Dolby Pressures Artists and Consumers Into Hardware Upgrades

Benn Jordan

The proprietary audio format functions as a corporate licensing scheme that forces unnecessary hardware purchases on musicians and listeners while delivering degraded, gimmicky sound.

AI-assisted summary of Gaslighting Your Fans w/ Dolby ATMOS™ — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2023-06-05

Key ideas

Benn Jordan conducted a self-funded $1,300 consumer test of Dolby Atmos across home theater soundbars, headphones, and earbuds, concluding that the format fails to deliver its advertised height and spatial immersion in typical consumer environments. (0:00)
Dolby's business model relies on choke point capitalism, collecting licensing and per-unit royalty fees from hardware manufacturers, streaming services, and audio creators while shifting costs onto consumers. (21:32)
Up-firing Atmos bounce soundbars require flat, 10-foot, obstruction-free ceilings, rendering virtual height channels ineffective in real-world living spaces with ceiling fans, vaulted ceilings, or absorptive materials. (15:00)
Spatial headphone algorithms often compromise audio quality, introducing dithering artifacts and turning classic stereo productions into disorienting, gimmick-laden multichannel mixes. (17:07)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on June 5, 2023, by musician and audio producer Benn Jordan on YouTube, this video investigates the consumer reality of spatial audio. Eschewing the role of an official Dolby-sponsored artist, Jordan tests Dolby Atmos entirely from an everyday consumer perspective using his own self-funded budget.

## TL;DR Jordan critically deconstructs the industry push behind Dolby Atmos, arguing that the technology is less of an acoustic breakthrough and more of a corporate licensing play driven by choke point capitalism. Across hands-on testing with a 5.1.2 soundbar, Atmos-enabled headphones, and head-tracking earbuds, he reveals that marketing claims of ceiling-bouncing virtual height and immersive 3D bubbles fall flat under real-world acoustic constraints. He highlights how Atmos mixes frequently compromise stereo translation, introduces software paywalls, and subjects artists and consumers to financial gatekeeping. Ultimately, Jordan urges creators and fans to reject forced hardware upgrades and embrace personal, convenient listening habits over proprietary marketing gimmicks.

## Atmosphere & style The video carries an urgent, incisive, and dryly sarcastic tone that balances meticulous psychoacoustic expertise with relatable consumer frustration. Jordan speaks with the exasperation of an uncompromising audio purist tired of corporate gaslighting, moving from biting satire to grounded, practical home-theater troubleshooting. It feels like an intimate, behind-the-curtains exposé that punctures tech-industry hyperbole, leaving viewers validated in their simple stereo setups and skeptical of multi-billion-dollar audio licensing schemes.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) Benn Jordan conducted a self-funded $1,300 consumer test of Dolby Atmos across home theater soundbars, headphones, and earbuds, concluding that the format fails to deliver its advertised height and spatial immersion in typical consumer environments. - [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) Dolby's business model relies on choke point capitalism, collecting licensing and per-unit royalty fees from hardware manufacturers, streaming services, and audio creators while shifting costs onto consumers. - [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=900s) Up-firing Atmos bounce soundbars require flat, 10-foot, obstruction-free ceilings, rendering virtual height channels ineffective in real-world living spaces with ceiling fans, vaulted ceilings, or absorptive materials. - [17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) Spatial headphone algorithms often compromise audio quality, introducing dithering artifacts and turning classic stereo productions into disorienting, gimmick-laden multichannel mixes.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) The industry push framing Dolby Atmos as a mandatory new standard creates financial gatekeeping for independent musicians and guilt for casual listeners. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) Most consumers listen to audio on hardware that drops off sharply below 150 Hz while commuting or multitasking, clashing with Atmos's rigid listening requirements. - [03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=183s) Spatial audio attempts to reverse-engineer human psychoacoustic evolution, but consumer behavior historically favors casual convenience over complex spatial formats. - [03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=183s) Dolby Atmos is fundamentally a proprietary delivery format and licensing trademark rather than an inherent acoustic fidelity upgrade. - [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=300s) Dolby Atmos combines channel-based audio beds with object-based dynamic metadata, but imposes an arbitrary 128-channel stream limit that caps bed configurations at 7.1.2. - [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=300s) Technically superior or open spatial technologies, such as uncompressed DTS:X and open-source ambisonics, remain overshadowed by Dolby's aggressive marketing and licensing power. - [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=600s) Dolby's official online A/B browser comparisons are technically misleading, pitting altered, degraded stereo files against spatial simulations in environments that lack native Atmos decoding. - [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=600s) Testing a mid-range Vizio 5.1.2 soundbar revealed that up-firing bounce drivers produced no perceivable vertical height cues in a real-world living room. - [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=900s) Meeting official Dolby home theater specifications requires costly renovations and contractor-installed overhead speakers, conflicting with standard home climate and architecture needs. - [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=900s) Branding compact tabletop smart speakers like the Amazon Echo Studio as multi-dimensional Atmos devices dilutes high-end spatial audio claims into consumer marketing buzzwords. - [17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) Hardware branded with Dolby Atmos frequently traps consumers behind additional software paywalls, such as paid console apps and higher-tier streaming subscriptions. - [17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) Folding object-based Atmos mixes down into headphones or earbuds introduces audible codec artifacts and often relies on unmusical panning gimmicks. - [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1200s) Playing stereo masters through automated spatial processing degrades the balance and tonal fidelity originally crafted by recording engineers. - [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) Dolby Atmos functions as choke point capitalism, forcing content creators and hardware vendors to pay licensing royalties that artificially inflate product prices without organic consumer demand.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) The ATMOS Mandate and Financial Gatekeeping

Benn Jordan opens with an urgent, sarcastic "Red Alert" warning directed at musicians, declaring that everything in their workflow is supposedly about to change because Dolby Atmos has arrived as the new listener standard. To keep up, artists are being told they must upgrade their monitors, headphones, audio interfaces, and VST plugins, shell out for a Mac, and abandon years of established engineering and mixing principles—or simply "get richer" if they cannot afford it. He then pivots directly to the sales pitch pushed onto music fans: the promise of finally hearing songs "the way that your favorite musicians want you to hear them" in immersive 3D audio, provided they upgrade their streaming tier, purchase an array of 7 to 40 speakers with a compatible receiver, remodel a dedicated listening room to match Dolby's strict specifications, and stay frozen in the exact same sweet spot whenever they listen.

Jordan warns that whenever someone dares to criticize Dolby Atmos, industry defenders immediately shift the goalposts or attack the critic's credibility. While he hates sounding like he is bragging, Jordan highlights his deep background in immersive audio—including recording 3D natural soundscapes in extreme environments, composing spatial planetarium dome scores, and working on commercial surround mixing rooms—to establish that he understands the tech from the inside out. Despite the industry push, Jordan insists that musicians face an undeniable disconnect: most fans listen on devices that cannot even reproduce bass below 150 Hz, usually while multitasking, commuting, or cooking dinner. Demanding that everyday listeners buy into high-end multi-channel rigs feels elitist:

> “And what's worse, to me personally at least, it reeks of financial gatekeeping and poor shaming.”

He reassures his audience that if listening to music brings joy, they are already listening to it "perfectly." Setting aside his background as an engineer, Jordan commits to giving Atmos an honest evaluation from a consumer's perspective, using a self-funded out-of-pocket budget of roughly $1,300 with zero sponsorships or corporate affiliations.

- Most consumers listen to audio on hardware that drops off sharply below 150 Hz. - Criticisms of Atmos often result in defensive industry pushback and moving goalposts. - Benn Jordan funded his consumer investigation out of pocket with approximately $1,300 to avoid corporate bias.

---

[03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=183s) Psychoacoustics and the Immersive Audio Dilemma

Acoustic physics seems straightforward on the surface—sound is simply acoustic pressure produced by an object and received by two human ears—yet it quickly grows complex when entering the realm of psychoacoustics. The human brain perceives three-dimensional space by calculating infinitesimal differences in time of arrival, volume balance, and reflections between both ears. Immersive and spatial audio technologies fundamentally attempt to reverse-engineer millions of years of evolutionary hearing to deceive the brain into feeling present in an artificial environment. However, Jordan argues that outside of full-immersion contexts like VR or planetarium domes, forcing this illusion on casual listeners is inherently mismatched with human behavior:

> “All these things excite us when we first hear about them, but maybe at the end of the day we just want to keep a casual and convenient relationship with the content that we consume.”

He points out that despite surround sound existing for decades, the vast majority of consumers in North America and Europe still rely exclusively on built-in television speakers. Novel spatial formats—from 3D televisions, curved screens, and the metaverse to HoloLens, Google Glass, and upcoming AR headsets—regularly spark public excitement before collapsing under the friction of everyday use.

At its core, Dolby Atmos is not an acoustic magic wand that automatically enhances fidelity; it is a trademark and proprietary encoding/decoding delivery format akin to MP3, QuickTime, or Windows Media Player files. While Atmos has captured public awareness, it is merely one among many spatial technologies, and by no means the first. Jordan also expresses frustration with Apple co-opting "spatial audio" as a proprietary branding term, choosing instead to use the broader, neutral term "immersive audio."

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Immersive Audio Delivery Methods accDescr: Diagram contrasting Channel-Based audio setups, Object-Based simulation engines, and Ambisonic microphone decoding.

subgraph ChannelBased["Channel-Based Audio"] A["Discrete Channels (L/R, 5.1, 7.1, 7.2.4)"] --> B["Fixed Speaker Assignments"] B --> C["Pre-rendered Audio Files"] end

subgraph ObjectBased["Object-Based Audio (e.g. ATMOS)"] D["Audio Objects"] --> E["Metadata Engine (Location, Trajectory, Gain)"] E --> F["Real-Time Decoder Simulation"] end

subgraph Ambisonics["Ambisonic Audio"] G["Spherical Harmonics (4-channel B-format & higher)"] --> H["Psychoacoustic Algorithms"] H --> I["Arbitrary Array Decoding"] end ```

---

[05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=300s) Channels, Objects, Ambisonics, and the Licensing Machine

Jordan breaks down the practical architecture of spatial formats by comparing channel-based audio, object-based audio, and ambisonics:

* **Channel-Based Audio:** Audio files hold discrete, synchronized streams assigned to designated speakers. A standard 5.1 Dolby setup utilizes six distinct audio channels (center, front left/right, surround left/right, plus a subwoofer), while 7.1 adds side channels. Height-enabled configurations add overhead speakers; for instance, a 7.2.4 system routes 13 distinct audio tracks to seven satellite speakers, two subwoofers, and four ceiling speakers—an impractical consumer requirement for standard living rooms. * **Object-Based Audio:** Rather than fixing audio to physical speakers, sounds are treated as independent virtual objects packaged with dynamic metadata indicating their real-time coordinates, volume, and trajectories. The decoder acts as a lightweight real-time simulation engine that renders audio dynamically to whatever speaker configuration is present. * **Ambisonic Audio:** Originating in the 1970s, ambisonics uses spherical harmonics algorithms to decode 3D acoustic fields. A dedicated ambisonic field setup using just four microphone capsules captures precise spatial data far exceeding conventional multi-channel arrays, with higher orders scaling accuracy exponentially. Jordan considers ambisonics the most mathematically elegant and impressive psychoacoustic technology in existence.

Dolby Atmos merges channel-based and object-based architectures, using traditional channel stems known as "beds" alongside independent dynamic objects, but caps the entire delivery stream at 128 channels. Within that budget, the format allows a maximum of 10 bed channels (a standard 7.1.2 configuration). If an engineer or theater plays back legacy multichannel formats exceeding those beds, audio channels must be sacrificed, leading Jordan to question whether this arbitrary limitation serves as a corporate mechanism to pressure film studios into full Atmos licensing.

Furthermore, Jordan highlights that Atmos is far from the only or even the best standard available. DTS:X stands as an uncompressed, technically superior competitor, yet it remains obscure due to marketing dominance. Jordan recalls an inquiry from an ad agency inviting him to be filmed mixing an album in Atmos for an artist spotlight program—where musicians are filmed reacting with theatrical awe—an offer he declined. He emphasizes that while Dolby has engineered impressive technology, their core corporate model depends entirely on licensing fees. Because equipment makers, streaming platforms, and studios will only pay to license Atmos if there is broad consumer demand, Dolby relies heavily on aggressive, forced consumer marketing to drive adoption.

> “And since their business model profits from licensing, some level of force-feeding will have to take place.”

[10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=600s) Marketing Deceptions and Setting Up an Atmos Home Theater

Dolby's official online marketing sets an immediate red flag when showcasing its spatial capabilities. Visiting their website presents side-by-side listening demos of famous tracks, such as Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On," urging consumers to compare a dull stereo version against the full Atmos presentation. This comparison makes zero technical sense: standard web browsers lack native Atmos playback decoding, listeners browsing on typical setups do not possess an Atmos monitoring array, and the degraded "stereo" audio file offered on the site is not the mix found on standard streaming services. In truth, neither file remotely resembles the master Marvin Gaye and his recording engineers originally approved.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Atmos Compatibility Gauntlet accDescr: Flowchart illustrating the chain of compatibility checks required to get Dolby Atmos working, showing how accountability is passed around when issues occur.

subgraph Hardware["Hardware Chain"] A["Atmos Speaker / Soundbar"] --> B["Output-Compatible Device / TV"] end

subgraph Service["Software & Ecosystem"] B --> C["Supported Streaming Service / Tier"] C --> D["Certified Atmos Title / Content"] end

subgraph Failure["Consumer Roadblock"] D -->|Fails to deliver 3D bubble| E["Blame-Shifting: 'Buy More Gear'"] end ```

When consumer hardware fails to deliver on promises, accountability is passed around between hardware manufacturers, streaming services, and Dolby. Companies market single soundbars as self-contained "speaker sticks" that project an immersive acoustic dome over a couch. When that effect fails to materialize, consumers are led through a labyrinth of troubleshooting: checking output settings, verifying hardware handshakes, and upgrading subscriptions. As Benn Jordan puts it:

> “You just need to stop being such a cheapskate and upgrade more stuff. Surely it is one of those things, and not the fact that shooting a fucking force field of ghost speakers is physically impossible.”

Determined to test whether Atmos could meaningfully upgrade real-world living room audio without bias, Jordan skipped high-end review units from manufacturers and approached the market strictly as an everyday consumer. He set out to replace his decade-old $800 5.1 surround system with a mid-range Atmos setup priced between $500 and $1,000. He purchased the frequently praised Vizio Elevate M-Series 5.1.2 soundbar, featuring 13 individual drivers, adaptive height-firing satellite units, a wireless subwoofer, and DTS:X decoding.

- Dolby's web browser A/B demos compare altered, inferior stereo files against pseudo-spatial tracks without asterisks or disclosure. - Major game audio engines like Wwise and FMOD feature Atmos integration tools, yet very few console titles actively support the format due in part to steep licensing fees. - Setting up Atmos gaming required testing *No Man's Sky*, one of the limited titles officially confirmed by Microsoft and Dolby to support spatial output. - While the Vizio Elevate system yielded more intentional rear-channel activity in gaming and video than Jordan's aging 5.1 setup, it generated no perceived verticality or overhead audio envelope. - Standard stereo music playback through the soundbar deactivated 11 of the 13 drivers and bypassed the subwoofer entirely, forcing users to either endure hollow playback or activate low-grade DTS virtual reverb processing.

[15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=900s) The Architecture Problem and the Echo Reality Check

Overhead height cues failed completely during soundbar testing, exposing the severe architectural constraints inherent to up-firing bounce speakers. Unlike expectations formed by consumer marketing, the Vizio system lacked automated room calibration software, and systems that do include it make negligible acoustic differences. Up-firing bounce modules rely on flat, highly reflective ceilings roughly 10 feet high. Vaulted, textured, or irregular ceilings scatter the acoustic reflections, while ceiling fans disrupt sound dispersion, eliminating the virtual height effect entirely.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Up-Firing Soundbar Room Requirements vs Real Homes accDescr: Diagram contrasting Dolby's architectural requirements for ceiling bounce against real-world residential rooms.

subgraph Spec["Dolby Spec Requirements"] S1["Flat, hard ceiling (approx. 10 ft)"] S2["No obstructions (fans, beams)"] S3["Symmetrical room geometry"] end

subgraph Reality["Real Living Spaces"] R1["Vaulted or irregular ceilings"] R2["Ceiling fans for airflow"] R3["Absorptive materials / asymmetric open floorplans"] end

Spec -.->|"Fails in"| Reality ```

Jordan realized that following Dolby’s 60-page design guide would necessitate hiring contractors to install four to six direct-overhead in-ceiling speakers, pushing installation budgets well beyond $2,000 while forfeiting climate comfort. The only room in his house matching the required dimensional symmetry was his treated studio, whose acoustic absorption panels inherently prevent sound from reflecting off ceilings. Reflecting on the absurd gulf between everyday reality and luxury requirements, Jordan observed:

> “So in my case, if I go by Dolby's 60-page guide, call a contractor, and build a home theater designed for Atmos, then I can hear a helicopter zooming over my head. And you know what? If I were absurdly rich and didn't know that homeless people existed, maybe I would.”

The absurdity peaks on Dolby's own consumer portal, where the brand promotes an all-encompassing "multi-dimensional listening experience" emanating from standalone smart speakers like the Amazon Echo Studio. The notion of collapsing complex multi-channel spatial recordings into a budget tabletop cylinder stands in direct conflict with high-end audio engineering.

[17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) Testing Atmos Headphones, Trials, and Head-Tracking Earbuds

Turning away from room acoustics, Jordan moved to personal audio, pairing an Xbox Series X with the officially licensed Xbox Wireless Headset ($99). Even after paying for official hardware, the experience opened with immediate software paywalls: activating Dolby Atmos for Headphones required a proprietary companion app offering a seven-day trial before demanding a separate $15 licensing purchase. During spatial game trials in *No Man's Sky*, Jordan circled strange alien flora to assess positional tracking:

> “Some running circles around this farting plant, and the sound design is actually incredible, but I can't seem to tell the difference if it's behind me or in front of me.”

Rather than delivering a circular 3D soundfield, audio moving behind the listener merely produced audible codec dithering artifacts. Jordan subsequently tested the LG Tone Free T90 earbuds, which feature integrated head tracking. The mobile experience proved equally flawed. Streaming *Dune* on HBO Max locked the mix into a flat stereo plane that simply anchored its stereo image to a fixed point in space as his head turned, rather than unfolding a cinematic surround mix.

- The official Xbox Wireless Headset requires a standalone $15 purchase after a brief trial to retain Dolby Atmos decoding privileges. - Dolby Atmos on Windows failed to route functional Atmos audio down into the connected LG head-tracking earbuds even with the system app enabled. - Accessing Atmos music tracks on Amazon required upgrading from a baseline Prime subscription to Amazon Music Unlimited. - Atmos-encoded music mixes proved overwhelmingly gimmicky: multi-track elements like lead vocals were arbitrary panned in circles around the listener's head, exemplified by live Pink Floyd cuts where Roger Waters’ voice disorientingly swirled around the stereo field without musical justification.

[20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1200s) Listening to Stereo Mixes in Atmos and Testing AirPods Max

Benn Jordan describes the infuriating moment he accidentally left Dolby Atmos enabled on his system while playing the standard stereo mix of one of his own tracks. Hearing the algorithm mangle his production was an immediate shock: “I'm not gonna lie to you, my first reaction was to just pull my music off of the service.” He wryly jokes that maybe he should have accepted Dolby’s prior offer to mix his catalog in Atmos just so it would translate with the tonal balance it originally had in stereo. Stepping back, he reflects on how modern spatial tech turns listening into an expensive ordeal—a maze that costs hundreds of dollars in specialized hardware just to arrive at an experience that remains fundamentally compromised.

To give spatial audio the fairest possible shot, Benn tested the ecosystem using Apple Music paired with the AirPods Max. While acknowledging that AirPods Max are high-caliber, respectable headphones on their own merits, he found the resulting sound nearly identical to the disappointing experience on his LG setup. He pulls no punches about the sonic degradation that occurs when spatialization algorithms fold object-based formats down to two ears: “And AirPods are top-of-the-line, very decent headphones, by the way, so no complaints there, but you'd never know it if you only listen to Atmos mixes or object-oriented audio forced back into stereo, because it sounds like dog shit.”

He openly acknowledges his personal bias as an independent artist and self-described control freak. Over a long career releasing dozens of albums across multiple labels and physical formats, he has never hired or allowed outside engineers to mix or master his tracks, even when cutting vinyl lacquers. Because he is intimately attached to the exact balance of his work, any unwanted manipulation applied to his own mixes—or to classic records he knows by heart—triggers intense frustration.

- Benn's instinct upon hearing his stereo song artificially spatialized was to remove his entire catalog from the streaming platform. - The spatial playback test on Apple Music with AirPods Max reproduced the exact same sonic issues seen on consumer television and receiver setups. - Benn has engineered and mastered 100% of his discography without outsourcing mastering, making him particularly hostile to automated post-processing.

---

[21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) Choke Point Capitalism and the Value of an Open Standard

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Dolby Atmos Monetization Chain accDescr: Diagram illustrating how Dolby extracts licensing fees and equipment upgrades from creators, manufacturers, and listeners.

subgraph Creators ["Content Creators & Artists"] A["Musicians & Studios"] -->|"Hardware & Monitoring Upgrades"| B["Atmos Mixing Tools"] B -->|"Proprietary Workflow & Software Licenses"| Dolby["Dolby Licensing Hub"] end

subgraph Hardware ["Consumer Electronics"] C["Hardware Manufacturers (TVs, AVRs, Soundbars)"] -->|"Per-unit Royalty Fees"| Dolby end

subgraph EndUser ["Consumer Market"] Dolby -.->|"Marketing Hype & Format Standard"| D["Listeners & Consumers"] C -->|"Higher Device Retail Costs"| D end ```

Benn breaks down the underlying economics of spatial audio, characterizing the entire Atmos rollout as an aggressive corporate squeeze. “On the road to Atmos, every single step of the way, you need to spend more money on something,” he points out, labeling the ecosystem an example of choke point capitalism. Dolby commits vast sums of capital to establish its proprietary format as the mandatory industry baseline. In turn, independent musicians are pressured to invest heavily in multi-speaker studio configurations just to stay relevant. At the same time, any software developer or hardware manufacturer seeking to badge a product with an Atmos logo must pay royalties directly to Dolby. Those per-unit hardware licensing fees are inevitably shifted onto retail consumers through elevated purchase prices.

Benn poses a thought experiment: if Atmos had arrived as a royalty-free, open standard—similar to open-source ambisonic toolsets free of corporate marketing budgets and high licensing margins—would ordinary listeners have ever clamored to mount twelve speakers in their living rooms? Consumer tech history is filled with fads aggressively thrust upon buyers, but music consumption remains deeply tied to personal habits, emotional nostalgia, and physical rituals like vinyl. Benn warns his audience against feeling pressured into buying expensive theater gear or studio upgrades out of fear of missing out, summarizing his listening tests bluntly: “Every single Atmos mix I heard turned a good song into a tech gimmick.” He reminds listeners that “The best or proper way to listen to your favorite artist or your favorite album is defined by you, not the artist, and certainly not a multi-billion dollar conglomerate.”

He wraps up by apologizing if the breakdown came off overly rant-heavy and expresses hope that the video helps artists save their hard-earned money. He reminds viewers that his channel functions as an official non-profit organization and invites creators to join his online community, support the channel, and participate in monthly songwriting challenges.

- Equipment manufacturers must pay Dolby a set per-unit royalty fee on every product sold bearing the Atmos brand, inflating retail prices. - Open-source ambisonic encoders provide spatial capabilities without licensing tolls, highlighting that consumer demand for Atmos is manufactured by marketing rather than organic necessity. - Benn's channel operates as a non-profit entity providing monthly songwriting challenges and tech-focused community projects.

## Notable quotes > [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) Every single Atmos mix I heard turned a good song into a tech gimmick. — Benn Jordan

> [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) The best or proper way to listen to your favorite artist or your favorite album is defined by you, not the artist, and certainly not a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. — Benn Jordan

> [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) On the road to Atmos, every single step of the way, you need to spend more money on something. — Benn Jordan

## Mentioned Amazon Echo Studio, Amazon Music Unlimited, Apple, Apple AirPods Max, Apple Music, Benn Jordan, Dolby Atmos, Dolby Laboratories, DTS:X, Dune, FMOD, Google Glass, HBO Max, LG Tone Free T90, Marvin Gaye, Microsoft HoloLens, No Man's Sky, Pink Floyd, Roger Waters, Vizio Elevate M-Series, Wwise, Xbox Series X

## Video description Instead of being a Dolby Artist, I tried to experience ATMOS as a consumer.

💗 Support this channel and join an amazing community: http://www.patreon.com/bennjordan

👀 Stalk me on social media for more frequent updates: https://linktr.ee/BennJordan

🔴 Subscribe To My Streaming Channel. I stream weekly! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geaIEWGhgsI

⚡Those lovely custom acoustic panels in the background: https://psyacoustics.com

Timestomps: 0:00 - RED ALERT 0:50 - Intro 3:03 - Immersive Audio (In Theory) 9:04 - The ATMOS Business Model 11:15 - I Try an ATMOS Home Theater 17:07 - I Try ATMOS Headphones 21:32 - ATMOS Feels Like a Grift

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo)

中文简报

杜比迫使艺术家与消费者进行硬件升级该专有音频格式充当了一种企业许可方案，在提供降质、噱头化声音的同时，强迫音乐人和听众进行不必要的硬件消费。 Jordan对杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）背后的行业推动进行了批判性剖析，指出该技术与其说是一项声学突破，不如说是由“瓶颈资本主义”驱动的企业许可牟利手段。通过对5.1.2回音壁、支持全景声的耳机以及具备头部追踪功能的耳塞进行实测，他揭示了所谓天花板反射虚拟高度和沉浸式3D声场的营销宣传在现实声学限制下完全站不住脚。他强调，全景声混音往往会损害立体声的表现力，引入软件付费墙，并对创作者和消费者施加财务门槛。最终，Jordan敦促创作者与歌迷拒绝强制硬件升级，并在专有营销噱头面前，回归个性化、便捷的聆听习惯。 Benn Jordan自费1300美元，在家庭影院回音壁、头戴式耳机和耳塞上对杜比全景声进行了消费者测试，并得出结论：该格式在典型的日常消费环境中无法实现其宣传的高度感和空间沉浸感。 (0:00) 杜比的商业模式依赖于瓶颈资本主义，通过向硬件制造商、流媒体服务商和音频创作者收取许可费及单件版税，同时将这些成本转嫁给消费者。 (21:32) 向上发声的反射式全景声回音壁需要10英尺高、平整且无遮挡的天花板，这使得虚拟高度声道在装有吊扇、拱形天花板或有吸音材质的真实生活空间中基本无效。 (15:00) 空间音频耳机算法往往会损害音质，引入抖动杂音，并将经典的立体声制作变成令人困惑、充斥噱头的多声道混音。 (17:07)

Reading summary

Musician and sound designer Benn Jordan argues that the push to establish Dolby Atmos as the universal standard for music consumption is an artificial, corporate-driven initiative rooted in licensing fees rather than acoustic necessity. Evaluating the ecosystem through self-funded testing, Jordan contends that the format compromises audio fidelity for typical listeners while imposing financial gatekeeping on independent artists and consumers. Proprietary Architecture and Licensing Economics (5:00) Jordan explains that Dolby Atmos is an object-based delivery format rather than an inherent acoustic enhancement. Unlike traditional channel-based audio with fixed speaker assignments, Atmos treats sounds as virtual objects mapped in real time alongside a maximum of 10 bed channels within an overall 128-channel budget. Jordan points out that mathematically superior or open spatial solutions, such as ambisonics and DTS:X, have been sidelined by Dolby's marketing dominance. Because Dolby's corporate model relies on licensing fees from hardware manufacturers, streaming services, and creative software, Jordan argues the company must aggressively force consumer adoption to extract royalties across the entire supply chain. The Living Room Hardware and Acoustic Disconnect (10:00) To evaluate consumer claims, Jordan spent roughly $1,300 of his own money on mid-range retail gear, including a Vizio Elevate 5.1.2 soundbar. While marketing materials suggest that up-firing soundbars can bounce sound off ceilings to form a three-dimensional audio dome, Jordan found the setup produced no perceptible verticality or overhead cues. Up-firing systems require strict architectural conditions—namely flat, reflective, 10-foot ceilings clear of fans, beams, or acoustic dampening—which conflict with real-world living spaces. Furthermore, Dolby's official web browser A/B demos misrepresent the format by comparing Atmos tracks against artificially degraded stereo files, while marketing promotes spatial playback on single-point smart speakers like the Amazon Echo Studio. Personal Audio Degradation and Gimmick Mixes (17:07) Testing headphone solutions—including the Xbox Wireless Headset, LG Tone Free T90 head-tracking earbuds, and Apple AirPods Max with Apple Music—Jordan observed consistent sonic degradation rather than an expansive surround field. Binaural fold-downs of object-based files introduced audible codec artifacts, and head-tracking in films like *Dune* merely anchored a flat stereo image in place rather than rendering immersive spatial detail. In gaming, positional cues failed to distinguish whether sounds originated in front of or behind the listener. Jordan also criticized commercial Atmos music mixes, noting that spatialized releases often relied on disorienting gimmicks, such as panning lead vocals in unnatural circles around the listener. Choke Point Capitalism and Independent Artists (21:32) Jordan characterizes the Atmos ecosystem as an example of choke point capitalism that penalizes independent creators and casual consumers. Operating as a self-reliant artist who mixes and masters all of his own catalog, Jordan describes intense frustration when automated streaming algorithms arbitrarily altered the balance and tonal quality of his stereo tracks. Artists face immense pressure to invest in expensive multi-channel monitoring arrays, specialized software licenses, and hardware upgrades simply to remain compliant with distributor standards. Jordan warns that these costs are ultimately transferred to consumers through higher device prices and tiered streaming subscriptions for an experience that remains fundamentally compromised. Jordan concludes that music enjoyment is defined entirely by the listener's personal habits rather than industry-imposed hardware standards, noting that most consumers listen casually on devices unable to reproduce frequencies below 150 Hz. He advises independent musicians and listeners to resist marketing-driven pressure to purchase Atmos equipment, reiterating that uncompressed stereo remains an uncompromised medium for musical expression.

精炼阅读摘要

音乐制作人 Benn Jordan 指出，杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）作为一种专有音频格式，其实质是通过激进的商业营销构建“卡点资本主义”，迫使创作者与消费者承担昂贵的软硬件升级成本；而在实际消费场景中，该技术往往难以提供宣称的沉浸体验，甚至会破坏音乐作品原本的混音质感。技术解构与杜比商业授权机制 (5:00) Dolby Atmos 并非提升保真度的声学魔法，而是一种结合了传统声道与动态对象的专有编解码传输格式。与以扬声器为固定目标的传统声道音频，或是基于球谐函数且在声学数学上更精准优雅的高保真立体混响（Ambisonics）不同，Atmos 将声音封装为附带空间坐标与轨迹元数据的虚拟对象，由解码器根据现场扬声器进行实时渲染。然而，Atmos 将整个传输流限制在 128 个声道内，并最多仅允许 10 个固定声道（7.1.2）。若影院播放超出该配置的传统多声道格式就必须做出牺牲，这被质疑是迫使片厂全面采购其授权的商业手段。 Jordan 强调，尽管市场上存在像 DTS:X 这种免压缩且技术上更具优势的竞品，但杜比凭借营销统治了市场。杜比的核心商业模式高度依赖授权许可：硬件制造商、流媒体平台和制作室必须向杜比支付许可费，而硬件厂商支付的单机版税最终会转嫁给零售消费者。为了维持这套盈利链条，杜比必须通过强力的营销宣传制造消费端需求，从而牢固锁定产业链的各个环节。虚假宣传与物理声学限制的冲突 (10:00) 杜比在消费端的营销存在严重的误导性。例如其官方网站提供的对比试听，让用户在缺乏 Atmos 硬件和浏览器解码支持的情况下，拿劣质的人工立体声文件与全景声进行对比。在硬件层面，厂商宣称单个条形音箱（Soundbar）即可投射出沉浸式三维声穹，但声学规律决定了这种反射技术对空间有着苛刻的要求。在 Jordan 自费约 1300 美元搭建的消费级测试中，他采购了广受好评的 Vizio Elevate M 系列 5.1.2 回音壁。测试显示，向上发声的反射单元完全依赖约 10 英尺高的平整硬质天花板，现实生活中的拱顶、不规则吊顶、吸音材质甚至吊扇都会彻底打散声波，导致垂直方向的高度感完全丧失。若要完全达到杜比 60 页指南规定的标准，消费者必须雇佣施工队安装 4 到 6 个吸顶扬声器，改造花费将远超 2000 美元。而在普通条形音箱上播放传统立体声音乐时，系统甚至会关闭 13 个扬声单元中的 11 个并停用低音炮，迫使消费者在干瘪的声音或低劣的虚拟混响之间妥协。个人音频折衷与算法对混音的破坏 (17:07) 在耳机等个人音频设备上，Atmos 同样未能兑现其沉浸承诺，且伴随着层层消费壁垒。例如微软 Xbox 无线耳机在硬件购买后，激活 Dolby Atmos for Headphones 仅提供 7 天试用，之后必须额外支付 15 美元购买授权；在游戏测试中，环绕声并不能让人清晰辨别前后方位，声音移至身后时仅产生明显的编解码抖动杂音。而在搭配头部追踪的 LG 降噪耳机或 AirPods Max 测试流媒体电影和 Apple Music 时，空间音频算法仅仅是将立体声声相机械地固定在空间某点，并未展开真正的影院级环绕声场。更严重的问题在于算法对音乐内容的扭曲。许多重新混音的 Atmos 音乐流于技术噱头，例如在现场版 Pink Floyd 曲目中将主唱声音无意义地在听众头顶绕圈旋转。当 Jordan 听到自己的立体声混音作品被流媒体平台的 Atmos 算法强行空间化、破坏了原本的音色平衡时，他的第一反应是想将自己的全部曲库从平台上撤下。对象音频强行折叠回立体声耳机的过程，实质上降低了高规格耳机的声音还原表现。卡点资本主义与创作者面对的门槛 (21:32) 整个空间音频生态的推广过程展现了典型的“卡点资本主义”特征。行业向音乐人灌输必须全面换装监听音箱、声卡接口和虚拟乐器插件的焦虑，声称这是不可逆转的新行业标准。然而在现实中，绝大多数普通受众使用的播放设备在 150 Hz 以下就出现严重衰减，且多是在通勤、做饭等多任务场景中听歌。强求大众为了虚幻的“原汁原味”去购买昂贵的多声道设备，本质上是一种经济层面的门槛设立与贫穷羞辱。 Jordan 提出假设：如果空间音频是以类似开源高保真立体混响（Ambisonics）的形式免版税推出，脱离了企业的巨额营销资金和授权暴利，普通消费者根本不会主动要求在客厅悬挂十几个扬声器。行业批评者往往在受到质疑时转移论点或攻击质疑者的资历，但消费科技史上充满被强推后又消亡的噱头。大众对音乐的消费依赖于个人习惯与情感寄托，而非必须遵循大财团设定的消费路线图。 Benn Jordan 总结认为，当前杜比全景声音乐混音大多将优秀的歌曲变成了技术噱头。消费者与创作者不应因 FOMO（错失恐惧）而被迫购买昂贵的多声道影院设备或升级工作流，最理想、最正当的听歌方式应当由听众自身定义，而非由跨国财团的商业授权规则来决定。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由音乐制作人兼音频工程师 Benn Jordan 于 2023 年 6 月 5 日发布在 YouTube 频道上。视频简介表明，作者没有选择成为杜比赞助的合作艺术家，而是自费以纯粹普通消费者的视角，深入测试并体验杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）在实际生活中的真实表现。 ## TL;DR Benn Jordan 深入拆解了杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）背后的技术原理与商业模式，直指其并非革命性的音质提升，而是一套闭环抽成的专利授权生态。为了验证宣传话术的真伪，他自费购置了消费级 5.1.2 Soundbar、Xbox 无线耳机及 LG 空间音频耳机等设备进行实测，发现由于严苛的物理声学限制、混乱的格式降混算法以及生硬突兀的重混制作，Atmos 在普通家庭和耳机端的体验极差，甚至大幅劣于传统立体声。他警示音乐人与乐迷警惕这种“关卡资本主义”制造的技术与消费焦虑，并强调欣赏音乐的主导权始终在于听众自身，而非跨国企业的营销噱头。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期视频充满着尖锐辛辣的讽刺、毫不妥协的行业揭秘与客观严谨的技术剖析。Benn Jordan 的情绪曲线从开篇幽默嘲弄营销话术，逐渐演变成面对繁琐设备壁垒与崩坏音质时的极度沮丧与愤怒，最终沉淀为一种充满诚意、捍卫独立音乐创作初衷的理性呼吁。观众在观看过程中不仅能感受到专业音频从业者拆解技术黑箱的畅快淋漓，更能深切体会到普通消费者在面对消费主义陷阱时的荒诞与无力感。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) Benn Jordan 拒绝商业赞助，自费约 1300 美元采购中端回音壁与耳机等消费级设备，实测验证杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）在大众家庭与个人场景中的真实体验。 - [12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=720s) 测试显示消费级 Atmos Soundbar 在播放占主流的传统立体声音乐时，13 个扬声器单元仅有 2 个发声且低音炮不介入，导致日常听音体验相比传统 5.1 系统严重倒退。 - [17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) 耳机端与流媒体中的全景声体验充斥着二次收费壁垒（如 Xbox 额外收取 15 美元授权），且多数混音仅机械抽取人声绕头旋转，破坏了经典作品原本的声场平衡。 - [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) 全景声的商业本质被定性为典型的“关卡资本主义”：杜比通过向音乐人、开发工具、硬件厂商和消费者全链条抽取专利税与授权费，制造出被资本营销绑架的伪需求。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) 指责普通听众缺乏专业回放设备是一种经济门槛与阶级优越感，绝大多数乐迷的日常硬件连 150 Hz 以下低频都无法重现。 - [03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=183s) Dolby Atmos 并非直接改善音质的声学魔法，而是一种结合了基底通道与声音对象的私有文件编解码分发格式与专利商标。 - [03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=183s) 相比杜比庞大商业营销推动的 Atmos，技术规格与采样性能更优秀的竞品（如 DTS:X）或开源高阶声场（Ambisonics）因缺乏资本炒作而被大众忽视。 - [07:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=435s) 杜比依赖专利授权模式盈利，通过反向给终端消费者灌输全景声焦虑，迫使影视公司、录音棚和硬件厂商不得不购买其昂贵授权。 - [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=600s) 杜比官网用于对比全景声与立体声的试听演示存在误导：浏览器既无法解码 Atmos，用于对照的立体声版本也被刻意劣化以拉开差距。 - [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=900s) 依托天花板向上反射实现天空声道的消费级硬件面临不可克服的物理壁垒，需要纯平硬质天花板且严禁吊扇，普通居住空间难以达成。 - [12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=720s) 在消费级 5.1.2 Soundbar 上，传统双声道音乐无法正常调用全部单元与低音炮，反而彻底毁掉了客厅作为专注听音环境的价值。 - [17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) 耳机端全景声伴随重重订阅与付费陷阱，实际听感常表现为数字化抖动失真，在前后空间定位上无法提供清晰的声场辨识。 - [17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) 众多老歌的 Atmos 重混版本缺乏艺术合理性，往往只是为了展示技术而将人声等核心元素机械抽离并在听众脑后盘旋。 - [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1200s) 将立体声原声输入 Atmos 算法会导致声场严重变形，即便在 AirPods Max 这类高素质硬件上，强行降混立体声的对象音频听感依然极其糟糕。 - [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) 杜比商业生态体现为“关卡资本主义”，从创作者工具、工作室改建到每台消费硬件出货量均被层层抽税，最终由终端消费者买单。 - [22:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1370s) 音乐欣赏的核心在于个人情感与生活习惯，听音标准的定义权属于听众自身，而非由跨国商业巨头的技术营销来裁定。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) 红色预警：杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）与沉浸式音频的现实鸿沟 Benn Jordan 开门见山地用极具讽刺意味的口吻拉响了“红色预警”，宣布音乐人和听众眼前的规则已经彻底改变：杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）正被强推为歌迷梦寐以求的“全新行业标准”。对于音乐制作人而言，这意味着必须升级全套工作流——从扬声器、耳机、音频接口、VST 插件到不得不购买一台苹果电脑（Mac），甚至不得不将毕生所学的混音与工程知识统统扔出窗外；如果囊中羞涩，行业潜台词便是“那你去变得更有钱吧”。对于普通乐迷来说，营销宣传同样宣称这项技术终于能让人听到艺术家原汁原味的创作意图，代价则是切换高阶流媒体订阅、购买 7 到 40 个扬声器以及全新接收机，并准备一间完全符合杜比严苛规格的房间，还得在听歌时永远坐在同一个“帝王位（Sweet Spot）”上不动。面对任何批评 Atmos 就会遭遇“不断推移的标准靶标”和专业资格质疑的舆论环境，Benn 指出自己的底气并非凭空而来：他多年来一直在全球各地的极限环境中实地录制三维自然声景，并为天文馆穹顶电影（Fulldome）等大型球幕系统编写与混制过多声道沉浸式配乐，对沉浸式声音设计有长足的实践。但他指出，音乐行业如今回避的最大现实是：绝大多数乐迷使用的设备连 150 Hz 以下的低频都无法重现，人们听歌往往是在通勤、做饭或者处理杂务时，将音乐作为背景声。制作人追求极致的声音完美主义固然可以理解，但指责听众没有用特定设备聆听，本质上是一种令人反感的阶级优越感与经济门槛限制（Financial gatekeeping and poor shaming）。Benn 明确强调了自己的态度：“如果听音乐能让你感到快乐，那你的聆听方式就是完美的。” - 批评杜比全景声常遭遇行业内资格打压与逻辑转移，但 Benn Jordan 本人拥有深厚的多声道制作背景与天文馆穹顶配乐经验。 - 绝大多数大众用户的日常播放硬件物理限制极大，无法有效重现 150 Hz 以下的声音频段。 - Benn 明确拒绝将欣赏音乐的资格与高昂硬件绑定，为此他自掏腰包约 1300 美元预算，不带任何赞助，完全以普通消费者的视角来检验 Atmos 的真实体验。 --- ### [03:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=183s) 心理声学、格式本质与三维沉浸式音频的分类从物理与理论层面剖析，声学看似只是物体发声、两只耳朵接收的机械过程，但其真正的复杂性源自心理声学（Psychoacoustics）——人类大脑依靠双耳间极微弱的时间差（ITD）、声级差（ILD）以及环境反射声来定位空间。所有的空间音频技术，本质上都是在黑客入侵（Hack）人类演化了数百万年的听觉系统，诱骗大脑误以为自己置身于一个并不存在的空间之中。然而，除了全沉浸式的 VR 或天文馆穹顶，这种欺骗存在根本性缺陷。这解释了为何环绕声技术推行数十年，美欧绝大多数家庭依然只用电视自带扬声器听声音；从 3D 电视、曲面电视到各类 AR/VR 头显，消费者最终往往还是倾向于最轻松、便捷的内容消费方式。Benn 进一步澄清，Dolby Atmos 并非某种直接改善音质的“魔法”，其本质是一项专利和注册商标，代表一种运行在文件编解码（Encoding/Decoding）流程中的私有音频分发格式，地位类似于 mp3 或 QuickTime。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 沉浸式音频的核心分类架构 accDescr: 对比通道式音频、对象式音频与高保真 Ambisonics 的处理模式 subgraph ChannelAudio["基于通道的音频 (Channel-based)"] C1["固定物理通道"] --> C2["指定扬声器播放 (例如 5.1 / 7.1 / 7.2.4)"] end subgraph ObjectAudio["基于对象的音频 (Object-based)"] O1["独立音频对象"] O2["空间元数据 (位置 / 音量 / 运动轨迹)"] O1 & O2 --> O3["实时模拟渲染引擎 (解码器按实际扬声器算位)"] end subgraph Ambisonics["高保真双耳/球谐声学 (Ambisonics)"] A1["四通道以上声场捕捉"] --> A2["球谐函数算法解析 (经典心理声学黑客手段)"] end ``` 为了厘清概念混乱，Benn 详细拆解了沉浸式音频（Immersive Audio）的主要分类与实现方式： 1. **基于通道的音频（Channel-based Audio）：** 音频文件内包含多个固定音轨并硬性对应特定扬声器。例如标准的 5.1 系统包含 6 个物理通道（左前、中置、右前、左环绕、右环绕以及 0.1 超低音音轨）；7.1 增加了两侧通道；而 5.1.2 或 7.2.4 则加入了吸顶天花板扬声器（或向上反射声单元），像 7.2.4 意味着多达 13 个音频分轨同时播放。这种繁重的物理布线要求，正是它难以被主流家庭采纳的原因。 2. **基于对象的音频（Object-based Audio）：** 声音被拆解为独立的音频对象（Audio Objects），每个对象都附带详细的元数据，记录其空间三维坐标、音量及实时运动轨迹。解码器内部相当于在运行一个轻量级的实时模拟引擎，无论输出端有多少扬声器，都能即时计算出最符合声场定位的分配方案。 3. **高保真高阶声场（Ambisonics）：** 介于两者之间的奇妙存在，也是 Benn 在户外录音时常用的技术。它仅用四个麦克风单元组成的阵列记录声场，便能利用球谐函数（Spherical Harmonics）算法对空间反射和人耳感知进行精密模拟，其逼真度与可重现性自 1970 年代诞生起就堪称工程奇迹。 - Dolby Atmos 实际是通道与对象的混合体：它将传统的通道式音轨称为“基底（Beds）”，并支持独立的声音对象，整个系统的上限为 128 个并发通道。 - 在全景声系统的通道分配中，基底通道最高被限制在 10 个（即 9.1 布局）；若要回放老标准的 7.1.4 环绕声混音，系统必须牺牲舍弃其中的两个通道，这种限制让人怀疑是杜比迫使电影工业全面转向并购买其授权的商业手段。 - 在发烧友圈层中，早有如 DTS:X 这种在技术规格与采样性能上更加先进的竞品格式，但由于缺乏杜比庞大的营销与渠道推广能力，几乎鲜为普通大众所知。 --- ### [07:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=435s) 商业模式与强推逻辑：授权生态下的营销陷阱杜比实验室（Dolby Labs）的核心盈利模式建立在专利授权（Licensing）之上，这决定了 Atmos 的推广必然伴随着某种自上而下的“强行灌输”。Benn 回忆数年前曾有一家公关营销机构主动联系他，提议出资跟拍他在杜比全景声环境下混音整张新专辑的全过程。这个项目类似杜比的“艺术家聚焦（Artist Spotlight）”宣传计划——镜头前音乐人戴着监听设备，在第一次听到自己的作品被转换成 Atmos 时往往露出难以置信、目瞪口呆的赞叹神情。Benn 最终回绝了该合作，因为他深知这类营销背后的套路。 Benn 直言，杜比实验室无疑在研发上投入了巨额的时间与资金，但如果没有足够高的商业普及度，所有研发成本就无法收回。为了让音频设备制造商、连锁影院、电影制片厂以及商业录音棚持续支付昂贵的授权费用，杜比必须反向在终端消费者群体中制造出一种“全景声是必不可少的未来体验”的饥饿感。然而，正是为了实现这一目的，杜比面向大众的宣传手法开始变得扑朔迷离、充满误导。Benn 对这种商业推动逻辑做出了极为一针见血的总结： > “归根结底，只有消费者想要全景声，音频硬件制造商、电影院、电影制片厂和录音棚才能看到花钱购买授权的价值。而正是在这套营销推销过程中，事情开始变得极其操蛋。” ### [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=600s) 官网对比的虚假宣传与家庭影院设备的推卸责任如果访问杜比（Dolby）官网体验杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos），用户会看到一些耳熟能详的经典曲目，例如马文·盖伊（Marvin Gaye）的《What's Going On》，网站提供“Atmos 版本”与所谓“枯燥乏味的普通立体声（stereo）版本”的在线试听对比。Benn Jordan 指出，这种对比从根本上就毫无逻辑：首先，普通用户的电脑浏览器根本没有连接真正的 Atmos 硬件系统；其次，绝大多数浏览器本身就不支持 Atmos 解码。更恶劣的是，网站上拿来充当靶子的立体声版本根本不是流媒体平台上的正常混音版本，这两个音频文件与当年马文·盖伊本人及其混音工程师确认批准的声音相去甚远。网页上甚至连一个星号说明或隐藏的小字注解都没有，完全是在直白、大胆地误导消费者。这一虚假宣传只是混乱商业链条的冰山一角。一旦硬件制造商卷入其中，各方对音质与体验的责任追究就开始像“传热山芋（hot potato）”一样被四处推诿。厂商通常把 Atmos 宣传为一根能够向沙发上方投射沉浸式“声场气泡（bubble of sound）”的条形音箱（Soundbar）。但当消费者花钱买回家却完全感受不到这种沉浸感时，往往陷入无休止的排查泥潭：你的播放设备端口兼容吗？你用的流媒体服务支持 Atmos 吗？你串流音频的具体设备端适配该格式吗？消费主义的潜台词变成了：你只是太抠门了，必须花更多钱升级更多硬件。正如 Benn Jordan 辛辣吐槽的那样：“Surely it is one of those things, and not the fact that shooting a fucking force field of ghost speakers is physically impossible.”（这肯定是上述某个环节的问题，而绝不可能是因为‘发射一个由幽灵扬声器构成的该死力场’在物理上是根本不可能的。）为客观验证新技术能否切实提升听歌与家庭影院的质量，Benn 决定放下专业音频从业者的傲慢，完全以普通消费者的视角采购设备。他客厅里原有的设备是一套十年前花费约 800 美元购置的中端 5.1 声道音响，表现尚可。尽管不少音频大厂主动提出寄送高规格高端 Atmos 设备供他评测，但他一一回绝，给自己设定了在 1000 美元以内、最好接近 500 美元的预算区间，去寻找消费科技媒体、音频发烧友论坛及 YouTube 博主一致推荐的中端 Atmos 方案。 - 官网对比试听中，不仅浏览器不支持 Atmos 解码，且用于对比的立体声版本亦被严重劣化，完全偏离母带原版。 - 硬件端将沉浸感落空归咎于线缆、流媒体订阅层级或硬件兼容性，掩盖向上发声反射技术的物理局限。 - Benn 决定自费购买消费级设备，将预算锁定在 500 至 1000 美元之间。 --- ### [12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=720s) 消费级 5.1.2 Soundbar 实测：游戏、观影与立体声音乐的巨大倒退经过广泛对比，Benn 锁定了在消费电子与部分发烧友圈子中备受好评的 Vizio Elevate 系列 M-Series 5.1.2 Soundbar。该系统拥有 13 个扬声器单元、自适应向上发声卫星箱、无线低音炮，并支持 Atmos 和 DTS:X。他花费约 500 美元将其购入并连接到系统上。接入设备后，困扰接踵而至。Benn 发现目前原生支持 Atmos 的游戏其实少之又少，尽管 Wwise、Fmod 以及几乎所有主流游戏引擎早已集成了 Atmos 工具包，但高昂的商业授权费可能劝退了大量开发商。为了测试，他特意下载了获得杜比与微软官方认证支持 Atmos 的《无人深空》（*No Man's Sky*）。在实际游玩以及观看电影、电视节目时，低音炮体积缩水、功放功率下降导致整体震撼感不如原有的 5.1 系统，虽然头顶和脚下完全没有出现所谓“沉浸式声音气泡”，但后置环绕卫星箱的调用频率与声场意图明显更高。Benn 认为这主要归功于杜比对混音师严格的混音规范限制，而这种声场分离在传统的 5.1 系统上本就完全能够实现，只是 5.1 如今失去了商业炒作价值，不再受厂商重视。更令人沮丧的是内容生态的强行绑架——为了体验 Atmos，用户不得不去玩原本不玩的游戏，去看原本不看的剧集，甚至被迫掏钱升级游戏主机或开通 Netflix 最高档会员。随后对立体声音乐的测试则彻底演变成了一场灾难。当播放普通的双声道立体声音乐时，整个 13 单元的系统竟然只让其中的两个扬声器发声，其余单元全部静音。系统里唯一能强行拉动所有喇叭工作的办法，是开启某种老旧的 DTS 虚拟房间编解码器，但其效果只是给所有音乐糊上一层粗糙劣质的混响。这意味着用户花了大笔金钱与精力升级硬件、订阅平时根本不用的流媒体平台后，面对全网 99% 的主流音乐，连低音炮都无法参与工作。正如 Benn 坦言：“Solely as a consumer, this is very annoying, because if I keep this system around and don't return it, then that means that my living room will no longer be used to intentfully listen to music.”（仅仅作为一名消费者，这非常令人恼火，因为如果我留下这套系统不退货，就意味着我的客厅再也无法用来专注地欣赏音乐了。） ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 消费级 Atmos 条形音箱体验落差流程 accDescr: 展示消费者购买 Atmos 设备后在游戏、影视和传统音乐播放中遇到的限制与体验断层。 subgraph Hardware["硬件与输入端"] A["Vizio Elevate 5.1.2 (13单元/无线低音/反射卫星箱)"] end subgraph Content["内容适配门槛"] B["游戏/影视测试 (如《无人深空》/ Netflix 高级会员)"] C["传统立体声音乐 (占日常曲库 99%)"] end subgraph Reality["实际输出表现"] D["后置卫星箱活跃度提升 (头顶/脚下无垂直维度声场)"] E["仅有2个扬声器发声 低音炮无法介入/DTS混响劣化"] end Hardware --> Content B --> D C --> E ``` --- ### [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=900s) 物理法则的壁垒：天花板反射与严苛的建筑声学要求在尝试排查为何始终听不到头顶上方（overhead）的声音时，各方的推诿再次出现，根本无法界定究竟是杜比、亚马逊音乐（Amazon Music）、Vizio 还是微软的问题。Benn 发现，市面上声称依靠扬声器向上发声反射来实现天空声道的消费级 Atmos 设备，绝大多数并不具备有效的自动声学校准程序；即便某些设备宣称带有校准功能，实际起到的修正作用也微乎其微。查阅杜比官方资料与故障排除指南后，Benn 发现天花板反射方案对房间物理条件的要求极其苛刻：天花板必须是平整的硬表面，且高度需在 10 英尺（约 3 米）左右。Benn 客厅的挑高及不规则穹顶结构使声波反射完全失效。官方针对挑高或斜顶天花板给出的替代方案是：在天花板上开孔安装 4 到 6 个物理吸顶扬声器，而这会直接让预算飙升至 2000 美元以上；此外，房间内绝不能安装吊扇，以免叶片打散反射声波，这意味着客厅必须放弃空气流通。更讽刺的是，Benn 评估了整栋房屋，唯一完全符合杜比最低空间尺寸要求的房间是他的个人专业工作室，但那个房间已经做满了深度声学吸收处理，吸音系数极高，根本不可能利用天花板反射声波。Benn 讽刺道：“So in my case, if I go by Dolby's 60-page guide, call a contractor, and build a home theater designed for Atmos, then I can hear a helicopter zooming over my head.”（所以在我的情况下，如果我严格照着杜比长达 60 页的指南去做，请一个承包商专门建造一个为 Atmos 设计的家庭影院，那我确实就能听到直升机从头顶掠过了。）他随即挖苦杜比官网的宣传语——竟然声称连小巧的 Amazon Echo 智能音箱都能提供多维度听觉体验，这无疑是对严肃声学工程的戏弄。 - 物理反射式天空声道要求约 10 英尺高的纯平硬质天花板，且室内严禁安装吸顶吊扇。 - 传统空间若要获得可听的天空声道，必须向天花板硬性加装 4 至 6 只实体扬声器，改造预算超 2000 美元。 - 专业吸音环境因吸音系数过高而无法反射声波，而普通客厅又因结构破碎而无法有效聚焦声束。 --- ### [17:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1027s) 耳机端 Atmos 与头部追踪：付费陷阱、混乱声场与生硬混音家庭影院方案折戟后，Benn 将目光转向了耳机领域。他使用的是 Xbox Series X 主机，在寻找官方认证兼容 Atmos 的耳机时过程十分繁琐混乱，最终他选购了获得杜比官方背书且售价 99 美元的 Xbox 官方无线耳机。然而开箱后他立刻遇到了软件收费关卡：该耳机仅提供 7 天的 Dolby Atmos 试用期，试用期过后用户必须额外支付 15 美元购买授权才能继续使用全景声功能。在实际试听宣传片中宣称的“全球首款基于声音对象的影院级音频”演示时，环绕声象完全没有出现，只有编码器试图将声音推向脑后时产生的数字化抖动失真；在游戏中绕着发声物体打转时，完全无法辨别声源是在正前方还是正后方。随后，Benn 进一步自费购买了售价昂贵、在宣传片中吹得天花乱坠的 LG T90 降噪耳机，试图体验空间音频（Spatial Audio）与头部追踪（head tracking）功能。结果实际体验依然极其繁琐且充满断层： 1. **连接与生态割裂**：在 Windows 平台上即便安装了 7 天试用版的 Dolby Access，也无法让这套耳机正常激活 Atmos；在手机端通过 HBO Max（Max）观看支持 Atmos 的电影《沙丘》（*Dune*）时，输出给耳机的却是一套被生硬绑定在空间某一侧的普通立体声混音。 2. **附加订阅壁垒**：Benn 下载了其 Amazon Prime 会员包含的 Amazon Music，却被告知 Atmos 音频属于专有权益，必须再次加钱升级至 Amazon Music Unlimited 订阅。 3. **生硬的混音制作**：在曲库中费力搜寻有限的 Atmos 音乐试听后，Benn 发现几乎没有一首全景声混音能胜过原始的立体声混音。大量老歌的所谓 Atmos 重混版，仅仅是将人声等核心元素粗暴抽离出来，毫无逻辑地在听众脑袋周围机械旋转。Benn 更是愤怒地提到在听平克·弗洛伊德（Pink Floyd）的现场录音时，主唱罗杰·沃特斯（Roger Waters）的声音竟然直接在他脑门上方违背常理地乱飞。对于耳机端 Atmos 的混音现状，Benn 给出了极为负面的评价：“It seems like in a lot of songs they just took one element, like the vocals, and then just panned them around your head for no fucking reason at all, apparently.”（看起来在很多歌曲里，他们只是把某一个元素——比如人声——提取出来，然后完全没有任何他妈的理由，就硬生生让它在你脑袋周围转圈。）这种粗暴破坏经典音乐声场平衡的做法，不仅没有带来身临其境的美感，反而暴露了其作为纯粹商业噱头的本质。 ### [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1200s) 自制音乐的灾难性降级与耳机体验 Benn Jordan 在测试过程中不小心把杜比全景声（Dolby Atmos）模式保持在开启状态，并用它播放了一首自己创作、混音的立体声原版歌曲。那一瞬间的听感让他彻底破防，甚至爆了粗口。他坦白地表示，自己听到那种声音后的第一反应就是想立刻把所有的个人音乐从流媒体平台上全线下架。他语带讽刺地自嘲说，或许自己当初真的应该接受杜比的赞助提议，把歌曲重混成全景声版本，这样它至少还能勉强维持住原本立体声就该有的正常声音。整个体验就像是花了大把钞票买来一场头痛：为了听一首歌或看一部电影，用户必须在各种设置和昂贵设备堆砌的迷宫里艰难穿梭，然而到了终点，体验却糟糕透顶。为了验证不同硬件上的表现，Benn Jordan 随后拿出了顶级的 AirPods Max，并在 Apple Music 上进行了试听。然而，耳机里传来的音乐质感与之前在 LG 电视及回音壁上的糟糕体验几乎毫无二致。他特别强调，AirPods Max 本身是一款素质极佳的顶级耳机，硬件本身无可挑剔，但如果用户只用它来听 Atmos 混音，或者听那些被硬生生压缩回双声道立体声的面向对象音频（Object-Oriented Audio），就完全无法体会到这款耳机的好处。Benn Jordan 毫不客气地给出判决：“如果你只听全景声混音，或者听那些被强行塞回立体声的面向对象音频，你根本无法察觉它的优秀，因为那听起来简直就像坨狗屎。” Benn Jordan 进一步向观众剖析了自己对音频遭到篡改为何如此愤怒。作为一名独立音乐人，他在各类唱片厂牌和不同格式下载体上发行过数十张专辑，但他从未聘请、甚至从未允许过任何其他人来为自己的音乐做后期母带处理，哪怕是压制黑胶唱片母盘时也是如此。他坦承自己在创作掌控上有着近乎病态的强迫症控制欲。因此，当他听到杜比的技术算法肆意扭曲、摧残自己倾注心血制作的混音，亦或是毁掉那些大家耳熟能详的经典曲目时，他的内心自然会产生难以抑制的剧烈反弹。 - 误开 Atmos 试听自身作品时，立体声声场被算法严重打乱，逼得作者一度想从平台撤回自己的全部作品。 - AirPods Max 与 Apple Music 的搭配在回放 Atmos 降混立体声时，声音依旧劣化严重，无法发挥高端硬件的声学优势。 - Benn Jordan 始终亲自完成所有专辑的录音、混音和母带，对音乐细节的极高掌控欲使他对外部算法造成的失真极为敏感。 --- ### [21:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1292s) 关卡资本主义：杜比的全链条收费游戏在深入剖析杜比的商业模式时，Benn Jordan 直指其本质正是教科书级别的“关卡资本主义”（Choke Point Capitalism）。杜比公司正砸下巨额资金，企图将 Atmos 包装成业界必须遵守的新一代行业标准。在这个生态链条中，每一个环节都在被层层剥削：音乐人被行业灌输焦虑，以为自己必须自掏腰包砸大钱升级全套多声道混音工作室才能跟上时代；任何想要加入 Atmos 标识的软硬件工具链，都必须向杜比支付昂贵的工作流授权费；而消费电子硬件制造商每售出一台带有 Atmos 认证标志的设备，都要向杜比上交一笔固定的专利版税，最终这些高昂的额外成本又全部转嫁到了普通消费者和听众头上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 杜比全景声商业生态链 accDescr: 展示杜比通过标准垄断在音乐人、开发者、硬件商和消费者各个环节收取费用的商业链路。 subgraph DolbyCorp ["杜比公司 (Dolby)"] A["巨额营销与标准制定"] end subgraph CreationChain ["内容创作端"] B["音乐人与混音工作室 (被迫斥巨资升级全景声硬件)"] C["软硬件开发者 (支付全景声工具链与工作流授权)"] end subgraph ConsumerChain ["硬件与消费端"] D["设备制造商 (按出货量向杜比支付设备版税)"] E["最终消费者与听众 (承担溢价，忍受劣化体验)"] end A -->|"推行专有标准"| B A -->|"收取工作流授权费"| C A -->|"抽取每台设备版税"| D B -->|"产出全景声格式"| E C -->|"提供认证软硬件"| D D -->|"转嫁高额硬件成本"| E ``` 面对这种由资本强力推动的产业狂欢，Benn Jordan 提出了一个发人深省的假设性质问。他设想，如果全景声技术是一个开源标准，就像现存的开源高阶环绕声（Ambisonics）编码器一样，没有高额的授权许可费，允许任何制造商和开发者自由定制，且完全没有商业利润空间和天价营销预算的助推，大众和市场还会像今天这样趋之若鹜吗？Benn Jordan 明确指出：“如果全景声是这样一个没有利润空间、没有营销预算的开源技术标准，你觉得你还会想在客厅里搞这种级别的沉浸式音频吗？”商业资本之所以强行向消费电子市场塞入这项技术，纯粹是因为有利可图。 - 杜比全景声生态构成了一整套闭环的抽取式商业模式，从创作者工具、工作室声学改造一直抽税到消费级硬件。 - 硬件制造商每生产一件带有杜比认证的产品，都必须按台向杜比缴纳专利税，直接推高了消费端价格。 - 缺乏实际需求驱动的技术常常借助垄断性营销被强行灌输给大众，而开源同类技术因缺乏资本炒作则长期无人问津。 --- ### [22:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1370s) 技术噱头与真正的音乐体验回顾消费电子的发展史，这绝非厂商第一次强行向用户灌输不成熟的技术，也绝不会是最后一次。然而音乐与一般电子产品不同，它与人类的情感和怀旧情结有着极深的羁绊，这也是为什么在数字流媒体极为普及的今天，依然有大量乐迷痴迷于收集黑胶唱片。Benn Jordan 提醒所有听众，欣赏音乐最完美的方式应当由听众自己决定，而不是由创作者强加，更不应该由一家市值数十亿美元的跨国商业巨头来指手画脚。Benn Jordan 总结道：“聆听你最喜爱的艺术家或专辑的最佳方式，是由你来定义的，而不是由艺术家决定，更绝不是由一家价值数十亿美元的企业集团说了算。” 对于那些正在犹豫是否要掏空积蓄升级家庭影院、改造多声道家庭工作室，或是因为负担不起全景声设备而感到落伍与焦虑的人，Benn Jordan 劝诫大家在花钱之前一定要三思。在他看来，所谓的全景声升级在绝大多数情况下完全是得不偿失的伪需求。他在整场评测中听到的每一个全景声音乐混音，本质上都未能提升艺术表达，反而无一例外地“把一首原本优秀的歌曲变成了一个廉价的技术噱头”。在视频的尾声，Benn Jordan 缓和了激动的语气，为自己带有强烈个人情绪的吐槽向观众致歉，希望能为正在纠结的技术发烧友和音乐人提供真实的参考。他补充说明，自己的频道已经正式转型为非营利组织，观众可以通过加入社区来支持此类没有商业赞助绑架的深度内容。社区内聚集了许多志同道合的独立音乐人和科技创作者，并定期举办每月原创音乐挑战赛。最后，他以标志性的口吻鼓励大家保持独立思考，继续坚持创作，并向观众道别。 - 音乐欣赏的核心是个人情感投射而非技术参数，听音习惯的价值主导权属于听众自身。 - 现阶段大部分流行音乐的杜比全景声混音缺乏声学合理性，沦为了为硬件卖点服务的营销噱头。 - Benn Jordan 的频道已注册为非营利实体，依靠社区支持维持内容独立性，避免被商业利益集团审查或绑架。 ## Notable quotes > [22:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=1370s) 聆听你最喜爱的艺术家或专辑的最佳方式，是由你来定义的，而不是由艺术家决定，更绝不是由一家价值数十亿美元的企业集团说了算。 — Benn Jordan > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo&t=0s) 如果听音乐能让你感到快乐，那你的聆听方式就是完美的。 — Benn Jordan ## Mentioned Benn Jordan, 杜比实验室, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Marvin Gaye, What's Going On, Vizio Elevate M-Series 5.1.2, 无人深空, 微软, Netflix, Amazon Music, Amazon Music Unlimited, Amazon Echo, Xbox Series X, Xbox 官方无线耳机, LG T90, HBO Max, 沙丘, Pink Floyd, Roger Waters, AirPods Max, Apple Music, Apple Mac ## Video description Instead of being a Dolby Artist, I tried to experience ATMOS as a consumer. 💗 Support this channel and join an amazing community: http://www.patreon.com/bennjordan 👀 Stalk me on social media for more frequent updates: https://linktr.ee/BennJordan 🔴 Subscribe To My Streaming Channel. I stream weekly! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geaIEWGhgsI ⚡Those lovely custom acoustic panels in the background: https://psyacoustics.com Timestomps: 0:00 - RED ALERT 0:50 - Intro 3:03 - Immersive Audio (In Theory) 9:04 - The ATMOS Business Model 11:15 - I Try an ATMOS Home Theater 17:07 - I Try ATMOS Headphones 21:32 - ATMOS Feels Like a Grift [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dw3aKbw5Wo)

Source quotes

[22:50] Benn Jordan: 聆听你最喜爱的艺术家或专辑的最佳方式，是由你来定义的，而不是由艺术家决定，更绝不是由一家价值数十亿美元的企业集团说了算。 [0:00] Benn Jordan: 如果听音乐能让你感到快乐，那你的聆听方式就是完美的。

Source quotes

[21:32] Benn Jordan: Every single Atmos mix I heard turned a good song into a tech gimmick. [21:32] Benn Jordan: The best or proper way to listen to your favorite artist or your favorite album is defined by you, not the artist, and certainly not a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. [21:32] Benn Jordan: On the road to Atmos, every single step of the way, you need to spend more money on something.

Original transcript

[0:00] Musicians, Red Oort, everything's about to change. Atmos is the new standard. that your listeners want. You're going to have to upgrade your speakers, your headphones, your audio interface, your BST plug-ins, and you're probably going to have to buy a Mac. And you might just have to take everything that you know about mixing and engineering and throw it out the goddamn window. And if you can't afford to do all that, then... get richer. Music fans, I have some great news. Technology has finally allowed you to listen to music the way that your favorite musicians want you to hear them. An immersive 3D sound with Dolby Atmos. And all you need to do is switch or upgrade streaming services, buy somewhere between 7 and 40 speakers and a new receiver. And of course, you're going to want to have a room in your house that fits Dolby's specifications, and you're always going to want to sit in the exact same spot when you listen to music. But otherwise, you're not listening to music the way that it's meant to be this here can of worms, I notice that a lot of times when somebody criticizes Atmos, the goalposts just keeps moving or their credibility is doubted. So I'm just gonna say it. If you are heavily invested in Dolby Atmos, this video probably isn't going to make you happy, and I'm sure YouTube is recommending you other videos that will validate your investment. Or watch this instead. So anyway, immersive audio is definitely not new to me. If you've been a subscriber of this channel for a while, then you've probably watched me go to insane places to archive three-dimensional soundscapes of natural environments. I've written and mixed a lot of immersive scores for lots of crazy sound systems, some of which you can experience yourself if your local planetarium is licensed dome films that I've most mixing rooms and studios, and yeah, it is cool stuff. I absolutely hate doing this part of the video where I have to validate myself for the viewer, but otherwise why would you listen to me, but it really just feels like I'm bragging and I fucking hate it. The big elephant in the room for most musicians is that the majority of our fans are listening to music on devices that can't even reproduce bass sounds under 150 hertz. Music producers are trying to be sonic perfectionists, while music consumers, well at least the majority of music consumers with some exceptions, or while they're cooking dinner. And as musicians, it hurts our ego a little bit, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. A really good solid objective reason to not mix your music in Atmos is because nobody is going to hear it the way that it's meant to be heard any more than they do now with your stereo mixes. And what's worse, to me personally at least, it reeks of financial gatekeeping and poor shaming. I don't want to ever give you the impression that you need to invest more money and equipment to listen to my music properly. listening to music makes you happy, then you are listening to it perfectly. I'm gonna take a deep breath, and I'm gonna give Atmos a chance, because immersive audio does seem a lot more useful in film and television and gaming. I'm not going to approach it as a sound designer or an engineer or a music producer. I'm going to tell you about how it all works on both a technical and business level, and then I'm going to approach it as a consumer. This video has no sponsorships or ties at all, and I have about a $1,300 out-of-pocket budget. Acoustic physics can get complicated really fast, and you'd think that it would be rather simple in comparison to other areas of science. Sonic pressure or sound is made by something, and then human with two head microphones receives the sound. Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that, but the crazy theoretical part comes in with psychoacoustics. How and why your brain perceives sound the way it does, and how it turns it into useful information. them using insanely subtle differences in time between the two ears, or volume or reflections. And really, any immersive or spatial audio technology is trying to hack millions of years of evolution to trick your brain to think that you're hearing a place that you're not actually present in. Unless you're in VR or a planetarium dome where the goal is 100% immersion, I think that this is actually fundamentally flawed. And this might explain why, even though surround sound has been around in one way or another the vast majority of people in America and Europe still use the speakers on their television sets. The metaverse, 3D TVs, surround sound, curved TVs, HoloLens, Google Glass, whatever AR thing that Apple's about to announce. All these things excite us when we first hear about them, but maybe at the end of the day we just want to keep a casual and convenient relationship with the content that we consume. Most people watching this have heard of Atmos, but they don't know what Atmos is exactly, that makes your sound better. Atmos is a patent and trademark that refers to a proprietary audio delivery format that functions inside the encoding and decoding process of a file. Very similar to the encoding and decoding that happens with an mp3 file or a QuickTime file [5:00] or a Windows Media Player file. I want to be clear in pointing out that while Dolby Atmos uses immersive three-dimensional audio, it is one of the very many different technologies and encoding formats that does this, and it is far from the first one. Spatial audio -- or when I read it, I always think "spatial audio" -- is a term that has been most recently adopted and coined by Apple that originally described three-dimensional audio. And I'm kind of annoyed by this, as spatial audio When I'm trying to refer to a general umbrella term, you may mistake it for stuff Apple has patented. So, I'm going to just call it immersive audio. Simply put, immersive audio is ideally, if you were to put on blindfolds, it would sound like you're there. There are two different types. There's channel-based audio and object-based audio. Channel-based audio is probably how you're hearing this video. Basically, a file has different channels, and those channels are assigned to different speakers, in this case, left and right. if the audio file is just holding a bunch of audio files within it that are synchronized. So in a Dolby surround sound 5.1 setup you would have six speakers and six channels. You'd have a front center channel, front right, front left, rear right, rear left, that's five channels, and then the .1 is the subwoofer. 7.1 adds channels in between, and if you had a 5.1.2 system, that last .2 would reflected down from it. So a 7.2.4 system would have a total of 13 audio files going to 7 satellite speakers, 2 subs, and 4 ceiling. Wow, can you believe that this hasn't been adopted by people who just want to watch TV or listen to music? So that is channel-based audio. Object-based audio is a completely different animal. Each sound source is an independent object, and those objects have metadata that tells the decoder its location, volume, and where it's headed. And frankly, object-based decoder is essentially running a lightweight simulation engine. There's no doubt that it is awesome and impressive. And then somewhere in between the two, theoretically at least, there's ambisonic audio, which is what I use in my field recording adventures. So my ambisonic setup uses only four microphones, but it can recreate environments I'm recording with a much higher precision than you could with a normal four-channel recording, and higher order ambisonics can increase the accuracy exponentially. I am very into weird canons, acoustic levitation, but I personally can't think of anything in that space that is more fascinating than ambisonics. And that is because the entire system exists as a precise psychoacoustic hack using complex algorithms cataloging spherical harmonics. Easily, out of everything in this video, it is by far the most impressive and reproducible scientific magic trick, and it's been around since the 1970s. But technology, while fascinating, obviously isn't very useful if it isn't practical, point of object-based sound is to adapt immersive audio to any and all speaker systems and head positions. And if that can't be accomplished, then it might be more efficient to simply use the old-school channel-based decoding. Atmos uses both object-based audio and channel-based audio, and it refers to the channel-based channels as beds. And it's limited to 128 channels total, system and want to watch something that is mixed on the older Dolby surround standard, two of those channels will have to be sacrificed. I'm going to guess that this probably isn't an issue for most home theaters, but for public theaters where dozens of speakers are being used, part of me wonders if the 10-bed channel limitation exists solely to strong-arm movie studios to use and license Atmos. But from a general perspective, it's hard to find something to complain about. Unless you're an audiophile, because DTSX is a competing format that has It is technically superior to Atmos. Why most people watching this have never heard of DTSX, well... So a few years ago, a marketing agency reached out to me and asked me if I would be interested in being filmed while mixing the album I was working on in Dolby Atmos. And I know that there's an artist spotlight program from Dolby where artists drop their jaws in amazement while hearing their music in Atmos for the first time, and I just really didn't entertain the offer was involved or what it all entailed. One thing I do not want to do in this video is insinuate that Dolby Labs didn't put a lot of research or time into Atmos or any of their other projects. They certainly did, but all of this work goes to waste if there is an adaptation, and since their business model profits from licensing, some level of force-feeding will have to take place. At the end of the day, the consumer needs to want Atmos for audio manufacturers, movie theaters, film studios, and recording studios to see value in licensing it. And it's in this marketing where things get very fucky. If you go [10:00] Dolby's website and Experience Atmos, you'll be met with some recognizable songs like Marvin Gaye's What's Going On, where you can listen to it in the Atmos version versus the boring old stereo version. Not only does this absolutely make no sense since you wouldn't have an Atmos system to listen to it on, but most browsers don't have Atmos support. But what's worse is the stereo version you're comparing it to isn't the actual mix you'll find on a streaming neither of the two files are anywhere close to the song that Marvin Gaye or his engineer approved. There's not even an asterisk or hidden text. It's just directly, boldly lying to you. And that's just where the bullshit begins. Once manufacturers get involved, the accountability gets passed around like a hot potato. Atmos is often sold as a speaker stick that projects an immersive bubble of sound over your couch. And then if you buy it, and when you don't experience that, you try and Is it output compatible? Are you using the streaming service that supports Atmos? Does it support it on the device that you're streaming it from? You just need to stop being such a cheapskate and upgrade more stuff. Surely it is one of those things, and not the fact that shooting a fucking force field of ghost speakers is physically impossible. But I would be doing myself, and more importantly for the purposes of this video, you a disservice if I didn't try to see if upgrading to a new standard could improve my music listening and home theater quality. system in my living room is a mid-grade 5.1 setup that I spent about $800 on over 10 years ago. It's alright. I guess it's time to upgrade and see what I'm missing. I hope that my skepticism is wrong, because having a truly mind-bending immersive audio experience in my living room would make me very happy. As with any established pro-audio-oriented YouTube channel, plenty of companies have offered to send me high-end Atmos systems for review, but I really wanted to approach this as a consumer. So let's set aside everything that about immersive audio and try to be as unbiased as possible and just define what it is that I want in my home theater. Do I want to hear music the way that my favorite musicians want me to hear it? That's a big promise, but sure. I also want to hear a super mutant shouting weird shit at me from behind when I'm playing Fallout. I don't really need to hear a helicopter flying overhead in perfect precision, but sure, that would be cool if a movie or television show or game was more best mid-range Atmos home theater setup I could get for under $1,000 - ideally closer to $500. The one that kept getting recommended by both consumer tech and even some audiophile resources was the Vizio Elevate series, and even some YouTubers in that space like it. So I managed to get a highly-reviewed M-Series 5.1.2 soundbar with 13 speakers, adaptive height satellite speakers, wireless subwoofer, and Atmos and DTSX compatibility for about So I'm in. Atmos unlocked. It seems like only a fraction of games support Atmos, which is kind of surprising since Wyze and Fmod and all of the most popular game engines have options for Atmos integration, so maybe it's just the high licensing fees? I don't know. So I guess No Man's Sky it is. and it is one of the few games that is officially confirmed by Dolby and Microsoft to work with Atmos. So even though the sub is smaller and the amp has a lot less power for gaming and watching movies or shows, I feel like it's actually a fair improvement. I'm certainly not experiencing an immersive bubble or hearing things above or below me, but it seems like the rear satellites are just used more, or used more intentionally, which in all honesty could be owed to Dolby's aggressive that could have been accomplished on the 5.1 system, but it's just that 5.1 doesn't have any hype behind it, so maybe they're not using it as much anymore. But the bigger problem is that to use Atmos, I had to play a game that I'm not already playing. I had to watch a TV show that I wasn't already watching, and a lot of people will need to upgrade their console or Netflix subscription. Now, music. When I listened to stereo music, it only played it on two of my 13 to change that other than turning on some older DTS virtual room codec which just puts shitty reverb on everything. Like, I spent all of this money and work to upgrade to a system where I can't use my subwoofer with 99% of available music, and that's after I signed up for a streaming platform that I would otherwise never use. Solely as a consumer, this is very annoying, because if I keep this system around and don't return it, then that means that my living room will no longer be used to [15:00] intentfully listen to music. And again, that hot potato of accountability gets passed around. I don't know if this is Dolby's problem or Amazon Music's problem or Vizio's problem or Microsoft's problem. But overall, when I jumped through all of those hoops and got Atmos working, there's nothing technologically fascinating happening. And there definitely isn't any sound coming from over my head. I did not get that at all. But of course, I did want the overhead effect to work, googling and trying various settings, but it just wouldn't. And I was under the impression that most, if not all, consumer Atmos systems that used sound reflection had some sort of auto-calibration process. This is not the case. This one did not. And it seems like the ones that do have auto-calibration are actually not doing that much anyway. So even though I got a 13-speaker system with two satellites and a wireless sub, I didn't experience anything remotely similar to what was promised. When trying to troubleshoot why the overhead reflection wasn't working, my problem was that don't have a flat ceiling that is around 10 feet tall. So the common solution recommended to people with vaulted or high ceilings would be to buy and install four to six ceiling speakers, which would put me in the $2,000 plus budget. Also, ceiling fans are apparently a no-no, so no more airflow in the living room. And even then, my living room is just too broken up. In fact, the only room in my house that would qualify for the minimal layout requirements for any Atmos room by design, so the absorption coefficient would be far too high. So in my case, if I go by Dolby's 60-page guide, call a contractor, and build a home theater designed for Atmos, then I can hear a helicopter zooming over my head. And you know what? If I were absurdly rich and didn't know that homeless people existed, maybe I would. Now let's take a step back, and I don't know, look at Dolby's own website promising a multi-dimensional listening experience from a Ah, yes, the thing all musicians aspire to accomplish, being heard on an Amazon Echo. I have an Xbox Series X, and it was a little bit time-consuming and confusing to find headphones that clearly supported Atmos with it. So I just went with the default, endorsed by Dolby themselves, and the price, not too bad, $99. So let's just enable the settings we need to enable and get on with it. I wonder if these are volume? That's actually kind of clever. Bye. *music* So I have like a seven day trial to be able to use Atmos with these headphones before I have to pay $15 to continue using Atmos with these headphones. This is Dolby Atmos, the world's first object-based cinematic audio. It wasn't. I keep double checking to make sure that I have everything set up right and I definitely am not getting any sort of surround element when the things are swirling around my head. dithering with the Kodak when it's trying to go behind my head. So I could hear that like some effect is happening, it's just not happening on these Atmos headphones. Some running circles around this farting plant, and the sound design is actually incredible, but I can't seem to tell the difference if it's behind me or in front of me. Someone recommended that I try the LG T90 earbuds that allegedly support head tracking. They're pricey, and they a bit out of budget, but if I could experience Atmos from my phone, or play with the Dolby mixing tools on my computer, or even listen to my ambisonic recordings with full head tracking, that would be great. And the dudes in the LG promo videos look like they're on fucking ayahuasca, so I ordered them. "I'm not having the best luck pairing these." Thank you. So if I want to watch a movie with Atmos with these headphones using the head tracking, I have to do it from my phone. And I'm watching Dune on HBO Max, or Max, which supports Atmos. However, it's a stereo mix, and my head is tracking with the stereo mix just over here. Okay, so highly touted, premium, expensive, Dolby Atmos-approved head tracking earbuds. Even after installing the seven-day trial of Dolby Atmos on Windows, it doesn't actually give Atmos to the headphones. I downloaded Amazon Music, which is part of my Prime membership, however, that doesn't include anything with Atmos, so I have to pay extra for Amazon Music Unlimited. Then I go on a little scavenger hunt looking for the few songs that do support Atmos, and in my very subjective opinion, I don't think I liked one mix better than I did the stereo. It seems like in a lot of songs they just took one element, like the vocals, and then just panned them around your head for no fucking reason at all, apparently. Pink Floyd Live when Roger Waters just started flying around my head. Then I did something [20:00] I didn't do, I left Atmos on and I listened to one of my songs, the stereo version, in Atmos mode and motherfucker. I'm not gonna lie to you, my first reaction was to just pull my music off of the service. I guess I should have taken Dolby's offer and mixed it in Atmos so it would sound like it normally sounds in stereo. And yeah, a $300 headache that felt like having to navigate through a maze to watch a film or listen to music the maze is a little bit easier and more expensive, but the experience at the end of the day, unfortunately, is about the same. Naturally, I tried the AirPods Max and the Apple Music, and the music sounded about identical to my LG experience. And AirPods are top-of-the-line, very decent headphones, by the way, so no complaints there, but you'd never know it if you only listen to Atmos mixes or object-oriented audio forced back into stereo, because it sounds like dog shit. 100% honest about my experience. And maybe this is why. If a bias is poking out here, it's because as a musician, I've released dozens of albums across all sorts of formats and labels, and not one of them was engineered or mastered by anyone else. I've never hired or even allowed somebody else to master my music, even when mastering to vinyl plate. I am that much of an anal retentive control freak when it comes to my own content. So it's likely that any manipulation to my mix, or even a mix of a classic song that I'm familiar with will be met with ferocity. On the road to Atmos, every single step of the way, you need to spend more money on something. It is choke point capitalism at its finest. Dolby is spending a huge amount of capital to make it the new standard. And if you're a musician, you are expected to shell out a whole bunch of your own money to upgrade your whole setup to meet that standard. And any software or hardware with so much as an Atmos logo on it has to cough up money workflow to work with their partners or licensees. Consumer electronics companies have to pay a set royalty for every individual unit or device that they sell that includes any mention of Atmos, and that cost gets passed on to the listener or customer. I want to wrap this up with a possibly rhetorical question. If Atmos were an open format or an open standard, meaning that there were no licensing fees and it existed like one of the open source ambisonic encoders, meaning that it would for manufacturers to use and customize, and for customers to consume. So if Atmos existed is that open technological standard with no profit margin, with no marketing budget, do you think that you would have or even want that level of immersive audio in your living room? And it's not like this is anywhere close to the first or last time that something will be forcefully jammed into consumer electronics. that is strongly connected to nostalgia, which is why so many people still collect vinyl records. The best or proper way to listen to your favorite artist or your favorite album is defined by you, not the artist, and certainly not a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. All of this is worth carefully considering before you spend a ton of money to upgrade your home studio or your home theater, or before you feel bad that you can't afford to join the Atmos Club. Every single Atmos I heard turned a good song into a tech gimmick. Alright, that's enough. Sorry if this sounded too ranty. I hope it was helpful to somebody. By the way, this channel is officially a non-profit organization, and if you found this video educational or entertaining, or if you think you'd benefit from a healthy community of like-minded musicians or creative techie folks, and if you'd like to participate in a well-organized monthly songwriting challenge every single month, and if you want to support this type of content in general, for watching. Keep creating. Bye.