I love it…Built a home brew system for my studio for under $2k which included a few updates I’d have needed to make anyway. I use it across all of my musical output…Beautiful sound. Dolby couldn’t have been more helpful!
You missed the most important part of Spatial Audio. That being its application in AR/VR. The user hearing 360 degree sound is essential to the AR/VR experience....
From the article : "Virtual surround sound. Apple has likely spent a lot of time and money investing in it because it's important for virtual reality where you need to hear sounds in a 360-degree space."
So AI didn't miss it, they simply didn't emphasize it.
You're right of course, and the same reason both Google and Amazon are supporting it as they prepare AR/VR releases. For me, I don't like the sound differences listening on either Sonos or my earbuds, and so they don't really benefit from Spatial Audio at all IMO, in fact I'd deem it a neutral to negative feature outside of VR/AR applications.
I feel like I am the only one who doesn’t get it, but what is the difference between Spatial Audio and Dolby Atmos Audio?
And what is the difference on iPhones between the “Automatic” setting and “All”. It seems that “All” plays Spatial Audio on all headphones; while “Automatic” restrict Spatial Audio to AirPods and Beats; why?
Spatial Audio refers generically to all surround sound sources, including Dolby Atmos.
Dolby Atmos refers to an object-oriented surround sound technology created by the Dolby company. Normally when audio is mixed, the sound engineer decides exactly which sounds come out of which speakers (left, right, center, back left, back right, etc.). Mixing in Dolby Atmos, the engineer decides from which direction a sound should come, and the listener's device computes on the fly how to accomplish that, based on what speakers are attached and where they're placed in the room.
For headphones and earbuds, the computational work is done on the fly to create binaural sound. In short, you have only two ears, but you can tell when a real-world sound is coming from a certain direction. Your brain accomplishes this by sensing slight delays between when your left ear and your right ear pick up the same sound source, and by interpreting echoes and other effects of real-world sound bouncing around in your surroundings. Live sound recorded by two microphones placed into a mannequin head's ears that's then played back directly into your ears via headphones will be binaural audio, and your brain will be able to interpret not only left and right, but all directions for that recorded sound.
Now, the computational power of your iPhone is able to recreate that effect for any surround-sound source that was mixed for multiple surround speakers in a room. Your iPhone sorts exactly where and when the delays and echoes should be just as they enter your ear canal. As a result, you hear the playback not just as let/right, but as spatial audio, all around you.
As far as the settings, Automatic works with Apple's buds or headphones automatically, because there is two-way communication going on between those devices. "Always on" is necessary to get spatial audio playback in standard wired headphones, because the signal is just one-way output from your iPhone to 'dumb' headphones.
By the way, what's with the "even if your hate it" headline and the opinion-based speculative commentary in the article that "Anecdotally, Apple Music subscribers seem indifferent to the feature, if anything." The writer seems to have some sort of hostility toward the technology, and without any corroborating evidence, assumes everyone else does as well.
Additionally, these are conflicting sentiments. The headline suggests that people hate spatial audio, but the article offers no evidence of that, only the unsubstantiated assertion that people are indifferent to it. Indifference is not hate. So what gives?
The anecdotal evidence in this comment thread suggests that most people like spatial audio, with the exception of one person who doesn't like the head-tracking feature, which is a simulated effect layered on top of spatial audio, not spatial audio itself.
The few times I’ve experienced it I was stunned at how effective it was. Makes other music or audio seem quite flat by comparison. With AirPods Pro 2 in my ears, I thought the music was coming from my big HomePod stereo pair across the room. Was shocked when I pulled them out of my ears and the sound stopped.
It is absolutely an interesting effect. My question is whether it sounds better, or just wildly different. Having it sound ‘right there’ in your ears, is IMO, better than ‘spatially’ over there across the room somewhere. As has been noted by others, maybe with a proper setup of tens of thousands of dollars, it could be pretty cool, but the average person is just going to have simulated stuff that I think once the ‘wow factor’ wears off, won’t be as good.
I wouldn’t say I “hate” so-called spatial audio, I’d just say that in most cases it’s inappropriate or irrelevant to the way I listen to music. I listen—on headphones at least—because I want to hear the best mix the artist/producer is capable of, and that includes a _fixed sound field_ that plays as intended no matter what the orientation of my head is. If I want to roll around on the ground or turn around to do something else, I should be able to without the entire mix shifting. So I’d put it this way: add whatever gimmicks you want, but _always_ default them off Off, or allow me to switch them off. Not everyone wants to sit completely still to listen to music with the optimal mix.
Yes, same here. And, this is why the popularity is growing… it’s on by default. Apple has even turned it back on at least once during an update.
We always talk about ‘voting with one’s wallet’ but the industry can also force things like this. I’m not sure everyone was asking for high-quality amps to be reduced to junk, with a bunch of added ‘surround sound’ lights and whistles, but the industry kind of crammed that one as well. When you went to buy a new stereo, at least in a typical consumer electronics store, you had a choice between one piece of crap and another, for the most part.
At least we can still turn it off. For now, anyway. I wonder if it will end up impacting audio engineering such that it impacts the quality of a good stereo-mix traditional sound-stage?
AppleZulu said: … Now, the computational power of your iPhone is able to recreate that effect for any surround-sound source that was mixed for multiple surround speakers in a room. Your iPhone sorts exactly where and when the delays and echoes should be just as they enter your ear canal. As a result, you hear the playback not just as let/right, but as spatial audio, all around you. …
Great explanation. To me, though, it sounds artificial, not natural. (It’s even a bit sickening.) Maybe that would be different in an actual professional array of speaker, or it will get better as time goes on in headphones. It sounds surreal, not like any real-world experience I’ve had in life, or live music, etc.
AppleZulu said: … The anecdotal evidence in this comment thread suggests that most people like spatial audio, with the exception of one person who doesn't like the head-tracking feature, which is a simulated effect layered on top of spatial audio, not spatial audio itself.
I think there is more than one of us here, but I get what you’re saying. I think most consumers just tend to accepts stuff as it is, and it is a bit of a fallacy that the consumers are more than loosely controlling the market by their wallets. A lot of trends (surround sound home systems) just get forced, unless the pushback is too great (3D TVs).
We always talk about ‘voting with one’s wallet’ but the industry can also force things like this. I’m not sure everyone was asking for high-quality amps to be reduced to junk, with a bunch of added ‘surround sound’ lights and whistles, but the industry kind of crammed that one as well. When you went to buy a new stereo, at least in a typical consumer electronics store, you had a choice between one piece of crap and another, for the most part.
At least we can still turn it off. For now, anyway. I wonder if it will end up impacting audio engineering such that it impacts the quality of a good stereo-mix traditional sound-stage?
I would argue two things here. First, for the average consumer, audio quality is orders of magnitude better than in "the good old days." An iPhone and Apple ear buds playing AAC audio is almost infinitely better than mass-produced cassettes and LPs played back on K-mart stereo rack component sets, or cassette Walkmans or even Sony "Discmans" played back through the crappy headphones that most people had. Audio from a HomePod is also much, much better than those K-mart racks or cassette or CD boom boxes, etc. Everybody wants to compare a phone and ear buds to audiophile gear from the 70s or whatever, and that's not the right comparison. The mass-market gear is way better than the previous mass-market gear, and the audiophile stuff is way better than the audiophile stuff, too. The setup in my own den is midrange gear somewhere in between, and the lossless and Atmos music played back from my AppleTV box can sound truly great.
Second, the 'soundstage' generated from a traditional stereo mix is in truth an even more artificial construct than something like Dolby Atmos. In fact, when stereo was initially being promoted as the new standard, many audiophiles objected to it as a weird-sounding artificial construct. Unless you're listening to acoustically recorded binaural audio through a pair of headphones, stereo does not exist in the natural world. Very few things you hear in the real world emanate from two fixed points 45 degrees to the left and right of dead center in front of you. A sound engineer blending audio between a left and right speaker to make it sound like the singer is in the center is a completely fabricated simulation. The singer was most likely recorded on a single monaural track with a single microphone. Splitting that between two speakers to center it, or a little more in one than the other to "move her around" is completely artificial. Sound engineers have gotten quite good at that, and at finding the compromises in this artificial simulation to make such things sound good even when coming from various speaker setups or in headphones, but it's always a deliberate compromise. Those engineers have to optimize a mix and master of the recording so that a single, finalized source plays back decently from an unlimited number of variables in the listener's setup.
When setting up an Atmos-capable surround-sound home audio system, you put a microphone in the room and the system measures exactly where the speakers are placed, what the frequency response is for each speaker, and the room's acoustics. Once that's been done, a source mixed for Atmos plays back the audio optimized for your exact setup. That simulated balance between speakers is computed on-the-fly, customized to your exact setup. The same is true for playback through AirPods Pro. Those things measure how they've been placed in your ears, the shape of your ear canals, and the mix you hear is optimized for your exact listening setup and environment.
AppleZulu said: … Now, the computational power of your iPhone is able to recreate that effect for any surround-sound source that was mixed for multiple surround speakers in a room. Your iPhone sorts exactly where and when the delays and echoes should be just as they enter your ear canal. As a result, you hear the playback not just as let/right, but as spatial audio, all around you. …
Great explanation. To me, though, it sounds artificial, not natural. (It’s even a bit sickening.) Maybe that would be different in an actual professional array of speaker, or it will get better as time goes on in headphones. It sounds surreal, not like any real-world experience I’ve had in life, or live music, etc.
AppleZulu said: … The anecdotal evidence in this comment thread suggests that most people like spatial audio, with the exception of one person who doesn't like the head-tracking feature, which is a simulated effect layered on top of spatial audio, not spatial audio itself.
I think there is more than one of us here, but I get what you’re saying. I think most consumers just tend to accepts stuff as it is, and it is a bit of a fallacy that the consumers are more than loosely controlling the market by their wallets. A lot of trends (surround sound home systems) just get forced, unless the pushback is too great (3D TVs).
The skills of each audio engineer will vary, as has always been the case. Atmos is a new thing, so there will be a learning curve. An advantage to streaming music is that at least you won't have to keep buying the same albums over and over again as they issue remixes that hopefully get better over time.
Try listening to the album Page One by Joe Henderson in Dolby Atmos. That one is done really well. Use the control panel on your iPhone to turn Atmos on and off, and you'll switch between Atmos and the traditional stereo mix. The Atmos version is profoundly better, clearer and more natural sounding.
AppleZulu said: I would argue two things here. First, for the average consumer, audio quality is orders of magnitude better than in "the good old days." An iPhone and Apple ear buds playing AAC audio is almost infinitely better than mass-produced cassettes and LPs played back on K-mart stereo rack component sets, or cassette Walkmans or even Sony "Discmans" played back through the crappy headphones that most people had. Audio from a HomePod is also much, much better than those K-mart racks or cassette or CD boom boxes, etc. Everybody wants to compare a phone and ear buds to audiophile gear from the 70s or whatever, and that's not the right comparison. The mass-market gear is way better than the previous mass-market gear, and the audiophile stuff is way better than the audiophile stuff, too. The setup in my own den is midrange gear somewhere in between, and the lossless and Atmos music played back from my AppleTV box can sound truly great.
Audio source quality is up, though I started buying CDs in the mid 80s. But, it is true that the source quality, even on the near-perfect transmission methods is better as well.
I’m talking about the listening gear. One could get a pretty good amp at Radio Shack, or even the lower to mid stuff was pretty solid and good audio quality. Speakers varied, but I think much of that still wins out in size/volume characteristics of the speakers that are hard to match with today’s tiny speaker trend. A 3-way speaker with 15” woofer is hard to beat, even if it isn’t top-of-line. Headphones have improved a lot, but I also never tried spending $300+ on earbuds years ago (which maybe didn’t exist?).
I inherited a 17w/channel HK amp from my dad when I moved away from home (I’m not sure what it cost, but I don’t think my dad ever bought anything too expensive… I assume it was a couple hundred dollars, so mid-level at that time). The knobs got crackly, so I eventually gave it up. I should have fixed it, as I’ve owned $500-$1k ‘surround’ amps since by Kenwood, Yamaha, etc. with hundreds of watts per channel, and they were all crap compared to that old HK.
IMO, the masses today tend to listen on really poor quality speakers/headphones, unless they make the jump into more expensive stuff, as few do. My own family members listen on ear-buds that came with their phone, or even iPad/laptop speaker. We don’t even have nice ‘stereo system’ anymore, as everyone wants to listen to their own thing, and I’m the only one that cares about quality.
AppleZulu said: Second, the 'soundstage' generated from a traditional stereo mix is in truth an even more artificial construct than something like Dolby Atmos. In fact, when stereo was initially being promoted as the new standard, many audiophiles objected to it as a weird-sounding artificial construct. Unless you're listening to acoustically recorded binaural audio through a pair of headphones, stereo does not exist in the natural world. Very few things you hear in the real world emanate from two fixed points 45 degrees to the left and right of dead center in front of you. A sound engineer blending audio between a left and right speaker to make it sound like the singer is in the center is a completely fabricated simulation. The singer was most likely recorded on a single monaural track with a single microphone. Splitting that between two speakers to center it, or a little more in one than the other to "move her around" is completely artificial. Sound engineers have gotten quite good at that, and at finding the compromises in this artificial simulation to make such things sound good even when coming from various speaker setups or in headphones, but it's always a deliberate compromise. Those engineers have to optimize a mix and master of the recording so that a single, finalized source plays back decently from an unlimited number of variables in the listener's setup.
When setting up an Atmos-capable surround-sound home audio system, you put a microphone in the room and the system measures exactly where the speakers are placed, what the frequency response is for each speaker, and the room's acoustics. Once that's been done, a source mixed for Atmos plays back the audio optimized for your exact setup. That simulated balance between speakers is computed on-the-fly, customized to your exact setup. The same is true for playback through AirPods Pro. Those things measure how they've been placed in your ears, the shape of your ear canals, and the mix you hear is optimized for your exact listening setup and environment.
You’re correct, it is all artificial at some level, I suppose. Maybe a better term would be simplistic (in a good way). An example, is what surround sound has done to a typical TV audio when watching a movie. You can hardly near dialog anymore, unless you have a specialized system.
The spatial stuff I’ve listened to so far (though I admit hasn’t been much) has sounded too ‘airy’ and lower quality than the typical stereo mix, right in my ears or ‘in front’ of me. Maybe that will get better over time. I suppose they are kind of playing with it right now, maybe creating exaggerated effect?
Same with surround. I’ve been in a few movie theatres where it has been pretty good. But, I’ve never heard a home system I’ve liked, and even many theatres screw it up. Thanks though for the detail, I’ll *try* to keep a more open mind.
Spatial Audio refers generically to all surround sound sources, including Dolby Atmos.
As far as the settings, Automatic works with Apple's buds or headphones automatically, because there is two-way communication going on between those devices. "Always on" is necessary to get spatial audio playback in standard wired headphones, because the signal is just one-way output from your iPhone to 'dumb' headphones.
OK so Spatial Audio means the iPhoen can interpret Dolby Atmos as well as the Sony 360 and other technologies?
I also read somewhere else now that Spatial Audio refers to the head tracking - that’s obviously wrong a that is another separate technology (you can have Spatial Audio with or without head tracking).
Another mistake that people make is that they refer to head tracking as focusing on the device - that is not true. It just focuses on your head looking straight ahead. If you move your head to the right for 10 seconds, the focus switches to the right.
I still don’t understand the Setting. If Always On works with all headphones including all Apple and Beats headphones, the “Automatic” setting seems superfluous. It is like Always On, but less.
There is a lot of conflicting and misleading information out there.
Spatial Audio refers generically to all surround sound sources, including Dolby Atmos.
As far as the settings, Automatic works with Apple's buds or headphones automatically, because there is two-way communication going on between those devices. "Always on" is necessary to get spatial audio playback in standard wired headphones, because the signal is just one-way output from your iPhone to 'dumb' headphones.
OK so Spatial Audio means the iPhoen can interpret Dolby Atmos as well as the Sony 360 and other technologies?
I also read somewhere else now that Spatial Audio refers to the head tracking - that’s obviously wrong a that is another separate technology (you can have Spatial Audio with or without head tracking).
Another mistake that people make is that they refer to head tracking as focusing on the device - that is not true. It just focuses on your head looking straight ahead. If you move your head to the right for 10 seconds, the focus switches to the right.
I still don’t understand the Setting. If Always On works with all headphones including all Apple and Beats headphones, the “Automatic” setting seems superfluous. It is like Always On, but less.
There is a lot of conflicting and misleading information out there.
Sony 360 would fall under the general category of Spatial Audio, yes. It seems like Apple has some sort of exclusive deal with Dolby so the Sony version doesn't turn up thus far, but yes.
Head tracking is a separate thing from Spatial Audio, also yes. On iPhones and iPads, that tech was originally introduced just for surround sound when watching movies. It makes a lot of sense for that purpose. If the sound of a fighter plane coming in from over your shoulder behind you startles you and you turn to look, you want that sound to continue to orient with the image of the plane as it comes onscreen. You don't want it to move around in the wrong direction as you reflexively turn your head. For audio-only music, it's less important, though it's sort of cool that the apparent soundstage stays in place if you momentarily look over to pick up a drink or something.
For the settings thing, "automatic" makes sense for AirPods, because those have an active chip in them that interacts with your iPhone, so switching back and forth between stereo and spatial audio sources is automatic. For standard wired headphones, there's no active tech fine-tuning the spatial audio to your ears, so it's probably better that there's a user on/off option to permit you to decide which way sounds better.
AppleZulu said: I would argue two things here. First, for the average consumer, audio quality is orders of magnitude better than in "the good old days." An iPhone and Apple ear buds playing AAC audio is almost infinitely better than mass-produced cassettes and LPs played back on K-mart stereo rack component sets, or cassette Walkmans or even Sony "Discmans" played back through the crappy headphones that most people had. Audio from a HomePod is also much, much better than those K-mart racks or cassette or CD boom boxes, etc. Everybody wants to compare a phone and ear buds to audiophile gear from the 70s or whatever, and that's not the right comparison. The mass-market gear is way better than the previous mass-market gear, and the audiophile stuff is way better than the audiophile stuff, too. The setup in my own den is midrange gear somewhere in between, and the lossless and Atmos music played back from my AppleTV box can sound truly great.
Audio source quality is up, though I started buying CDs in the mid 80s. But, it is true that the source quality, even on the near-perfect transmission methods is better as well.
I’m talking about the listening gear. One could get a pretty good amp at Radio Shack, or even the lower to mid stuff was pretty solid and good audio quality. Speakers varied, but I think much of that still wins out in size/volume characteristics of the speakers that are hard to match with today’s tiny speaker trend. A 3-way speaker with 15” woofer is hard to beat, even if it isn’t top-of-line. Headphones have improved a lot, but I also never tried spending $300+ on earbuds years ago (which maybe didn’t exist?).
I inherited a 17w/channel HK amp from my dad when I moved away from home (I’m not sure what it cost, but I don’t think my dad ever bought anything too expensive… I assume it was a couple hundred dollars, so mid-level at that time). The knobs got crackly, so I eventually gave it up. I should have fixed it, as I’ve owned $500-$1k ‘surround’ amps since by Kenwood, Yamaha, etc. with hundreds of watts per channel, and they were all crap compared to that old HK.
IMO, the masses today tend to listen on really poor quality speakers/headphones, unless they make the jump into more expensive stuff, as few do. My own family members listen on ear-buds that came with their phone, or even iPad/laptop speaker. We don’t even have nice ‘stereo system’ anymore, as everyone wants to listen to their own thing, and I’m the only one that cares about quality.
AppleZulu said: Second, the 'soundstage' generated from a traditional stereo mix is in truth an even more artificial construct than something like Dolby Atmos. In fact, when stereo was initially being promoted as the new standard, many audiophiles objected to it as a weird-sounding artificial construct. Unless you're listening to acoustically recorded binaural audio through a pair of headphones, stereo does not exist in the natural world. Very few things you hear in the real world emanate from two fixed points 45 degrees to the left and right of dead center in front of you. A sound engineer blending audio between a left and right speaker to make it sound like the singer is in the center is a completely fabricated simulation. The singer was most likely recorded on a single monaural track with a single microphone. Splitting that between two speakers to center it, or a little more in one than the other to "move her around" is completely artificial. Sound engineers have gotten quite good at that, and at finding the compromises in this artificial simulation to make such things sound good even when coming from various speaker setups or in headphones, but it's always a deliberate compromise. Those engineers have to optimize a mix and master of the recording so that a single, finalized source plays back decently from an unlimited number of variables in the listener's setup.
When setting up an Atmos-capable surround-sound home audio system, you put a microphone in the room and the system measures exactly where the speakers are placed, what the frequency response is for each speaker, and the room's acoustics. Once that's been done, a source mixed for Atmos plays back the audio optimized for your exact setup. That simulated balance between speakers is computed on-the-fly, customized to your exact setup. The same is true for playback through AirPods Pro. Those things measure how they've been placed in your ears, the shape of your ear canals, and the mix you hear is optimized for your exact listening setup and environment.
You’re correct, it is all artificial at some level, I suppose. Maybe a better term would be simplistic (in a good way). An example, is what surround sound has done to a typical TV audio when watching a movie. You can hardly near dialog anymore, unless you have a specialized system.
The spatial stuff I’ve listened to so far (though I admit hasn’t been much) has sounded too ‘airy’ and lower quality than the typical stereo mix, right in my ears or ‘in front’ of me. Maybe that will get better over time. I suppose they are kind of playing with it right now, maybe creating exaggerated effect?
Same with surround. I’ve been in a few movie theatres where it has been pretty good. But, I’ve never heard a home system I’ve liked, and even many theatres screw it up. Thanks though for the detail, I’ll *try* to keep a more open mind.
This issue has received a good bit of coverage/discussion lately. Surround sound audio for cinemas has typically been mixed for, well, cinemas, which generally have expensive multichannel audio systems professionally installed to meet industry standards, and it's usually turned up pretty loud. As a result, it's easier to hear quiet dialog in those environments.
As more people watch the same films at home with the same surround sound audio mixes, for most, their audio gear isn't going to be nearly as good as the cinema system, it won't be turned up as loud, and there will be other sources of background noise not generally present in the cinema. Add to that more advanced microphone arrangements on-set, and we have a whole new generation of actors who don't vocally project, but rather opt for moody, mumbled dialog.
I listen to lossless audio through my iPad Pro using USB-C to connect to an iFi-Audio headphone amplifier connected to a pair of QUAD ERA planar headphones. The sound is superb and the better the recording the better it gets. However, when I’ve listed to the Dolby Atmos version where available I invariably prefer the standard stereo version as the DA version seem to lose detail and imaging and gain bass which I don’t like at all.
However, I did listen to Moby’s “Reprise” from 2021 on the Deutsche Grammophon label in Dolby Atmos and thought it was notably improved over the stereo performance, but to date that’s the only one where I prefer the Dolby Atmos version. Probably because I’ve listened to so few DA versions due to disappointing experiences to date, Moby excepted! Maybe time to try a few more …
For the settings thing, "automatic" makes sense for AirPods, because those have an active chip in them that interacts with your iPhone, so switching back and forth between stereo and spatial audio sources is automatic. For standard wired headphones, there's no active tech fine-tuning the spatial audio to your ears, so it's probably better that there's a user on/off option to permit you to decide which way sounds better.
You are saying that a song that is not mastered in Dolby Atmos Audio or other compatible form for Spatial Audio, would not sound good on normal stereo headphones if the toggle is set to “Always On”? Got it. Will try it out.
I feel like I am the only one who doesn’t get it, but what is the difference between Spatial Audio and Dolby Atmos Audio?
And what is the difference on iPhones between the “Automatic” setting and “All”. It seems that “All” plays Spatial Audio on all headphones; while “Automatic” restrict Spatial Audio to AirPods and Beats; why?
Spatial Audio refers generically to all surround sound sources, including Dolby Atmos. based on what speakers are attached and where they're placed in the room.
For headphones and earbuds, the computational work is done on the fly to create binaural sound. In short, you have only two ears, but you can tell when a real-world sound is coming from a certain direction.
Now, the computational power of your iPhone is able to recreate that effect for any surround-sound source that was mixed for multiple surround speakers in a room. Your iPhone sorts exactly where and when the delays and echoes should be just as they enter your ear canal. As a result, you hear the playback not just as let/right, but as spatial audio, all around you.
Maybe yes and maybe no. Apple's spatial audio would only know where your Apple device is, not you. If the phone is on a charger, on a table across the room, in the kitchen or bedroom, or laying face-down on the end-table next to you, and you're listening on speakers, it obviously cannot compute the distance to your ear canals.
That said, I was setting up an Ultimate Ears Megaboom two evenings ago and got a notification on my phone that I could activate Spacial Audio. That speaker already has a fairly wide soundstage but with Spacial on, it did seem to be slightly more vibrant and with an even wider stage playing compatible music. I'll let it play for awhile and see if I prefer on or off.
Comments
"Virtual surround sound. Apple has likely spent a lot of time and money investing in it because it's important for virtual reality where you need to hear sounds in a 360-degree space."
So AI didn't miss it, they simply didn't emphasize it.
You're right of course, and the same reason both Google and Amazon are supporting it as they prepare AR/VR releases.
For me, I don't like the sound differences listening on either Sonos or my earbuds, and so they don't really benefit from Spatial Audio at all IMO, in fact I'd deem it a neutral to negative feature outside of VR/AR applications.
Dolby Atmos refers to an object-oriented surround sound technology created by the Dolby company. Normally when audio is mixed, the sound engineer decides exactly which sounds come out of which speakers (left, right, center, back left, back right, etc.). Mixing in Dolby Atmos, the engineer decides from which direction a sound should come, and the listener's device computes on the fly how to accomplish that, based on what speakers are attached and where they're placed in the room.
For headphones and earbuds, the computational work is done on the fly to create binaural sound. In short, you have only two ears, but you can tell when a real-world sound is coming from a certain direction. Your brain accomplishes this by sensing slight delays between when your left ear and your right ear pick up the same sound source, and by interpreting echoes and other effects of real-world sound bouncing around in your surroundings. Live sound recorded by two microphones placed into a mannequin head's ears that's then played back directly into your ears via headphones will be binaural audio, and your brain will be able to interpret not only left and right, but all directions for that recorded sound.
Now, the computational power of your iPhone is able to recreate that effect for any surround-sound source that was mixed for multiple surround speakers in a room. Your iPhone sorts exactly where and when the delays and echoes should be just as they enter your ear canal. As a result, you hear the playback not just as let/right, but as spatial audio, all around you.
As far as the settings, Automatic works with Apple's buds or headphones automatically, because there is two-way communication going on between those devices. "Always on" is necessary to get spatial audio playback in standard wired headphones, because the signal is just one-way output from your iPhone to 'dumb' headphones.
Additionally, these are conflicting sentiments. The headline suggests that people hate spatial audio, but the article offers no evidence of that, only the unsubstantiated assertion that people are indifferent to it. Indifference is not hate. So what gives?
The anecdotal evidence in this comment thread suggests that most people like spatial audio, with the exception of one person who doesn't like the head-tracking feature, which is a simulated effect layered on top of spatial audio, not spatial audio itself.
Yes, same here. And, this is why the popularity is growing… it’s on by default. Apple has even turned it back on at least once during an update.
We always talk about ‘voting with one’s wallet’ but the industry can also force things like this. I’m not sure everyone was asking for high-quality amps to be reduced to junk, with a bunch of added ‘surround sound’ lights and whistles, but the industry kind of crammed that one as well. When you went to buy a new stereo, at least in a typical consumer electronics store, you had a choice between one piece of crap and another, for the most part.
At least we can still turn it off. For now, anyway. I wonder if it will end up impacting audio engineering such that it impacts the quality of a good stereo-mix traditional sound-stage?
I think there is more than one of us here, but I get what you’re saying. I think most consumers just tend to accepts stuff as it is, and it is a bit of a fallacy that the consumers are more than loosely controlling the market by their wallets. A lot of trends (surround sound home systems) just get forced, unless the pushback is too great (3D TVs).
I would argue two things here. First, for the average consumer, audio quality is orders of magnitude better than in "the good old days." An iPhone and Apple ear buds playing AAC audio is almost infinitely better than mass-produced cassettes and LPs played back on K-mart stereo rack component sets, or cassette Walkmans or even Sony "Discmans" played back through the crappy headphones that most people had. Audio from a HomePod is also much, much better than those K-mart racks or cassette or CD boom boxes, etc. Everybody wants to compare a phone and ear buds to audiophile gear from the 70s or whatever, and that's not the right comparison. The mass-market gear is way better than the previous mass-market gear, and the audiophile stuff is way better than the audiophile stuff, too. The setup in my own den is midrange gear somewhere in between, and the lossless and Atmos music played back from my AppleTV box can sound truly great.
Second, the 'soundstage' generated from a traditional stereo mix is in truth an even more artificial construct than something like Dolby Atmos. In fact, when stereo was initially being promoted as the new standard, many audiophiles objected to it as a weird-sounding artificial construct. Unless you're listening to acoustically recorded binaural audio through a pair of headphones, stereo does not exist in the natural world. Very few things you hear in the real world emanate from two fixed points 45 degrees to the left and right of dead center in front of you. A sound engineer blending audio between a left and right speaker to make it sound like the singer is in the center is a completely fabricated simulation. The singer was most likely recorded on a single monaural track with a single microphone. Splitting that between two speakers to center it, or a little more in one than the other to "move her around" is completely artificial. Sound engineers have gotten quite good at that, and at finding the compromises in this artificial simulation to make such things sound good even when coming from various speaker setups or in headphones, but it's always a deliberate compromise. Those engineers have to optimize a mix and master of the recording so that a single, finalized source plays back decently from an unlimited number of variables in the listener's setup.
The skills of each audio engineer will vary, as has always been the case. Atmos is a new thing, so there will be a learning curve. An advantage to streaming music is that at least you won't have to keep buying the same albums over and over again as they issue remixes that hopefully get better over time.
Try listening to the album Page One by Joe Henderson in Dolby Atmos. That one is done really well. Use the control panel on your iPhone to turn Atmos on and off, and you'll switch between Atmos and the traditional stereo mix. The Atmos version is profoundly better, clearer and more natural sounding.
I’m talking about the listening gear. One could get a pretty good amp at Radio Shack, or even the lower to mid stuff was pretty solid and good audio quality. Speakers varied, but I think much of that still wins out in size/volume characteristics of the speakers that are hard to match with today’s tiny speaker trend. A 3-way speaker with 15” woofer is hard to beat, even if it isn’t top-of-line. Headphones have improved a lot, but I also never tried spending $300+ on earbuds years ago (which maybe didn’t exist?).
I inherited a 17w/channel HK amp from my dad when I moved away from home (I’m not sure what it cost, but I don’t think my dad ever bought anything too expensive… I assume it was a couple hundred dollars, so mid-level at that time). The knobs got crackly, so I eventually gave it up. I should have fixed it, as I’ve owned $500-$1k ‘surround’ amps since by Kenwood, Yamaha, etc. with hundreds of watts per channel, and they were all crap compared to that old HK.
IMO, the masses today tend to listen on really poor quality speakers/headphones, unless they make the jump into more expensive stuff, as few do. My own family members listen on ear-buds that came with their phone, or even iPad/laptop speaker. We don’t even have nice ‘stereo system’ anymore, as everyone wants to listen to their own thing, and I’m the only one that cares about quality.
You’re correct, it is all artificial at some level, I suppose. Maybe a better term would be simplistic (in a good way). An example, is what surround sound has done to a typical TV audio when watching a movie. You can hardly near dialog anymore, unless you have a specialized system.
The spatial stuff I’ve listened to so far (though I admit hasn’t been much) has sounded too ‘airy’ and lower quality than the typical stereo mix, right in my ears or ‘in front’ of me. Maybe that will get better over time. I suppose they are kind of playing with it right now, maybe creating exaggerated effect?
Same with surround. I’ve been in a few movie theatres where it has been pretty good. But, I’ve never heard a home system I’ve liked, and even many theatres screw it up. Thanks though for the detail, I’ll *try* to keep a more open mind.
I also read somewhere else now that Spatial Audio refers to the head tracking - that’s obviously wrong a that is another separate technology (you can have Spatial Audio with or without head tracking).
I still don’t understand the Setting. If Always On works with all headphones including all Apple and Beats headphones, the “Automatic” setting seems superfluous. It is like Always On, but less.
Head tracking is a separate thing from Spatial Audio, also yes. On iPhones and iPads, that tech was originally introduced just for surround sound when watching movies. It makes a lot of sense for that purpose. If the sound of a fighter plane coming in from over your shoulder behind you startles you and you turn to look, you want that sound to continue to orient with the image of the plane as it comes onscreen. You don't want it to move around in the wrong direction as you reflexively turn your head. For audio-only music, it's less important, though it's sort of cool that the apparent soundstage stays in place if you momentarily look over to pick up a drink or something.
For the settings thing, "automatic" makes sense for AirPods, because those have an active chip in them that interacts with your iPhone, so switching back and forth between stereo and spatial audio sources is automatic. For standard wired headphones, there's no active tech fine-tuning the spatial audio to your ears, so it's probably better that there's a user on/off option to permit you to decide which way sounds better.
As more people watch the same films at home with the same surround sound audio mixes, for most, their audio gear isn't going to be nearly as good as the cinema system, it won't be turned up as loud, and there will be other sources of background noise not generally present in the cinema. Add to that more advanced microphone arrangements on-set, and we have a whole new generation of actors who don't vocally project, but rather opt for moody, mumbled dialog.
It's a mess.
However, I did listen to Moby’s “Reprise” from 2021 on the Deutsche Grammophon label in Dolby Atmos and thought it was notably improved over the stereo performance, but to date that’s the only one where I prefer the Dolby Atmos version. Probably because I’ve listened to so few DA versions due to disappointing experiences to date, Moby excepted! Maybe time to try a few more …
That said, I was setting up an Ultimate Ears Megaboom two evenings ago and got a notification on my phone that I could activate Spacial Audio. That speaker already has a fairly wide soundstage but with Spacial on, it did seem to be slightly more vibrant and with an even wider stage playing compatible music. I'll let it play for awhile and see if I prefer on or off.