Spatial Audio: further thoughts
I don’t think I approached this topic properly in yesterday’s post. But it’s partly Apple’s fault. Introducing Spatial Audio using direct comparisons to a song’s original mix was pointless. I get why they did this: for most people, the contrast will be enough to sell it. They’ll hear a more balanced mix, a fuller EQ, clearer, closer sounding vocals, and equate this with the new tech—when in fact, a lot of it would be achievable within two-channel audio.
It reminds me of the move from vinyl records to CDs, when everyone (myself included) simply assumed the new medium would automagically make music sound better. But cheap masters were getting digitized in a rush, just to make a buck and tick the CD checkbox, and they didn’t sound better at all. The “magic” wasn’t in the disc: you first needed a proper remastering of the music.
Dolby Atmos is a new way of mixing, within a different—wider—audio realm. I understand the need to “port” existing music to it because without a back catalog, the buzz quickly dies off. But I’m convinced the impact of this technology lies ahead of us, once “objects” replace “channels” and music is created within this soundstage.
In an interview, Eddy Cue likens Spatial Audio to the switch from SD to HD— so far, personally, I’m not hearing anything so drastic in scope. Because just like CDs, results will vary. This isn’t like switching to a higher resolution camera: it’s not automatic. But that’s ok. I listened to classical recordings last night which all sounded fantastic, and it’s really all that matters. The ace in the hole is that, unlike previous attempts at “surround” audio, Dolby Atmos apparently works with ANY pair of headphones (1), which makes it immediately relevant and accessible.
This is a new palette, a new frontier to explore…and that IS exciting. Past is past, future is future.
I thought you needed Airpods: you don’t. Unlike Quadraphonic or 5.1, no specialized equipment is necessary.
