Originally Posted by groove93
I might as well add the DSU or Neural X from my Marantz AVR to get the same affect considering the range of music now with Dolby Atmos. From Rush's "Tom Sawyer" to Slick Rick's "A Children's story", there appears to be no limit.
Had some time to listen to quite a bit of the Atmos tracks over the weekend (using the Tidal App directly, as discussed - not Ideal...)
Anyway, I'd concur with you and others - many (most) of the tracks I listened to were horribly mixed. Clearly no artist involvement.
To me the intent of many of these was to prove your height channel speakers were working. And working REALLY well.
There were exceptions - Doors' "Riders on the Storm" comes to mind. But that remix also sounds excellent w/out Atmos, with or w/out Neural or Dolby Surround applied.
I don't know or listen to Lady Gaga, but my daughter who happened to be home does - so we listened to a few of those. Though the music wasn't my cup of tea, the engineering of the mixes sounded like they were done well. It seems to me all the "new" stuff should be explicitly mixed for multi-channel and stereo.
My last point is that "Atmos" seems to now be the terminology for "Surround", or "Multi-Channel". Fine. The problem though seems that in pushing Atmos (and selling receivers, speakers, content) they are implying the height channels are the key. For music I don't think they are. In fact, it's just plain distracting unless the mix makes judicious use of them. In my experience, the best Atmos movie mixes are the ones where you never really consciously know the height channels are in use - it just sounds enveloping.
Off the soap box now, but that's my take. Takeaway for me is that Atmos for older music (that would have to be specifically remixed for it) is going to be mostly miss, with the occasional hit.