As Apple Music aggressively promotes its Dolby Atmos-powered spatial audio capabilities, a stark divide is emerging in the music industry. On one side, the tech giant touts an immersive, three-dimensional listening experience that it believes will revolutionize how we consume music. On the other, independent artists and labels argue that Apple’s spatial audio push is creating new barriers to entry and siphoning resources away from those who can’t afford the associated costs.
Everything you need to know:
✓ For major labels, embracing spatial audio was a no-brainer, but the math doesn’t add up for independent artists
✓ AI-powered spatial audio solutions offer a more cost-effective alternative, but Apple is pushing back against these technologies
✓ Apple’s resistance to AI-driven spatial audio creation aligns with a broader industry pushback, raising questions about protecting creativity or maintaining market control
AI solves the spatial audio problem for indie artists
For the top tier of the industry, embracing spatial audio was a no-brainer. But the math doesn’t add up for independent labels. They’d have to convert a much larger portion of their catalog to see any real benefit from Apple’s 10% royalty increase for spatial audio tracks. The bonus isn’t tied to actual listenership, but rather the proportion of a label’s output in the format. This means major labels with the resources to remaster their entire catalogs in Atmos stand to see a far greater financial benefit.
Recognizing this asymmetry, companies like Masterchannel, an AI sound mastering software provider, saw an opportunity to offer a more cost-effective alternative. As Masterchannel’s CEO Christian R. Schultz explains, “We saw that asymmetry and we said, you know, we do AI mastering in the classical sense already. Why don’t we do the same for Spatial audio and offer a more cost-effective alternative?”
Spatial audio’s accessibility crisis: How Apple’s “innovation” leaves indies behind
However, Apple has not taken kindly to these AI-driven solutions. Masterchannel’s co-founder Simon Hestermann reveals, “From a pragmatic perspective, many artists prefer the AI version. This is also what we brought up to Apple, as we met with them recently. We said, OK, you know, we have a few artists who actually prefer the AI version. And then, in that moment, they had to admit that in those scenarios, we overrule the artist’s decision, and as Apple says, you have to use the human version no matter if you like it or not.”
Apple’s resistance to AI-powered spatial audio creation is not an isolated incident. Mainstream artists like Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, and Katy Perry have signed an open letter decrying the use of their art for AI training, calling it an “assault on human creativity.” Industry leaders like Universal Music are also pressuring streaming giants to stop AI access to songs.
But is this really about protecting creativity, or is it a desperate attempt to maintain a market monopoly and shut out cash-strapped newcomers? The answer may lie in the broader implications of Apple’s spatial audio push.
This disparity highlights a stark reality: Apple’s spatial audio push may inadvertently deepen the divide between major label artists and their independent counterparts. As the tech giant touts innovation, some in the industry fear that it’s coming at the cost of accessibility and fair compensation.
Even for those willing to take the plunge into spatial audio, the final product doesn’t always live up to the hype. Delve into online forums, and you’ll find a mixed bag of user reactions, with many listeners complaining that the Dolby Atmos experience falls short of the immersive promise, sounding “empty” and “off-sounding.”
Shocking truth: Dolby Atmos is a stereo retrofit disaster
Masterchannel’s Hestermann offers a potential explanation for this disconnect. He reveals that the current state-of-the-art approach to Dolby Atmos mixing often involves taking a stereo recording and retrofitting it into a 3D space. The issue, he argues, is that “the instruments you work with were never intended to be used in a spatial context. They were all recorded and engineered to be used in a stereo context.”
So, is Apple’s spatial audio push a bold step forward or a regressive move that threatens to leave independent artists behind? The answer, it seems, lies somewhere in the murky middle.
On one hand, the company’s drive for immersive audio experiences aligns with a broader industry trend and could potentially open up new creative avenues for artists willing to embrace the format. But on the other, Apple’s top-down approach and rigid guidelines around spatial audio production risk creating a two-tiered system where only the industry elite can truly benefit.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the future of music streaming is inextricably linked to the spatial audio revolution. The question is, will it be a rising tide that lifts all boats, or a riptide that sweeps away the independent artists caught in its undertow? Only time will tell.
