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

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Spatial Audio

#121

Post by voisin »

can16358p wrote: post #110

There's nothing wrong with spatial audio, it's beautiful. There's something terribly wrong with Apple trying to force audio that wasn't meant to be spatial into being spatial. If the original artist intended the audio to be spatial, it has enormous potential and I'm pretty much sure there will be more and more artists doing that, creating a new category. But taking our good ol' perfectly-sounding stereo songs and tur…

Wait, are artists being forced to do this? Or are you referring to old, dead artists whose music is being converted? If the latter, then it is hard to say they wouldn’t have used spatial Gad the technology existed.

> “Just for the sake of marketing”

This seems to conflict with the first sentence where you admit it’s beautiful.

Re: Spatial Audio

#122

Post by voisin »

StavrosK wrote: post #120
can16358p wrote: post #110

There's nothing wrong with spatial audio, it's beautiful. There's something terribly wrong with Apple trying to force audio that wasn't meant to be spatial into being spatial. If the original artist intended the audio to be spatial, it has enormous potential and I'm pretty much sure there will be more and more artists doing that, creating a new category. But taking our good ol' perfectly-sounding stereo songs and tur…

It's a bit of an insult to the original artist, in my view. When I create something, it's an expression of my personality, and I the choices I make reflect my aesthetic. If you take it and remix it, that's fine, but don't put my name on it, it's "Song X (Apple Atmos Remix)" now.

Presumably all the rights holders have agreed to the “remix” without this demand. Surely if you create your own music you can tell Apple to go to hell and keep it in the version you created. Worst case they drop all non-Atmos files in the future and you become de-platformed. Doubtful that will happen given the size of their library.

Re: Spatial Audio

#123

Post by voisin »

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.

Presumably with consent from the current rights holders.

Re: Spatial Audio

#124

Post by snikeris »

I like to listen to old live music recordings on archive.org. One thing I’ve grown to love about such recordings is the spatial nature.

Someone is standing in the audience with a stereo recorder and when you close your eyes and listen to the recording, there is the sense that you are located in the venue at that same time and place. You can hear people talk and clap to your left or right. The experience of the music is very close to what someone would have felt if they closed their eyes in the arena. It’s a form of time travel that a video recording just can’t touch because the experience of looking at a screen is so much different from the experience of looking at something in real life. This is much less the case with live audio recordings.

I’m curious if folks will be able to go back to these old recordings to improve the spatial nature of the audio.

Re: Spatial Audio

#125

Post by kingosticks »

Is this just the next step after lossless now that everyone supports that (or soon will)? I'd be surprised if this would drive subscriptions but I guess it's still a nice differentiator to have; although I personally have zero interest in it, just as I have zero interest in these lossless quality options.

But my real question for those in the know is: what will be the next after this? Where else can they go with audio (other than make it all work better wirelessly)?

Re: Spatial Audio

#126

Post by StavrosK »

voisin wrote: post #122
StavrosK wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of an insult to the original artist, in my view. When I create something, it's an expression of my personality, and I the choices I make reflect my aesthetic. If you take it and remix it, that's fine, but don't put my name on it, it's "Song X (Apple Atmos Remix)" now.

Presumably all the rights holders have agreed to the “remix” without this demand. Surely if you create your own music you can tell Apple to go to hell and keep it in the version you created. Worst case they drop all non-Atmos files in the future and you become de-platformed. Doubtful that will happen given the size of their library.

Yes, but I have a suspicion the rights holder in this case is the label and not the composer/performer.

Re: Spatial Audio

#127

Post by voisin »

StavrosK wrote: post #126
voisin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably all the rights holders have agreed to the “remix” without this demand. Surely if you create your own music you can tell Apple to go to hell and keep it in the version you created. Worst case they drop all non-Atmos files in the future and you become de-platformed. Doubtful that will happen given the size of their library.

Yes, but I have a suspicion the rights holder in this case is the label and not the composer/performer.

That’s almost certainly the case, and something the composer/performer signed up for as part of the deal. So what’s the conflict with someone who owns rights to some thing allowing someone else to do things with that thing?

It just feels like a massive stretch to act like these poor performers are being taken advantage of with Atmos remixing.

Re: Spatial Audio

#128

Post by skywhopper »

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…

The main question for me, beyond the rights of the artists is “can I listen to the version I prefer”? Apple Music has been pretty bad about the issue of multiple mixes of a certain track getting attached to the wrong album (or in odd cases subbing in a live version for an album track). If I don’t like what the Atmos mix of [favorite song] sounds like I’ll be unhappy. But most people probably won’t care.

Re: Spatial Audio

#129

Post by can16358p »

voisin wrote: post #121
can16358p wrote: post #110

There's nothing wrong with spatial audio, it's beautiful. There's something terribly wrong with Apple trying to force audio that wasn't meant to be spatial into being spatial. If the original artist intended the audio to be spatial, it has enormous potential and I'm pretty much sure there will be more and more artists doing that, creating a new category. But taking our good ol' perfectly-sounding stereo songs and tur…

Wait, are artists being forced to do this? Or are you referring to old, dead artists whose music is being converted? If the latter, then it is hard to say they wouldn’t have used spatial Gad the technology existed. > “Just for the sake of marketing” This seems to conflict with the first sentence where you admit it’s beautiful.

In the first sentence I meant spatial audio is good, and what I was referring to was when it was meant to be spatial from beginning, intended by the artists. "Just for the sake of marketing" obviously refers to Apple taking original artist's stereo-intended song and turning it into spatial, which might not necessarily what the artist wants audience to hear under their name.

Re: Spatial Audio

#130

Post by slowhand09 »

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.

I read the article. Totally different, but extremely entertaining https://www.bratproductions.com/mixes/mashups/brat_everlong_...
Post reply on HN