Apple launches Apple Music Classical app

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 82
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,870member
    One thing this does do is make the Apple One bundles a bit more appealing. 
    dewmeSpitbathbyronl
  • Reply 62 of 82
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,770member
    AppleZulu said:
    Japhey said:
    I’m thinking a big reason Apple is splitting off classical into its own app is because they are going to offer a stand-alone subscription to it somewhere down the road. Include it free with the basic Music subscription, but offer a classical only sub for say, $4.99. Makes sense to me and it alleviates every issue that people here have brought forth. 
    Not likely. The big reason for the separate app is the different cataloging requirements for classical music. That’s really it. 

    Apple still has to pay royalties for classical music, so the buffet pricing to the end user is still going to need to be the same in order to collect sufficient funds to pay per-stream to artists on the back end. Creating a new app with specialized features doesn’t somehow make classical music cheaper to deliver. If anything, the new app will may involve Apple paying more for classical content, by using Primephonic’s process of paying for time played, rather than per stream. A lot of classical content is much longer per track than the traditional three-minute pop song. 
    Maybe. Maybe not. Apple does offer student subscriptions, and voice only subscriptions that access the same catalogue as the full priced tier for a cheaper price. So it’s not unprecedented. We’ll see on the 28th.
    edited March 2023
  • Reply 63 of 82
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,100member
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    chutzpah said:
    chutzpah said:
    Should just be in a genre tab on Apple Music. 

    a lot of music catalogs on Apple Music. Just because this is a giant catalog doesn’t mean it needs its own app. 

    Biography info, etc would fit nearly as a link or accordion element. 

    More steps to do the same thing. Not good. 
    It’s not the number of tracks, it’s that the UX is different owing to some unique things about classical music. 
    It’s music. No need for separate UX. It’s just a way to justify a dedicated app. 

    But let’s say that you have a point - for sake of argument. Apple could easily implement a class where the classical tab of Apple Music gets its own look and behavior. 

    And yet none of that is necessary. 

    A music app is a music app. 

    If there is a better way to do it, then they should apply it to the app as a whole to benefit the entire thing. 

    Searching for, curating, creating playlists, and playing classical music is fundamentally no different than doing so for any other genre. 
    Yeah?  How often do you care about the composer of a pop music song?  How often do you care about the conductor or the orchestra?  How often do you care about the venue or the date of the performance?  How often do you care about what key it is in?  How often is a pop album divided by suites?

    The considerations of classical music productions for classical music fans are very different than the considerations of pop music for pop music fans and for very good reasons.  You clearly don't know anything about this, so wind your neck in.
    Like I said before, that info is nearly enabled by links and/or accordin elements right on the music page. It’s not a big deal nor is it some amazingly impossible thing that requires its own app. 

    Next you’ll be saying a web browser isn’t good enough to read about a composer and that you need a classical music themed web browser… 
    The facts that apps exist are proof positive that a web browser isn't a solution for all computing needs.  Different tools for different tasks.  And classical music is significantly different from pop music.  Sure, Music could be adapted to support both pop and classical music, but it'd add bloat and a muddle of interface.

    Classical music fans have been complaining about iTunes and Music.app for years, it's clearly insufficient.  Seriously dude, you clearly have no knowledge or interest in classical music, so why are you here?  Wind your neck in, this doesn't concern you.
    Everyone has been complaining. 

    But they all aren’t getting their preferred genre in its own app. 

    Better to address concerns throughout the app rather than make yet another app for people to have to install. 

    So next, the heavy metal app is coming out? No need to see those fluffy hip hop recommendations anymore… 

    music belongs in the music , app, sorted by genre. Boom. Done. 
    You made it clear the first time. You don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re determined to make sure everyone knows it. We’ve got it. 
    Incorrect. I know plenty. Started playing violin in jr high and classical was my first musical love. 

    But you don’t have a point so you build a straw man. 

    You:
    “Apple did something so it must be the only way to go and if you don’t agree, I’ll cry endlessly.”

    Me:
    “It’s better to have all the music in one app and use any deficiencies to make that app better. We don’t need a different app for every little thing.”

    Next you’ll be praising a separate classic movies app for the old black and whites. 

    Apples resurrection came about by simplifying and refining everything. Now, it is starting to look like clutter again. 
    Project much? You’re the one crying endlessly over nothing, and it appears you also don’t know what a “straw man” is. If you don’t download the new app nothing will change for you. The classical catalog will continue to be available in the Apple Music app, with no additional code for additional functions bloating that app. If you don’t want the thing, you won’t have the thing. It is literally the opposite of clutter. 
    Nope. That’s you. Yet again. 

    No need to project. Just holding up the mirror for you. 

    I shared my thoughts, which I believe align more with the Apple ethos, and you had to keep coming back and making it personal. 

    Don’t get offended, it’s just an opinion about a needless app. Anyone who things basic search capabilities are needless bloat has zero idea what they’re talking about. 

    Since I’ve been living rent free in your head, I’ll do my best to clear out and let you get a better handle on life. There is no “us.” I know you’re confused about this, but there Never was.  Not my fault if you keep refusing to let me go. 
    Now you’re just getting weird. I’ve never referred to “us.”

    if there’s an “us” it’s the general consensus of those of us commenting here that we think the new app is going to be a good thing. 
    Spitbath9secondkox2tenthousandthingsbyronl
  • Reply 64 of 82
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,555member
    I’ve never really been exposed to classical music. This will offer me an opportunity to dip my toe in the water and it’s costing me nothing extra since I have an Apple One subscription. 

    I don’t understand why anyone would see this new feature in a negative light. Nobody is being asked to give anything up or pay for something they don’t want. People who’ve been waiting for this can now enjoy it.  People who are already paying for Apple Music have a new world to explore if they are curious. People who don’t care can just keep on not caring. 
    SpitbathAppleZululotonesbyronljeffharrismuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 65 of 82
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,100member
    dewme said:
    I’ve never really been exposed to classical music. This will offer me an opportunity to dip my toe in the water and it’s costing me nothing extra since I have an Apple One subscription. 

    I don’t understand why anyone would see this new feature in a negative light. Nobody is being asked to give anything up or pay for something they don’t want. People who’ve been waiting for this can now enjoy it.  People who are already paying for Apple Music have a new world to explore if they are curious. People who don’t care can just keep on not caring. 
    This right here is one of the reasons why I think this new app could be an incredibly positive thing for classical music, and for classical musicians who have always wished they could reach a broader audience. For the novice, it can be challenging and even intimidating to explore. Because the traditional music apps -and the physical record stores that preceded them- tend to be set up for popular music, they don’t know how to approach the different way that the classical genre should be catalogued, and most people are never able to find their way past the generic “Bach’s Greatest Hits” samplers and the “Soothing Classical Piano” compilations that make those in the know really cringe. 

    Being able to find something interesting and then drill down for more from any angle will make exploring easy. Do I like this composer? Do I like baroque era music? What about harpsichords? Maybe that’s what interests me. And so on. 

    With the new app, it may be another occasion where Apple has figured out how to deliver something in a way that just works and is instantly accessible to millions of people. For classical music, that’s always been elusive. I’m looking forward to see if it’s finally been done right. 
    edited March 2023 byronljeffharrisdewme
  • Reply 66 of 82
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,870member
    AppleZulu said:
    dewme said:
    I’ve never really been exposed to classical music. This will offer me an opportunity to dip my toe in the water and it’s costing me nothing extra since I have an Apple One subscription. 

    I don’t understand why anyone would see this new feature in a negative light. Nobody is being asked to give anything up or pay for something they don’t want. People who’ve been waiting for this can now enjoy it.  People who are already paying for Apple Music have a new world to explore if they are curious. People who don’t care can just keep on not caring. 
    This right here is one of the reasons why I think this new app could be an incredibly positive thing for classical music, and for classical musicians who have always wished they could reach a broader audience. For the novice, it can be challenging and even intimidating to explore. Because the traditional music apps -and the physical record stores that preceded them- tend to be set up for popular music, they don’t know how to approach the different way that the classical genre should be catalogued, and most people are never able to find their way past the generic “Bach’s Greatest Hits” samplers and the “Soothing Classical Piano” compilations that make those in the know really cringe. 

    Being able to find something interesting and then drill down for more from any angle will make exploring easy. Do I like this composer? Do I like baroque era music? What about harpsichords? Maybe that’s what interests me. And so on. 

    With the new app, it may be another occasion where Apple has figured out how to deliver something in a way that just works and is instantly accessible to millions of people. For classical music, that’s always been elusive. I’m looking forward to see if it’s finally been done right. 
    That’s a fair point. I was a bit dismayed that it was so closely tied to AppleMusic, but if it gets people to take a look that’s a good thing. If it gets more people to discover the light side of classical, (it’s not all Mahler and Wagner Operas) that will be a good thing. 
    byronl
  • Reply 67 of 82
    laytechlaytech Posts: 339member
    This makes no sense to me, another app outside of the Apple Music app. So if I am in Apple Music and watch to switch it listening to some classical, I have to exit out of one and into another.

    it would have made much more sense for the app to be within the Apple Music app as a tab or something.  A strange one this for me. What next, a rap app, a hip hop app, a dance app, multiple apps? 
    9secondkox2
  • Reply 68 of 82
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,100member
    DAalseth said:
    AppleZulu said:
    dewme said:
    I’ve never really been exposed to classical music. This will offer me an opportunity to dip my toe in the water and it’s costing me nothing extra since I have an Apple One subscription. 

    I don’t understand why anyone would see this new feature in a negative light. Nobody is being asked to give anything up or pay for something they don’t want. People who’ve been waiting for this can now enjoy it.  People who are already paying for Apple Music have a new world to explore if they are curious. People who don’t care can just keep on not caring. 
    This right here is one of the reasons why I think this new app could be an incredibly positive thing for classical music, and for classical musicians who have always wished they could reach a broader audience. For the novice, it can be challenging and even intimidating to explore. Because the traditional music apps -and the physical record stores that preceded them- tend to be set up for popular music, they don’t know how to approach the different way that the classical genre should be catalogued, and most people are never able to find their way past the generic “Bach’s Greatest Hits” samplers and the “Soothing Classical Piano” compilations that make those in the know really cringe. 

    Being able to find something interesting and then drill down for more from any angle will make exploring easy. Do I like this composer? Do I like baroque era music? What about harpsichords? Maybe that’s what interests me. And so on. 

    With the new app, it may be another occasion where Apple has figured out how to deliver something in a way that just works and is instantly accessible to millions of people. For classical music, that’s always been elusive. I’m looking forward to see if it’s finally been done right. 
    That’s a fair point. I was a bit dismayed that it was so closely tied to AppleMusic, but if it gets people to take a look that’s a good thing. If it gets more people to discover the light side of classical, (it’s not all Mahler and Wagner Operas) that will be a good thing. 
    The way genres overlap, I think the tie-in to Apple Music is a good thing. The whole catalog will still be in the regular app, but in appropriate situations, there will be prompts to explore more in the classical app. So you could see something about Oscar buzz, then find John Williams, jump to the classical app, and start exploring orchestral works. Maybe you’d start with Star Wars and then find Holst, from whom Williams borrowed heavily, then on to the next thing. For anyone a little curious, it’ll be something great. 
    Spitbath
  • Reply 69 of 82
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,870member
    AppleZulu said:
    DAalseth said:
    AppleZulu said:
    dewme said:
    I’ve never really been exposed to classical music. This will offer me an opportunity to dip my toe in the water and it’s costing me nothing extra since I have an Apple One subscription. 

    I don’t understand why anyone would see this new feature in a negative light. Nobody is being asked to give anything up or pay for something they don’t want. People who’ve been waiting for this can now enjoy it.  People who are already paying for Apple Music have a new world to explore if they are curious. People who don’t care can just keep on not caring. 
    This right here is one of the reasons why I think this new app could be an incredibly positive thing for classical music, and for classical musicians who have always wished they could reach a broader audience. For the novice, it can be challenging and even intimidating to explore. Because the traditional music apps -and the physical record stores that preceded them- tend to be set up for popular music, they don’t know how to approach the different way that the classical genre should be catalogued, and most people are never able to find their way past the generic “Bach’s Greatest Hits” samplers and the “Soothing Classical Piano” compilations that make those in the know really cringe. 

    Being able to find something interesting and then drill down for more from any angle will make exploring easy. Do I like this composer? Do I like baroque era music? What about harpsichords? Maybe that’s what interests me. And so on. 

    With the new app, it may be another occasion where Apple has figured out how to deliver something in a way that just works and is instantly accessible to millions of people. For classical music, that’s always been elusive. I’m looking forward to see if it’s finally been done right. 
    That’s a fair point. I was a bit dismayed that it was so closely tied to AppleMusic, but if it gets people to take a look that’s a good thing. If it gets more people to discover the light side of classical, (it’s not all Mahler and Wagner Operas) that will be a good thing. 
    The way genres overlap, I think the tie-in to Apple Music is a good thing. The whole catalog will still be in the regular app, but in appropriate situations, there will be prompts to explore more in the classical app. So you could see something about Oscar buzz, then find John Williams, jump to the classical app, and start exploring orchestral works. Maybe you’d start with Star Wars and then find Holst, from whom Williams borrowed heavily, then on to the next thing. For anyone a little curious, it’ll be something great. 
    One of my biggest surprises in the last year was the work of Christopher Tin. That sort of thing could very well be a doorway to get people to discover the music. 
    SpitbathAppleZulu
  • Reply 70 of 82
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,100member
    laytech said:
    This makes no sense to me, another app outside of the Apple Music app. So if I am in Apple Music and watch to switch it listening to some classical, I have to exit out of one and into another.

    it would have made much more sense for the app to be within the Apple Music app as a tab or something.  A strange one this for me. What next, a rap app, a hip hop app, a dance app, multiple apps? 
    I’m pretty sure the classical catalog will continue to be available in the regular app as well. So you’ll still be able to ‘mix it up’ there if that’s your preference.
    9secondkox2byronl
  • Reply 71 of 82
    grlymgrlym Posts: 23member
    Spatial audio for classical depends just like in other genres on whether the original recording was done w Dolby Atmos and or who the engineers were and what you are using to listen to the music. On original HomePods and the AirPod Max’s I use, classical can be extraordinary or crappy depending on the above. 

    I look forward to this app. It is very frustrating to deal with a classical album of different works and not be able to see who the composers, orchestra, chamber soloists are besides who might be the conductor and singer.  
    edited March 2023
  • Reply 72 of 82
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,100member
    grlym said:
    Spatial audio for classical depends just like in other genres on whether the original recording was done w Dolby Atmos and or who the engineers were and what you are using to listen to the music. On original HomePods and the AirPod Max’s I use, classical can be extraordinary or crappy depending on the above. 

    I look forward to this app. It is very frustrating to deal with a classical album of different works and not be able to see who the composers, orchestra, chamber soloists are besides who might be the conductor and singer.  
    There are a lot of legacy recordings being remixed in Dolby Atmos. The original recording on most of them was made long before Dolby Atmos existed. As with any remix, it very much depends on the sound engineers for what you get. It’s possible to create a stunningly immersive Atmos mix from sessions originally recorded in the 1950s forward. 
  • Reply 73 of 82
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,918member
    laytech said:
    This makes no sense to me, another app outside of the Apple Music app. So if I am in Apple Music and watch to switch it listening to some classical, I have to exit out of one and into another.

    it would have made much more sense for the app to be within the Apple Music app as a tab or something.  A strange one this for me. What next, a rap app, a hip hop app, a dance app, multiple apps? 
    Exactly. 
  • Reply 74 of 82
    chutzpahchutzpah Posts: 392member
    laytech said:
    This makes no sense to me, another app outside of the Apple Music app. So if I am in Apple Music and watch to switch it listening to some classical, I have to exit out of one and into another.
    No, the Music app will still feature classical music, as it always has done.  The Classical Music app is simply a better way to access classical music in an app more tailored for the form.
    Spitbathjeffharris
  • Reply 75 of 82
    What was Beethoven’s favorite fruit?

    Ba-na-na-na! 😆
  • Reply 76 of 82
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,626member
    chutzpah said:
    Should just be in a genre tab on Apple Music. 

    a lot of music catalogs on Apple Music. Just because this is a giant catalog doesn’t mean it needs its own app. 

    Biography info, etc would fit nearly as a link or accordion element. 

    More steps to do the same thing. Not good. 
    It’s not the number of tracks, it’s that the UX is different owing to some unique things about classical music. 
    It’s music. No need for separate UX. It’s just a way to justify a dedicated app. 

    But let’s say that you have a point - for sake of argument. Apple could easily implement a class where the classical tab of Apple Music gets its own look and behavior. 

    And yet none of that is necessary. 

    A music app is a music app. 

    If there is a better way to do it, then they should apply it to the app as a whole to benefit the entire thing. 

    Searching for, curating, creating playlists, and playing classical music is fundamentally no different than doing so for any other genre. 
    Yeah?  How often do you care about the composer of a pop music song?  How often do you care about the conductor or the orchestra?  How often do you care about the venue or the date of the performance?  How often do you care about what key it is in?  How often is a pop album divided by suites?

    The considerations of classical music productions for classical music fans are very different than the considerations of pop music for pop music fans and for very good reasons.  You clearly don't know anything about this, so wind your neck in.
    Like I said before, that info is nearly enabled by links and/or accordin elements right on the music page. It’s not a big deal nor is it some amazingly impossible thing that requires its own app. 

    Next you’ll be saying a web browser isn’t good enough to read about a composer and that you need a classical music themed web browser…

    you clearly don’t understand how tech works to enable the enjoyment of various music genres and want the world to cater to whatever preference you have, you you can tuck your own neck back into that shell and come out when it’s safe for non-thinkers.  
    Classical music works by very different structures. 

    Yes, you have composers that you can sort by. And those have multi-movement pieces that you can treat like albums (but probably don’t want to split when shuffling). But then, you also have conductors, orchestras, and soloists. And you have albums with pieces from different composers, each with several movements, played by the same orchestra and conductor and solo pianist, but the encore is just solo piano. 

    Or you have six versions of the same multi-movement piece by different orchestras, or even the same orchestra and conductor, but from different decades… 

    Or you have the same piece, but arranged by a different composer, for six-piece string setup. 

    Or…

    A one-size-fits-all approach that works for sorting rock and pop where there‘s rarely any complexity beyond a particular artist and their song or album is not a good match for classical music. 
    Spitbathjeffharris
  • Reply 77 of 82
    grlym said:
    Spatial audio for classical depends just like in other genres on whether the original recording was done w Dolby Atmos and or who the engineers were and what you are using to listen to the music. On original HomePods and the AirPod Max’s I use, classical can be extraordinary or crappy depending on the above.

    I look forward to this app. It is very frustrating to deal with a classical album of different works and not be able to see who the composers, orchestra, chamber soloists are besides who might be the conductor and singer.  
    I fail to see the point of using Spacial Audio with Classical music. It is the new Quadraphonic? 
    I guess Apple feels the need to add/support things like that. 
    For dedicated classical music aficionados higher bit rates would be MUCH more welcome. 
    I have no idea what file formats iPhones and the Mac Music app actually support. I always rip music using Apple Lossless.

    The dearth of track information displayed even in the Mac Music app is incredibly frustrating. 
    The Music app stripped away so much visual information and functionality that iTunes had, it’s incredibly frustrating!

    When I’m ripping new CDs or disks from my music collection… I’m up to 1250 complete “albums” as of yesterday…
    I’m really particular about how things appear. 
    Things Like Every Word Capitalized In Every Movement / Track Title Of A Disk Drives Me Crazy. Luckily, I found an old AppleScript for Music that will fix it!
    The album Artist is/are the performers, NOT the composer
    The years of composers’ birth and death should be included.
    The conductor’s name should be listed LAST. Etc., etc.…

    Hopefully Apple fixes this and puts more actual usability and CONTROL back in the users’ hands.
    Spitbath
  • Reply 78 of 82
    spheric said:
    Classical music works by very different structures. 

    Yes, you have composers that you can sort by. And those have multi-movement pieces that you can treat like albums (but probably don’t want to split when shuffling). But then, you also have conductors, orchestras, and soloists. And you have albums with pieces from different composers, each with several movements, played by the same orchestra and conductor and solo pianist, but the encore is just solo piano. 

    Or you have six versions of the same multi-movement piece by different orchestras, or even the same orchestra and conductor, but from different decades… 

    Or you have the same piece, but arranged by a different composer, for six-piece string setup. 

    Or…

    A one-size-fits-all approach that works for sorting rock and pop where there‘s rarely any complexity beyond a particular artist and their song or album is not a good match for classical music. 
    Absolutely!

    People who are unfamiliar with classical music simply don't know about or understand the complexities.
    That's ± 1,200 years of music, with a dizzying array of styles and ensembles.
    Calling ALL recorded music tracks "Songs" for classical music is just plain WRONG. Hopefully Apple fixes that in the Classical App.

    Generally, the piece of music is the first thing. Then the performers.
    There can be different versions of the same pieces (ie: Bruckner's Symphonies… Haas or Novak editions).
    Then there are the orchestras, conductors, soloists or other ensembles. Different recordings by the same conductor with different orchestras spread over decades. Sometimes even the halls pieces are recorded in is of interest… The Leipzig Gewandhaus, Amsterdam Concertgebouw, Boston Symphony Hall, etc.
    With opera there are different casts, orchestras and conductors. Live vs. studio recordings. Keeping track of all of it can be daunting. 

    For instance, Jean Sibelius' 7 Symphonies. I have 3 different complete symphony cycle recordings conducted by Sir Colin Davis.
    First with Boston Symphony in the early 70s for Philips. Second with The London Symphony in the mid-90s for RCA and third, The London Symphony again in the early aughts for the LSO Live label. The interpretations from different time periods are very different. I also have numerous other recordings of the Sibelius symphonies with different orchestras and conductors. It can be a lot to keep track of!

    Pop music is fundamentally different and far simpler.
    Generally, the performer is paramount. There's one song, on one album. That's it.
    The composer rarely matters. The performer is the most important. 

    ANYthing that can help organize and find things is a good thing. Hopefully, Apple does it right!
    edited March 2023 Spitbathspheric
  • Reply 79 of 82
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,100member
    grlym said:
    Spatial audio for classical depends just like in other genres on whether the original recording was done w Dolby Atmos and or who the engineers were and what you are using to listen to the music. On original HomePods and the AirPod Max’s I use, classical can be extraordinary or crappy depending on the above.

    I look forward to this app. It is very frustrating to deal with a classical album of different works and not be able to see who the composers, orchestra, chamber soloists are besides who might be the conductor and singer.  
    I fail to see the point of using Spacial Audio with Classical music. It is the new Quadraphonic? 
    I guess Apple feels the need to add/support things like that. 
    For dedicated classical music aficionados higher bit rates would be MUCH more welcome. 
    I have no idea what file formats iPhones and the Mac Music app actually support. I always rip music using Apple Lossless.

    The dearth of track information displayed even in the Mac Music app is incredibly frustrating. 
    The Music app stripped away so much visual information and functionality that iTunes had, it’s incredibly frustrating!

    When I’m ripping new CDs or disks from my music collection… I’m up to 1250 complete “albums” as of yesterday…
    I’m really particular about how things appear. 
    Things Like Every Word Capitalized In Every Movement / Track Title Of A Disk Drives Me Crazy. Luckily, I found an old AppleScript for Music that will fix it!
    The album Artist is/are the performers, NOT the composer
    The years of composers’ birth and death should be included.
    The conductor’s name should be listed LAST. Etc., etc.…

    Hopefully Apple fixes this and puts more actual usability and CONTROL back in the users’ hands.
    Spatial audio (e.g., Dolby Atmos) in classical music is often used to place you in the performance hall, not with cheesy, distracting reverb effects, but actually reproducing the ambience of that specific hall. As with any audio engineering work, it can be done poorly or very well. When it’s done well, it’s spectacular. 

    Stereo can simulate a soundstage in front of you, panned out left to right. Standard surround sound adds a front to back dimension. Atmos adds a vertical dimension as well, but that’s only the beginning. 

    The implementation in Atmos is also customized to your individual setup. For stereo and standard surround sound, the audio engineer decides precisely what sounds are sent to each speaker, and the same signal is sent regardless of what speakers you’re using or where you’ve placed them in the room. This limits the engineer’s control over the final result. 

    With an Atmos setup, the user places their speakers, then performs a setup procedure using a microphone that allows the user’s system to precisely measure speaker output and placement. A recording engineer mixing in Atmos creates a three-dimensional model of the recorded performance, establishing just exactly where in the room performing objects (e.g., instruments, singers, etc.) exist. The playback system then reproduces that model on the fly, using the measurements taken during setup to determine what parts of what sounds will come from which speakers. 

    When listening with earphones or earbuds, that on-the-fly reproduction is used to generate a binaural output, sending straight into your ears the subtle acoustic information that allows your brain to sort out the three-dimensional model all around you. You can tell distance and direction with two earphone or earbud speakers the same way you can tell distance and direction in the real world with just two ears. 

    So, no. It’s not just the new quadraphonic. 

    As for the classical app’s cataloging database, it’s surely going to be much more robust and in-depth. It’s also likely, if you’ve spent a lot of time building your own custom catalog using your own custom hierarchical preferences, that their system may include some different decisions in those preferences. If they didn’t ask you first, chances are low that they’ve done it exactly as you would, and the chances are also low that you’ll be able to override those decisions to force it to work your way instead. So be ready for that, and be ready to acknowledge that if they’d done it exactly your way, there would be somebody else out there who would be frustrated they didn’t do it his way. They’ll just have to pick some standards and go with it, you know?

    Spitbathjeffharris
  • Reply 80 of 82
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,626member
    AppleZulu said:

    So, no. It’s not just the new quadraphonic. 



    I appreciate the in-depth explanation! I do believe the comment was meant as „is Atmos another passing fad designed to get people to pay a lot of money for licensed equipment to support a new technology that completely misses any real market need and is completely orthogonal to the way most music is actually heard, the way quadraphonic was? 

    My vote is „yes“. 

    Not least because while Apple is one of the major adopters and driving forces of Atmos remixing, their implementation is supposedly rather botched, from what I’ve read. 

    I’m also generally skeptical of „remixes“ and „remastering“ of classic material. Unless the original was actually messed up, I’ve rarely heard any example where the new version actually improved on the original vision. 

    Usually, it brings it in-line with modern expectations—none of which have anything to do with what made the material great; on the contrary. 
    jeffharris
Sign In or Register to comment.