In other news, a pediatric cardiologist charges more than an allergist. And yes, that is fair.
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.)Where did you fall on the digital/analog debate?
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
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.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?
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.If you know your stuff... Does this have anything to do with dummy head recording?
Apple has said that over half of Apple Music subscribers use the feature
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Do they mean on a regular basis or have used it at least once, because I can believe half the listeners use it regularly.
Technology often needs a little help to get past the tipping point. That’s why we have EV subsidies, etc.I’m saying that there should be no need for Apple to subsidize Spatial Audio if it is indeed a success with customers.
I'm interested to read a paper or good website that explains how stereo is higher fidelity. Can you provide a link?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.
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.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.
From my understanding (announcements at the time) most of the spatial music that is on iTunes has been produced from the original stems.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.
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.I want music as the artist, producer and songwriter wanted it to be heard.
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.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.
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.I’m saying that there should be no need for Apple to subsidize Spatial Audio if it is indeed a success with customers.
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!From my understanding (announcements at the time) most of the spatial music that is on iTunes has been produced from the original stems.
I suppose there's some valid concerns that Apple will prioritize tracks that are spatial audio-compatible in search/discovery algorithms.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?
Totally agree with your pointsHow 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.
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.I doubt it will even have an impact. People will listen to songs they like spacial or otherwise.
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.I’m saying that there should be no need for Apple to subsidize Spatial Audio if it is indeed a success with customers.