Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Analogies…. I want to point out being a patron of the Louvre that the worst experience is the crowd in front of the Mona Lisa.
 
Where did you fall on the digital/analog debate?
For me, there's no debate! Digital is better in every regard for both production and listening. (And of course I recognize that some people in pro audio still like analog, and vinyl records are gaining in popularity again.)

Somewhat related is this quote from audio myth buster Ethan Winer in his book "The Audio Expert":

I wasn’t present in 1951 when the Pultec equalizer was designed, but I
suspect the engineers were aiming for a circuit that affects the audio as
little as possible beyond the response changes being asked of it. I’m quite
sure they were not aiming for a ‘vintage’ sound. The desire for ‘warmth’
and a ‘tube sound’ came many years later, as a new generation of
engineers tried to understand why some old-school recordings sound so
good. Failing to understand the importance of good mic technique in a
good-sounding room coupled with good engineering, they assumed
(wrongly IMO) that it must be the gear that was used. Personally, I want
everything in my recording chain to be absolutely clean. If I decide I
want the sound of tubes, I’ll add that as an effect later.
—Ethan, posting in an audio forum

I agree with this in every respect.
—George Massenburg, famous recording engineer, and designer
of the first parametric equalizer, response to Ethan’s comment
 
It sounds like it's a bonus for doing something that costs more to produce, nobody is making them do it. They can just not do it and make the same money as before. Am I missing something here?
No you’re right. Although it’s only a benefit for artist that make considerable money off streams already. It cost more to have your music mixed this way but I’m not sure why they’re mad at Apple for this. The entire music industry is to blame for the current pay structure that doesn’t really support smaller artists.
 
If you know your stuff... Does this have anything to do with dummy head recording?
Not really. True binaural-style recording has always been a novelty in terms of common recording techniques. The vast majority of conventional stereo mixes, are, well… mixed, from a set of otherwise separate mono audio tracks - known as a multi-track recording.

In a best case scenario, a surround or spatial mix is performed similarly, from a multitrack recording. In a worst case scenario, it is created by processing or otherwise “upmixing” a pre-existing stereo mix.
 
  • Love
Reactions: DarthDon
Apple has said that over half of Apple Music subscribers use the feature

Do they mean on a regular basis or have used it at least once, because I can believe half the listeners use it regularly.
 
Indie labels have a right to be concerned because they know consumer choice will be the deciding factor in what music they purchase and listen to based on the musical quality of the song and the format it is in. At the moment it is a level playing field within itunes, songs are encoded the same and the format is the same, thus consumer deciding factor being the song, the type of song and the artist of the song but with spatial audio, that all changes because the audio quality of spatial audio coded songs will be much better that the current encoded songs. Spatial audio will change consumer choice from being the song and the artist that makes their purchasing decision to that of it being if the song is coded for spatial audio. Coded for spatial audio, the consumer wants because it is of a better quality and audio experience to that of regular songs. This would mean consumers therefore ignoring non-spatial audio songs for that of spatial ones.

The same principle applies to that of DVD's and Blu-ray. If a person has a blu-ray player and they are looking for movies to watch, they will naturally purchase the better quality blu-ray movie over that of a lower quality DVD movie. As a consumer, I do exactly that. due to me having a blu-ray player I completely ignore movies that are on DVD and just look at the blu-ray section meaning anything produced on DVD automatically gets missed/ignored because I am now only interested in the better quality produced blu-ray movies. Indie labels are worried the same will happen to them, consumers will ignore them and only go for songs produced in spatial audio.

The audio quality of Spatial Audio is NOT better. Stereo remains higher fidelity.

What independents don’t want is Apple (Dolby, actually since this is Atmos we’re taking about) replacing the open standard of stereo with a proprietary “standard” that’s actually lower in quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
Not really. True binaural-style recording has always been a novelty in terms of common recording techniques. The vast majority of conventional stereo mixes, are, well… mixed, from a set of otherwise separate mono audio tracks - known as a multi-track recording.

In a best case scenario, a surround or spatial mix is performed similarly, from a multitrack recording. In a worst case scenario, it is created by processing or otherwise “upmixing” a pre-existing stereo mix.
Oops, someone knows their way around really well ;-). I think spacial cinema is probably a multi-channel story after all. There is no other explanation for the change in channels when the head is turned. I can hardly imagine that something like this works with computing technology alone. This will probably be a kind of quadrophonic recording, in which the rotation of the head front and back is regulated into left and right.
 
The audio quality of Spatial Audio is NOT better. Stereo remains higher fidelity.

What independents don’t want is Apple (Dolby, actually since this is Atmos we’re taking about) replacing the open standard of stereo with a proprietary “standard” that’s actually lower in quality.
Apple wont be deciding that, us the consumers will. If we want our music to be in spatial audio there is nothing indie labels will be able to do about it.
 
Do they mean on a regular basis or have used it at least once, because I can believe half the listeners use it regularly.
Any one who has AirPods Pro, AirPods Max, uses an Atmos enabled receiver, or Atmos capable pair of HomePods will listen to it all the time. Most users have it enabled (I think it is the default now), and since many people have Atmos enabled listening system it would not surprise me at all.
 
The audio quality of Spatial Audio is NOT better. Stereo remains higher fidelity.

What independents don’t want is Apple (Dolby, actually since this is Atmos we’re taking about) replacing the open standard of stereo with a proprietary “standard” that’s actually lower in quality.
I'm interested to read a paper or good website that explains how stereo is higher fidelity. Can you provide a link?

My experience with Spatial Audio is that I tend to enjoy it more. Sound is highly subjective. For most music I've tried, I prefer Dolby Atmos/Spatial Audio and find it higher quality. I listen to a lot of classical though, which is inherently spatial. But, my preference also ranges through pop, rock, alternative, and everything else. So far I've found few songs that I think sound worse in Spatial Audio. Others will have different experiences, which is fine.

Again though, I'd be interested if you have a link to a technical paper or similar that explains how stereo is higher fidelity.
 
I want music as the artist, producer and songwriter wanted it to be heard. The gimmickry is foolishness and tantatmount to taking a movie and editing it for 4:3 or cutting scenes. It is not the way it was meant to seen.
The complaint isn't that they want it to be heard in the current process, it is that the Spatial Audio process costs much more. It isn't like Apple said they'll pay 10% more for dubstep remixes.
 
In a best case scenario, a surround or spatial mix is performed similarly, from a multitrack recording. In a worst case scenario, it is created by processing or otherwise “upmixing” a pre-existing stereo mix.
From my understanding (announcements at the time) most of the spatial music that is on iTunes has been produced from the original stems.
 
I want music as the artist, producer and songwriter wanted it to be heard.
The artist, producer and composer (lyricists are not as likely to be involved, but might be), are usually the ones deciding if/how to spatialize their recordings, so one is hearing it how they want it to be heardThe artist, producer and composer (lyricists are not as likely to be involved, but might be), are usually the ones deciding if/how to spatialize their recordings, so one is hearing it how they want it to be heard.
The gimmickry is foolishness and tantatmount to taking a movie and editing it for 4:3 or cutting scenes. It is not the way it was meant to seen.
No. This is would be more like re-rendering old visual effects in higher resolution using the original models. It is in fact the opposite of producing a pan-and-scan video transfer or cutting scenes, as if one does not want to listen to the added information, one does not have to do so.

Having been to quite a few concerts (both EDM and non-EDM) that were performed in Atmos the artists who really take advantage of the space have produced some amazing music.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Reproducing the live experience of being completely surrounded by the band you are watching. Makes perfect sense to me. :)
 
I’m saying that there should be no need for Apple to subsidize Spatial Audio if it is indeed a success with customers.
Apple is trying to increase the pool of content available for their customers. Knowing that it costs more, they are proving extra revenue in order to do it. Apple is not paying people to listen to it, they just want to make sure there is a large enough pool of music out there so that consumers can listen to it if they want to do so.
 
From my understanding (announcements at the time) most of the spatial music that is on iTunes has been produced from the original stems.
I of course don’t have direct numbers or analytics to reference, but I don’t know that I would call it the majority. I know of MANY instances where that isn’t the case. As if Atmos derived from stereo mixes weren’t bad enough, I even know of more than a few Atmos mixes that are derived from mono mixes!

Of the instances where they are actually going back to perform new mixes based on the original multis, they are often done quick and on the cheap, giving really poor results without any regard to the original producers, engineers, or artists’ involvement/intentions.

I even know of Atmos mixes being done for well known artists where they are hiring Fiverr-grade bedroom “engineers” who don’t even have any sort of Atmos system to reference what they are doing, let alone a functional studio. All done completely in the box by clicking a few buttons on a laptop.

They are really just pumping out whatever they can just for the sake of saying they’ve done it.


Back in the 70’s, EMI considered cashing in on the Quadraphonic craze by issuing a quadraphonic mix of The Beatles Sgt. Pepper. As if it weren’t already challenging enough to make an adequate mix of that record in stereo, from the original 4-track recordings…
In the process, they didn’t even bother to go back to the 4 track recordings. They simply played around with the existing hard-panned stereo mix for their new 4 channel mix.
The results were so bad, they canceled the project, and this rejected mix has never seen the light of day, but it is well documented in their archives.

Not everyone has the taste and foresight to decline doing things only because they can and not because they should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
I’m literally an independent music producer. Mixing in spatial audio does not cost $1000 per song. All the tools needed are in logic. It’s easy, it’s really fun to do. I’m really looking forward to the rest of the world stepping up to spatial.
 
It sounds like it's a bonus for doing something that costs more to produce, nobody is making them do it. They can just not do it and make the same money as before. Am I missing something here?
I suppose there's some valid concerns that Apple will prioritize tracks that are spatial audio-compatible in search/discovery algorithms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruthAboveAllElse
How can it hurt the independent labels? Apple is not requiring all songs to be mastered in Spatial Audio. If so, that would hurt the independent labels. Apple is merely offering more money for Spatial Audio tracks. If songs are not in Spatial Audio, labels get paid the same rate as before. If the labels want those standard rates higher, negotiate with Apple. If it doesn't make financial sense to do Spatial Audio mastering, don't do it.

This boils down to you (a business) spending more time, effort, and money to get a higher reward. Just because that might be easier for larger labels (economies of scale) and they might see a benefit, doesn't mean that somehow hurts the smaller labels.

This is like someone who does not work overtime hours complaining that they're not getting paid overtime when other people working overtime are getting paid overtime. Something requires more time and effort (and possibly money) and Apple is providing higher compensation for that.

On the other hand, it is possible that long-term smaller labels might lose artists, if the artists are getting more money from the larger labels due to Spatial Audio. However, indie labels tend to pay artists better than the large labels, so this is unlikely to be an issue. That is unless the artist specifically wants tracks in Spatial Audio. In that case, the indie label could offer lower royalties for that artist due to the extra sound engineering costs.

It's a business. Figure it out.
Totally agree with your points
 
This will help push recording studios to invest in spatial audio recording methods and workflows, helping subsidise the process in the long run if it becomes standard. And maybe encourage recording multi channel sound in the can even if it will just be mixed in stereo for now, they’ll still have the recording in multichannel to make a spatial audio mix easier later.
 
I doubt it will even have an impact. People will listen to songs they like spacial or otherwise.
OMG so much this. I listen to music because I like it. If it’s Spatial, neat - I do like the more immersive experience. But I’m sure as heck not going to stop listening to music I like because it doesn’t happen to be mastered in Atmos.

This just smacks of so much “wah, wah, Apple is bad” sentiment out there. Give me a break.
 
I’m saying that there should be no need for Apple to subsidize Spatial Audio if it is indeed a success with customers.
Providing economic incentives to promote and get people to use new technologies is a tried and true method that goes back to the beginning of modern economies. There is always resistance from those who want to retain the status quo.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.