The last coheed and Cambria album has some tracks that sound amazing in atmos on my home theater, same with the last gojira and the new Peter Gabriel. Whereas some stuff like muse or rival sons seemed like it lost some power in the mix
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 to Pay Artists Up to 10% More Royalties for Spatial Audio Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It depends on the music and the engineering. The right music engineered well in Spatial Audio sounds amazing. Acoustic and classical can be stunning in Spatial Audio -- actually most orchestral classical music I've listened to in Spatial Audio is much improved over the non spatial version, regardless of the engineering. That's because an orchestra is highly spatial already and allowing the instruments to be spread around makes it sound more like you are there. Some pop/alternative/rock can also sound amazing. The new "remixes" of The Beatles music in Spatial Audio are particularly good.
In my experience with the music I listen to, Spatial Audio sounds as good as or better than the non spatial version. I've found maybe a couple songs in the past few years where I preferred the non spatial version.
Others might disagree but sound is subjective. I'm simply offering my experience.
Last edited:
Not sure that they invest a lot into taking care of their existing infrastructure. To me it looks more like someone who built a bike a dozen years ago with 21 speed gears and most of them not having been oiled for years, and some not working.
Apple Music is more like radio than buying a CD. You don't own the music, you're just renting it. It wouldn't make sense to pay artists the same as a CD for listening to a song, especially when usually just want one song. Albums forced us to buy 12 songs when 99% of the time we just wanted a single song on it.
I still buy CD's and Hi-res digital albums in .aiff/.aif ...better support (imo)
Also, you can always turn off spatial audio and have the unaltered 2 channel available on Apple Music. Some tracks you can really hear a difference. If done properly I think our ears will be in for a treat...if you have proper 5.1.2 AVR's and/or headphones/iem's
Also, you can always turn off spatial audio and have the unaltered 2 channel available on Apple Music. Some tracks you can really hear a difference. If done properly I think our ears will be in for a treat...if you have proper 5.1.2 AVR's and/or headphones/iem's
95% of Dolby Atmos songs on Apple Music sound like 💩. There’s no bass.
I’ve turned Dolby Atmos off on all my devices. (Even on my 7.2.4 home theater appletv)
I’ve turned Dolby Atmos off on all my devices. (Even on my 7.2.4 home theater appletv)
Last edited:
I would add buy merch, and if you have a turntable buy some vinyl too. I know it’s duplicating what you’ve got in Apple Music but we need to support artists.
As I understand, Apple will pay 10% more to artists for spatial audio content, but that amount will come from the pockets of artists who do not provide such content, which will then receive proportionally less than they would if Apple did not come out with this incentive.
I have experience mixing stereo tracks and is really challenging, I cannot imagine how difficult is to mix for spatial audio ones. Not sure if it worth it (I guess no, otherwise Apple would not do these bonus for artists). I only tried once listening to an spatial audio album (metal) that I really knew before and was a terrible experience. It sounded so synthetic, so unrealistic, really awful. Not for me.
This makes so much sense I incorrectly assumed that’s how all streaming services operate
It depends a lot on the track and how it was mastered. There are some tracks that make excellent use of Spatial Audio, others not so much. "Boom!" by Tiesto is a good track showcasing Dolby Atmos because of the degree of surround effects it uses at certain points (not saying the song is necessarily good, just that it's a good demonstration).
That being said even good stereo tracks can feel immersive if mastered correctly.
I find some of these comments humorous in the sense of a total lack of understanding of how the industry works.
1. Apple is the best thing that ever happened to the music industry and, to a large extent, saved the industry from free internet downloads.
2. Music labels provide an artist with so much backing that even YouTube sensations long to be signed despite knowing that the label takes most of the profits from the sales or streaming commissions.
3. Unless the artist self produces, re-engineering the track for Dolby Atmos will be on the label to spend the time and money. As such, the label, through existing commission deals, will get most of the profits.
4. The way that most artists view the recording industry is that of advertising. Put out a track, spend money on a music video, do interviews, etc., it’s just a way to get more fans to book more gigs. The show is where the artist makes money, rarely are they getting rich from the album sales.
4. Proof positive of this is the non A lister who pays lots of money to record their songs. Typical small town recording can run $10K / song or $50 for an album that might generate no more than $10K in sales. Help from friends and family pays the bill. These small-time artists make money doing local jobs like weddings and bars and night clubs.
5. To get radio airplay, which, even today, is a big market, most stations want to see consumer testing which…costs money and is unlikely to ever get done outside of a label.
In short, the record industry is like any other business: you need to spend money to make money. There are exceedingly few A listers who are not backed by a label and I have no sympathies for those who are. They are often making millions working no more than 1000 - 1500 hours per year and are often, though not always, very narrow-minded and narcissistic.
So I’ll listen to a track from an artist and I needn’t be concerned whether their net worth goes up by 1M or 3M this year.
1. Apple is the best thing that ever happened to the music industry and, to a large extent, saved the industry from free internet downloads.
2. Music labels provide an artist with so much backing that even YouTube sensations long to be signed despite knowing that the label takes most of the profits from the sales or streaming commissions.
3. Unless the artist self produces, re-engineering the track for Dolby Atmos will be on the label to spend the time and money. As such, the label, through existing commission deals, will get most of the profits.
4. The way that most artists view the recording industry is that of advertising. Put out a track, spend money on a music video, do interviews, etc., it’s just a way to get more fans to book more gigs. The show is where the artist makes money, rarely are they getting rich from the album sales.
4. Proof positive of this is the non A lister who pays lots of money to record their songs. Typical small town recording can run $10K / song or $50 for an album that might generate no more than $10K in sales. Help from friends and family pays the bill. These small-time artists make money doing local jobs like weddings and bars and night clubs.
5. To get radio airplay, which, even today, is a big market, most stations want to see consumer testing which…costs money and is unlikely to ever get done outside of a label.
In short, the record industry is like any other business: you need to spend money to make money. There are exceedingly few A listers who are not backed by a label and I have no sympathies for those who are. They are often making millions working no more than 1000 - 1500 hours per year and are often, though not always, very narrow-minded and narcissistic.
So I’ll listen to a track from an artist and I needn’t be concerned whether their net worth goes up by 1M or 3M this year.
Last edited:
Agree to a point. If you think of that $3.50, and multiply it by roughly 340 million in the US alone. Let's just take half of that, even a quarter of that. The is $85m/year for a single song simply streaming. I get it, artists deserve to be paid, but combine that with touring, true sales from us die-hards that want to "own" a piece of the music, not just stream, and most are making a far more comfortable living than most artists. I think we get too caught up splitting hairs of defining how someone who makes $200m a year is being cheated compared to the person making $201m. Not meaning to be pessimistic this morning, but even when we were all buying albums, 8-tracks, cassettes, and CDs, the artist was making less than they make now. Companies will make money whether it is recording studios, agents, retail, promotors, Venus, hell even the bus driver to shows and the private jet pilots. The entire industry is about making a lot of people wealthy. Just don't feel it's worth splitting hairs unless we see Taylor selling off a mansion because she can't afford it.
The music industry's model has always been to pay artists as little as possible for music they distribute; streaming just copied that model. Unless you are so big you can dictate terms or are lucky enough to be a one hot wonder that gets lots of playing, live performances and merch sales are likely to be your major revenue streams.
I think spatial sounds pretty good on my home stereo, but I absolutely hate it when wearing headphones...it's awful.
it is not nonsense if it is true. What Spotify pays artists is pathetic. I will never use Spotify as a result. I tried the free tier, not impressed. Is the industry still so controlled by a few rich companies, they they don't allow the payments to increase? I believe it is Tidal that pays the highest rate, but maybe that has changed.
Streaming sure beats the old radio days, where all stations were forced to play the same few songs over and over and over again.
so here is Spotify, the largest streaming service in the world, but can't fairly compensate the artists who make the music - disgusting! Maybe if people stop listening to Spotify, they will change. I know I stopped, I know a lot of other people stopped.
This is actually against the Apple Music terms. Hasn’t stopped it happening already though unfortunately.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
So let’s see…. Apple current pays me about $.004 per stream (which — sad but true — is more than most other streaming services). So think of how much richer I’d be with an additional 10% tacked onto that. And all I’d have to do is remaster my entire catalog.
Ummmmm, 10% of .004 is .0004, not- as your post my imply- .014. Adding 10% may equal .0044 instead of .0040.
The devil is always in the details.
You seem to think this would only apply to artists who would understand or have the ultimate control to do this properly to unlock the new compensation rate
Some jazz labels massacred great records from the 1950s and 60s with terrible, noise war remasters in the early 2000s into what are now in some cases still the primary editions of those records. It's not the fault of the artists who were in most cases dead or in nursing homes when their music was being made worse to satisfy some executive's scheme for a quick buck
