Bill Brown

Thank you very much for continuing to post your experiences. They send me off into further research. I have clear goals in mind for what I want to accomplish, but don't know fully how to get there yet, especially re. upsampling stereo content, managing multiple subs, etc. Please keep it up! Bill

I think this might do what you are discussing. It is what I am going to try. But it might be an example of what you referred to as "monitoring programs for Atmos production studios that do speaker calibration, but they're pricey." I am curious to see what you and the others come up with. https://gingeraudio.com/groundcontrol-sphere/ Bill

Darn. Sorry! I meant upmixing. Oy.

Ah yes, I have checked that out. Very, very cool. Especially as it has enough outputs (like other pro interfaces) to accommodate the increased channel counts of immersive systems v the 8 outputs of the Topping, Okto, etc. that are well-suited to traditional 5.1 or 7.1. When contemplating these two would need to generate an aggregate device, make sure of clocking issues, etc. The reason I haven't considered it is something that I haven't mentioned as a goal in this pursuit. It is Atmos only. I know there aren't adherents here (you, Kal, others), but I want to experiment with upsampling as well. Not adding information/reverb like old receivers/processors with "Hall, Church, Club, etc." modes, but extracting ambience (like J. Gordon Holt wrote so much about before discreet MCH) from well-recorded classical and jazz that is already in the recording. I have to admit I haven't fully explored what is available natively, but I want to try getting a little envelopment from recordings of Bruno Walter, Boult, Klemperer, lots of others, more obscure Coltrane albums, etc, that recorded acoustic instruments naturally, with ambience from the hall or studio. This could be done as Atmos upmixes, but I have read a lot of positive impressions of Auro 3D for music (some even are upmixing Atmos to it, though hard to judge the results). My suspicion (and I could be completely wrong), is that while some engineers are mixing from the original multitracks (definitely of the prominent artists), many upmixing to Atmos are upmixing from stereo tracks (and definitely so in original two track recordings). For new recordings made with an Atmos mix (that have to downmix to other channel counts reliably), they are using Dolby's software. For old recordings (perhaps many in Apple Music's library?), they are using software like: Penteo: https://www.perfectsurround.com/ or https://nugenaudio.com/haloupmix/ And there is Auro 3d's upmixer, "Auromatic:" https://www.auro-3d.com/professionaltools/ So I am also trying to figure out how to do this in my workflow. And I suspect it will take the place of all the tinkering we used to do with equipment, positioning speakers, etc. Could be fun. Bill

Ahhh. Thank you. I somehow missed the reference to HLC in the original article. Looks like he initially relied on measured speaker distances, adjusting gains in the MOTU, and using the volume adjustment in Apple Music. Then incorporated HLC. I need to learn more about it. Bill

I have been reading all things immersive lately, with in depth research this weekend. I have my listening room torn down to the studs (on the front wall, anyway) and ceiling joists as part of an acoustical remodel. I want to plan putting it back together with the addition of immersive audio. I currently use Mac Mini with Audirvana ---> RME ADI DAC---> Benchmark amp ---> JBL LSR 6332 studio monitors and a multi-sub setup with 4 JBL studio subs. I have decided against an AV receiver. I wouldn't mind a Trinnov or Lyngdorf processor, but they are just too steep in price for me to pull the trigger. I have read all of @The Computer Audiophile's articles so feel like I have a reasonable understanding of the topic (I hope!), lots of articles from the professional world where people mastering in Atmos are figuring out ways to play Apple Music through their monitoring systems as a reference, and, of course @bobfa's article on his Scalable Dolby Atmos Music System. I have contemplated multiple combinations of Ravenna with AES67 capable speakers, DAC to balanced XLR to amps or active speakers, AES connections in professional interfaces, ad infinitum. There are lots of questions, of course, including volume control, others, and while our computers have the computing power to do what we need to do, the question is how we do it. It seems that Chris is using HLC to accomplish the things processors would do- delays (if needed for imperfect speaker distances), EQ, etc. It isn't clear to me how Bob is or isn't doing that stuff. Is it Apple Music to routing via the Motu software to Motu interface to amps or are you doing other processing? That is sort of where I am stuck. I am wondering if this program can accomplish what needs to be done. It seems that it could take Apple Music as an input, assign channels, run plugins, delays, EQs, etc., then to a multichannel DAC (audiophile or Pro interface). Does this make sense or am I missing something? https://gingeraudio.com/groundcontrol-sphere/ In this article from the professional side it seems that he is using a Metric Halo (well respected pro brand) with its dsp, routing, console to do the above in the box. https://www.production-expert.com/home-page/2020/7/21/using-metric-halo-interfaces-to-create-a-low-cost-dolby-atmos-monitor-controller?format=amp I think I would be happy to get going with the GroundControl software and start looking at MCH DACs (Okto, Topping DM7, etc.), or if that doesn't make sense buy the Metric Halo, or? Thank you for any thoughts/advice, Bill

Dark mode! :)

I love Swinsian, use it for all importing, metadata editing, etc. I also use it for casual listening. It is great. Reminds of old time iTunes. For "critical" listening, I use Audirvana, as I like its upsampling and ability to host AU plugins. Oh to have a Swinsian with a dark mode and Audirvana's extra features...... You can export playlists from Swinsian and import them to other apps. I just made sure by trying it with Audirvana and it worked. Click on your playlist, then "file," "export playlist." Thanks for the tip on the beta. Anxious to check it out. Bill

Thank you for this, have been meaning to make the comment for a couple of days. His mother was very black. I also meant to correct @sphinxsix re. his melanoma being a "white person's" disease. He had melanoma of the nail-bed of a toe, this different epidemiologically from the melanoma lesions most think about. He refused (an attempt, it is a bad disease) a chance for surgical cure with amputation. The seizures he suffered in NY were from brain metastases: Subungual melanoma: a deceptive disorder Abstract Subungual melanoma is an uncommon form of acral melanoma that arises within the nail bed. The incidence for acral melanomas is similar worldwide, but the proportion is higher in dark-skinned individuals. The subungual form represents about 2% of cutaneous non-sun induced melanomas in the western world, and up to 75% in Africans, 10% in Japanese, and 25% in the Chinese of Hong Kong. Up to 33% of subungual melanomas are amelanotic. Black pigmentation of the adjacent nail fold, termed Hutchinson's sign, may be a diagnostic clue. Non-specific features and symptoms along with a high incidence of amelanosis often lead to delayed diagnosis, disease progression, and a poor prognosis with challenging treatment options. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19111151/ Bill P.S. my Caribbean friends who like Damian Marley were intrigued when I explained that 3 out of his 4 grandparents were white...

Would you say that it would make sense to apply this to manufacturers as well ? Meaning, you would purchase equipment from manufacturers that have the same "preferences" as you ? To clarify, when I said "preferences," it was in the context of people who are striving for high fidelity, but knowing the imperfect nature of reproduction tend to value and seek certain areas of realism as more important to them (soundstage, timbral accuracy, etc.). This further informs the reader's interpretation of the review. And yes, it is probably reasonable to assume that manufacturers have similar biases and this comes out in their equipment. Hence, certain listeners will gravitate to certain manufacturers as preferred. This doesn't preclude the pursuit of realism as I describe it, it just shows that we aren't there yet (and likely never will be). You could think that if a manufacturer achieved realism that all others would go out of business. Wouldn't be the case, though, as so many listeners aren't pursuing it. Bill

There was a sampler years ago of a large collection of microphones made of a person speaking, the various mic colorations laid bare. For the recordist able to compare the sounds via the mics on his reference system, and knowing the voice in real life, certainly accuracy/realism could begin to be honed in on (in at least some of the aspects of reproduced sound). Then with very long-term listening, listening to additional recordings made by him in known acoustics, other "reference" recordings, opinions could be given on the accuracy of new components introduced to the reference system. That is a subjective reviewer I highly value. There are other subjective reviewers I value as well. Typically, their reference is to recordings made of real instruments in real space. They may love many genres, but this is not their reference. Over time, I believe they too hone in on accuracy/realism/high fidelity (the last using the original definition). The value in these reviewers grows for the reader over time as he begins to understand the reviewers biases, preferences, and has experienced/replicated the reviewer's findings in his own auditions of the equipment. KR is a nice example here. Probably HP to many. Frankly, subjective impressions given on this site don't hold much value to me; I usually skim to the conclusion. That's ok, it isn't the reason I read this forum. Adding to this, I think that I have slowly begun to have a feeling for the subjective impressions derived from some measurement phenomena, so many times I speculate mentally about things that could be measured that would explain something described as "the new greatest" (in detail, soundstage, etc.), so discount the impression in the absence of those. (Note this by no means suggests I am an ASR/measurements only guy). An astute subjective listener that I know with accompanying measurements is where it is at for me. Bill

This is an age-old topic (well, since the beginning of the high fidelity golden era in the 50s) and has been written about extensively for decades. It therefore can be instructive to look back, even though lots of it is from what has been described as the "old guard" on this site. Some of them were very, very astute listeners. JGH at Stereophile and Harry Pearson at TAS really ushered in the era of subjective assessment that is the foundation of subjective assessment of gear used on this site. They were both dissatisfied when their listening impressions didn't correlate with fully objective (measurements) of the day and started their magazines based on this idea. "The idea was of reality being the only valid metric when evaluating sound or systems that produce sound. Specifically, the point of your hi-fi was to recreate, as faithfully as possible, the sound of “the live event." The best hi-fi systems would freely cross the uncanny valley; playback would be indistinguishable from the original. Real instruments, played by real people, in real spaces — that was ever the barometer, the reference, and the aim. That was “the absolute sound.” HP coined the phrase and JGH shared the goal. https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/04/08/what-is-the-absolute-sound/ The other approaches, historically, have been "faithfulness/reproduction of what is on the recording" and "sound that I like" (the last a trend that increased over the last 20 years or so and that JGH decried, especially when it got into stereophile, Art Dudley being the main proponent, and apparently the majority belief here). Pursuit of the "absolute sound" was also primarily focused on real instruments and real spaces (hi-fi listeners way back were primarily interested in the reproduction of classical music). Many were also recordists who had the opportunity to compare what they heard at home to the halls. JGH and JA in particular. Or gmgraves, who reviews on this site. Many times these days non-classical music never really exists as sound in a space so can't be judged in the same way. There was a thread here on the topic when HP died. There are some nice thoughts from @gmgraves: "Since HP coined the term, he certainly would have known what it meant. Gordon used it too, and his definition was the same as HP's. At the risk of being seen as repetitive, I don't see how it can be defined in any other way." I'll stick with the absolute sound approach for me as my goal, especially with classical music and other music recorded with "real instruments in a real space." If the other approaches make one happy I am fine with that (and their musical tastes might preclude any consideration of "accuracy"), but there are those who will pursue (though never reach) "accuracy," and I think it is a valid approach. For those interested in the history of our hobby and how this road has been trod before: It's the Real Thing! https://www.stereophile.com/content/its-real-thing The Absolute Sound of What? https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/363/index.html The Acoustical Standard (with follow-up) https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/111 The Last Word on Fidelity https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/589awsi/index.html Bill

Amen to that.

I completely agree with your thinking, @AudioDoctor :). Re. the legal part, it differs in that in TX, if they are shot in your house (even if you walk in to do it), you won't be prosecuted. Again, though, that wouldn't be my idea of a good plan if we were all outside and safe. No one is dying over "stuff" if me or my family would be the ones doing the shooting. Bill

Phew, glad I live in TX, at least in this regard (though we did enjoy living in MN for 3 years for post-graduate training). I was going to reply to the question "dog and firearms," but that sounded too cavalier. I would never do anyone harm over material things. Never. They can have it. Unfortunately, I don't want people on meth (or others uninvited with ill intent) in my house when my family is home. Too unpredictable, too dangerous. I have too many crazy stories from the ER. The police would not respond in time in the country where I live. The intruders would be at grave risk, I'm afraid. We are not required to retreat.