Looks like it’s time to move away from DP - wondering if others are doing the same

[BKK-OZ]

I think you may need special earbuds that are designed to reproduce spatial audio? And that basically the main thing is head tracking... so you move your head around and you get a sense of directionality?

You can listen either way.
I’m not sure about head tracking solutions for ATMOS.
But Apple’s ear buds/headphones can do the head tracking (Studio One lets you listen and work with Apple Spatial Audio using them).

[jesus chrysler]

I walked away from DP to Cubase 14 a few weeks ago. I got it half price on KnobCloud - cheaper than the cross-grade from DP.

I love(d) DP. But the performance of DP10-11 for me has been terrible, 5+ years, even on an Ultra w 128g RAM. My motivation to switch was 90% DP's UI taking 1-2s for almost any action + spinning ball. Including just clicking the File menu, and crashing, and projects bloating to hundreds of MB, even simple ones. I want to release records, not wrestle with a company's secret changing business strategy. Honestly, DP feels like an afterthought for MOTU, like some legacy monolith devs never want to touch.

Okay, performance may have been the initial thing, but it feels like a revelation to use software designed for a producing musician that behaves and feels and looks modern in every way. Every flow seems to be designed for playing and editing music (vs composing or orchestrating or scoring or spotting). I was up and running in under 2 weeks.

Yes, Cubase has bugs and haters on its own forums bemoaning Steinberg for not fixing [fill in the blank], and yes Steinberg is in the feature grind wars with other DAWs, and yes it crashes (less than DP!) and doesn't have chunks, etc. But just wow, how incredible to use a modern piece of software.
-vv

[HCMarkus]

But the performance of DP10-11 for me has been terrible, 5+ years, even on an Ultra w 128g RAM.

I've got the same Mac, but have definitely not experienced the issues you describe. I guess I'm just lucky. Moving from a cheese grater to the Ultra, for me, was just the best thing ever, and DP under apple Silicon did not disappoint. Sorry your experience has been different.

[Killahurts]

Going back to BKK's original post- as I've already said, I switched to Pro Tools for Atmos work because DP didn't support it. Pro Tools is the only DAW other than DP out there, I don't hate. Plus, I already use Pro Tools for Mastering, as DP cannot create hardware inserts with my interface (every other DAW can). If DP 12 has fully featured Atmos, I will absolutely consider switching back, because of the incredible time it would save me, not having to bounce/prep/export/import Stems from DP to Pro Tools. Even if they only initially had support for the external Dolby Renderer, I would still consider. BKK, unless you need the Atmos right now, maybe consider waiting a little longer to see what MOTU comes up with? Might surprise all of us!

There's something else..

I've seen a lot of things posted on this thread about Atmos that I think are misconceptions, or otherwise not quite right. I would never want to condescend here with you guys, so I don't want to do quotes, etc. I just want to impart a couple things from my modest knowledge on the subject. I'm no Atmos expert, but I have spoken with many experts (none of which would dare call themselves an expert, if that tells you anything.. well, I do know this one guy, but he's full of himself). All of my opinions come only from the standpoint of commercial album releases that include the Atmos format, i.e. it will be distributed to all streaming platforms.

Dolby Atmos and Apple Spatial are two completely different formats...

Actually, no they're not. Spatial Audio is Dolby Atmos, only with modifications. Apple takes the basic Atmos delivery, removes (or more correctly, ignores) the binaural settings we engineers so painstakingly set up. They apply their own "spatialization" to the master and its objects. Lots of opinions on it.. mine is, it makes everything sound kind of the same, like everything from death metal to ambient sleep music, has the same sort of spatial "vibe." Maybe Apple didn't want to pay Dolby royalties or something. When I deliver an album to my distributor, I deliver the 24 bit stereo master, and the Atmos album master. The other streaming platforms like Amazon and Tidal, actually call it Atmos I believe, and they present the actual Atmos mix, including the binaural metadata we put- true Atmos, with no shenanigans.

All you need is a DAW that supports it, and a set of headphones. You don't need all those speakers!

I'm sorry, it won't work. Not for a commercial release, as I defined above. Trust me, If I could have saved myself the cost of the 12 speakers, the Grace 908 monitor controller, the new software, etc., I would have! Atmos is completely scaleable, meaning you can take a 9.1.6 stream, and the consumer automatically plays it back on 7.1.4, 5.1, stereo, stereo binaural, etc. If I create a 7.1.4 Atmos mix as I normally do, it will play back correctly on a 9.1.6 system (up-mix), and also all the other formats, down to stereo, and then binaural. It does this with fold-downs, and there is no way for you to know if your 5.1 fold-down is a train wreck or not, in headphones. Also, if you're going to create a headphones only Atmos mix, you better be sure not to ever change your binaural settings from default (mid), because binaural is only for headphones, and has no effect on speaker configurations whatsoever. Can you really know what's going on in all those formats, from a pair of headphones?

Post script: If 99.9% of the audience will hear it in headphones, do the 200 people who will listen it on various speaker systems really matter?

Yes.

[HCMarkus]

Here's a question for those working in Atmos...

What happens if one renders a Stereo Mix in Atmos format? Is this possible?

[BKK-OZ]

Dolby Atmos and Apple Spatial are two completely different formats...

Actually, no they're not. Spatial Audio is Dolby Atmos, only with modifications. Apple takes the basic Atmos delivery, removes (or more correctly, ignores) the binaural settings we engineers so painstakingly set up. They apply their own "spatialization" to the master and its objects. Lots of opinions on it.. mine is, it makes everything sound kind of the same, like everything from death metal to ambient sleep music, has the same sort of spatial "vibe." Maybe Apple didn't want to pay Dolby royalties or something. When I deliver an album to my distributor, I deliver the 24 bit stereo master, and the Atmos album master. The other streaming platforms like Amazon and Tidal, actually call it Atmos I believe, and they present the actual Atmos mix, including the binaural metadata we put- true Atmos, with no shenanigans.

This kinda makes them different formats, and that's how I have heard them described - but I take your point, technically they might not be.
One needs to be able to check Apple-spatial mixes is the only point that I take away from the format wars.

All you need is a DAW that supports it, and a set of headphones. You don't need all those speakers!

This will be the second time I am clarifying...
Is the binaural experience one gets from a fold-down mix the same as having a bunch of nice speakers, properly tuned to your room?

Nup.
It's not the same.
But if one is interested in immersive audio, it is a bloody good place to start.

p.s.
The fold-down mixes that I have looked into are really very good out of the box, but you're right - if you are publishing commercially you need a full rig,

Additionally, if one is interested in only publishing binaural (effectively stereo+) mixes (e.g. not publishing 7.1.2 mixes to Tidal, etc) then it's a perfectly sound way to operate.

[Killahurts]

Here's a question for those working in Atmos...

What happens if one renders a Stereo Mix in Atmos format? Is this possible?

It's possible to do with plugins/software, but Apple at least, will likely reject it, and they often do. They want real 12 channel+ music.

They will also reject it if:

Your peak LUFS exceed -18 dB. You read that right (that's really quiet guys!). Apple wants to be able to turn it up or down with their "Soundcheck," but the -18 spec is from Dolby.

Your binaural stream exceeds -1 dB.

Your stereo master and your Atmos master are not perfectly synced. They have to be completely time synced, no more than (I believe) 20ms difference, so when the consumer switches to stereo, it is seamless. For an album, this means the entire album has to be in sync, not just individual tracks.

[cuttime]

In Apple Music, tracks say Dolby Atmos with the Dolby logo clearly visible. This is different from other Atmos mixes?

[James Steele]

Well, then it really seems like what ATMOS does is screw the little guy who doesn’t have a large enough treated room and the money to set up a full ATMOS rig. My head hurts from thinking about trying to comply with all of the technical requirements.

I’m glad they still accept stereo masters don’t they? I hate to be a cynic, but it seems like the end result will be the DE-democratization of music creation and a blood letting in home studios. If online streaming services require ATMOS at some point, it seems like it will obsolesce and screw over those of us doing stereo.

Maybe someone will start a service that sells stereo songs if that happens? Or maybe there might be a class action lawsuit? I mean Apple is approaching a monopoly in terms of iTunes users. I suppose there are other streaming apps. I guess it may limit where services like TuneCore or DistroKid can distribute?

I suppose the resurgence of vinyl will continue and utilize stereo.

I dunno. I just hope ATMOS doesn’t become a requirement. Call me a grump, but it feels like it’s very much being forced by powerful companies upon a majority that don’t really want it. Sigh.

[Killahurts]

In Apple Music, tracks say Dolby Atmos with the Dolby logo clearly visible. This is different from other Atmos mixes?

You're right, I forgot it does say that. As far as I can tell, the only difference is in the binaural (earphone/headphone) experience. Apple replaces the binaural metadata the mix engineer set up, with their own spatial algorithms (see my post above). But binaural in headphones is only one of many presentations available in the Atmos stream. e.g. If I set the Music app on my Mac to play 7.1.4 outputs to my Atmos speaker system, Apple Music will play it perfectly into those speakers, as unaltered Atmos. Does Apple want to control your whole audio experience on their devices? Of course! On the Mac/PC? Not so much. you know, as audio creators, Apple is the best and worst thing that ever keeps happening to us.

[Michael Canavan]

I came to this forum to ask if others, like myself long-time DP users, were considering other options.
I came here specifically because I am interested in how people have experienced the transition if they have started using another DAW.

I stated my experience, right now I have DP, Logic, Live Suite, Reaper, Reason etc. etc. I switched to Logic for about 7 years even, and almost switched to it again 4 years ago, chasing another development in audio, MPE.

As to the relative status of DAWs, of course there are strengths and weaknesses.
And different price points.
But I don’t think it’s possible to objectively state that DP is currently on par with most other DAWs.
Just look at the feature sets available and compare.
Some of the new features may not hold much attraction for you, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Yeah this is where you lose the plot to me. Atmos etc. are useful to some and not to others. Live is likely the most popular DAW out there, or FL Studio. I'm pretty sure neither does Atmos, and I'm pretty sure both have hyper modern features. I can't vouch for FL, but Live has an AI assisted browser, and Max4Live of course.

This new version of surround is IMO the only new feature worth mentioning, but you'e stated "feature sets" as if there's a plethora of things missing in DP, and that's where I think you lose me. There are existing features I would like to see improved, but again, I have other DAWs here, Logic, and Reaper etc. and I don't have jaw dropping moments of jealousy, except maybe with Alchemy in Logic.

You don't like my answer, which is I did the same thing 4-5 years ago about a year before DP11 dropped, and started using other DAWs to find one that I liked that worked well with MPE. By the time DP got MPE I had concluded that they're all pretty great, and all have strengths and weaknesses. So when DP got MPE I was back full time with DP and with an understanding of a few other DAWs.

Like I mentioned in around 2002 I switched to Logic for years, over features I wanted etc. I'm sorta glad I did, I was able to dump OS9 years earlier etc, but again the experience led me to the realization that the DAW isn't that important. I think that's where you're simultaneously complaining about being misunderstood, and creating the misunderstanding yourself.

But I don’t think it’s possible to objectively state that DP is currently on par with most other DAWs.

Yes, it is. Sorry, you're wrong there. It's also the oldest version out there, at 3y 8m. Everything points to DP12 dropping by June IMO, so all of this is a loop on every DAW forum, when a DAW is long in the tooth people get frustrated and start talking about other DAWs with some new feature or another etc. etc.

[dix]

Well, then it really seems like what ATMOS does is screw the little guy who doesn’t have a large enough treated room and the money to set up a full ATMOS rig. My head hurts from thinking about trying to comply with all of the technical requirements.

I’m glad they still accept stereo masters don’t they? I hate to be a cynic, but it seems like the end result will be the DE-democratization of music creation and a blood letting in home studios. If online streaming services require ATMOS at some point, it seems like it will obsolesce and screw over those of us doing stereo.

Maybe someone will start a service that sells stereo songs if that happens? Or maybe there might be a class action lawsuit? I mean Apple is approaching a monopoly in terms of iTunes users. I suppose there are other streaming apps. I guess it may limit where services like TuneCore or DistroKid can distribute?

I suppose the resurgence of vinyl will continue and utilize stereo.

I dunno. I just hope ATMOS doesn’t become a requirement. Call me a grump, but it feels like it’s very much being forced by powerful companies upon a majority that don’t really want it. Sigh.

It's not clear to me how anyone but successful labels and successful artists are distributing Atmos music mixes. Last I checked Distrokid charged around $20 a year for unlimited stereo releases, and $20 per song for Atmos releases. Never mind the technical hurdles of getting set up for Atmos mixing (and adhering to the daunting Distrokid delivery specs), Is there now a viable way for independent artists to distribute Atmos mixes, if they are up for these challenges, I don't know about?

[James Steele]

Well, then it really seems like what ATMOS does is screw the little guy who doesn’t have a large enough treated room and the money to set up a full ATMOS rig. My head hurts from thinking about trying to comply with all of the technical requirements.

I’m glad they still accept stereo masters don’t they? I hate to be a cynic, but it seems like the end result will be the DE-democratization of music creation and a blood letting in home studios. If online streaming services require ATMOS at some point, it seems like it will obsolesce and screw over those of us doing stereo.

Maybe someone will start a service that sells stereo songs if that happens? Or maybe there might be a class action lawsuit? I mean Apple is approaching a monopoly in terms of iTunes users. I suppose there are other streaming apps. I guess it may limit where services like TuneCore or DistroKid can distribute?

I suppose the resurgence of vinyl will continue and utilize stereo.

I dunno. I just hope ATMOS doesn’t become a requirement. Call me a grump, but it feels like it’s very much being forced by powerful companies upon a majority that don’t really want it. Sigh.

It's not clear to me how anyone but successful labels and successful artists are distributing Atmos music mixes. Last I checked Distrokid charged around $20 a year for unlimited stereo releases, and $20 per song for Atmos releases. Never mind the technical hurdles of getting set up for Atmos mixing (and adhering to the daunting Distrokid delivery specs), Is there now a viable way for independent artists to distribute Atmos mixes, if they are up for these challenges, I don't know about?

The whole situation just seems really daunting to me. I can't see many independent musicians able to invest in the proper setup with a decent room and multiple speakers, not to mention the added investment perhaps in updated interfaces to provide more analog i/o, etc. in order to produce "proper" ATMOS mixes. It all seems that--intended or not--the end result is forcing indy musicians to have to go back and spend big bucks to the studios that CAN set up an ATMOS mixing room and exploit this industry top-down driven demand.

I followed this Michael G guy's YouTube channel. Someone posted a video of his earlier. This video was interesting to me as he talked about a free tool that will help you convert a stereo mix into an ATMOS file, and I suppose if you're looking to create a boring, adequate ATMOS mix in order to comply with a requirement it would work? Except for the fact that Apple does not ALLOW these. They're trying to encourage purpose-made ATMOS mixes. Michael does suggest that one way you can sneak around this is after using this tool, go back and add an extra track or two as objects and then Apple won't know. Thought occurred to me that you could possibly make a mix and mute, say, a handclap or shaker or other percussion track/tracks. Use this tool to generate an ATMOS file, and then add back the percussion elements as objects to get past Apple's "rules." Apple... sometimes I love them... sometime I hate them.

[dix]

Agreed, with all this James. But again, my question is why? Why would anyone bother to mix music in Atmos without distribution channels?

[EMRR]

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned an ATMOS requirement from distribution. A requirement for WHAT exactly, I ask, because everyone is taking stereo and mono mixes for distribution with no absolute ATMOS requirement. This keeps coming up in various conversations, and keeps getting batted down. They WANT it for sure.

I did a major label record a few years ago, no one mentioned ATMOS once. No ATMOS mix has ever been mentioned.

In all my time doing music, no one has ever once even mentioned the possibility of recording with Surround or ATMOS in mind. Let alone, a mix.

Practically no studio is spending on ATMOS mix rooms. It's not just the little guys. In all my years the only surround mix setup I've seen in a music room was actually a music mastering house, and they had it rented and setup for a couple specific projects, it went away.

It's cool to have the tools available, for whoever needs them. Hopefully DP gets that right, and soon.