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

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: Spatial Audio

#91

Post by danappelxx »

scoot wrote: post #83
danappelxx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ta…

Maybe I’ve been unclear. Way I see it, Apple’s “spatial audio” branding really means a couple things.

1. Dolby atmos, obviously this is industry standard

2. Head tracking, where sound stays in the same direction despite movement. Introduced last year for the listed headphones, works on some video streaming services. Not supported by Apple Music yet but supposedly coming soon.

I only meant that the head tracking seems specific to apple headphones. If you still feel I’m dull please knock some sense into me.

Re: Spatial Audio

#93

Post by Cybotron5000 »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #66
smoldesu wrote: post #62

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

That looks like an extremely impressive venue (‘…wavefield synthesis…’ etc.). I’d love to visit! Many years ago I saw a concert featuring acousmatic/spatialized music performed by Dr. Robert Dow (and some other people who I forget the names of) in Edinburgh that blew me away... I’m not sure what the set-up he was using was/whether he was using ambisonics/how he had maybe customized/expanded on that standard (as I remember he had what looked like home-made speaker ‘trees’ set up above the audience’s heads, alongside loads of more conventional speakers…), but it sounded great!

Re: Spatial Audio

#94

Post by jtbayly »

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…

> Most remixed songs from the 60's aren't the least bit interesting but the possibilities for the future are.

Then why start by screwing up the old music?

Re: Spatial Audio

#95

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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)…

It is absolutely untrue that the more speakers you throw at Atmos the better, because most rooms are not acoustically treated. As you add more speakers you get more and more complex reflections and room resonances, which conspire to make any attempt at spatialisation - including basic stereo - a hot mess.

Sound travels at around 1ft/ms, so unless your renderer knows where the speakers are in the room and also where your ears are in the room, it's going to be making some very wrong assumptions in its models.

Atmos cinemas actually do this with precise measurements of speaker placing. Even then, you get wildly different experiences depending on where you're sitting.

Atmos mix studios also do it, because they have to.

Home cinemas and home studios - not so much.

If you're among the 1% of people with a high end home cinema room with acoustic treatment, you'll get a passable imitation of the full effect. Everyone else will get some vague sense of some sounds being behind them, and others not.

Headphones are better because the HRTF/binaural effect has no external acoustic space to play into, which makes it far more consistent and predictable. Measured customised HRTFs would be better still.

But that isn't what will kill this. The bigger problem is that good music mix engineers are expensive, and most have no experience with spatial mixing. So far it's been a thing for ad/movie market, and there's less crossover between those markets than most people realise.

If you're producing a stereo mix and a spatial mix your mix budget is going to be between 100% and 500% higher than for stereo alone.

Then you somehow have to do spatial mastering on top of that.

"But I have a DAW" won't do it. Yes, you probably do. But no, you don't have the 7.1.4 (!) speaker configuration needed to mix Atmos properly.

And even if you do, you probably can't mix like a pro. Not even close.

The enhanced budget might be feasible if spatialisation was so much better that it boosted sales to an equivalent extent. But it isn't. It's a nice extra effect - which won't pay its own way, except for special projects with prestige budgets.

And in movies/ads, which are a different market.

Re: Spatial Audio

#96

Post by catchmeifyoucan »

> truth is this is a headphone genre. Which at the moment doesn’t support Bluetooth

I’m not sure I follow this comment because Apple phones don’t have headphone jacks, so the majority will listen to atmos via Bluetooth from Apple Music.

I listened to the track the author mentioned, and it was good, in some ways distracting, but nothing mind blowing. I use Bose NC700s over ear headphones. I was expecting something like the THX experience when visiting an IMAX, but without movement, it sounds like enhanced audio. Definitely more layered

Re: Spatial Audio

#97

Post by zamalek »

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…

Many people in the audiophile community believe that measurements and bit-perfect are the entire scope of good sound. The author is clearly someone who appreciates good audio, with mid-range headphones.

The smaller part of the community acknowledges that beauty is in the eye/ear of the beholder/listener.

When it comes to headphones, though, audio is to some degree already spatial. Apple does seem to be spreading butter on butter here.

Re: Spatial Audio

#98

Post by ricardobeat »

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…

> Listening to some modern pop with lots of synths and layers upon layers of backing vocals, the experience is much better.

I've listened to quite a few pop songs I know, and without fail they sound much muddier in Atmos. Vocals are recessed, the bass loses definition. The improvement in sound stage feels better when you switch back and forth, but paradoxically the sound quality is worse.

Re: Spatial Audio

#99

Post by meepmorp »

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.

Yes, you can. I just tested, and it plays the regular stereo track instead.

Re: Spatial Audio

#100

Post by smoldesu »

defaultname wrote: post #78
aaomidi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

smoldesu is pathologically anti-Apple, so the fact that this thread related to Apple instantly guaranteed their pissing and moaning, dismissive response. Don't take it as a sincere argument.

I've never seen someone get so mad about another person's opinion before. You don't have to reply, and HN even lets you downvote my comments if you really think they're that detrimental to the overall narrative. Otherwise though, I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe there's a blocking/filtering extension that could help you if I'm being that disruptive to your daily browsing.
Post reply on HN