For a good understanding, this is a question for Atmos audio post for TV, not for Music.
I think the procedure of getting round the 7.1.2 bed limitations has been discussed thoroughly.
So we all do this complex routing to “upgrade” our STEMS (DX, FX, MX, …) from 7.1.2 beds to a full 7.1.4 output.
The question is … is it worth it?
Yes, the reverbs sound a bit better.
Yes, the BG’s sound a bit wider and open, and so does the upmixed stereo music. A bit.
We are nerds.
But, my BG’s library’s are 7.1.2.
My own field and whatever recordings are 7.1.2.
So … what’s left? Except for a that nice bird in the rear highs…
Does it really make that much of a difference?
A difference that is “worth” all of the extra efforts we put in?
And isn’t the 7.1.4 to 7.1.2 folddown creating issues we aren’t aware of?
Very curious for your thoughts.
PS: Know that I regulary mix(ed) in Auro 3D, which is a much superior format than Dolby Atmos, so I know how good a full blown immersive mix can sound.
Also something I’ve wondered about: How does it sound on a home theater system vs a studio system? While HT systems support up to 9.1.6 speakers, they actually don’t represent the spatial data with nearly as much fidelity. In a studio (or actual theater) all the objects are separate audio data that is then panned to the appropriate speakers by the decoder. However HT is… strange. They actually store all the sound in a 5.1 Dolby track, and then include information as to how to recover spatial data on things. It works, of course, but it isn’t going to provide the same fidelity of where something is in space that you would get with the studio track.
As missile sirens sound in Delhi—likely a drill—their spatial origin remains unclear, and even more ambiguous is the emotional effect they evoke. It reminds me of Ernst Jünger’s Heliopolis, a novel whose abstract layered soundscape defied classical musical adaptation.
We may be on the edge of a shift. With AI-enabled devices, hearing technologies could soon begin adapting—not just to acoustic spaces, but to us. To our habits. Our moods. Our emotional thresholds. Hearing might cease to be passive; it might listen back.
This is where Dolby Atmos becomes more than a format—it doesn’t just give sound direction; it gives it dimension. Every note, voice, or reverberation becomes a discrete object suspended in a 3D acoustic field. In such environments—7.1.4 or 9.1.6—the focus moves beyond speaker layout. What matters is no longer where the sound is placed, but how it is perceived.
Bass is not just low frequency—it becomes gravitational. Treble doesn’t just sparkle—it glimmers in emotional space. Spectral perception takes precedence over position. It’s like painting with vibration, not just volume.
We are approaching an era where sound is no longer transmitted—
I started with a 5.1 setup, but three years ago I upgraded to 5.1.4—mainly because I work on art house films, documentaries, and radio dramas. Since then, I’ve noticed that in about 98% of cases, I can make highly accurate mix decisions just by relying on the visual cues Atmos provides. That wasn’t possible with the older 5.1 setup.
What Dolby Atmos brings isn’t just surround sound—it adds depth. By placing each sound as a separate object on a 3D grid, it breaks away from fixed speaker channels and how traditional mixing was done.
But I also worry: as home theater systems become more automated, and AI starts making more of the mix decisions, the art of sound design might lose some of its human edge.
And I don’t mean 5 years down the line but something like next year.
I think you are misunderstanding me.
There is no question that Atmos (or Auro) is better than the traditional 5.1.
The question is: Is there -for the end listener- a big difference between a 7.1.4 and a 7.1.2 mix.
Just so I understand; are you referring to four or more top objects being folded down into a bed during mixing or are you referring to the mastering process squashing it down to 7.1.2?
I thought Atmos home allowed for at least 7.1.4 delivery.
I am referring to the difference between mixing in 7.12 (bed) versus mixing in 7.1.4. (bed + 4 objects)
It makes a “big-nerd-difference” to us, but does it make any difference for the listener?
Knowing that most systems will fold down the 7.1.4 into a 7.1.2 playback.
Got it…
As a listener using my Sony 7.1.2 home theater system—technically not a full 7.1.4—I can still clearly hear a sound, like a bird, coming from above and slightly to the front-right. The spatial placement feels real and convincing. Maybe not as good as the Studio but It go on to shows that it’s not just about how many speakers you have, but how well the system creates a sense of immersive space.
I think your question is really just the same as the question us engineers have asked ourselves for a long time, to what degree does it make sense to make our mixes sound the best they can considering that users pretty much always have an inferior playback system. It’s true even for stereo where they listen on anything from earbuds to crappy phone speakers. At the heart of it it’s the same question applied to a wider format.
To me the more interesting question is how much resources (time and money) it takes to mix for 7.1.4 rather than 7.1.2. If it’s not much extra cost then I would think the answer to the question is that it’s worth it.
Or to ask the converse question: Why not mix for 7.1.4 so those with that setup or higher can hear the best mix possible?
Yeah, but the beds are max 7.1.2. Although the output is supposely 7.1.4, the x.x.4 channels are downmixed to x.x.2. So you need to apply a bunch of tricks to create a real 7.1.4.
Well, as I wrote in my initial post: It is a lot of hassle to set up a 7.1.4 project.
For each STEM (DX, FX, MX, …) you need to create a 7.1.2 bed and a quad object bed.
And I am not sure that the quad object bed downmixes as “good” as a real bed.
Furthermore, the separation of the two top front and two top back speakers is only usefull for reverbs, BG’s (ambi) and MX upmix. But that “gain” is marginal. When I downmix my projects from 7.1.4 to 7.1.2, I do lose some wideness in the highs, but that is in a calibrated studio.
I am seriously doubting if the effort to work in 7.1.4 is really worth it.
But Fredo is specifically NOT talking about music. I would be happy with 5.1.2. We could even use our old 8 channel interfaces . There is just not a lot of audio info up in the height speakers and we also can’t discern height info as well as on the horizontal axis.
As far as the beds are concerned I’ve gone from busses being 7.1+(quad)4 with a fold down send to a separate atmos 7.1.2 buss, to all my busses being 7.1.2
7.1.4 is more hassle than its worth for the beds, then I just use objects for specific fx.
That goes for both music for film when composing and post re-recording mix
Yesterday I had a long conversation with my good friend Erik G, and it was a real eye-opener.
The conclusion was that working in 7.1.4 does matter. A lot.
The problem lies in the 5.1 downmix.
Working in 7.1.2 makes that any content we put in the .2 highs will be spread over the 4 high speakers by the Atmos Renderer , and therefore will be downmixed to the front and rears in the 5.1 folddown.
Working in 7.1.4 will downmix the front highs to the 5.1 LCR and the back highs to the Ls/Rs of the 5.1 folddown. Which means that a 7.1.4 will downmix correctly to 5.1, where a 7.1.2 downmix is unpredictable.
Knowing that most Home Entertainment setups are less than optimal, I am not sure why Dolby doesn’t see this as a potential issue.
As you were specifically addressing post-pro issues in this thread I didn’t chime in, but I always thought that’s why x.x.2-formats s*ck for music, too.
I understand that positioning instruments in the top front- and/or rear speakers is a creative and artistic technique, hence why I specifically asked for audio Post comments.
That being said, the 7.1.2 to 5.1 downmix issue is even more problematic for music mixing.
Such a shame that Auro 3D never became an industry standard.
Even if you keep your stage nicely in front of the listener, the sensation of “being in the room” rather than just “watching through the window” is enough to justify 3D audio in general. The proper reproduction of the room and its acoustics in all directions effectively makes the loudspeakers vanish, which is an almost transcendental experience.
After the novelty factor has faded, discrete sources (especially moving ones) from behind and above are typically more of a distraction than they add value when mixing music.
There is just not a lot of audio info up in the height speakers and we also can’t discern height info as well as on the horizontal axis.