gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 08:33:47 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Thoughts about Beach Boys Christmas/Dolby Atmos and Apple's Spacial Audio?  (Read 1986 times)
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« on: January 15, 2022, 09:43:26 AM »

For those who don't know (I can barely understand it): "Dolby Atmos manipulates sound to make it seem like it’s coming from multiple directions, even without the typical 5.1, 7.1, or 9.1 surround sound setup. It does this with the help of spatial audio software that turns audio into 3D objects that can be precisely “placed” anywhere within a 360-degree virtual bubble."

But what is really cool is this new feature from Apple where if you have newer Apple headphones on and look around the music stays in one place and you can direct your ears to certain parts of the mix. For example: if the the drums are mixed to the right, if you look right the drums are now in the middle of the mix. If you look up the sound is below you. It's like you're in the studio and if you look at a certain instrument, that's the instrument that you are focussing on in the mix (if that makes any sense).

It works without the Dolby Atmos mixing (though I think this type of mixing makes this feature more immersive). But listening to the Pet Sounds stereo version with this feature - it's like you're there in the studio. The Beach Boys' Christmas Album is in Dolby Atmos but I can't really tell a difference in the mix from the stereo mix.

Anyways, I kinda think this is the start of an exciting new era in song mixing, and I really hope that we get some immersive mixes from Mark and Alan over the next few years that take advantage of it. I mean, already the stereo mixes of Beach Boys music sound fantastic with the spacial audio head-tracking. But if they can really get some immersive Dolby Atmos mixes made, that would be stellar.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2022, 12:19:19 PM »

Well, the thing is, any time you are using some sort of technology to create "surround mixes" from only two channels (which, when this technology is being administered by headphones, it has to be so), you're still doing the same thing that our own Steve Desper was doing 50 years ago -- processing two signals using various methods to prey upon the psychoacoustics of us binaurally wired humans.  You can dress it up, and the technology used to do it might get much better as time goes on, but I still think it's a lot of puffery in this case because surround matrices are not new.

But if it creates a more immersive and enjoyable experience for someone, great.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2022, 01:22:17 PM »

Yeah, The Beach Boys Christmas album wasn’t anything revelatory - at least to my ears it sounds just like the original stereo mix. (I would love to know if Mark or Alan had anything to do with that, or if it was just Capitol quickly getting a “new” mix out for the holidays).

But again, the Dolby mixing part isn’t really what was cool, it is the technology where I one can basically look at sound due to the headphone tracking. A more dynamic mix makes this technology much more immersive. So if this new Dolby Atmos technology does create more of a 3D feel of where sound comes from, the headphone tracking really makes it a unique experience.

And not that it is anything that technologically triumphant, but the “where can we go from here?” question has me excited for the future: it makes me wonder if in the distant future (where AR/VR will be more accessible) we’ll be able to “walk around” a studio while our favorite songs are being played.

For instance, right now on ‘Wouldn’t It Be Nice’ I’m able to look in the direction of Hal’s drumset (left) and have that be my main focus. Or I can turn my head right and the accordions are my main focus. I can only imagine that this technology will evolve as wearable VR sets become more popular.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2022, 08:03:27 PM »

For instance, right now on ‘Wouldn’t It Be Nice’ I’m able to look in the direction of Hal’s drumset (left) and have that be my main focus. Or I can turn my head right and the accordions are my main focus. I can only imagine that this technology will evolve as wearable VR sets become more popular.

That is neat, but it still strikes me as a little bit gimmicky.  Is it something that you would listen to over and over that way?  I'd personally rather hear either Brian's mix, or just be able to hear the isolated multi-tracks by themselves if I want to hear something in isolation.

But then again, my listening needs are different than the general population's.  I'm not trying to pooh-pooh the technology, rather I'm trying to understand it's utility.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2022, 08:38:30 AM »

This sounds like a very neat development overall, but I wonder how it will be applied in the future or whether it would be strictly for certain genres of music. And then I'm wondering - having not investigated it yet - whether the audiophile community would be picking apart and noticing certain sonic residue caused by the process especially on vintage recordings. Or does the technology work completely "clean"?

I'm sometimes a Luddite when it comes to re-imagining or re-jiggering classic recordings, films, TV shows, etc but then again I truly enjoy when someone gets it right as in the case of the Get Back documentary. The way they took what was mostly 16mm film and blew it up to look modern on 4k monitors was nothing short of miraculous, and I think that is one reason why all ages seem to have been enjoying it. Certain cuts or scenes show some residue, but overall most of it looks as if they filmed it last year.

Now what I have to ask is this: At what point does the *art* of the original artist working in the original medium get top billing? It's a loaded question of course. The debates that follow are usually along the lines of the artist's original work and intent versus using technological advances to present the art to newer and wider audiences. At what point is "Pet Sounds" or "A Love Supreme" any different than the Mona Lisa or the "David" statue in terms of works of art done in or on a specific medium? We clean classic paintings and sculptures to preserve them, and remastering vintage audio recordings is sonic cleaning in a way, but does it ever come into play where someone asks "But did Coltrane want listeners to experience this recording in a virtual surround way?" The answer could be yes or no, obviously, but who would know since the technology didn't exist when Coltrane was alive.

What makes me kind of sad is how much of the music which is current as of this afternoon would benefit or have a market for such immersive audio technology? Lil Nas X? Justin Bieber? Ed Sheeran? Doja Cat?  It's primarily cut-and-paste based sequenced production ruling the day (and the charts). There is no "space" in the mixes, there's no "air" or separation. Would the new immersive technology benefit or improve drum machine tracks and sequenced loops?

For all the people still trying to make albums as a listening experience and making music that can be listened to beyond driving or working out background music, most of the music just doesn't have the elements that technology like this would enhance as an experience. If anything this technology seems to be better suited to video games and action movies, which is of course a pretty massive audience and a lot of commercial value, but in terms of the art of creating audio, it's a pretty narrow artistic field unless it's considered as the art within those media forms.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2022, 09:29:16 AM »

The available options for all sorts of audio trickery out there on the internet are all over the place.

There is some truly useless, dire-sounding stuff (some "remastering" work on YouTube is particularly perplexing because in some cases it's taking absolutely fine-sounding mastering jobs and making them worse in every way).

But there are also hobbyists using extraction/isolation software in amazing ways, well beyond the standard tools now available on websites to extract vocals from backing tracks, or bass, etc.

Some folks are like taking three-part Beatles harmonies and extracting each individual harmony, surprisingly successfully.

So I think there's room to also do surround/"3D" sound stuff as well, because the raw tools are there. The question is how often do we really want or need to listen to stuff that way? I have to be honest, some of Desper's "spatializer" mixes on stuff like "Loop de Loop" kind of just gave me a headache. It's a neat effect, but it also kind of just makes it feel like you're traveling at high altitude and your ears are getting effed with. But maybe that was just me.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
BJL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2022, 10:31:43 AM »

At what point does the *art* of the original artist working in the original medium get top billing? It's a loaded question of course. The debates that follow are usually along the lines of the artist's original work and intent versus using technological advances to present the art to newer and wider audiences. At what point is "Pet Sounds" or "A Love Supreme" any different than the Mona Lisa or the "David" statue in terms of works of art done in or on a specific medium? We clean classic paintings and sculptures to preserve them, and remastering vintage audio recordings is sonic cleaning in a way, but does it ever come into play where someone asks "But did Coltrane want listeners to experience this recording in a virtual surround way?" The answer could be yes or no, obviously, but who would know since the technology didn't exist when Coltrane was alive.

What makes me kind of sad is how much of the music which is current as of this afternoon would benefit or have a market for such immersive audio technology? Lil Nas X? Justin Bieber? Ed Sheeran? Doja Cat?  It's primarily cut-and-paste based sequenced production ruling the day (and the charts). There is no "space" in the mixes, there's no "air" or separation. Would the new immersive technology benefit or improve drum machine tracks and sequenced loops?

For all the people still trying to make albums as a listening experience and making music that can be listened to beyond driving or working out background music, most of the music just doesn't have the elements that technology like this would enhance as an experience. If anything this technology seems to be better suited to video games and action movies, which is of course a pretty massive audience and a lot of commercial value, but in terms of the art of creating audio, it's a pretty narrow artistic field unless it's considered as the art within those media forms.

I think this question about "futzing with" works of art is really interesting. Of course, the famous example that comes immediately to mind, for me, is George Lucas replacing Star Wars practical effects with digital effects...and hurting the pacing and feel of his movie in the process. But then, the stereo mix of Pet Sounds is, to me, a golden example of why using new technology to rework older works of art can be so valuable. (If there had been a stereo mix made in the 60s, it would have been pretty primitive, a la All Summer Long, or Rubber Soul, for that matter). I wouldn't want to never be able to listen to the mono again, but you hear so much more in the anachronistically detailed stereo mix, it gives you a whole new appreciation. Now, being able to remix a "spacialized" version by moving your eyes may not yield quite so much insight! But on philosophical grounds, I think its similar. New ways to experience music almost always only add. Just like how, with classical music, every new interpretation of a piece you hear just adds to your appreciation of the whole, and the different ways it could be interpreted or experienced.

To your second point, I think you're pretty wide of the mark. Sure, maybe they're not at the top of the charts, but a record like Weyes Blood's Titanic Rising from a couple years ago would benefit from this technology as much (or as little) as anything recorded in the 60s and 70s. Up a few notches on the popularity scale, Taylor Swift's last five or so albums have been very lovingly, carefully recorded and have all kinds of detail in the arrangements.

The charts have never really been a great way to understand whats going on in music, because for a variety of reasons they are weighted towards the tastes of teenagers. But with streaming, they're *really* a bad way to understand what's going on in music, because they've become even more than before a measure of how many times a song is played by the people who play it, rather than how many people are exposed to it or much it means to those people. The kids these days send party music and background music to the top of the charts because streaming charts measure how often something is played. But those same kids are listening to all kinds of crazy stuff, as becomes clear once you start digging around online!
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2022, 01:04:08 PM »

At what point does the *art* of the original artist working in the original medium get top billing? It's a loaded question of course. The debates that follow are usually along the lines of the artist's original work and intent versus using technological advances to present the art to newer and wider audiences. At what point is "Pet Sounds" or "A Love Supreme" any different than the Mona Lisa or the "David" statue in terms of works of art done in or on a specific medium? We clean classic paintings and sculptures to preserve them, and remastering vintage audio recordings is sonic cleaning in a way, but does it ever come into play where someone asks "But did Coltrane want listeners to experience this recording in a virtual surround way?" The answer could be yes or no, obviously, but who would know since the technology didn't exist when Coltrane was alive.

What makes me kind of sad is how much of the music which is current as of this afternoon would benefit or have a market for such immersive audio technology? Lil Nas X? Justin Bieber? Ed Sheeran? Doja Cat?  It's primarily cut-and-paste based sequenced production ruling the day (and the charts). There is no "space" in the mixes, there's no "air" or separation. Would the new immersive technology benefit or improve drum machine tracks and sequenced loops?

For all the people still trying to make albums as a listening experience and making music that can be listened to beyond driving or working out background music, most of the music just doesn't have the elements that technology like this would enhance as an experience. If anything this technology seems to be better suited to video games and action movies, which is of course a pretty massive audience and a lot of commercial value, but in terms of the art of creating audio, it's a pretty narrow artistic field unless it's considered as the art within those media forms.

I think this question about "futzing with" works of art is really interesting. Of course, the famous example that comes immediately to mind, for me, is George Lucas replacing Star Wars practical effects with digital effects...and hurting the pacing and feel of his movie in the process. But then, the stereo mix of Pet Sounds is, to me, a golden example of why using new technology to rework older works of art can be so valuable. (If there had been a stereo mix made in the 60s, it would have been pretty primitive, a la All Summer Long, or Rubber Soul, for that matter). I wouldn't want to never be able to listen to the mono again, but you hear so much more in the anachronistically detailed stereo mix, it gives you a whole new appreciation. Now, being able to remix a "spacialized" version by moving your eyes may not yield quite so much insight! But on philosophical grounds, I think its similar. New ways to experience music almost always only add. Just like how, with classical music, every new interpretation of a piece you hear just adds to your appreciation of the whole, and the different ways it could be interpreted or experienced.

To your second point, I think you're pretty wide of the mark. Sure, maybe they're not at the top of the charts, but a record like Weyes Blood's Titanic Rising from a couple years ago would benefit from this technology as much (or as little) as anything recorded in the 60s and 70s. Up a few notches on the popularity scale, Taylor Swift's last five or so albums have been very lovingly, carefully recorded and have all kinds of detail in the arrangements.

The charts have never really been a great way to understand whats going on in music, because for a variety of reasons they are weighted towards the tastes of teenagers. But with streaming, they're *really* a bad way to understand what's going on in music, because they've become even more than before a measure of how many times a song is played by the people who play it, rather than how many people are exposed to it or much it means to those people. The kids these days send party music and background music to the top of the charts because streaming charts measure how often something is played. But those same kids are listening to all kinds of crazy stuff, as becomes clear once you start digging around online!

I did forget to add - The stereo Pet Sounds mix from that first edition of the Sessions box is still my go-to mix for listening. It was and still is a revelation to hear some of the instruments previously buried or masked in the mono mix, and it has a very exciting punch overall that I think enhances the original tracks. I don't have as much as an issue with it overall, it was just a discussion topic to get going. I will say though that when the reworking of a classic form of media goes too far, it's too much. Remember the trend where I think it was Ted Turner's company was on a colorizing binge with many classic B&W movies? Now that was too far lol.

On the topic of current recordings, however, I went solely by my weekly look at the Billboard Top Singles and albums charts. And from what I hear on a daily basis. Just to add to what I said before, I think what makes me sad is that the types of music (and mixes) which would benefit from the new processes was formerly the music that was on the charts and more in the public eye. Again I just can't see where there would be a demand for or even an audience for doing such things to a Bieber track or Doja Cat or whatever else is currently Top-10 to enhance the listening experience because the listening experience is different for the genre that music is in, the delivery system is different (are listeners buying Bieber vinyl and playing it on a good home system, or are they streaming and listening through their phone?) , and the mixes themselves don't offer much "space" to begin with, such is the current methods of mixing to get a hit.

I hear all kinds of truly good and well mixed music, but it's far from the mainstream, and has nowhere near the sales or attention that albums or artists we might enjoy hearing in 3D or 360 degree soundscapes used to have when they were current releases decades ago. The mastering of the past 20+ years also plays a role...everything sounds crammed together to me, but again that's just the mainstream big sellers and by no means not all music or artists. And I don't think music influenced by electronica would be able to be enhanced any more than it already is in its own soundscape and preferred mixing techniques.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
yrplace
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2022, 02:25:11 PM »

i did the ATMOs mix of the xmas album using the original 3 tracks masters and extraction technology to operate the instruments from the backing tracks.
Logged
Joshilyn Hoisington
Honored Guest
******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 3307


Aeijtzsche


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2022, 10:09:04 AM »

i did the ATMOs mix of the xmas album using the original 3 tracks masters and extraction technology to operate the instruments from the backing tracks.

Are you still using DeMix Pro for extractions, Mark? 
Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 2.035 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!