Why Dolby Atmos Music at Home Is Always Worse Than in the Studio (No Matter What)

[@elpecemusiq6955]

I have 7.2 home theatre system. I was watching the first Avengers movie, which is old. There's this scene someone pressed one of the buttons at the top and I could literally hear the click of the button at the top left. I repeated it many times because it was just so impressive. With modern amplifiers that have Dolby Atmos with speakers that face the ceiling at an angle (about 45°), and their "Ordessy" speaker configuration app in the amplifier, you could enjoy more of this. When watching Netflix, I don't hear it a lot. I hear it more when watching, Apple TV because their sound is just so well produced.

[@rbingraham]

thanks for all your work in this field, always useful information. Honestly my biggest issue with mixing into Atmos for the end consumer is that so few end consumers really have anything approaching a proper atmos system. The simple sound bar solution that I would suspect many people go with for the convenience of not having 11 speakers plus a sub in their living rooms (and who can blame them) are not really all the effective. It might be nicer than a stereo only sound bar (actually lets just work to kill the sound bar in general please) but not really that much better in my opinion. Granted, I've only experienced a couple of them, so maybe there is one unicorn out there that really does atmos justice but my gut says my skepticism is likely justified. I did some mixing for consumer work that I primarily assumed would be listened to on headphones. And most of the folks I've played it back for made some comment similar to "it just sounds like it has a nice reverb on it". Oh well.. sigh.

[@michaelgwagner]

That’s why I said in a previous video that in reality almost all end consumers listen to Atmos on headphones.

[@welderfixer]

You are correct!

[@labmike3d]

@@michaelgwagner Why not initiate every Dolby Atmos music recording with headphones as the primary focus and consider speakers a secondary option? If the majority of people are listening to Dolby Atmos music through headphones, it seems logical to adjust the recording processes accordingly. Future Dolby Atmos recordings could potentially see a boost in quality as a result. A dedicated rendering engine, crafted by Dolby for various applications such as home cinema, cars, and headphones (with HRTF and head tracking) could be revolutionary. However, this would completely change the current Dolby Atmos approach of one solution fits all.

[@thelivingroomstudios]

Eventually TrueHD will be (keeping fingers crossed) the standard for streaming as well. Like lossless, for a lot of DSPs. Apple Music now streams up to 24/192 (wherever available from the masters delivered by the labels) which is crazy!! The Dolby Atmos Renderer could only do 48 up until very recently. The latest version does 96. We're getting there . . .

[@michaelgwagner]

It's the same issue though. Just at a higher initial quality.

[@alex_ayers]

Interesting that you mention the consumer stealing certain stems for music by just using objects, which is also dependent on the mix if you ask me. If you have a vocal in the center channel (which some labels don't allow because of this) anyone can just solo and use machine learning to extract it, if that isn't the only thing in the center. Speaking of machine learning, we are at the point where if someone is that desperate to to extract vocals from a song, AI is at the point where (although not the "highest" quality) still very useable in 2024 music production. Or better yet using AI to create a vocal of a popular artist just from the songs they already have in Stereo. On the note about DD+JOC, you got it spot on!! Until you mentioned that the end consumer is only for theater in film. I would argue that less and less people are going to the movies with the convenience and affordability of streaming nowadays, straight from the phone (but that's just an opinion). Most theaters now are also only a max of 5.1, and still aren't the "greatest" quality theaters where I'm at. I prefer just staying at home (but like I mention later, most go for the experience of a larger format than what they have at home and don't care about sound quality). For people that are listening to music in immersive, it is definitely worth noting that we are in our "mp3" era of digital audio streaming, and we are listening just for the sole idea that we have audio surround us, which is significantly cooler than even Stereo Lossless, again in my opinion). Dolby does make it a point that the spatial encoding is supposed to do well enough that most wouldn't be able to tell a huge difference in quality, same thing about mp3 vs wav. For experience audiophiles, this is obviously a problem, but again, still in early stages for music. Would be super cool to see artists release blu-ray albums using DolbyTrueHD (since it supports up to 16 channels of audio), or better yet for Apple Music to take advantage of the AC4 IMS codec (which is better than DD+JOC in so many ways). Would love to be able to download Dolby TrueHD like we can for lossless audio. :) Great video Michael.

[@MrAchris10]

Great information. It makes us have to think a little harder about the end consumer. It would be nice is we could get some plugins that can replicate different Dolby Atmos playback systems types like a sound bar and consumer playback systems rather than virtual versions of hi end studios. I would add a virtual movie theaters playback replication as well.

[@oliivioljy9700]

In other words, some malicious and unfriendly people have decided that no matter how fancy/expensive a multi-channel amplifier the consumers have at home, even if it's the most and highest-quality model, you'll only get LOSSY SOUND!!! It's complete bat shit! So the only option at home is to buy studio equipment that reproduces the authentic Dolby atmos sound experience from its own active loudspeakers. Clear.

[@welderfixer]

You are really on to something with your "plugin" idea. But, until then it would be great to have home AVR connected to all of your speakers through a multi channel switch. Other than that I am sure many Home Theater owners would be happy to have you demo your work in their homes. I know would glad to help in that way with my basic 7.2.4 system if I could.

[@MrAchris10]

@@welderfixer I’ve seen someone on KZbin have the Dolby Atmos receiver signal split to their Dolby Atmos studio monitors. Maybe solving the ADM file issue is a better approach. Is it that big of a deal to have the whole file transferred? AI software is pretty much able to separate stems anyways - if that’s the concern. There has to be a way to universalize down mix based on the playback system perimeters. Maybe going to a 7.1.4 channel based system for consumers with full Dolby home playback system. Down mixing via similar software we use in our DAWs should be easier than all the metadata encoding and decoding and loss of quality that has to go on with ADM files. I can print a 7.14 Wave file and all surround/Dolby panning is baked in. We could use less meta data to fold down or standardize fold down channel formatting done via a program or app.

[@oliivioljy9700]

@@welderfixer there is no problem. here in Finland, as a mere consumer, I have several digital genelec speakers that work for glm volume up to 128 digital genelec at the same time. I just have to think if av/trinnov 32 is enough for me.

[@welderfixer]

@@oliivioljy9700 I have no doubt that the Trinnov is the best processor on the market. If a mixing engineer used one of those to check the mix in a properly setup HT room it would be great.

[@QFXmusic]

Every day's a school day when i watch your content michael:) Having worked in atmos now for two years i had no idea that the content coming from apple into my studio in atmos was a mere 5.1 being decoded WOW As for reverbs i was just chatting to my production partner in the USA about Spatial Reverbs today ..kinda wish i had saw your video 1st lol I have only been using these kind of reverbs on my atmos mix in the past month and my 1st release is 23 rd sept so will be interesting to hear it when it comes back through the system in the studio ok.:)

[@michaelgwagner]

🤓 I’m sure it is perfectly fine. I’m still on the immersive reverb team, but it’s no a longer dogmatic position.

[@tapdapy]

Dolby Atmos is designed for a fat illusions of moving vehicles in a large cinema theatrical rooms first of all and that says enough about it😊

[@michaelgwagner]

I think the theatrical application of Atmos is a lot more obvious. And quite frankly also happens in a more controlled environment than Atmos Music.

[@labmike3d]

Hi Michael, let's revisit your comment from another video: "Consumers do not have access to the ADM and, therefore, cannot experience Atmos as it was originally produced." This is crucial information to consider before investing in a sound system capable of delivering a true Dolby Atmos experience.

[@michaelgwagner]

The message was more intended towards producers as there are rapidly diminishing returns in optimizing your studio equipment on the production side of things. I am honestly not sure if it is important to consider when investing in a home system. The differences are not that noticeable for the untrained ear, and they are generally beyond what consumer systems can reproduce anyway.

[@labmike3d]

@@michaelgwagner I think some consumers expect the best experience, particularly when investing in high-end systems. Ironically, even significant investment doesn't guarantee the ultimate experience without top-notch starting materials like ADM. From personal experience, I've observed that musicians are often quite sensitive to audio quality and can discern subtle differences. A few months ago, at the High End show in Munich, there was a presentation of Dolby Atmos, showcasing an impressive system powered by PMC speakers, commonly used in professional Dolby Atmos control rooms. The presentation was led by Steven Wilson, who not only extensively uses Dolby Atmos in his production, recording, and mixing work but is also a renowned musician. It's unclear whether ADM or another format, such as TrueHD, was used for the Atmos demonstration. Given the growing interest in spatial audio, uncovering the specifics of this demo could be quite enlightening. Perhaps I should inquire at Darko Audio on their KZbin channel if they know more. Stay Tuned ;)

[@MichaelForbes-d4p]

Another great video. Will be rejoining your echo system soon!

[@michaelgwagner]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@theBullringLive]

YT says they only do 5.1 because of the file sizes but they are working on their own thing

[@michaelgwagner]

KZbin also supports first order Ambisonics for 360 video.

[@i.a.m-poornasrikarm]

Thanks for the mention

[@michaelgwagner]

Any time. :) Was a good tip!

[@franflannery]

Great Info, Thanks! I have noticed differences in the TrueHD streams from Apple TV+ and Blue Ray disks. Is it possible these are different encodes to restrict streaming data?

[@michaelgwagner]

I’m honestly not that familiar with Blu-ray standards. My take was primarily on Atmos Music.

[@thelivingroomstudios]

Apple TV+ does not stream TrueHD. The only way to get TrueHD is BluRay discs (TrueHD Atmos being a 7.1 discrete lossless format with the required metadata for height, etc.) AppleTV streams in DD+JOC (lossy).

[@immerseaudio]

love geeking out on these videos lol...thanks for making them.

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks! Glad you like them!

[@soundfontmusicproduction]

i mix in atmos for around 2 years now…while listening back my client release in apple music , i can hear almost the same like what my mix is jn DAW , not the 5.1 being upmix to 7.1.4 though…just a lill bit weird sound at top channel but not make it to many difference between my mix listen back on DAW (pro tools) and Apple Music…at least this from my experience

[@michaelgwagner]

Yeah, I read through some of the research. The fact that the upmix works that well is actually quite impressive.

[@soundfontmusicproduction]

@@michaelgwagner i don’t really think it’s an upmix…if you’re setup is more than 16 channel let say you have dante virtual soundcard that set to 32 in out, apple music will automatically turn the playback into 5.1 ….then it will be fully 7.1.4 if your setup is no more than 16 channel….and i can tell it’s not 5.1 upmix to 7.1.4…because i know what i mix…so there’s no way an upmix can do what i do in term of movement especially extreme movement in objects

[@santibanks]

Interesting video, thanks for this, highly informative! It just makes me think though, back in the day we had Dolby Pro Logic which basically encoded the surround via matrixing. I'm surprised that Dolby didn't take the same approach here by basically using a 5.1 mix and encoding 4.0 for height in the same way. I'd assume this would 1) be easier, 2) give better spatial results. That said, it would be my expectation that given the information provided here, ditching objects and just treating your mix like a 5.1.4 mix with a bed is kind of the way to get the best translation?

[@michaelgwagner]

Objects are still the better option. The spatial up mixing works extremely well.

[@WiP999]

Professor, I wonder if you have any views on the IAMF format currently under development by the Alliance for Open Media? It appears to be an open source immersive format aimed at the rest of us producing for social media etc. I'm sure you know more than me so I wondered if you have tested it yet in FFMPEG and what your informed thoughts are? Maybe an episode on IAMF at some stage? Thanks.

[@michaelgwagner]

I honestly have not yet looked into it in detail. The issue with all these formats is that unless you have the content, nobody is going to use it. Even Sony is having a hard time with its 360RA format.

[@tykal1975]

good day, I have build 7.1.4. in the living room, there is a prepaid tidal, do you happen to know in what format it is distributed? remote tidal uses VRB, how do you understand it and what is the situation with the latest platforms, if we know anything about it.-) perhaps another video, a comparison of streaming services and the resulting measurements and conclude. I will probably have to buy a blue ray disc with the original master mix and compare it with tidal and their version!:-) I would also like to ask for a comparison with dolby truehd, there was no mention of the DTSX format in the video, you don't know how it is with music and if it is planned to expand, or if it can be mixed at home? thank you for the info and best regards from the Czech Republic

[@michaelgwagner]

You should hear it in 7.1.4. Unless you are a Dolby Atmos producer and are trained to hear Atmos in an Atmos production studio, you won't notice the difference when it comes to the encoding.

[@owensmith7530]

This completely ignores lossless Dolby True HD based Atmos on blu ray, which sounds much better than DD+ with JOC. And there is no reason we could not stream True HD based Atmos, it does not have to be limited to blu ray.

[@michaelgwagner]

But it has the same problems, just at a higher base quality level.

[@owensmith7530]

@@michaelgwagner It has much less problems since it starts with a lossless 7.1 base compared to a lossy 5.1 base. You are doing your viewers a disservice and displaying your own lack of knowledge. The sound quality degradation of taking a lossy base layer and extracting objects from it is significant.

[@earychow839]

Wait, if the playback is basically a "stem extraction from 5.1", did Dolby specify the algorithm for different video players and websites that support the format? Or are they just doing their own thing on their own?

[@welderfixer]

Here's a question: Can a full length movie be watched, enjoyably, through Pro Tools in say a 7.2.4 home theater room? Could this be better than an AVR/processor? Thank you!

[@michaelgwagner]

Pro Tools would not add any value to the setup. It would still be the same decoding step necessary.

[@welderfixer]

@@michaelgwagner Thank you.

[@gillesbelanger7451]

The Dolby page says "Joint Object Coding is a coding technique that allows up to 15 full range channels or objects, plus LFE channel" (btw it also says 15.1, not 5.1) Because of this, I was under the impression that if you restrict yourself to 16 channels (10 for the bed and 6 object channels), then JOC would leave your mix alone, and the consummer would get what you mixed. Now, six object channels is not a lot, but there could be strategies one can use: sending high energy stuff (lead vocal, kick, snare, bass) to the front two speakers of the bed; using a one 4-channel quad space object to place most instruments; ...

[@gillesbelanger7451]

Another way to put it. If you just have some dude singing with a guitar, there sould not be any smearing

[@michaelgwagner]

I don't think that's correct. You can't get around the backwards compatibility issue. I will always have to upmix as far as I know.

[@ShaharShoshan]

That is very disappointing, I feel like I was lied to for years. Thanks Michael for the info

[@oliivioljy9700]

We humans get screwed over every day. Always constantly, the higher the position, the louder the modified truth is spoken, i.e. cow shit. It's sad that in humanity, when new products are advertised that don't even come close to the original sales idea, just because of the name. Advertising sellers should be put in jail to think about their own evil.

[@welderfixer]

Misled at the minimum. I'm tearing down my Atmos system. Tired of the disappointment, all of the hassle and wasted money going into still not getting it right or what I am expecting from it. Too bad Atmos is not the only thing we have ever been lured into with bulls...t outcomes. 😒

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks! That's a bit of an extreme reaction though. ;)

[@earychow839]

​@@welderfixerI am still waiting for the era to come, where each smartphone we use can easily capture our PHRTF data (like how it captures our fingerprints and face id), and auto starts the personalized binaural processing upon streaming an Atmos video on KZbin. Everybody with any sort of headphone or earbud will have Atmos there for free. I believe that era will come.

[@earychow839]

​@@welderfixerI am still waiting for the era to come, where each smartphone we use can easily capture our PHRTF data (like how it captures our fingerprints and face id), and auto starts the personalized binaural processing upon streaming an Atmos video on KZbin. Everybody with any sort of headphone or earbud will have Atmos there for free. I believe that era will come.

[@thecliqueshallsetyoufree8745]

😁 Very useful video for everyone , Cheers...

[@michaelgwagner]

Thanks!

[@Cregino2k]

I decided to mix in Atmos and bounce the binaural in Logic surround, even mastering the mix with Ozone or Waves, etc ... Multimono channels and it respects the SPATIAL immersive sound. Most people will listen in inexpensive to medium priced quality headphones. Don't know if Apple will accept these kind of mixes !

[@michaelgwagner]

Interesting! As I say, whatever sounds good is good. 👍

[@Cyberlightning101]

do you have to use beds at all for atmos mixes to be compatible with surround / atmos / binaural?

[@michaelgwagner]

No, you don’t have to use the bed channels.

[@pvab009]

Indeed as MW said, it has no use; but you can use the LFE creative, beware you send a different sonic scheme / color to this channel to avoid weird sub LF image- if it’s well done it creates massive impact on music too 😉

[@grantbrown3647]

Ah yes, and most of us cant have a dedicated studio at home. Hasta La Vista, at most.

[@PaulEubanks]

My experience is Atmos is still new to many audio engineers, and as a result poor decisions are being made with regard to instrument placement and panning. And it's never the songs you would expect either. For instance the Atmos mix for Billie Jean by Michael Jackson is basically unlistenable, while the Atmos mix for Jeremy by Pearl Jam is amazing and breathtaking. So many arrangements just don't translate well to Atmos. Atmos benefits dense arrangements and sparse arrangements, but anything in between seems to be made worse by poor mixing decisions I've found. Except for movie theaters, I've yet to hear an Atmos mix in anything other than Binaural renderings, so I'm curious to hear how these mixes would translate in a sub-optimal multi-speaker listening environment like a car. I'm guessing reverb choices which work well in headphones are going to be poor when listening via speakers, and the lower volume requirement is going to make listening in multi-speaker environments difficult, especially with the volume level changes that happen during object panning. I also think nobody quite has a handle yet on reverb summing between creative reverbs applied in the mix vs. the reflections employed by the Atmos renderer to achieve its proximity effect. These end up getting jumbled together and the end result is a messy reverb that never sounds like what the engineer intended, and obscures the proximity effect the Atmos renderer is trying to create. You're almost better off NOT using any reverb at all for the original mix, and letting the Atmos renderer do its own thing for proximity effects, and then make mixing decisions from there with respect to any time-delay effects. I also don't understand how proper phase relationships are maintained in this chaotic pseudo-3D environment, but that would probably require a multi-part video series to explain...

[@labmike3d]

I'm glad you mentioned the various aspects related to Dolby Atmos. Many audio engineers are still in the learning process, and consumers often act as beta testers. It's quite challenging for engineers with years of experience in the recording industry as some techniques become obsolete, such as "traditional use" of bus compressors and reverbs. Creating an Atmos mix that sounds great in a dedicated home theater, car, soundbar, or earbuds is a complex task. Stereo recordings are much simpler and more forgiving. You can employ some amazing techniques, sometimes with the help of AI (masking, glue, parallel compression, etc.), which are not as straightforward to replicate in the Dolby Atmos process. Some analog gear has become completely obsolete. You can't even use conventional plugin emulations because they are designed for specific use cases, but not necessarily for Atmos. Engineers are gradually learning to use different compression techniques (or skipping this process altogether) and focusing mainly on the -18LKFS delivery target, which is more crucial than anything else (otherwise, your mix would be rejected). The process of creating Dolby Atmos music is complex. I believe that in the future, some music will be created and arranged specifically to sound great on a Dolby Atmos system and will be presented by marketing teams, similar to movie trailers. However, creating Dolby Atmos remixes of old recordings will not be an easy task. It would be wonderful if the people who created the original recordings could be involved in the entire remixing process.

[@PaulEubanks]

@@labmike3d You make a great point about older recordings. Especially the ones closer to the end of the "loudness war" are going to use heavy compression and limiting to achieve high perceived loudness, which is just not needed in an Atmos mix. But that's easily correctable, and not at all what I consider to be the main problem - which is reverb. Engineers are so used to using reverbs creatively to make these whooshing pads and sound effects and cathedral environments or Grand Canyon style echoes, but this doesn't translate properly to Atmos. At all. Atmos creates the room for you - small/medium/large and you're stuck there basically. Any creative space you may have been able to achieve otherwise will just be boxed into that space, creating a huge mess inside of it. In order to re-create an older mix properly in Atmos, you're going to have to remove all time-based effects, which may wreck a mix entirely. And creating a room space inside headphones is all well and good, you're removing the room and replacing it psychoacoustically; but creating a psychoacoustic Atmos room within a real listening room using a 9.1.4 speaker arrangement, especially one without proper acoustic treatment - well that's just not going to work at all is it? I'm honestly surprised Dolby engineers haven't seemed to consider this overlap at all in their designs.

[@welderfixer]

I may be wrong, but I am sure that there is no way on earth to hear anything even close to what the engineer heard if the room at home is not built very close to studio. Speaker layout and equipment is crucial. I am also sure that Dolby has not been completely honest with the consumers of the ATMOS format. The home speaker layout is poor at best. Luckily, ATMOS has been out since 2012 and there has been enough time for home theater designers, technicians and some hobbyists to figure it out. As explained in this video the media delivery format is very suspect in getting all of the ATMOS data to the home user. Then there is the AVR and or processor. If the gear is poorly built the output will be poor. Garbage in - garbage out. Honestly, after all of the time and money I have wasted on ATMOS I feel cheated and misled. The audio hobby just isn't fun anymore - just feels like a deceptive F-ing rip off! Dolby, gear manufacturers, producers, etc... all just reaching in our pockets by giving us hope for a great audio experience. I am likely going back to 2.1 a forgetting the deception of a multi channel utopia.

[@labmike3d]

I believe you're not alone in feeling disappointed by a certain level of overpromising and underdelivery... Let's not initiate a debate over height channels that are often silent during some Dolby Atmos movies, which have won Oscars for best sound mixing, such as Mad Max. It's quite ironic how many people are upset because of the subpar Dolby Atmos track released on Blu-ray Disc (Mad Max: Fury Road)...

[@labmike3d]

What's the point of showcasing a control room equipped with a Dolby Atmos setup and discussing its superior sound quality if there's no opportunity to experience the final mix (ADM) elsewhere? It appears that the marketing teams are heavily promoting Atmos, promising an extraordinary experience while not fully informing the public about the limitations of the Dolby Atmos translation process. Music is completely different from movies filled with sound effects and explosions. You can't fool anyone with a low-quality soundbar. My recommendation is to not listen to anyone who doesn't tell you how limited Dolby Atmos is for end users. Many KZbinrs and music producers have recounted their experiences with the remarkable sound quality of their acoustically treated control rooms, which are outfitted with systems that can handle a 128-channel Dolby Atmos setup. This experience is comparable to watching a cooking show on television without the chance to taste the dish. Similarly, listening to a 16-channel downmixed version is akin to enjoying a 24/192 recording over FM radio. The comparison highlights the nuances that are lost in translation from a full, immersive experience to a more accessible, yet compromised version.

[@dannykirsch]

I was just about to purchase Spacelab Interstellar but are you suggesting it would be best to use a ‘normal’ reverb in an atmos mix?

[@michaelgwagner]

Interstellar is still the best. Just for its usability alone, especially when you use it with the Dolby Atmos Composer. I still think immersive reverbs are the way to go, but as always, there can be too much of a good thing. ;)

[@dannykirsch]

@@michaelgwagner do you rate it over cinematic rooms professional which I already own? Also do you rate it over other reverbs even while using it normally in standard stereo mode?

[@michaelgwagner]

@dannykirsch Spacelab is unbeaten in connection with the Dolby Atmos Composer from Fiedler. If you are using a traditional workflow with the Dolby Atmos Renderer (internal or external) Cinematic Rooms is probably the better option.

[@dannykirsch]

@@michaelgwagner thanks Michael 🙂

[@svenisaksson3970]

Is it correct to assume that this quality issue affects the Dolby Atmos audio on Movie Blu-rays, in the same way?

[@pvab009]

No

[@michaelgwagner]

Blu-ray is a different story.

[@svenisaksson3970]

@@michaelgwagner It would great if you could find the time to make a video about that story, sometime in the future.

[@annebokma4637]

Dolby Atmos Home Studio... done, sounds the same home and in studio, guaranteed, the same :)

[@michaelgwagner]

😉

[@TheJediJoker]

What about Dolby Atmos in TrueHD "lossless" format as found on consumer Blu-ray discs? That uses a base 7.1 speaker layout at 24-bit/48kHz lossless resolution plus metadata for object extraction. Additionally, as part of the TrueHD specification, a lossy 5.1 AC-3 Dolby Digital "core" (without object metadata) is buried within the file/stream.

[@SamHocking]

TrueHD is higher fidelity by virtue of its higher bitrate, but it's still spatially encoded down from 128 objects to 16 spatial groups that are then decoded out of the 7.1 audio.

[@michaelgwagner]

What @SamHocking said. :)

[@labmike3d]

@@SamHocking Hi Sam, let's examine this process more precisely. The Dolby Atmos Renderer is designed to automatically reduce the number of objects through a process known as "clustering". Clustering is used in the encoding process to reduce the amount of data used by objects and beds. As a result, consumers, even those listening to TrueHD Blu-ray Discs, do not receive the same spatial experience as the audio professionals in the mixing room or moviegoers in a standard theater. That's just the way it works. The Dolby Atmos Renderer performs automatic premixing/downmixing based on "specs", and this is unlikely to change. An alternative is to employ Ambisonics, which, as we know, is a completely different story ;) Interestingly, the Dolby renderer's approach is somewhat reminiscent of MQA's "folding" technique, which adapts according to the user's equipment. Remember the MQA saga and its conclusion? Have fun! 🤘😉

[@SamHocking]

@@labmike3d Yes, clustering is the result of spatially encoding objects down to 16 clusters as I described. Mostly by proximity. As for Ambisonics it is far from perfect or the best sounding imo. The problem Ambisoncs has and still has is it's a very bloated way to deliver spatial audio and the entire encode and decode process largely the reason it hasn't got beyond an academic and enthusiasts solution rather than anything usable as a consumer imo.

[@labmike3d]

@@SamHocking The entire process of "clustering" or approximation may not be ideal for those striving to deliver the best sound experience. Additionally, Dolby's use of heavy compression for music encoding is far from optimal. However, there seems to be no alternative if the goal is to "protect" the original content, as Michael pointed out in the video. By the way, as far as I know, Dolby does not support AC4 on Apple devices, so EAC3 JOC is still in use. But this could change in the future-who knows? Meanwhile, I enjoy experimenting with open standards like Ambisonics, which I've been using more for research and designing my head-tracking adapters that work very well in Reaper.

[@murraywebster1228]

This is the problem, great in the studio but it will not translate..

[@michaelgwagner]

Yes, translation is a challenge.

[@SuperIZL]

😂😂😂😅😅😢😢😢🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽💪🏾🎤😎

[@michaelgwagner]

:)