Gaslighting Your Fans w/ Dolby ATMOS™

Summary

In this candid review, the speaker critiques the immersive Dolby Atmos experience, focusing on the frustrations of setting up and using the technology. Despite its premium price and flashy marketing, Atmos for music often falls flat, with mixed results that can distort the original sound. The speaker, a musician, highlights the financial barriers and licensing fees that contribute to a convoluted and expensive system, ultimately questioning whether Atmos offers a true improvement. This critique raises concerns about tech-driven consumerism and its impact on music, arguing that immersive audio may be more of a gimmick than a solution to any real problem.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker expresses frustration with the difficulties of using Dolby Atmos technology, especially the complicated pairing process and lack of immediate functionality with high-end headphones.
• 🎧 Despite spending a lot of money on premium earbuds, the speaker finds the actual experience with Dolby Atmos underwhelming, with the head tracking and audio mixing often feeling unnecessary or poorly executed.
• 💸 Dolby Atmos is viewed as a costly upgrade that requires additional investments in both hardware and software, leading to a frustrating consumer experience, especially for those who are not Apple loyalists.
• 🔄 The speaker compares the Dolby Atmos experience on LG T90 earbuds and Apple AirPods Max, finding little difference in the overall audio quality, suggesting that Atmos might not significantly improve the listening experience for most listeners.
• 🎶 The speaker, a musician with a DIY approach to mastering, expresses a strong aversion to alterations made to original mixes, particularly through object-oriented audio technologies like Atmos, which he feels disrupt the integrity of music.
• 💡 Atmos is criticized for being a solution looking for a problem, as music is often tied to nostalgia and personal preference, meaning the appeal of immersive audio may be overstated for many listeners.
• 🌐 The speaker highlights the licensing and royalty fees associated with Atmos, which are passed on to consumers, making it a financially exclusive technology that many may not find worth the investment.
• 📉 Dolby Atmos' forced adoption is likened to 'choke point capitalism,' where manufacturers and consumers are pressured to pay extra just to meet a new 'standard' in audio technology.
• 📲 For those who want to experience Atmos on a phone or computer, the setup process is described as overly complicated, with additional fees and steps required to unlock features like Atmos-compatible music or videos.
• 🎚️ Atmos for music is criticized for often taking a single element (like vocals) and panning it around the listener’s head in a way that feels gimmicky and does not enhance the listening experience.
• 🛠️ The speaker suggests that Atmos would be more beneficial if it were an open standard, allowing musicians and manufacturers to adopt it more easily and affordably, and eliminating the financial barriers to widespread use.

Q & A

What is the main frustration expressed by the speaker regarding Dolby Atmos for music?

The speaker’s main frustration is that Dolby Atmos for music feels like a technology looking for a problem to solve. Despite the hype and expensive equipment required, the experience doesn’t significantly enhance the music listening experience and often turns good songs into gimmicks due to poorly executed mixes.

Why does the speaker think Atmos mixes sound underwhelming for most music tracks?

The speaker believes that in many Atmos mixes, elements like vocals are simply panned around the listener’s head without adding real depth or meaning to the music. This lack of artistic intent in the mixes detracts from the immersive experience and often makes it feel unnecessary.

What is the issue with the availability and cost of Atmos content?

Atmos content is not widely available unless consumers pay for extra services, like Amazon Music Unlimited. The speaker points out that even if you access Atmos, the cost of the technology, subscriptions, and equipment can be prohibitively expensive for many people, making it less accessible.

How does the speaker feel about the financial barriers to adopting Dolby Atmos?

The speaker feels that Dolby Atmos represents 'choke point capitalism.' Manufacturers, software developers, and consumers are all forced to pay for licensing fees, which increases the overall cost of adopting the technology. This creates a financial barrier, especially for musicians and casual consumers who don’t necessarily benefit from the technology.

What is the speaker’s perspective on the role of Atmos in music production?

As a musician, the speaker argues that Atmos complicates music production by forcing creators to adapt to a proprietary system that costs money and time to implement. This is frustrating for artists who prefer to control the final sound of their music and may not see any real creative benefit from mixing in Atmos.

Does the speaker think Atmos is a worthwhile investment for casual listeners?

No, the speaker does not believe Atmos is a worthwhile investment for casual listeners. The technology requires expensive equipment and subscriptions, and the immersive benefits are often minimal, especially for those who are content with stereo mixes or don’t have the proper setup to appreciate Atmos fully.

What is the speaker’s opinion on the compatibility of Atmos with different devices?

The speaker points out that while Atmos might work well for high-end devices like soundbars or headphones, compatibility issues can arise when trying to access content or pair devices. The speaker struggled to pair their LG T90 earbuds and noted that watching movies with Atmos required specific conditions, further complicating the experience.

How does the speaker feel about the business model behind Dolby Atmos?

The speaker is critical of Dolby Atmos’s business model, which relies on licensing fees and royalties that inflate the cost for both consumers and manufacturers. This model, in the speaker’s view, prioritizes profit over improving the audio experience for users.

Why does the speaker compare Atmos music to vinyl records?

The speaker compares Atmos music to vinyl records to emphasize that music listening is highly personal and tied to nostalgia. Just as many people prefer vinyl for its unique sound and tactile experience, listeners should be able to enjoy music in whatever format feels right for them, without being pushed into adopting a new, expensive standard like Atmos.

What alternative does the speaker propose to the current Atmos business model?

The speaker proposes that if Atmos were an open standard, like some ambisonic encoders, it would be much more accessible and affordable for musicians, manufacturers, and consumers. Without licensing fees and proprietary restrictions, Atmos could be a technology that enhances music listening for everyone, not just those who can afford to invest heavily in the ecosystem.