In other news, a pediatric cardiologist charges more than an allergist. And yes, that is fair.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Music Spatial Audio Royalties Only Benefit the Biggest Companies, Say Indie Record Labels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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":
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.
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.
Do they mean on a regular basis or have used it at least once, because I can believe half the listeners use it regularly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Technology often needs a little help to get past the tipping point. That’s why we have EV subsidies, etc.
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.
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.
From my understanding (announcements at the time) most of the spatial music that is on iTunes has been produced from the original stems.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I suppose there's some valid concerns that Apple will prioritize tracks that are spatial audio-compatible in search/discovery algorithms.
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.
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.
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.