not always good stereo mixes often they have extra dry vocals in the center than wetter vocals in L, R. The other instruments using the speakers to create points near the front and sides. If surround is used too much it brings attention to its self and looses flow. Surround can be much better than stereo but that is surprisingly rare. There will be a time when you’ll be able to set the acoustics, channels and everything else where you want it if you want to A I is about to change everything. I think Dolby Atmos will be a memory in about 3 or 4 years.

Most music I listen to was mixed in stereo, then upmixed by my processor into another more immersive format. Stereo sounds flat compared, not bad, but flat, it lacks that "third dimension". For Atmos I think Steve Genewick did an amazing job with the Miles Davis atmos mixes and giles martin did great with the beatles remixes. Revolver sounds sooo good, it is an interesting video he did on the remix process as well. Also I like the tracks that are being dropped mixed natively in atmos, not just remixed. I get an e-mail from dolby about new drops every few weeks.

Giles Martin on the Revolver atmos remix:

https://youtu.be/IUr_BmtbCjM