Live data from Hacker News

Spatial Audio

lefsetz.com

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: Spatial Audio

#61
post #30

From what Apple say about spatial audio, you cannot just run it thru a converter. You need the tracks in their individual original recording before the mixing to be able to do it properly. So I’m not sure how a handful of chop shops are doing all that.

You don't "need" anything to make a track with spatial audio, it's just a format that you can package your sound in. You could feasibly turn a 48khz lossy MP3 into a spatial audio track, but it would probably sound pretty bad. Likewise, the actual stem-separation process that you're describing is similarly dubious: spatial audio can still sound pretty terrible, particularly in cases where it's an afterthought (see: all media).

Re: Spatial Audio

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, to really get spatial audio from stereo headphones, you need to use a HRTF (head-related transfer function) specific to the person. There's an open dataset of 50 different HRTFs [1] and a long video to compare them [2]. For me personally, only 2 of those 50 samples actually vaguely sound like audio is ever coming from in front of me. Left, right, and behind mostly works, but for most samples w…

You’re absolutely right that the most effective simulation would use a custom HRTF for each person, as the shape of the head, shoulders, pinnae of the ear etc etc. all play some part... There are some headphones that attempt to go some way towards this by taking pictures of/otherwise ‘scanning’ the users ear (eg. https://electronics.sony.com/360-reality-audio https://mysofa.audio/ …paper on the subject: https://www.a…

> Generally we are also much better at localizing sounds in the lateral plane than the vertical one

Our ears are separated laterally but not vertically.

Re: Spatial Audio

#64
post #26

I don't know how the downmix for headphones is created in this case, but if it spatializes the individual objects correctly, this removes the in-head-localization artifact that unprocessed stereo on headphones suffers from naturally, especially for sounds with a center pan. We have just trained ourselves to accept that headphones make sounds appear inside our heads. And I am pretty certain that the author is mistakin…

…yes, related to ‘crosstalk’: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk

You probably mean crossfeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfeed

Re: Spatial Audio

#65

Why would I want this in any situation except VR, where directional audio is actually paramount to my enjoyment of the medium?

Because it adds another dimension to the sound you're experiencing and gives you a whole new appreciation for the medium.

This combined with binaural audio should be the future of audio storytelling.

Give this a try with any normal headphone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA

Re: Spatial Audio

#66

Why would I want this in any situation except VR, where directional audio is actually paramount to my enjoyment of the medium?

There are many composers out there who work in the electroacoustic and computer music spaces, whose pieces are primarily scored for ambisonic playback systems.

Hearing these works for oneself in a proper listening environment, such as Virginia Tech's The Cube [0], can be a life-changing experience. It certainly was for me.

[0] https://icat.vt.edu/studios/the-cube.html

Re: Spatial Audio

#67
post #65

Why would I want this in any situation except VR, where directional audio is actually paramount to my enjoyment of the medium?

Because it adds another dimension to the sound you're experiencing and gives you a whole new appreciation for the medium. This combined with binaural audio should be the future of audio storytelling. Give this a try with any normal headphone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA

The barber shop is not spatial audio. It's a static stereo mix, and a terrible example of how the medium actually functions. I know what good spatial audio sounds like, too: I've used 6DOF with headphones and fancy Atmos filters, and it works great in VR. Everywhere else though, it's just distracting.

We have lost the stems to probably 95% of all music ever made. If all of our old music sounds bad in spatial audio, how will it ever hope to become the new standard?

Re: Spatial Audio

#68
Man. I normally don't get into fisking articles, but, yikes.

> There are over a hundred reference points in Dolby Atmos. As in this is far beyond conventional 5.1. Think of a movie theatre, where the sound moves around, now you get the idea.

Okay, this is right. Sort of. Atmos has "audio objects" which are assigned positional metadata in three-dimensional space; at playback, the Atmos "renderer" (Dolby's terminology) knows how many speakers it has and where they are, and sends the sound for each object to a mix of speakers that get the sound as close to the position it's supposed to be in as possible.

> Let’s say you have the equipment and ability to make an Atmos mix. My understanding is right now, you send the end product to Dolby and they use their special sauce to create the final product.

This understanding is wrong. I mean, I guess you can send this out for "special saucing," but recording engineers can use Dolby Atmos tools right in their digital audio workstation program of choice. Instead of panning tracks just from left to right, you're "panning" them in 3-D space.

> Furthermore, they have special sauce to turn the same Atmosfied music into two track stereo.

Again, sort of, but not really? The Atmos renderer basically synthesizes binaural audio for two channels ("binaural render mode"), so it's "special sauce" in that it's Dolby-designed algorithms that are doing that. But it's taking what the recording engineers laid down to do it, and they can even add metadata to the audio objects that help the Atmos renderer convert it to binaural.

> It even bugs me that they’re using remixed tracks from “Abbey Road” to Atmosfy, now you’re multiple steps from the original.

Correct, but let's get some perspective Lefsetz is leaving out. This is the 2019 Abbey Road remix by Giles Martin, which was mixed in Atmos in 2019 by Martin, who also did mixes for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and The White Album.

And this is what Lefsetz's complaint about Atmos elides. When he writes,

> They have neither the equipment nor the skill to mix in Dolby Atmos. As for just sending the file to Dolby to be processed…that’s like finishing a painting and having an amateur come in and completely change it, make it 3-D.

There's a distinct element of "this new thing can be used badly so nobody should use it." There will absolutely be bad Atmos remixes done by people who had nothing to do with the original mixing and engineering, but that's not all the mixes -- and if Atmos music really takes off, the mixes will be done by the same engineers and producers working on the stereo mixes. This is already happening, and it's been happening for a few years now. And when an old album is remixed in surround, it can actually sound pretty good. Abbey Road is an example. So is REM's Automatic for the People. The old SACD surround release of Roxy' Music's Avalon was astounding and I hope it gets revived in Atmos.

> Now the truth is this is a headphone genre.

One, it's not a genre any more than "stereo" and "mono" are genres. Two, it not only isn't just for headphones, it's arguably a little worse on headphones, despite all of Apple's marketing messsaging to the contrary. The more speakers you throw at Atmos the better; a lot of us, including myself, hear binaural stereo mixes as different but not necessarily improved, and -- one thing Lefsetz is correct on -- sometimes worse.

> Which at the moment doesn’t support Bluetooth

As other people have pointed out, this is flat out incorrect.

> Oh, there could be two takes, like with mono and stereo in the sixties, but that's far too confusing, we need one standard, the marketplace needs one standard.

I'm sorry, but that's just "old man yells at cloud" territory. It's not two "takes," it's two mixes, and that may be pedantic of me but it's also pretty important. There's no indication at this point that anyone is rushing to make Atmos-only mixes of anything any more than they're rushing to release digital music in only MQA format. (If you just said "what's MQA": exactly.) Even on Apple Music itself, if you want the stereo version of a recording, there's a secret trick. It's called "go to settings and turn off Atmos".

Re: Spatial Audio

#69
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This thread is mindboggling. Taste in music is purely subjective. If users enjoy listening to Spatial Audio, who are you to criticize it as a scam?

Because everyone using Apple music is forced to listen to it. Whether they like the remixes or not.

That just isn’t true.

Settings > Music > Dolby Atmos > Off.

Re: Spatial Audio

#70
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it adds another dimension to the sound you're experiencing and gives you a whole new appreciation for the medium. This combined with binaural audio should be the future of audio storytelling. Give this a try with any normal headphone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA

The barber shop is not spatial audio. It's a static stereo mix, and a terrible example of how the medium actually functions. I know what good spatial audio sounds like, too: I've used 6DOF with headphones and fancy Atmos filters, and it works great in VR. Everywhere else though, it's just distracting. We have lost the stems to probably 95% of all music ever made. If all of our old music sounds bad in spatial audio, h…

It literally has invoked a wow from everyone I've shared it with in real life.

I'm glad you've had a much better experience, but lol this doesn't mean this is bad.

The pretentiousness in your comment is outstanding.

Post reply on HN