Dolby Atmos for the rest of us...

[AudioBabble]

Hi all...

Have been "immersed" in the world of immersive audio for a few days now... reading up on Dolby Atmos and Object based audio and ADM (audio definition model).

I'm interested in three aspects of this area: 1. Music production, 2. Distribution (deliverables) and 3. Content delivery/consumption

I could harp on for quite some time about all this, but I'll spare everybody the wall of text... (for now!)

At the moment, I'm just interested in finding out how many other folks are interested in the sonic possibilities of "spatial" audio and the idea of making ADM masters but in the same boat as me, i.e. not in a position to fork out $1000 for Dolby's Production and mastering suites, not a Mac or a ProTools/Logic user and actually only equipped with a pair of headphones, stereo monitors + sub....

I've heard Atmos being described as "proprietary"... I'm not sure this is entirely true though... at least the ADM standard is not proprietary, there's a free tool called ADMix https://forum.ircam.fr/projects/detail/admix/ - it appears to be possible to integrate this into an existing DAW (although I'm lost as to how to actually do it, plus it hasn't been updated recently). Pyramix 11.1 apparently integrated it https://www.merging.com/news/press-rele ... o-workflow

Personally, I'd love to be able to integrate something with Reaper since it's my DAW of choice (at least for now). Obviously this whole area is something that's likely to develop much further in the coming year(s) - it would be nice (I think) to be starting to integrate Object Based Audio workflows into my current setup, even if I only have binaural for reference - I realize the limitations of this, but down the line I could be in a position to upgrade to a 7.1.2 monitoring system (or even cobble one together if I can find enough speakers and amps!). The eventual aim being to be able to encode ADM WAV files and put them out for distribution (which in itself is another topic and the current situation is very much in a state of flux it seems).

There... I've rambled on with my thoughts and ended up creating that wall of text anyway

Just want to open up a dialogue on the subject, please share your thoughts/expertise.

Merry Crimbo

[AudioBabble]

https://ear-production-suite.ebu.io/

open source suite of plugins for Reaper. Took a bit finding... but encouraging nonetheless.

As yet unclear whether the ADM WAVs rendered with this would be accepted as deliverables for streaming distribution... have asked in an email.

What they do say on their FAQ is that the suite uses ABU ADM production profile, whereas Dolby's ADM profile is different - this means no importing Ear Production Suite's renders into Atmos Production suite... although apparently they're working on cross-compatibility.

[fairlyclose]

https://ear-production-suite.ebu.io/

open source suite of plugins for Reaper. Took a bit finding... but encouraging nonetheless.

As yet unclear whether the ADM WAVs rendered with this would be accepted as deliverables for streaming distribution... have asked in an email.

What they do say on their FAQ is that the suite uses ABU ADM production profile, whereas Dolby's ADM profile is different - this means no importing Ear Production Suite's renders into Atmos Production suite... although apparently they're working on cross-compatibility.

Good find. Dolby seem to be trying to protect their commercial system - not surprisingly. I would not worry too much about it as the practicalities of spatial audio will remain mostly the same ie what works and what doesnt and you can start getting experience using the EAR system which looks first rate.
The guy who does the Working Class Audio podcast recently went to Atmos and has some insights - its a great podcast anyway
One thing to note is that Atmos is not going to be used in a lot of applications eg museum installation and similar where the speaker placements will be arbitrary rather than 7.1 or 9.1 whatever. In which case ambisonics or tune on site will be the go. Which Reaper is ideal for as well.
or if you are just going the content production route for streaming the facebook360 might be enough anyway. I suppose it will take a few years for all those systems to settle down and standardised

Also if you are just starting, even getting another couple of speakers and going a quad system will be really useful to you as far as getting experience on a lower budget. Dont have to be expensive speakers

As for object based workflows - I don think that will be much different really - one already mixes beds and "objects" so the compositional change doesnt seem that different, but maybe it will be. I think overwhelmingly the greatest use in the home will be to rebalance the sound so the dialog is audible. I cant see a huge market for extensive user remixing of soundtracks

[mgw38]

I (try to) maintain a small youtube channel about all kinds of questions in game design and spatial audio. One of the things I started to focus on was this “Atmos for the rest of us” topic. And it turns out that quite a few people are interested in that. I keep getting question and thus keep making videos.

At the moment there are three options to use the official Dolby tools in a reasonably inexpensive way: 1) Nuendo, 2) DaVinci Resolve Fairlight, and 3) Logic Pro. All of these DAWs have integrated and certified Dolby Atmos workflows. All three can export ADM files.

If you are on a Mac you could also use the external Dolby Renderer that comes with the Dolby Atmos Production Suite. This is not that expensive either. If you are on Windows you are a bit out of luck in that respect. On Windows you could go with a full Dolby Atmos Mastering setup but that is quite expensive and also not particularly straightforward to set up and operate.

If you don’t have an Atmos speaker system (at least 7.1.4) you also need to have an approach that allows you to monitor 3d position data with headphones. Imho the only way to do that properly is with a head tracking solution. Waves NX works by going through an Ambisonics conversion but there are other solutions. None is perfect though.

Some people think that it is enough to use a binaural mix for monitoring 3d audio. This is not the case though. Imho you either need to work with headphones and head tracking or (ideally) shell out the money to install a 7.1.4 or higher monitoring system.

I have a couple of videos about Atmos on my channel at

[AudioBabble]

https://ear-production-suite.ebu.io/

open source suite of plugins for Reaper. Took a bit finding... but encouraging nonetheless.

As yet unclear whether the ADM WAVs rendered with this would be accepted as deliverables for streaming distribution... have asked in an email.

What they do say on their FAQ is that the suite uses ABU ADM production profile, whereas Dolby's ADM profile is different - this means no importing Ear Production Suite's renders into Atmos Production suite... although apparently they're working on cross-compatibility.

Good find. Dolby seem to be trying to protect their commercial system - not surprisingly. I would not worry too much about it as the practicalities of spatial audio will remain mostly the same ie what works and what doesnt and you can start getting experience using the EAR system which looks first rate.
The guy who does the Working Class Audio podcast recently went to Atmos and has some insights - its a great podcast anyway
One thing to note is that Atmos is not going to be used in a lot of applications eg museum installation and similar where the speaker placements will be arbitrary rather than 7.1 or 9.1 whatever. In which case ambisonics or tune on site will be the go. Which Reaper is ideal for as well.
or if you are just going the content production route for streaming the facebook360 might be enough anyway. I suppose it will take a few years for all those systems to settle down and standardised

Also if you are just starting, even getting another couple of speakers and going a quad system will be really useful to you as far as getting experience on a lower budget. Dont have to be expensive speakers

As for object based workflows - I don think that will be much different really - one already mixes beds and "objects" so the compositional change doesnt seem that different, but maybe it will be. I think overwhelmingly the greatest use in the home will be to rebalance the sound so the dialog is audible. I cant see a huge market for extensive user remixing of soundtracks

Thanks for the advice! I had a look and found the Working Class Audio podcast on youtube, but couldn't find anything on the channel about Atmos.

I'm a bit unconventional when it comes to monitoring, preferring to mostly work with my Beyerdynamic DT990s until mastering stage when I go to my main speakers which are oldies but pretty decent - JBL control 5's with matching sub. Also I test mixes on two other setups I have - an old pair of Kef Coda 2's and my "NS10" equivalents - a pair of old small Bang&Olufsens.

I've been playing around with some surround panners and "3d" reverbs, automating them with LFOs in Reaper and I must admit, even with just the heaphones and binaural emulation (without headtracking) it still results in some very interesting depth to the mix and interesting stereo imaging. I'm not going to kid myself and claim it's immersive or truly 3D in any sense, but I'd certainly like to hear what it would sound like with a proper setup.

[AudioBabble]

I (try to) maintain a small youtube channel about all kinds of questions in game design and spatial audio. One of the things I started to focus on was this “Atmos for the rest of us” topic. And it turns out that quite a few people are interested in that. I keep getting question and thus keep making videos.

At the moment there are three options to use the official Dolby tools in a reasonably inexpensive way: 1) Nuendo, 2) DaVinci Resolve Fairlight, and 3) Logic Pro. All of these DAWs have integrated and certified Dolby Atmos workflows. All three can export ADM files.

If you are on a Mac you could also use the external Dolby Renderer that comes with the Dolby Atmos Production Suite. This is not that expensive either. If you are on Windows you are a bit out of luck in that respect. On Windows you could go with a full Dolby Atmos Mastering setup but that is quite expensive and also not particularly straightforward to set up and operate.

If you don’t have an Atmos speaker system (at least 7.1.4) you also need to have an approach that allows you to monitor 3d position data with headphones. Imho the only way to do that properly is with a head tracking solution. Waves NX works by going through an Ambisonics conversion but there are other solutions. None is perfect though.

Some people think that it is enough to use a binaural mix for monitoring 3d audio. This is not the case though. Imho you either need to work with headphones and head tracking or (ideally) shell out the money to install a 7.1.4 or higher monitoring system.

I have a couple of videos about Atmos on my channel at

Thanks Michael! I checked out your channel and the atmos videos, great channel, many thanks

I'm interested in trying a head tracker - where might I find one like the one in your video?

As for a 7.1.4 setup... from what I've seen that looks like serious money... I know I'm probably going to be shot down in flames for considering such a thing.. but I'm seriously wondering about a bunch of car speakers and amps hooked up to a multichannel interface.. the cheap n nasty solution!

[fairlyclose]

Search "matt's rant" atmos

Search site:workingclassaudio.com atmos

They will give you some hits. Might be something on gearspace too, i have not looked there myself.

Re immersion, thats a psychological construct. If people feel immersed then it is immersive. People getting immersed in a book or a play etc predates digital by many a year

[AudioBabble]

Re immersion, thats a psychological construct. If people feel immersed then it is immersive. People getting immersed in a book or a play etc predates digital by many a year

true indeed! There's so many terms associated with this space.. 3D, immersive, spatial, 360, etc etc

I know I was immersed in my repetitive arpeggiator loop buzzing around my head

[fairlyclose]

As for a 7.1.4 setup... from what I've seen that looks like serious money... I know I'm probably going to be shot down in flames for considering such a thing.. but I'm seriously wondering about a bunch of car speakers and amps hooked up to a multichannel interface.. the cheap n nasty solution!

100% how can this be worse? you know what you have and you mix with that knowledge. Guerilla audio ftw!

[Synthack]

.........

[mgw38]

If you want to take full advantage of Atmos you need the 4 height speakers, so a 7.2 system won’t give you the full Atmos experience.

For production you need to be able to address each speaker individually. The minimum is a 7.1.4 setup with 7 horizontal, 4 height and 1 lfe speaker. The 11 horizontal and height speakers need to be identical and need to follow quality standards for a traditional stereo monitoring system. The lfe speaker needs to be a matching subwoofer. Even if you go budget, that adds up. I think you can get away with 5 inch monitors at about 100$ a piece. Lfe speaker is less critical. In an Atmos setup the lfe speaker is not used as a subwoofer and thus has less relevance for Atmos music.

Professional studios often add far-right and far-left speakers to make it 9.1.4 or sometimes 9.1.6. I believe that 9.1.4 is the minimum you need to get Dolby certified as a studio.

The second problem is the audio interface because you need one that can handle at least 12 audio outputs. The cheapest option is the Behringer UMC1820 which is perfectly fine for this purpose. It only has 10 analog outs though, so you need an additional digital to analog converter box to convert the UMC1820’s ADAT output to analog. You can use the Behringer ADA8200 for that. I am fairly certain that combination is the cheapest option.

The 12 low cost monitor speakers, a Behringer audio interface and D/A converter with cables and installation materials will run you close to 2k US$. If you buy second hand or during a sale, you should be able to get that down to around 1.5k.

Add the price for the software (Nuendo is the best option on Windows, on a Mac I would go either with Logic or with the official Dolby Production Suite which works with any multichannel DAW), you are looking at a minimum investment of 2-3k US$. Not exactly supercheap, but beats the 100k+ pricetags professional studios need to shell out to stay reasonably competitive.

If you use headtracking instead of a full speaker system you can squeeze costs down to essentially the Atmos capable DAW software.

[AudioBabble]

Lfe speaker is less critical. In an Atmos setup the lfe speaker is not used as a subwoofer and thus has less relevance for Atmos music.

I'm trying to get my head around this aspect... I had a look at the dolby website. From what I understand then: the LFE is for EXTRA LF info (<120hz) that may or may not be present in the overall mix. Further, there is no crossover in a conventional sense for the rest of the speakers - i.e. they all receive full frequency, not just >120hz?

Do I have that right?

[mgw38]

Lfe speaker is less critical. In an Atmos setup the lfe speaker is not used as a subwoofer and thus has less relevance for Atmos music.

I'm trying to get my head around this aspect... I had a look at the dolby website. From what I understand then: the LFE is for EXTRA LF info (<120hz) that may or may not be present in the overall mix. Further, there is no crossover in a conventional sense for the rest of the speakers - i.e. they all receive full frequency, not just >120hz?

Do I have that right?

Yes, that is correct.

[AudioBabble]

BUT...

...just realized what I wrote there doesn't make a whole lot of sense since it would leave the sub doing nothing most of the time while the tops struggle to reproduce all frequencies.

From the dolby website:

LFE does not equal subwoofer
Dolby Digital programs may include a bass-only LFE channel, but this channel
does not correspond directly to a subwoofer output. It is possible for a program to
contain an LFE channel, but a decoder may provide no subwoofer output because
all of the bass information in the program, including the LFE channel, can be
reproduced by the main speakers. The opposite is also true: it is possible for a
program to not contain an LFE channel, yet a decoder may provide a subwoofer
output because some or all of the main speakers are unable to reproduce the bass
information in the program. The difference between the LFE channel and the
subwoofer output is that the LFE channel is used to carry additional bass
information in the Dolby Digital program while the subwoofer output represents
how some or all of the bass information will be reproduced.

So... the decoder is a clever beast and uses tops + sub as a complete system to reproduce non-LFE info (therefore there IS a crossover), as well as sending LFE info (if present) to the sub.

Is that a more correct assessment?!

[mgw38]

A home theater system can use the lfe channel in lieu of a subwoofer and do its own bass management that way. But that is not standard. Particularly during production, the lfe channel is treated as its own thing. It is supposed to hold only low frequency effects, i.e. for movies. And when you render an Atmos production in stereo, the lfe channel is ignored by default.