Digital Media Expert Reacts: Colt Capperrune's First Atmos Mix Video

In this reaction video, I analyze Colt Capperrune's video about his first Dolby Atmos mix, discussing key aspects of Atmos production, the importance of headphone optimization, and the challenges of creating immersive audio experiences for both studio and consumer environments.
This video has proper subtitles in English and German.
Transcript available on Patreon: / michaelgwagner
► Join our free Discord community: discord.spacefo...
► Subscribe to my secondary channel: / @michaelssecondchannel
► Become a Patreon of this channel (free option available): / michaelgwagner
► Get the "In Immersion We Find Presence" merch (channel members get 15% off): shop.spacefora...
Affiliate links:
► Check out my channel gear at Amazon: amazon.spacefor...
► Pluginboutique affiliate link: pluginboutique....
Video links:
► Colt Capperrune: My First Atmos Mix Took FOREVER: • My First Atmos Mix Too...
► Colt Capperrune on KZbin: / coltcapperrune
► Colt Capperrune Tech on KZbin: / @coltcapperrunetech

[@c0unt_WAVnstein]

Totally agree with the observation made around 8:30 that no one is going to have a functional Dolby Atmos 9.1.4 in their house, unless they're millionaires who can afford to get part of their house partitioned off and turned into an ATMOS set up, or eccentric / slightly certifiable people willing to take a spare room in their house and spend a year's wages building their own Atmos room over the coming decade. While I can see the utility of it for stuff like AR, gaming and cinema soundtracks, when you go to see a band you expect them to be on a stage, in a line, in front of you (stereo). You don't expect the bass player over by the east wall, the singer in the centre of the room, the drummer to have stretchy arms like the guy out of the Fantastic 4 and have drums all over the place... Even choirs and orchestras tend to be arranged in an arc, optimised for stereo recording and a crowd sitting with the orchestra in front of them. This is why, in spite of numerous experiments over the years, with quadraphonic in the 70's, the 5.1 bubble in the 90's and now the move into immersive audio of the 2020's, music continues to be mixed in stereo, and probably always will be. Even if you want to go immersive with music, as you say most people (particularly young people who are interested in new technologies) are listening to music on a set of cans much of the time these days, so it's far cheaper and easier to go down the HRTF route. I would go a bit further than you did on the reverb issue. Anyone who pans a reverb so it's coming out of a specific speaker in an immersive setup has obviously never bothered to check what a reverb is. That's some really silly stuff.

[@michaelgwagner]

Plus the end consumer does not have access to the ADM and therefore cannot experience Atmos the way it was produced.

[@c0unt_WAVnstein]

@@michaelgwagner - Then there's all the problems with cross-talk, which is insurmountable, and there's the RTF (Room Transfer Function) for home users. I believe this is a hiding to nothing that a lot of money is going to be wasted on.

[@FURognar]

Wrong. I have a 7.1.4, soon to expand to 7.1.6 and I am FAR from a millionaire. My neighbor has a 9.4.6 with buttkickers. Also, very very far from a millionaire. I am part of probably a dozen facebook groups and a few formums with THOUSANDS of members. The vast majority of which are NOT millionaires. Just movie and audio enthusiasts. We spend a LOT of money on our systems and we would very much like to hear soundtracks optimized for said systems. Though I will agree that many of us are slightly certifiable.

[@c0unt_WAVnstein]

@@FURognar - I did make that caveat about how some people would be willing to invest unreasonable time and energy without being a millionaire, and I was obviously being facetious, but I'm being deadly serious when I say that anyone who has any knowledge of the physics of sound and still buys into this gimmick shouldn't be allowed out. You could be a billionaire, a trillionaire, a quadrillionaire or even God himself and you'll never stop contra-lateral signals and cross-talk because of the laws of physics. All that being said, it's your money, so if you want to waste it on chasing unicorns, be my guest.

[@FURognar]

@@c0unt_WAVnstein well, acoustic treatments can mitigate some of the effects. And our brains are really good at filtering out superfluous noise. Much of the enhancement of the audio presentation are psychoacoustic effects that comes from such a setup. The hobbyists doing this know you cant combat many of the physics limitations, but we arent looking for perfection, just an enveloping sound. The ability to take the soundscape in the presentation and place that in the room. You might be surprised at how effective it can be when done correctly. If nothing came of it, people wouldnt be spending this kind of money on it.

[@franflannery]

Just a note on center channel panning - many consumer ATMOS soundbars when playing a stereo format will process a center channel- when playing ATMOS files they usually will not do this - so if the creative decision to keep your center information all phantom imaged, with nothing point sources in the center - you will have a fairly significant hole in the center on these soundbars. Many consumers are purchasing these soundbars to go along with their Dolby Vision capable televisions. If you are concerned about all formats for consumers you may want to utilize the center channel.

[@michaelgwagner]

Good info, thanks!

[@gregoryivesdolbyatmosmusic]

This is why you check all of your mixes with Headphones & the room. That's ATMOS mixing 101. Use your ears. Room tuning is absolutely essential and not just a bunch of expensive or non expensive speakers in your room. It's easy to mess up an ATMOS mix by not listening carefully. Use the reference mix as a guide to start with like the stereo mix and don't stay too far from that as the artist or producer wants to retain.

[@ryanmcaleb]

I don't see a ton of comments on this but I would love to hear what other people have been experiencing. I work mostly in EDM where the kick is huge and anchors the track, putting the kick into an object seems to mess up the binaural fold. I've had the best experience leaving kick and bass in the bed and making everything else objects and reverb to the bed reacting to the objects moving.

[@ArielQuesada]

@@ryanmcaleb bro after trying a lot what I would recommend you is to stick with discrete positions for most of your mix and get objects just for those elements you want to move or apply some action to…. The reason is that the bed and object have NO difference sonically speaking…. With the benefit that you can actually compress the bed which you can’t do with the objects…. EDM is a genre that you actually control from the compression…. Depending way you compress the envelope will change and therefore the whole feel of the song…. So you want to have a way to apply compression… The other way people is working is with object beds BUT the problem with the object bed is that it breaks the scalability of the mix… which is the whole point about Atmos… but that’s a whole different discussion jejeje

[@ArielQuesada]

Even though Atmos won’t Rely on compression for achieving a good mix… when mixing EDM there’s certain amount of compression that it’s simply needed to really get it work

[@gkmixing]

With objects things can get a bit too discrete. You still can use a kick as an object, but at the same time send some of the signal to the specific channels of the bed, like rears and sides. Or you can increase size (around 5) and also still sending some of the signal to some channels of the bed (depends where you place the kick, did you use the size etc.). But keeping it in the bed is totally fine.

[@ArielQuesada]

@@gkmixing using an object and sending signal to the bed is a guarantee that you will get phase issues…

[@gkmixing]

@@ArielQuesada haven’t had an issue yet. In what cases you experienced issues with phase while sending signal to the bed from an object. Have you had different processing on the bed and the object?

[@thelivingroomstudios]

Would have been so much fun if all mixing engineers in the 80s were mixing records for walkmans and boomboxes . . .

[@michaelgwagner]

Lol. There is a substantial difference though that most people do not realize exists. The way Atmos is delivered to the end consumer is at a lower spatial quality than what you have in the ADM. What you hear in an Atmos studio is always of higher 3d fidelity than what people are able to listen to. This regardless of how much money they throw at their home entertainment system.

[@thelivingroomstudios]

@@michaelgwagner some variation for sure, even within the DSPs as well (Apple is DD+JOC, Tidal & Amazon are AC4-IMS). And devices' decoders vs service decoders, etc. You can't avoid that. Similar to how stereo systems had different options. By the way I bet there are audiophile home systems that play full Dolby TrueHD BluRays with at least 7.1.4 that cost more than a LOT of studios!!! TrueHD (10X the bitrate of DD+JOC) will show up soon though to streaming once more bandwidth is available, like Apple and true lossless audio . . . (or we hope! 😎)

[@FURognar]

@@thelivingroomstudios see Sony's Pure Stream tech which is a part of the Sony Pictures Core streaming service. Bitrates approaching that of Blu Ray.

[@RealHomeRecording]

*Opens up popcorn bag*

[@michaelgwagner]

Lol

[@RealHomeRecording]

@@michaelgwagner 🤣

[@WiP999]

I'm working with ambisonic field recordings and I'm mixing in Atmos in headphones. There's no money in Atmos for me to afford a 9.1.6 room and in any case anyone whoever listens to my work will do it on headphones, soundbars and 5.1 home cinema systems. The chances anyone will hear my mixes on a fully immersive home cinema setup with height speakers is vanishingly small. I think binaural is an excellent way of mixing and good enough for headphones (of course) also soundbars and 5.1. What do others think?

[@michaelgwagner]

I would add, and I hope that became clear in the video, that it should be head tracked binaural (what Apple calls personalized spatial audio).

[@WiP999]

@@michaelgwagner Yes.

[@PaulEubanks]

I agree. The big selling point of Atmos as a protocol is that it can gracefully collapse and expand to the correct size for what ever listening environment you use, but in practice it just doesn't do this well enough yet.

[@FURognar]

if I listen to your work, I will be listening on a 7.1.6 system in my dedicated theater/game room.

[@MichaelForbes-d4p]

Off topic... Ambisonics just clicked for me. I didn't understand it until today. It's incredible. I recorded in 5.1 then encoded into FOA then decoded into Dolby Atmos then downmixed to binaural. It sounds wild.

[@michaelgwagner]

I think Ambisonics is underrated tbh.

[@SoundSleuth]

Your comments about the consumer listening on Headphones is the biggest hurdle with Atmos Mixing. I built a 7.1.4 mixing setup and it is changing how I mix for immersive. The true use case for this is in rooms/venues that support it. We will get more and more of these moving forward. Love the channel!

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks! Yes, a good Atmos studio certainly helps and is especially import if you are producing for venues that are set up that way.

[@rockingxmasman]

but michaelwagners point actually is true in even more ways. Dolby Atmos is not 7.1.4. Headphones are one system where these discrete locations of separate speakers are not that beneficial. It's kind of the same with a 3.1.1 (Echo Studio) or a 3.1.2 (some Soundbars) or even a 5.1.2 as well as more theatrically equipped Rooms with like 15.1.8. or even full cinema setups.

[@SoundSleuth]

@@rockingxmasman Yep. Im not a fan of true immersive mixes "collapsed" into binaural or stereo into headphonies. But mapped to my 7.1.4 setup they are great.

[@gtlittlejr.1608]

I was under the impression that you SHOULD mix your ATMOS project in the best possible case scenario and the Fold Downs to every lesser platform would give the final consumer/listener the best experieince available in that particular platform. THAT was supposed to be the biggest selling point of ATMOS, it knows what platform is being played on and automatically adjusts and compensates. So if you put something specifically in the L/R Side speakers on your 9.1.4 rigg, that SHOULD translate in a Binaural Print and give the HP listener that specific location impression, no?

[@michaelgwagner]

As long as there are no high end Atmos systems available for audiophile consumers, I would honestly question that.

[@gtlittlejr.1608]

​@@michaelgwagnerI don't know what you mean. There are plenty of mid to high priced home theater systems available. I have a 7.1.4 rigg in my studio and I test the mixes on my 5.1.4 home theater system in my living room. The fold down with the missing side speakers seems negligible. But all of that aside, ATMOS is marketed as " One Size Fits All." So the results are SUPPOSED to sound the same or very similar on a 7.1.4 home theater system, sound bar, high end automobiles or even Binaural HP. If that isn't the case, then the entire platform is a fraud!

[@michaelgwagner]

Consumer systems are based on DD+JOC encoded Atmos, which is a compressed version based on a 5.1 downmix with additional metadata to reconstruct the 3d data. It won’t be able to reproduce the studio experience.

[@QualifiedSoundStudios]

I just picked up Eventide Black Hole Immersive for $99. Down from $299. Works amazing in my 7.1.4 system. Just fyi if anyone needs an immersive reverb on special now.

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks, yes that is a good one!

[@jrgenthomsen8692]

Thanks for the link to Colt ..... I am in the proces to build up an Dolby Atmos speaker setup 9.2.6 and I am using RME Fireface UFX III + (and the new 1620 from RME is my plan) in my home living room, the reason the that I will go that way is precisely so i can play stereo and Dolby Atmos when I want it....... so I am happy to finally find someone that is mixing on speakers in sted of headphones.... So I dont focus on headphones...... so I must be one of the few people... I also want to Play a Movie in Dolby Atmos on "consumer level" playing movie on my TV and listen to the dolby Atmos track.,.... and so on..... I want the freedom to use it as much as possible .....maybe Y can help me to retch mu goal.... and come with suggestion how to do that best using a Mac Mini as streamer.... I am Using a Mac Book pro to controll the RME Fireface UFXIII right now...... but I dont want to use that to play movies on. I have been thinking a lot on how to solve the centerspeaker problems, it is not a easy thing to solve.... I have a TV screen to work around..... Normally Y put Y'r centerspeaker under the TV screen...... but Y cant do That when mixing ...... so I have decided to try out with a speaker on all 4 sides of the TV screen playing the same signal.... in order to get an image of speak from the middle of the screen...... I know it is not the best but I have to try it out.......... Best from Denmark DK J

[@michaelgwagner]

As far as I know consumer level Atmos systems work with DD+JOC encoded Atmos (that's the quality control deliverable). This is a 5.1 signal with additional metadata to reconstruct the 3d signal. Think of it as a spatial compression format. This limits the quality of the result you will get. There are people who run such 9.1.6 systems in their home theater but, at least to my knowledge, you will never get the same Atmos experience that the producer gets during production. This is just a limitation of the way Atmos is distributed to the end consumer. I have not set something like this up myself, but there are people on our Discord who have. Hop over to the Discord, I'm sure somebody can help you.

[@gavmurray7398]

centre speaker i use Adam Audio A44H which is super low profile (135mm) sits above 27"monitor on the desk with a 55" above it attached to the wall. its the only speaker i could get it to work with screen set up surprised there ore not more low profile centre options available

[@michaelgwagner]

Nice!👍

[@alex_ayers]

A few things... (I apologize for the lengthy comment) You mention that we are working towards the headphone user, but if we optimize only for what Apple's current version of Spatial Audio sounds like (which like you said with the heights is difficult to hear/nonexistent) we could be risking a mix that isn't future proof. It wouldn't be unlike Apple to change their Spatial Algorithm to make it sound different/better, which in my opinion, is all the more reason to mix in speakers to get the most accurate information (mind you will be useless if you still don't reference in headphones and Airpods). Also considering that we have to match 2 binaural formats, both Dolby and Apple (with and without binaural setting control), PLUS surround sound bars/systems makes all the more reason to have a super accurate Atmos system in the first place (which was Colt's goal, to my understanding) THEN reference on headphones. (Or vice versa. Doesn't matter to me.) About the center speaker, my display monitor is quite low, and isn't in the way of my Kali Audio IN-8. Where Colt has the tweeter and mid-woofer driver out of the way of the monitor, it should cover the majority of the frequency spectrum needed for what he does. I'm not sure what the crossover is between the drivers are, but like you said, could be concerning!! Still not understanding the logic on "if we are mixing for headphones, we shouldn't worry about how things are placed in the studio". Otherwise we should just mix in headphones, with every set of Airpods/Homepods. Different speakers/headphones will sound different, but as long as your listening environment is accurate, it should translate to headphones regardless. Also, kudos for you admitting your strong-suite being a tech educator and not a mix instructor. I personally like taking advice from someone that can explain things really well even without something huge in a music background to back it up with. A pro mix engineer can say he "does this and that" but not really explain "why he does that". One thing that has really kept me on this channel, man. Keep it up!! A point for the Atmos Bed is that it helps with translation for theaters and systems with Speaker Arrays in addition to using objects. This is super nice for listening parties in theaters, but not really for the common consumer, so when it "really doesn't matter" might be super important to someone else. Regardless, the translation does have to work in headphones more than anything else, like you mentioned. Final note (again, sorry for the long comment), your note about listening on headphones CAN be done using a surround bounce (Like from Logic Pro) with iPhones Files App, which actually ends up being a higher quality than the lossy MP4. But ultimately, the MP4 is what Apple is currently using for Spatial Audio, so I don't recommend the surround bounce regardless (Plus, it takes up more space so that isn't as convenient for Sending off for QC). Awesome Video.

[@spane5mixline]

Dope, thank you. 99.9% of these consumers must not be ignored.

[@michaelgwagner]

That sums it up nicely. 😂

[@FURognar]

Its hardly impossible to build a Dolby Atmos theater in your home. I've done just that. I bought a house two years ago and had a spare room that I converted to a dedicated theater/game room that I turned into a 7.2.4 theatrer, soon to expand to a 7.4.6 Theater (I just upgraded the receiver to handle 13.2 channels, now I just need the amplifier and extra speakers to hook up) I have a neighbor who has a dedicated room with 9.4.6. His room is smaller than mine and he made it work brilliantly. I have a co-worker who set up a 5.4.4 system in a spare bedroom. This is totally doable. It doesn't even cost that much money. Most anyone of average income could afford to put together a 7.2.4 system in a spare bedroom. And it would only cost a few thousand dollars. (especially if they shop on the used market). My own room is probably going to be about $10K when I'm finished (maybe $15k on the outside) and this cost will be spread over several years. I don't really know why people think its so expensive to set up a decent theater system. Its not at all. Especially if you shop smart.

[@michaelgwagner]

The format has technical limitations. Video coming up this week.

[@soundfontmusicproduction]

yes not everbody have a some called “atmos setup” but there’s a plenty of people that have a atmos setup in their space , either it mix room or an entertaintment room… so yeah , getting that excifment during mixing as a engineer still a priority , at least that for myself…again there’s a downmix that aconmodate a majorify of listener who using headphone / airpods , and we as engineer also always checking the downmix as well, so i always try to get a good result for both scenario. 😊

[@casualintrovert207]

I have a home theater setup with some tower speakers that have the height channel built in at the top, and I can tell in nearly every atmos mix the height channels often go underused. OR when they are used, they're super quiet. I find I have to turn up the gain on the height channels specifically on my AV receiver just to get them to even be noticeable. And same thing goes for the surrounds to an extent too, I turn them up about 2 or 3db extra. And even with all that i've YET to hear an atmos mix that TRULY immerses me. Often times I put my ear up to the surrounds or the height channel and I only hear the faintest of background effects and reverbs, It's almost like the engineers are just afraid to crank the effects up.

[@michaelgwagner]

Interesting info. Have you tried any of the Atmos mixes that are considered good Atmos mixes? Anything that sticks out to you as especially well done?

[@casualintrovert207]

@@michaelgwagner Best one i've heard so far is Mazzy Star - Fade Into You (I use the apple music app on my apple TV box for this.) The vocal is nice and forward ln the center channel, as if she's singing to you right there. And the simplicity of the instrumentation really makes each element stand out across my surround channels (even if it is just a 5.1.2 setup) as it's mainly just a bass, layered acoustic guitars, the vocal and rather simple drums. The biggest thing to me is the amount of big washy reverb that really covers the entire 360 space. So far I think that's the one song that really makes full use of the immersive reverb, and especially in the context of such a simply produced song, as the reverb really becomes an essential component to the emotion of the track, which is seriously heightened with the atmos mix. I always come back to that as my "default" atmos song when I want to show it's capabilities off to someone in a music context, just because of how immersive the mix is.

[@Willigrow]

Those are the kind of speakers that rely on bouncing the sound of your ceiling for height information right? Did you ever hear anything sounding good coming from that phantom height speaker? I'm asking because I've never had the experience listening on that kind of setup, but I was always skeptical on how well that works. There are so many variables that can interfere with that signal bouncing of the wall or ceiling. Could your ceiling be too high and the reflection misses your ears? Or do you have something on it that prevents a good bounce of the sound?

[@OfficialStevenCravis]

Regarding automation for movement in the 3D space, in Logic, all I had to do was change my track from Read to Latch, record the X Y motion on the panner, then do another record over the same section still on latch mode, and record the Up to down direction. It then becomes a 3D combination of those.

[@michaelgwagner]

Yes, Colt mentions this approach in his video. I decided to do a video about another approach this week. There is a nice solution utilizing a phone as a pointing device. It has been around for a while but I have not covered much on my channel. Stay tuned. ;)

[@bekindmakemusic]

Re Centre Speaker i have it on the same level as the L and R speakers, and I put the screen on a low monitor Arm below it at an angle, much like a laptop screen.

[@michaelgwagner]

Yes, thanks, I think that is the most sensible way to do it. Replicates a mixing desk somewhat.

[@SFLogicNinja]

Very cool video! I appreciate your approach when it comes to Atmos. When it comes to buying the Atmos renderer, i would suggest that Logic Pro is a good option if you are on a Mac because it has both the Apple and the Dolby renderer, and will use the Individualize Spatial Audio calibration. It’s a pretty inexpensive way to check the mix, and you are able to even make tweaks and re-export. Just in case nobody mentioned it yet

[@michaelgwagner]

Logic is a good choice for beginners or if you are heavy into the Apply ecosystem. I am not the biggest fan of how Apple implemented Atmos. But that's me. It is certainly a very good choice.

[@SFLogicNinja]

@@michaelgwagner Thanks so much for the reply. Would be interesting to get your take on the implementation and its weaknesses. Take good care.

[@immerseaudio]

interesting stuff...i agree about the accessibility of 3d sound with headphones vs having a physical speaker setup. i really havent messed much with object based spatial audio like atmos, and i have a question. 9.1.6 is atmos correct?-with fixed speaker directions? is there a way to position and manipulate sounds directly below or above the listener?

[@michaelgwagner]

Atmos does not have a single defined soeaker layout. 9.1.6 can be Atmos, as can be 7.1.4, etc. You can’t go below the listener. Above is possible in theory.

[@corticallarvae]

I break the rules as well but I’m an experimentalist and work in ambisonics and go as high order as possible…I have tracks that are binaural as well… but I’m aiming for headphones primarily…

[@michaelgwagner]

Nothing wrong with breaking the rules as long as you know why. ;)

[@stevegeorge7773]

17:52 it would be a very productive exercise to expand, deepen, on this observation. What solutions are available? Very good observation to say.

[@michaelgwagner]

Video coming this week. ;)

[@cefahprod]

Thanks for the video. Is there a way to do deliverable with some sort of Qality control with Studio One export on atmos?

[@michaelgwagner]

No, unfortunately, you need the renderer for that. You can use it standalone though, so it also works on Windows.

[@cefahprod]

@@michaelgwagner thanks. A bit pricey for me right now unfortunately if I understand right how the pricing work for the renderer.

[@michaelgwagner]

If you have a Pro Tools subscription or if you have access to an educational discount, it's only 99$. $299 is a bit much, I agree.

[@martinlemay7037]

First of all, thank you Michael for another great informative video! The true true fact about mixing in every ever format is when is fold down ( or maybe upmix ) its not the same result. The global feeling, intention and perspective is far away from the initial artistic creation. As 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of consumers will listen it in a fold down Atmos buzz word from steaming platform, and worst case in binaural algorithm for headphone, i just think to my self, why? And algorithm from streaming platform differ and don't sound the same, so creation is about to be very alter by a format that very nobody will ever enjoy one day. Weird concept. But yeah, a truly full multi-speaker listening experience is amazing!!! trust me :)

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks! I hope I did not give the impression that I do not value having a high end studio. Yes, transferability to various platforms is a good counter argument.

[@krzysztofmiarecki1289]

Hey, about this reverb. For logic and creativity, should reverb return track also be panned in the same place as for example where voice is panned and move with it? Or should it be more like centered on listener? Because like in this case it is already just an effect of instruments reverb, so should it come from some place or just be clear straight fair reflections (propably atmos reverb would have or solve this situation but well it is pretty expensive)

[@michaelgwagner]

Trying to avoid giving mixing advice. Lol. The only thing I can say is that if you want to create a realistic experience, you would only use fully immersive (in Colt's case 9.1.4) reverbs. That is obviously not always possible, especially if you are working from existing stems. In that case, do whatever your experience tells you to do. There are no rules as I said. If it sounds good, it is good.

[@krzysztofmiarecki1289]

@@michaelgwagner Okay, thank you

[@andreimiricescu]

It s true that almost all consumers will listen to the atmos mix on headphones, but what happens if apple decides to change the way they render the binaural mix? Maybe listening on a speaker setup is the way to making sure the atmos mix is futureproof Also, as a side note, i think that apple’s binaural render sounds a bit too roomy, the stereo image seems to be a little narrower and, unless it’s used with head tracking, is a worse sounding experience. I sure hope they improve their algorythm.

[@michaelgwagner]

Good point re future proofing. Just to be clear: I am not saying that an Atmos studio is pointless. I envy Colt's studio tbh. But one should never forget that this is not the way consumer will hear it right now.

[@PresentDayProduction]

The Apple algorithm changes almost weekly. That’s why it is recommended that you check mixes (or get someone else to) on a properly calibrated studio speaker system of at least 7.1.4. That’s the reference the algorithms are aiming for. And Apple does sound more ‘roomy’ and worse than the Dolby binaural render in my opinion. But again, it’s changing all the time. And getting better.

[@CraigScottFrost]

I think we should all strive to mix for the best possible results. I started with the idea to just use headphones and hope for the best in a full speaker layout. But you can’t hear what that would sound like. So, I’ve put together the cheapest system to hear where objects are and the relationship between speakers. 2 linked Behringer interfaces for 18 outs. Ginger Audio software for routing and volume control. Cheap speakers (which will be my first upgrade someday). It’s night and day difference between speakers and headphones. If you do only use headphones, you could run into phase problems you can’t hear, especially if you come off the wall. My whole system so far is $3k with used gear. I still need to get into acoustics and time alignment which will significantly improve performance.

[@michaelgwagner]

@PresentDayProduction I would agree with that statement. I wonder if there a business opportunity for Atmos studios to just provide feedback for bedroom producers who want to produce Atmos but don’t have a proper studio. Sort of an Atmos mix review. ;)

[@CraigScottFrost]

@@michaelgwagner I feel like Dolby could make popup listening rooms in major cities where ADMs could be uploaded by the engineer and the client could schedule a listening session.

[@StefVR]

Im in the lucky position to produce and mix mostly for myself. So I don’t mind only few will hear my 7.1.4.

[@michaelgwagner]

Lol, there is nothing wrong with that!

[@RealHomeRecording]

Do you make the stereo mix first?

[@StefVR]

@@RealHomeRecording I just got my setup. Ask me in 3 months

[@RealHomeRecording]

@@StefVR 😀

[@krzysiek3226]

Hey Michael, please help me. Could you please somehow figure it out how to connect Samsung Soundbar that supports Dolby Atmos (iny my case HW-Q990B) to windows laptop and playback to it content made in atmos? I'm trying to playback it with Dolby Atmos Renderer, but I have issue that max speaker setup that works (in practice, cause in theory i can choose everyone available, but eg. the top speakers arent playing) is 7.1, top speakers dont work and surround also. I tried to connect it with hdmi 2.1 (and for some reason then opening dolby atmos renderer app caused my windows a bluescreen, but not dead it just needs restart in this case), hdmi 2.0, tried to connect it with hdmi 2.0 to tv and then from tv with hdmi 2.1 to earc in soundbar. No solution worked. Also with windows settings built-in sound check test also when it plays top speakers, they are not played in soundbar. I'm loosing my mind, I was just trying to playback my atmos content on some native atmos speakers but without need to buy thousands of dollars worth of setup since samsung soundbars with atmos works just as fine with atmos content on netflix, tidal etc. Please, really please, I'd be so much thankful for you if you anyhow find any solution to this problem. Greetings! Krzysztof, Poland

[@michaelgwagner]

I have not done that myself, but I know that some members on our Discord have done that successfully. Hop over to our Discord. Link below. It's free.

[@theBullringLive]

Realistically, why even do 9.1.2. Where will consumers even hear it? YT, apple, tidal, amazon and I think spotify currently only stream in 5,1. However, 9.1.2 sort of future proofs the mix

[@michaelgwagner]

Yes, it is technically 5.1, but it is encoded in a way that allows the reconstruction of the 3d image. It is not as good as clean ADM though.

[@OfficialStevenCravis]

Is it possible for a binaural mix that sounds GREAT in headphones to sound at all decent on stereo speakers?

[@michaelgwagner]

Binaural needs to be listened to on headphones. But as I said in the video. There are no rules. If it sounds good it is good. I know of a couple of people who use binaural rendering for traditional stereo mixes. Personally, I would stay away from that though.

[@larswillsen]

Colt is the king! 🙂

[@michaelgwagner]

Yes, he is.

[@QFXmusic]

I have just been working with a 9.1.6 Reverb and delay and when i folded it down to stereo it was a nightmare :( But i found that it was because i used the BED with the extra chanels being made of extra objects... big mistake So i built the 9.1.6 using objects only and this solved a lot of the issues. There is a massive difference when you add size as it makes things way louder when you fold down... Every day is a school :) As for center Speaker i have mine under neath the monitor :) Means i get a clear picture of sound from it. My biggest problem is that with the two stereo outs (Direct Out Stereo) and just Stereo on the Dolby atmos Render ... Took me a long time to figure out what the difference is :( Direct is derived from the stereo down mix and the stereo from 5.1 :) But still very difficult to get it all folding down correctly.Did colt say that the mp4 can be dropped on to iPhone and played back correctly?

[@michaelgwagner]

Internally, the bed channels are treated as objects by the renderer so there should not be a difference. Everything depends a lot on how you set up the hybrid channel layout, of course. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with going 100% objects.

[@MrAchris10]

I set my monitor on top of my center speaker

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks for the info! Ergonomically not ideal, but I don't think there is a better solution.

[@theBullringLive]

VR will prolly go to a sort of helmet then they can do all sorts of spatial hijinks

[@michaelgwagner]

VR is also rendered in head tracked binaural btw.

[@alex_ayers]

If Apple can get there apple vision headsets to be cheaper, it would be a killer video and audio experience to have with their AirPods, and being able to see artists take advantage of a three dimensional music video would be super interesting to see

[@FLH3official]

Quote(s, many s): "99.9% of the consumer are not going to be able to listen to your dolby atmos production in the quality that you've produced..." Well, quite a big point. A major one. So the question is...

[@michaelgwagner]

The fast majority of people are listening to Atmos via personalized spatial audio, usually without even knowing that they are listening to Atmos. My point was not to say that this means you should not optimize your Atmos studio. The point was that you should not forget that it is the end consumer who need to have the best experience and not necessarily the mix engineer.

[@FLH3official]

@@michaelgwagner I agree and I got your point, but we've to "pull the string". The reason to spend big money on atmos today in our studios. The pression from apple/spotify/whoever? Furthermore it's not the "vast majority" of the listener who use "personalized spatial audio". On this planet they use regular, non-apple, cheap basic earbuds 'cause they don't have the money to buy pricy things and even they don't care. Around me, in my little city of the countryside of the European Western World I don't know anybody who owns a pair of apple airpods max. Nobody. And I don't even see that in the streets. I'm not happy of this but it's the reality.

[@NoQualmsTheArtist]

As a professional sound engineer that has been doing this for 20 years and I also run an Atmos studio, I can answer a few of your questions. You never mix for the lowest quality playback system. You always mix for the best quality reproduction on all systems. From airpods to cinemas to Atmos recording studios. Never just for airpods, this is true for stereo and immersive. That's just like asking why mix your stereo song to sound good at festivals and clubs when most people will listen on ear buds, as you can tell that's just unprofessional. Immersive reverbs sound horrible in a real space. The room you are listening to your music in whether a cinema, lounge room or studio. Already has natural reverb in it, adding an artificial immersive reverb on top of the natural immersive reverb is way too much reverb. It only sounds good on headphones. Back to point 1, mix for all playback systems. So don't use immersive reverbs as a default, except for a special effect. Audio sounds different from the phantom centre than it does from the centre channel. It's like the uncanny valley for audio. We are used to the phantom centre it is more pleasant to listen to. Universal specifically mentions that all engineers mixing Atmos for their artists to never use the centre channel for this reason. Also in home cinemas and consumer systems the centre speaker is a sound bar not a full spectrum speaker like in a studio, so putting kick or bass in the centre channel will not reproduce the low end, so just keep everything in the phantom centre for translation purposes.

[@michaelgwagner]

Great points, thanks! I would question your first point though. I think it makes a huge difference who your target audience is. The reality is that the high end systems you would be mixing for are completely inaccessible to the vast majority of consumers for the foreseeable future. This is what I wanted to communicate in this video. I think you most importantly need to produce for the highest quality system your target audience can access. Everything else is the cherry on top. That does not mean that you should not aim for the cherry, it just means that it is not the prime objective.

[@alex_ayers]

@@michaelgwagnerwhat if the future for artists and movie theaters prime objectives end up being listening parties in movie theaters?? I would like to provide the highest quality rendering I can, rather just exporting a 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever and then using that for the release party. Most people couldn't tell a difference, but If I will be listening in a theater with speaker arrays, mixing with objects versus the bed is going to make a huge difference. Because when you export a mix with objects that have more movement, it ends up not translating to larger theaters like it would if it were just an object by itself. But again, this is all hypothetical. I still agree, that we should be aiming for the highest point of quality in the chain, especially if Apple's spatial audio is going to be changing every time a new update comes out. Otherwise, mixing in headphones is virtually useless until they figure out what works best in their headphones.

[@PaulEubanks]

8:35 - I think a similar percentage of people will have better headphones than what you use in your studio as well

[@michaelgwagner]

You need headphones with head tracking capabilities to listen to head tracked binaural. There aren't any high end headphones out there that are capable of doing that. Fair point though, I should have made that clearer. ;)

[@PaulEubanks]

@@michaelgwagner I think the head tracking aspect is oversold, especially for people that listen to music while moving and not sitting in a fixed location. It's very disorienting and the first thing I do is disable it.

[@michaelgwagner]

I am not necessarily disagreeing here. The argument was that most people listen to Atmos that way. And I would add that many of them, if not most, do not know that they are listening to Atmos in the first place. I don't think it is a conscious choice that people make. It is just what comes out of the Airpods.

[@PaulEubanks]

@@michaelgwagner I think that depends on how people get their music. As I understand it's only Apple, Amazon, and Tidal that support Atmos? And even then they use different renderers? I'm not sure what Spotify is doing now, but last I heard they didn't support Atmos either and they're still the dominant platform. I use KZbin music, and they're working on their own Spatial Audio format called IAMP, but provide no Spatial Audio support beyond binaural, and even that is sparse on the platform. And then you have all the people listening to music in their cars, and only a very very small portion of those support Atmos currently. It's still very much an emerging market.

[@michaelgwagner]

True

[@matthewpattersoncurry8795]

i disagree that 99.9% of people are listening to atmos mixes with headphones. not going to say it's a lot less; maybe just 95 or even 98% but still it's important for me to mix on speakers. there are some electronic albums i'm mixing in atmos that will be then presented in galleries with 5.1.4 or 7.1.4 systems, along with accompanying art work, remaining up as an installation for a week to a month. i've seen this with other releases too. obviously in this situation the mix on speakers is more important.

[@michaelgwagner]

Th 99.9% was more of a figure of speech. But I am sure that it is in the very high 90% range. Yes, there are higher end systems out there that are not inside a music studio, but that is a very small minority. If you can accommodate these system, great! But it is not necessary of your target audience is the end consumer of music.

[@matthewpattersoncurry8795]

Sure, I just think that percentage is changing and will continue to change too

[@kadiummusic]

Dolby Atmos is a dead 🦜

[@michaelgwagner]

I honestly don't think so. But the fact that high end systems are inaccessibly to even audiophile consumers forces it to be on constant life support.

[@alex_ayers]

@@michaelgwagner Not to mention, Apple's spatial audio doesn't really do justice for giving the mix engineer full control of a mix on how it sounds in headphones. I think if Apple adopted the AC-4IMS Model, giving us the ability to use binaural settings and being able to turn certain elements "off" of binaural settings and keeping it purely stereo, It might have a chance!! But then again, the average consumer really doesn't care about how the song is mix, it just depends on how popular the artist is and how easy and convenient they can get the music. I am convinced that most people can't tell the difference between Apple's spatial audio and stereo.

[@davidcottrell1308]

the truth is that the binaural rendering is how atoms will be heard by 100 percent of consumers. So, don't waste your money on all those speakers....just learn how to make the headphone mix sound awesome.

[@FLH3official]

The other truth is the binaural rendering is not, well, very convincing for maybe 90% of the listeners. I tested that either on me, obvioulsy , and on other people: Just listening to the music with no visual clue (no dots moving in a box) and show with the finger where the hihat or the shaker is. 90% of time it's not working, the listener doesn't hear anything behind or above her/him. I'm realy sorry about that as, as a creator, I would realy fancy to place instruments in a convincing 3D space. My experiences with ambisonic recordings is far better than with dolby atmos so far. I hope the technology will improve on this point

[@michaelgwagner]

100% is a bit much, unless you made that point ironically. Lol.

[@davidcottrell1308]

@@michaelgwagner not really...virtually no one is going to have 12+ speakers mounted and just 1 'sweet spot' to 'experience' the immersive sound.

[@davidcottrell1308]

@@FLH3official One thing you quickly realize is that moving things around quickly just makes it kind of a blur. I mean, you can make a more 'open' recording, but you don't need flying monkeys. :)

[@H0kieJoe]

@davidcottrell1308 Space and time delays are quite different for home theater vs headphones. A proper acoustically engineered home theater has a wide sweet spot, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[@cinematicmusicproductiondotcom]

A lot of great content here. I'd love to share my 9.2.4 atoms studio pictures with you especially the placement of our center speaker. Those Focals are monsters!

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks! Hop into our Discord. Lots of people there and its free. You can also DM me directly on Discord.