What is Your Opinion of Atmos Music?

@kota1 My personal and professional opinions of Atmos/Spatial ... it’s the evolution of the headphone format, unintentionally created by all involved. Not much released at the moment is great work, so early days. As a speaker format it’s fun and beautiful and inspiring when done well for those who can afford it. But for music listening that’s a tiny part of the listening market. People arguing pro and con on speakers vs. stereo as if there is a winner are fools. Speaker listening is a spec on the market, good for you, but chill. Speakers not the headline with Atmos/Spatial and stereo is going nowhere. The speakers are needed in the studio for mixing, to get it going, and to inspire and to inform. They don’t have to be great speakers yet they do need to be cohesive. Cohesion for the engineer or the listener is the #1 challenge, #2 challenge is harmonic distortions. Working on headphones is where the final decisions are made. And there are 2 headphone products, which is annoying. The delta is getting better by the month. The average person has never heard great stereo and phantom center. 99.999% of humans have never heard a great stereo room. Atmos/Spatial puts Jane average on any headphone into a studio with center image and reflective space around the ears. It’s a big deal. It’s a great experience. All this assumes the work is done at the highest standards, which it is 99% not. Big delta between bad and great, and we are mostly middle to bad at the moment. People with a bias will listen to 3 tracks for 30 seconds, become experts, and crap  on the format as "another surround" which it is not ... or "not as good as stereo headphones" which is false. We are in the VERY early days of engineering Atmos/Spatial and even the best mixers are in the infancy at this time vs. 70 years of evolving how we work to make stereo. We need to keep an open mind. Confirmation bias is a disease of the mind, very prevalent on this topic. I was there in the beginning, I understand the cynics. Be skeptical, not cynical. Get more data. Learn. Imagine. Atmos/Spatial mixes are barely being mastered after being mixed not very well most of the time. And that is supposed to compete with highly evolved mixes mastered in stereo? This new format is far superior to stereo headphones WHEN done correctly. Double the dynamics and triple the canvas. That is a big deal. When the CH of a pop song hits it can GO somewhere. For mastering I use 50 transformer/Class A Op Amp EQ as the final piece of mastering processing, as those distortions are needed. Also use 48 ch of analog compression. Headphone listening using dCS Bartok with 2 great headphones, after using Evolution Acoustics monitoring 7.1.4 with mostly Bricasti M1 SE DAs, great amps (Allnic Audio A-6000 L and R and Parasound A51 on the rest) and cables like my stereo system (Acoustic Zen). Tremendous mixing is barely coming online now, and mastering is still not even a line item expense at the labels. Barely done. Analog atmos mastering? Only me at the moment. Everyone should do it. Early days folks, try not to be an expert. I am now far ahead of the curve and I am learning daily. No one knows the musical ceiling here (Atmos dad joke) but I have seen it, and it’s high. Stereo is not going anywhere, and there is no competition, so please let that argument go. Most of the musical content in stereo speakers can be heard in either the L or R speaker, as it’s panned center. Very convenient! That’s the opposite of the new format which forces you to one location. Headphones, again, are the real positive here for the general public and the audiophile both. Speakers are fun and headphones are the big headline for the future. Apple is committed, with a multi billion VR budget and not going away. I was never on board with ANY previous multichannel. We men need toys, ok, but those formats were never going to stick. This is very different. This is the evolution of speaker surround, and the next step in headphones, finally. Stereo headphones were always a terrible substitute for a great room. Even with crossfeed there is no air. The intimacy of headphones is nice, and that’s it. This format in headphones has so much more to offer.

As far as getting into the format as a speaker listener, there is no rush, most of the products are not up to par compared to great stereo.  I recommend Trinnov Processing for high end rooms, and for starter rooms you can get in with $15,000 no problem.  Great wired headphones give you more quality for less money. And bluetooth Apple Max for $450 gets anyone in the door.  Mixers with those and Logic Pro for $200 can get started mixing.  It's a huge learning curve for engineers and we all (audiophiles and engineers) need to be patient and open minded.   

@brianlucey , that is a great perspective, thanks for posting. I never really considered that the majority of the population have never really heard a great two channel setup but it is so true. You have die hard enthusiast members here who are still looking for ways to upgrade. So when you talk about a general point of reference for good SQ among average listeners its basically what they hear in the car or ear buds. If Atmos can close that gap so average listeners can experience what a good setup can offe with daily driver type of gear that is easy to use that is a big win/win/win. Win for the artist/director, win for the studio/manufacturer and win for the consumer. I never thought about the mass market aspect of this before. I didn't realize the atmos headphone mix could be so good, probably can save $$$ on headphone rigs (I am not a headphone user, just for casual listening but might start now).

Re: the quality of work being done it must be expensive on the producers end. The first atmos mix has to be for theatrical release (unless its for streaming or music) and that has got to eat a lot of budget, then you have the nearfield mix for the home with any $ left over, then you got the 7.1, 5.1, stereo. The studio mix needs to translate so it won't blow up any ear pods, etc. Then you have emerging standards and lack of a universal system to calibrate reference, more $$$, I get it about early days. 

A lot of good info here, appreciate your insight and if you feel you are experimenting that goes for everyone. You have more format confusion with DTS-X/IMAX, Sony 360, Auro-3D, etc. The atmos setup can be confusing between the new nomenclature (5.1.4, 7.2.2, 9.2.7, etc) and then all of the variables on types of speakers and locations.

I found that once I got my hands on the Dolby setup specs it made it much easier to get the angles and distances down. Hopefully as this new format emerges that will be come a standard. To your point about a learning curve I am finding that the source content is much more important for SQ than the processor you use downstream. For example discs are generally better SQ than streaming services (except kaleidoscope).When I was reading how you said the most important "component" in your studio was your Trinnov calibration system I had to smile. When I went from a standard version of Audyssey to the Pro version with a calibrated mic and software using the PC not the one in the processor it was a huge upgrade. Not at the Trinnov level I'm sure but much better than the consumer version. Thanks again for your reply.

Jean-Michel Jarre:

"Immersive technology is the key to creating music of the future:

What Colin Leonard from the SOA studio at SING Mastering has found about Atmos music is it is the best system of reproducing music and I agree. Remember, you don’t have to trade stereo for Atmos. Listen near the end of this video as he describes going back to stereo on the same speakers after listening to the Atmos mix. He says:

"Mastering in Atmos you can create dynamics that are impossible in a stereo environment...that you just can’t get in a stereo system...Atmos is the best representation of music that you are going to hear anywhere"