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

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: Spatial Audio

#81

Post by Cybotron5000 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #72

It isn't really that central to TFA's main points, but I find it very disappointing that the audio tech world seems to be settling for Dolby Atmos. Once again the choice is made to use licensable technology in preference over non-licensable, libre technology (Ambisonics). Both have their pros and cons, but only one of them is associated with a licensed-based revenue stream.

Yes - it does seems a shame and potentially a loss to developers/the open source community? Surely an open standard like Ambisonics would have had more of a chance of being widely adopted/supported and therefore perhaps longer-lived anyhow (was just thinking about MIDI)… I guess that’s not the end goal for Apple?

Re: Spatial Audio

#82

Post by bigtones »

balls187 wrote: post #58
bristleworm wrote: post #36

According to Apple, wireless headphones like the AirPods do support spacial audio. No idea where the author got the information they wouldn't. Apart from that, I get how an audio engineer would think that way, but for me, and I suppose most music listeners, what's important is that the sound is great. And personally I really like spacial audio.

> No idea where the author got the information they wouldn't. Being misinformed. Apple Lossless HD Audio, which was recently announced, is not currently supported by wireless (read: bluetooth) headphones.

Apple Lossless HD Audio is not spatial audio. They're two different things.

Lossless HD Audio is uncompressed audio at around 9216 kbps.

Spatial Dolby Atmos audio is compressed audio at between 384 and 768 kbps

Re: Spatial Audio

#83

Post by scoot »

danappelxx wrote: post #79
scoot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, no.

I mean, most headphones don’t have accel/gyro - makes sense for Apple to use proprietary protocols for this, no? Also, see HN guidelines for comments.

Please review the list of supported headphones, and review their features. No, there is nothing special about most of them. If the feature is supported for all of them, then any are headphones/ earphones are capable of supporting it. Anyone with half a clue would see this, so, in not so may words, "Lol, no".

Also, respectfully suggest that you review the HN guidelines WRT your own comment. "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm going to comment anyway" is clearly covered.

Re: Spatial Audio

#84

Post by rodgerd »

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…

> Quite a few parts of it are completely wrong

Well, the whole thing is an anonymous email. And the "remixing by the truckload" doesn't seem in evidence given the low number of tracks released thus far; there are many more available on Tidal in Atmos currently.

> Jazz in Atmos is wonderful.

I've been very impressed by the classical tracks thus far, which have mostly used a hint of surround to let you feel as though you're at the front of a concert, with the players in a crescnt moon; and a bit of a delay in the rears to create the sensation of space echoing behind.

Some of the rock/pop mixes have been very interesting; the Linkin Park mixes use the surround/rear to create a "voices inside my head" effect where it makes sense on with the lyrics. Robert Palmer actually sounds like a much better singer on the remixes than the originals, with the guitars pushed out to the side rather than stomping all over the singer (whether they applied a little autotune as well, who knows?). I don't much like The Doors, but the use of surround in Riders on the Storm is remarkable.

There are some very poor remixes too, but that's the case for any re-engineering. As for the idea that only the original engineer or producer can make something work, well, that's just idiotic on a number of levels.

Re: Spatial Audio

#85

Post by rodgerd »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #72

It isn't really that central to TFA's main points, but I find it very disappointing that the audio tech world seems to be settling for Dolby Atmos. Once again the choice is made to use licensable technology in preference over non-licensable, libre technology (Ambisonics). Both have their pros and cons, but only one of them is associated with a licensed-based revenue stream.

Sadly it's probably the patent-pool monopoly using its leverage. No h264/h265 without HDMI, HDCP, and all that crap, probably find Ambisonics is locked out for not being a pool contributer.

Re: Spatial Audio

#86

Post by [deleted] »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #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)…

[deleted]

Re: Spatial Audio

#87

Post by grawprog »

From that post it doesn't sound like Atmos itself is the problem, but either the mixing engineers or the source material.

>I compared Spatial Audio tracks to their HD equivalents on Amazon Music and I found exactly what one writer said: the vocal gets lost. Instead of being up front and in your face, it’s buried more in the mix.

That complaint there sounds more like a mixing problem than a technology problem.

It sounds a lot like the original issues that came up when people first started converting music to from mono to stereo or stereo to surround, it's a new technology that requires some time for people to learn the ins and outs of. The early mixes released using this will likely be a mixed bag. Like pretty much every other time people have tried to take music written with fewer tracks and make it sound like it was recorded with more.

Re: Spatial Audio

#88

Post by rodgerd »

joeel84 wrote: post #5
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #2

I listened to the tracks. I like the spatial versions better. What are you going to do?

What speakers did you listen back on? I don't know anybody with a setup to play these back and I know some crazy audiophiles.

If you want Atmos you need either headphones that support the audio, or a multichannel reciever. Which are a dime a dozen. "Crazy audiophiles" won't have one because they spent all their money on $1,000/metre audio cable, CD-colouring pens, and magic rocks to balance their turntable on.

Re: Spatial Audio

#89

Post by rodgerd »

tonetheman wrote: post #25

Just because of the sheer number of tracks there are in the world it is clear the quality here will vary wildly. I really want to hear jazz like this. Specifically trios/quartets. Even if it is not the original and I can hear each musician separately I think it would be worth it.

Note that an AppleTV -> multichannel reciever will get you what you want. You don't need either Apple headphones or even a Dolby reciever.

Re: Spatial Audio

#90

Post by Synaesthesia »

salamandersauce wrote: post #43
tonetheman wrote: post #25

Just because of the sheer number of tracks there are in the world it is clear the quality here will vary wildly. I really want to hear jazz like this. Specifically trios/quartets. Even if it is not the original and I can hear each musician separately I think it would be worth it.

They have Jazz with spatial. Apple Music on android doesn't have spatial audio support annoyingly but Tidal does if your phone supports Dolby Atmos so I've been checking out a trial of that instead.

You can get it with the beta if Apple Music for android
Post reply on HN