Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spatial Audio

lefsetz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Spatial Audio

#131

Post by lux »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #103
lux wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree but wanted to add a point I found interesting doing some spatial audio work which is synths tend to spatialize poorly compared to more organic instruments. You can dirty them up with additional effects like distortion or an exciter, but I think it’s something to do with the evenness of the waveforms compared to the real world variance of a string or vocal cord vibrating.

There is a sixty-year tradition now of pieces for instrumentalists + tape or live electronics, where it is the synthesized material that is spatialized through loudspeakers around the audience.

Completely different context than using a synth in a digital realm. I'm not saying you can't spatialize synths, but that the waveforms are unlike sounds we encounter in the natural world so it takes adding a bit of "naturalness" to them to help our ears understand where they are in the space around us. That's something that's harder to do in a digital environment like a spatial audio engine, but is easy enough to work around. Just an ancedote on spatialized audio in software, which again is different than what you're talking about.

Re: Spatial Audio

#132

Post by lux »

noahadavis wrote: post #108
lux wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree but wanted to add a point I found interesting doing some spatial audio work which is synths tend to spatialize poorly compared to more organic instruments. You can dirty them up with additional effects like distortion or an exciter, but I think it’s something to do with the evenness of the waveforms compared to the real world variance of a string or vocal cord vibrating.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. If what you were saying was true, then physical synths would have the same problems in live performances. I think the problem is not the instrument, but rather how people are used to using the instrument. If you're used to mixing synths for stereo, then your ideas for how to make a synth sound good beyond stereo are much weaker. Also, there's so much you can do to the sound of a synt…

I was giving an anecdote, yo. Calm down. Synths in the digital environment of a spatial audio engine, which I've done work in both programmatically and as a musician/sound engineer, has problems with spatializing the unnatural waveforms that synths produce. Humans have trouble pinpointing where those sounds are coming from. It's easy to work around, and no one is saying "don't use synths in spatial audio", just that there are considerations to be made to make them work well in that environment. Just like you don't want to pre-apply reverb because that's going to be generated by the spatial engine.

Here's a link with a bit about sine waves, but I've found the same to be true (to a lesser extend) with saw, triangle, and square waves too.

https://developer.oculus.com/learn/audio-intro-sounddesign

Re: Spatial Audio

#133

Post by Tempest1981 »

hairofadog wrote: post #44

I'll say up front that I'm a non-audiophile, and so I'm offering my opinion from that point of view. I find the Spatial Audio / Dolby Atmos thing weird for a number of reasons. First, the dual branding seems clunky. "First I listened to music in mono. Then I listened to music in stereo. Then I listened to music in ____" I'd be willing to bet that even amongst people who care a lot about this stuff you'd have a hard t…

> Then I listened to music in ____

Atmos

Re: Spatial Audio

#134

Post by ricardobeat »

globular-toast wrote: post #112
basisword wrote: post #40

This sounds like the kind of thing someone would write when the world switched from mono to stereo. Quite a few parts of it are completely wrong too not to mention insulting ("... more music is being made by individuals in bedrooms, home studios, on a budget. They have neither the equipment nor the skill to mix in Dolby Atmos"). Apple has done quite a poor job showcasing it so far. Some of the tracks they've put in t…

I'm confused. Did you even read the article? They are not talking about Atmos/spatial audio in general, they are talking about older mixes being "remixed" on mass without any input from the original artists and engineers.

The songs are being remixed for Atmos. It's the same as someone remixing old mono songs in stereo, without the author/producer's input.

Re: Spatial Audio

#135

Post by thies226j »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #109

On a side note I would much rather see spatial audio applied to resolve the unidirectional audio mess of video-conferencing. The ability to resolve who is saying what in simultaneous conversation is in my opinion a much bigger problem than trying to get really high resolution video during calls.

Apple has done so with FaceTime now. This feature will come in iOS 15 and MacOS Monterey.

Re: Spatial Audio

#136

Post by thies226j »

falcolas wrote: post #53
yoav wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s actually a setting to choose

You can choose to enable spatial listening (as opposed to the stereo downmix), but you can't choose to use the original recording.

This isn’t tidal with their MQA scam.

Re: Spatial Audio

#137

Post by mkbosmans »

EMM_386 wrote: post #92

If anyone wants to hear a sample of this, you can find it here: https://www.dolby.com/technologies/dolby-atmos/ It's pretty impressive with headphones.

At least the Marvin Gaye track is not a good example of just the Atmos difference. It is a completely remastered version that sounds nothing like the original. It also is 3.5 dB louder, which naturally would make the listener think it sounds better.

Overall, I think the OP was on point. It seemed like the mixing engineers thought that the additional spatialization provided by Atmos gives them the license to crank up the volume of all the supporting instruments (e.g. congas). This indeed drowns out the main vocal and puts it on the listener to focus on it (which is of course now easier due to the spatial separation with the instruments).

Re: Spatial Audio

#138

Post by mackrevinack »

bloke_zero wrote: post #115

It seems weird to me that people would disregard the input of the artist and producer who will have painstakingly mixed the original - surely that is as much a part of the art form as the music in many cases? I'm thinking of records like "Bitches Brew" where you couldn't just go back to the master recordings and recreate them without Miles in the room. Though I guess the early stereo mixes for e.g. The Beatles were o…

im not sure what a good analogy might be... a gallery displaying a replica of some famous painting but deciding that part of it needs to be brightened up? i think most people would find that really odd
Post reply on HN