Pearl Jam albums in Dolby Atmos surround

strilo

The Rock said:

I have an Android device and Sony WH-1000xm3 headphones, and listening to Ten last night was an unbelievable experience. The separation of instruments is insane, especially on a song like Porch. 

Release is definitely a different vocal take. Still sounds great, but an odd choice to use this vocal. 

Is Gigaton in Dolby only available on Apple Music? I have a Tidal subscription and it's not on there. I don't want to pay for another service to hear Gigaton. 

It's quite possible that it's only on Apple Music. 

bigbiggzy

I still can’t get In My Tree and Smile to start at the very beginning (On Apple).

Both tracks start at roughly 10-12 seconds in…

With that said - I’m glad to have what I’d consider to be the original version of Who You Are back… 

If you’re subscribed to Apple Music - you’ll notice that their version on No Code includes the ‘revised’ version (“Avalanche”) from RVM (the ‘hits’, if you will).  

Great to have this variety in sound from the band.

strilo

Yeah I am sure Apple will fix the file glitches. 

foriginalsin

So I have tidal.  I don't see the albums in dolby atmos.  I have found other dolby atmos songs on tidal however and this is my first experience with them.  I dont have a dolby atmos receiver, however it is dolby digital, so when the mix is sent, it down converts and my receiver changes to dolby digital. Listening to Riders on the Storm was amazing and revelatory.  The rain came from the surround speakers and the mix was fantastic.  The only way I could get dolby atmos with tidal was to download the tidal app to my lg tv. 

So is the only way to hear these albums right now is by using apple music?

One other thing. I read people saying this particular guitar part or whatever is missing or low in the atmos mix. I listened to buddy holly, weezer, and i found the same thing, a certain guitar harmony was almost gone from the mix.  I am wondering if this is because full atmos is 11.2.4. Thats a lot of channels and its possible certain parts are sent to channels that arent in the 5.1 mix. 

Anyway hope tidal does right and puts up these albums soon.

igotid88

The Rock said:

I have an Android device and Sony WH-1000xm3 headphones, and listening to Ten last night was an unbelievable experience. The separation of instruments is insane, especially on a song like Porch. 

Release is definitely a different vocal take. Still sounds great, but an odd choice to use this vocal. 

Is Gigaton in Dolby only available on Apple Music? I have a Tidal subscription and it's not on there. I don't want to pay for another service to hear Gigaton. 

Gigaton should be available where Dolby Atmos is available since it was recorded that way. 

strilo

foriginalsin said:

One other thing. I read people saying this particular guitar part or whatever is missing or low in the atmos mix. I listened to buddy holly, weezer, and i found the same thing, a certain guitar harmony was almost gone from the mix.  I am wondering if this is because full atmos is 11.2.4. Thats a lot of channels and its possible certain parts are sent to channels that arent in the 5.1 mix. 

That's not exactly how Atmos works. It's not strictly limited to channels. Basically you tell your receiver what type of Atmos you have, how many speakers and where they are. Then when the Atmos stream is decoded, all channels/objects are routed to the setup you have. Basically, it sends things to the nearest speaker you have. So no objects or channels would be missing due to a 5.1 setup vs 11.2.4. The sounds we are referring to as changed, buried or missing are that way in the mix by design. Atmos in headphones has all of the content folded down automatically to left and right, and the sounds we refer to are missing there too. It's an artistic mixing choice by Josh Evans, not a byproduct of how Atmos is mixed and decoded.

strilo

igotid88 said: Gigaton should be available where Dolby Atmos is available since it was recorded that way. 

Not to split hairs, but Gigaton was not recorded in Atmos. I don't believe anything is recorded in Atmos. Gigaton was recorded using normal multitrack recording, just like every other Pearl Jam album. This is usually analog recording for PJ, but they did try new things with Gigaton, so maybe it's their first digital recording, I honestly don't know. Either way, it was recorded in multitrack, then Josh Evans worked with the band to mix the album in stereo. Once that was done, well after, Josh Evans went down to Hollywood to work with a Capitol Records engineer to use the original multitrack recordings to mix the album (again), this time in Atmos. The Atmos mix is a completely separate mix from the stereo mix. There are subtle differences for sure.

And to my knowledge, I certainly could be wrong, but I think to date, the Atmos mix of Gigaton (with or without the visual album) is only available from Apple.

Tim Simmons

hasn't every album since s/t been digitally recorded? I believe BOB said in a promo interview for BS or LB that he recorded them digitally.


But yeah, Atmos is a mix/master, not a recording style

igotid88

strilo said:

igotid88 said: Gigaton should be available where Dolby Atmos is available since it was recorded that way. 

Not to split hairs, but Gigaton was not recorded in Atmos. I don't believe anything is recorded in Atmos. Gigaton was recorded using normal multitrack recording, just like every other Pearl Jam album. This is usually analog recording for PJ, but they did try new things with Gigaton, so maybe it's their first digital recording, I honestly don't know. Either way, it was recorded in multitrack, then Josh Evans worked with the band to mix the album in stereo. Once that was done, well after, Josh Evans went down to Hollywood to work with a Capitol Records engineer to use the original multitrack recordings to mix the album (again), this time in Atmos. The Atmos mix is a completely separate mix from the stereo mix. There are subtle differences for sure.

And to my knowledge, I certainly could be wrong, but I think to date, the Atmos mix of Gigaton (with or without the visual album) is only available from Apple.

Maybe I read it wrong. But in the variety article it mentioned it was the first UMG album recorded for Atmos. 

Tim Simmons

Maybe recorded with the intention of it being in Atmos. But it was flat out the first Atmos album from UMG.

chalon

strilo said:

foriginalsin said:

One other thing. I read people saying this particular guitar part or whatever is missing or low in the atmos mix. I listened to buddy holly, weezer, and i found the same thing, a certain guitar harmony was almost gone from the mix.  I am wondering if this is because full atmos is 11.2.4. Thats a lot of channels and its possible certain parts are sent to channels that arent in the 5.1 mix. 

That's not exactly how Atmos works. It's not strictly limited to channels. Basically you tell your receiver what type of Atmos you have, how many speakers and where they are. Then when the Atmos stream is decoded, all channels/objects are routed to the setup you have. Basically, it sends things to the nearest speaker you have. So no objects or channels would be missing due to a 5.1 setup vs 11.2.4. The sounds we are referring to as changed, buried or missing are that way in the mix by design. Atmos in headphones has all of the content folded down automatically to left and right, and the sounds we refer to are missing there too. It's an artistic mixing choice by Josh Evans, not a byproduct of how Atmos is mixed and decoded.

This is true to an extent but the Atmos processing can only do so much. For example let's say you have three different sounds with their object positions as Front Left, Back Left, and overhead Left.

If you're listening to a 5.1.4, you will be able to pick out those three sounds moreso than if you're listening on your headphones, where it will mash all three together and to fake the positionality will adjust volume levels or add slight delays, etc. I think you need at least 5.1.2 to truly experience the Atmos, otherwise it's just just like any other fake positionality which is hit or miss and does not necessarily reflect what it sounded like in the Atmos mixing room.

2-feign-reluctance

Is it possible I’m hearing a blend of vocal
tracks for Release? I am listening in Atmos playback no doubt, it just doesn’t strike me as new. Maybe I’m losing my damn mind! Haha! 

KV4053

chalon said:

strilo said:

foriginalsin said:

One other thing. I read people saying this particular guitar part or whatever is missing or low in the atmos mix. I listened to buddy holly, weezer, and i found the same thing, a certain guitar harmony was almost gone from the mix.  I am wondering if this is because full atmos is 11.2.4. Thats a lot of channels and its possible certain parts are sent to channels that arent in the 5.1 mix. 

That's not exactly how Atmos works. It's not strictly limited to channels. Basically you tell your receiver what type of Atmos you have, how many speakers and where they are. Then when the Atmos stream is decoded, all channels/objects are routed to the setup you have. Basically, it sends things to the nearest speaker you have. So no objects or channels would be missing due to a 5.1 setup vs 11.2.4. The sounds we are referring to as changed, buried or missing are that way in the mix by design. Atmos in headphones has all of the content folded down automatically to left and right, and the sounds we refer to are missing there too. It's an artistic mixing choice by Josh Evans, not a byproduct of how Atmos is mixed and decoded.

This is true to an extent but the Atmos processing can only do so much. For example let's say you have three different sounds with their object positions as Front Left, Back Left, and overhead Left.

If you're listening to a 5.1.4, you will be able to pick out those three sounds moreso than if you're listening on your headphones, where it will mash all three together and to fake the positionality will adjust volume levels or add slight delays, etc. I think you need at least 5.1.2 to truly experience the Atmos, otherwise it's just just like any other fake positionality which is hit or miss and does not necessarily reflect what it sounded like in the Atmos mixing room.

I'm really curious about the technical aspect of this. 5.1 speakers are designed for movies/TV. The rear speakers, designed for special effects, are small and, if I am not mistaken, have a narrower higher frequency range. 

With ATMOS and 360, how do they push an instrument with a broad frequency range to a speaker that have a narrow range in the high frequencies?  Unless one of you knows, imma have to research this one on the AV forurms 

chalon

KV4053 said:

I'm really curious about the technical aspect of this. 5.1 speakers are designed for movies/TV. The rear speakers, designed for special effects, are small and, if I am not mistaken, have a narrower higher frequency range. 

With ATMOS and 360, how do they push an instrument with a broad frequency range to a speaker that have a narrow range in the high frequencies?  Unless one of you knows, imma have to research this one on the AV forurms 

It'll just depend a lot on the speakers. Just like you can get tiny/bad stereo speakers you can get tiny/bad surround speakers. But you can also get huge and great-sounding surround speakers as well, so it's just dependent on the budget. It's a bit harder to get great in-ceiling speakers (the .4 part) because of the space constraints and costs.

KV4053

chalon said:

KV4053 said:

I'm really curious about the technical aspect of this. 5.1 speakers are designed for movies/TV. The rear speakers, designed for special effects, are small and, if I am not mistaken, have a narrower higher frequency range. 

With ATMOS and 360, how do they push an instrument with a broad frequency range to a speaker that have a narrow range in the high frequencies?  Unless one of you knows, imma have to research this one on the AV forurms 

It'll just depend a lot on the speakers. Just like you can get tiny/bad stereo speakers you can get tiny/bad surround speakers. But you can also get huge and great-sounding surround speakers as well, so it's just dependent on the budget. It's a bit harder to get great in-ceiling speakers (the .4 part) because of the space constraints and costs.

I hear you, but I don't think the rear speakers of the vast majority of home theater systems are full range.... irrespective of budget

Zod

KV4053 said:

chalon said:

KV4053 said:

I'm really curious about the technical aspect of this. 5.1 speakers are designed for movies/TV. The rear speakers, designed for special effects, are small and, if I am not mistaken, have a narrower higher frequency range. 

With ATMOS and 360, how do they push an instrument with a broad frequency range to a speaker that have a narrow range in the high frequencies?  Unless one of you knows, imma have to research this one on the AV forurms 

It'll just depend a lot on the speakers. Just like you can get tiny/bad stereo speakers you can get tiny/bad surround speakers. But you can also get huge and great-sounding surround speakers as well, so it's just dependent on the budget. It's a bit harder to get great in-ceiling speakers (the .4 part) because of the space constraints and costs.

I hear you, but I don't think the rear speakers of the vast majority of home theater systems are full range.... irrespective of budget

There's always in between.  My rear speaks are bookshelf speakers, but the fronts are towers

chalon

Zod said:

KV4053 said:

I hear you, but I don't think the rear speakers of the vast majority of home theater systems are full range.... irrespective of budget

There's always in between.  My rear speaks are bookshelf speakers, but the fronts are towers

Yeah, but in that case you may have a better music experience listening to the music in stereo rather than involving the surround, which I think is what KV means.

For my speaker setup, the frequency response specs say:
Center: 51-35,000 Hz ± 3dB
L/R (both front and back): 100-20,000 Hz ± 3db
4x overhead: 70Hz – 20,000 Hz ± 3db
Subwoofer: 24-200 Hz ± 3db, substantial output down to 20Hz

I'm not sure if that meets KV's criteria of good enough frequency response range . I'm pretty sure for me I can't hear anything past ~16kHz, so it's not a big deal for me that it tops off at 20 kHz. You could argue the low end of the L/R isn't low enough, but I have my crossover frequency set appropriately so it meshes well and I don't lose the bass.

Also if I REALLY went all-out I could've gotten the L/R speakers that got close to the center (54-35,000 Hz) but they were significantly more expensive and also I didn't quite have the space to fit them .

Anyway, back to the original topic, I've not been able to listen to either albums in Atmos yet. It seems like the only way to get it onto my setup right now is if I buy an Apple TV 4K which has an Apple Music app which can output Atmos over eARC. It sounds like Tidal has an app for my TV (LG) that supports Dolby Atmos, but I guess the Atmos mixes aren't available on that yet?

nuzzer1

just experienced release in Atmos on AirPods pros. Had issues syncing the right tracks (had to remove every studio version of Ten from my library due to iTunes Match issue) - but holy shit...this is outstanding. Agreed on master/slave even being notable. 

rummy

nuzzer1 said:

just experienced release in Atmos on AirPods pros. Had issues syncing the right tracks (had to remove every studio version of Ten from my library due to iTunes Match issue) - but holy shit...this is outstanding. Agreed on master/slave even being notable. 

That iTunes Match drives me nuts. It completely messes up my live compilations!

strilo

I haven't had any issue with Match, Cloud Library or anything. I Basically switched my library to the Apple Music files for everything Apple has, including all ~200 of the Deep bootlegs. But all the boots I have that are not on streaming, I kept my files, which uploaded just fine.

bone

strilo said:

I haven't had any issue with Match, Cloud Library or anything. I Basically switched my library to the Apple Music files for everything Apple has, including all ~200 of the Deep bootlegs. But all the boots I have that are not on streaming, I kept my files, which uploaded just fine.

You're lucky then or just haven't noticed it.  If you have a version of the song on your device sometimes it cheats and plays that version instead of the one you're trying to listen to. 

For example, say you are listening to Seattle 2000, and when Alive comes up next and you have a version of Alive on your phone from a different show, it sometimes grabs that other version instead of the version linked to the album.  It's even worse with playlists. 

I also hate how some CDs don't perfectly match resulting in one or two tracks uploading instead of matching.  I wish there was a way to force match songs provided they are similar length with similar metadata.  Sometimes the match fails simply because of the wrong format of apostrophe in your file tag, while other times it will match fine despite completely messing up the file tag.

foriginalsin

So this is some experience. So what I have gathered is that there are 2 versions of this new release. One in dolby atmos and one in sony reality 360.  I somehow figured out a way to listen to the 360 version without listening through my phone. I ended up airplaying from tidal the 360 version. The 360 logo in the app remained lit up. When I would cast the 360 version, the app would change to the HIFI version. The 360 version in surround, sounded really off.  I then listened through headphones and it sounded way better. 

However, I do not like these new mixes. It sounds like the band is playing in a garage or smaller. I really miss the hugeness of the Rick P. mix. I guess I like all the stuff he added to the mix. Also Jeffs bass is sorely buried in the mix. I switched back and forth with the 360 mix and the original. Whats funny is that the 360 technology is suppose to sound huge and open and with stuff coming at you from all angles. In fact, the opposite is true. The original mix sounds way more open with way more going on. To me most songs sound worse. Even Flow sounded good in the new mix.  The intro to Black in the 360 mix where its stone playing over eddie before the band kicks in sounds PHENOMENAL. It literally sounds like stones guitar is 5 feet to the left in front of me. So the first 30 sec of Black almost sounds like im listening to my speaker and then when the band kicks in, it goes back to being closed in my head. This application of 360 audio is amazing, yet I feel like this wasnt done enough. 

So far in preliminary testing, overall, cool tech, but I MUCH prefer the original mix. 

foriginalsin

chalon said:

Zod said:

KV4053 said:

I hear you, but I don't think the rear speakers of the vast majority of home theater systems are full range.... irrespective of budget

There's always in between.  My rear speaks are bookshelf speakers, but the fronts are towers

Yeah, but in that case you may have a better music experience listening to the music in stereo rather than involving the surround, which I think is what KV means.

For my speaker setup, the frequency response specs say:
Center: 51-35,000 Hz ± 3dB
L/R (both front and back): 100-20,000 Hz ± 3db
4x overhead: 70Hz – 20,000 Hz ± 3db
Subwoofer: 24-200 Hz ± 3db, substantial output down to 20Hz

I'm not sure if that meets KV's criteria of good enough frequency response range . I'm pretty sure for me I can't hear anything past ~16kHz, so it's not a big deal for me that it tops off at 20 kHz. You could argue the low end of the L/R isn't low enough, but I have my crossover frequency set appropriately so it meshes well and I don't lose the bass.

Also if I REALLY went all-out I could've gotten the L/R speakers that got close to the center (54-35,000 Hz) but they were significantly more expensive and also I didn't quite have the space to fit them .

Anyway, back to the original topic, I've not been able to listen to either albums in Atmos yet. It seems like the only way to get it onto my setup right now is if I buy an Apple TV 4K which has an Apple Music app which can output Atmos over eARC. It sounds like Tidal has an app for my TV (LG) that supports Dolby Atmos, but I guess the Atmos mixes aren't available on that yet?

This is correct. Decent surround speakers are perfectly fine at reproducing the frequency range.  Like you said, age is more of a factor and most people over 30 cant hear frequency over 15,000 khz.

foriginalsin

strilo said:

foriginalsin said:

One other thing. I read people saying this particular guitar part or whatever is missing or low in the atmos mix. I listened to buddy holly, weezer, and i found the same thing, a certain guitar harmony was almost gone from the mix.  I am wondering if this is because full atmos is 11.2.4. Thats a lot of channels and its possible certain parts are sent to channels that arent in the 5.1 mix. 

That's not exactly how Atmos works. It's not strictly limited to channels. Basically you tell your receiver what type of Atmos you have, how many speakers and where they are. Then when the Atmos stream is decoded, all channels/objects are routed to the setup you have. Basically, it sends things to the nearest speaker you have. So no objects or channels would be missing due to a 5.1 setup vs 11.2.4. The sounds we are referring to as changed, buried or missing are that way in the mix by design. Atmos in headphones has all of the content folded down automatically to left and right, and the sounds we refer to are missing there too. It's an artistic mixing choice by Josh Evans, not a byproduct of how Atmos is mixed and decoded.

So if this is the case, then there are sounds that are suppose to be coming from a discreet channel/speaker and are being sent to the channel you have. This would result in an inaccurate representation of what the band intends i guess? I do however believe a 5.1 setup is a huge step forward in that there is a significant difference between that and a 2 channel stereo set up. Like I said, Riders on the storm sounded unbelievable in dolby atmos even though I dont have all the speakers required, 7.2.4 or 9.2.4.  

Still haven't been able to listen to the dolby atmos versions of these albums, hopefully soon. 

Ledbetterman10

foriginalsin said:

So this is some experience. So what I have gathered is that there are 2 versions of this new release. One in dolby atmos and one in sony reality 360.  I somehow figured out a way to listen to the 360 version without listening through my phone. I ended up airplaying from tidal the 360 version. The 360 logo in the app remained lit up. When I would cast the 360 version, the app would change to the HIFI version. The 360 version in surround, sounded really off.  I then listened through headphones and it sounded way better. 

However, I do not like these new mixes. It sounds like the band is playing in a garage or smaller. I really miss the hugeness of the Rick P. mix. I guess I like all the stuff he added to the mix. Also Jeffs bass is sorely buried in the mix. I switched back and forth with the 360 mix and the original. Whats funny is that the 360 technology is suppose to sound huge and open and with stuff coming at you from all angles. In fact, the opposite is true. The original mix sounds way more open with way more going on. To me most songs sound worse. Even Flow sounded good in the new mix.  The intro to Black in the 360 mix where its stone playing over eddie before the band kicks in sounds PHENOMENAL. It literally sounds like stones guitar is 5 feet to the left in front of me. So the first 30 sec of Black almost sounds like im listening to my speaker and then when the band kicks in, it goes back to being closed in my head. This application of 360 audio is amazing, yet I feel like this wasnt done enough. 

So far in preliminary testing, overall, cool tech, but I MUCH prefer the original mix. 

After the 2008 Brendan O'Brien remix, I've found the original mix to be unlistenable. I actually gave it a listen for the first time in years the other day, and I think it's terrible.  Now, are you saying you prefer the Rick P. mix to this new Dolby Atmos mix? Or do you prefer the Rick P. mix to both the Dolby AND the O'Brien remix?

foriginalsin

I prefer it to the sony 360 reality mix. Havent been able to hear the dolby atmos mix.  I have to re-listen to the redux. I usually dont listen to studio in general and prefer listening to live recordings. 

Ledbetterman10

foriginalsin said:

I prefer it to the sony 360 reality mix. Havent been able to hear the dolby atmos mix.  I have to re-listen to the redux. I usually dont listen to studio in general and prefer listening to live recordings. 

Yeah definitely give the redux another try. After listening to that for the past 10 years, I couldn't believe how bad the Rick P. mix sounded when I listened to it the other day. 

Except Jeremy, I actually prefer the original Jeremy mix to the redux. 

2-feign-reluctance

foriginalsin said:

I prefer it to the sony 360 reality mix. Havent been able to hear the dolby atmos mix.  I have to re-listen to the redux. I usually dont listen to studio in general and prefer listening to live recordings. 

Get your ears on those Atmos mixes dude! 

strilo

Ledbetterman10 said:

After the 2008 Brendan O'Brien remix, I've found the original mix to be unlistenable. I actually gave it a listen for the first time in years the other day, and I think it's terrible.  Now, are you saying you prefer the Rick P. mix to this new Dolby Atmos mix? Or do you prefer the Rick P. mix to both the Dolby AND the O'Brien remix?

I cannot help but agree. I've barely listened to the original mix of Ten since the Redux came out. I forgot how much insane reverb and douchey vocal effects with Ed's voice pushed all over the world. So much echo and reverb that it's actually harder to hear the amazing guitar work. And that horrible filter on his vocal for the second verse of "Oceans." God I forgot all about that. And to me, the Redux version of "Porch" actually SOUNDS like it ties directly to Vs. I much prefer the Redux mix. It sounds like the band that became the band who made Vs., instead of some weird still-stuck-in-the-80s arena rock band with tons of reverb. 

cp3iverson

Edit.... I upgraded