This discussion has prompted me to open a thread on the difference (advantages and disadvantages) between Nuendo’s internal Renderer and Dolby’s external one. Nuendo, in fact, allows both, and I’d like to know the preference of users, especially advanced ones. It seems that Dolby’s offers more functions, but is it useful and if so, how and why?
My second point would be to know the best method to switch from one to the other, and I would say more specifically from Internal Renderer to External Renderer.
I guess right off the bat, I know the external renderer offers a 7.1.6 monitor versus the internal renderer that only offers 7.1.4.
The External renderer being able to create MP4s and IMF IAB files is another plus.
I also like the external renderer for file analysis. Does Nuendo offer a 5.1 Loudness re-render? I have found this to be very helpful when creating re-renders with the external renderer, which then allows me to read the files in bulk with Wavelab’s batch processor.
Live Re Renders output to selected Audio Interface channels and to an external monitor controller for quick switching between 7.1.4, 5.1, 2.0 and BIN is one current advantage with External.
Also, as a creator composer and creating in real time utilizing Atmos as a creative tool the internal renderer is superior because it allows less latency and more possibilities to record in real time to keep the creative process flowing.
For Creativity - Internal Renderer is more ideal
For Mixing - (currently) The External Renderer is best
When they call for it yes! Also, here are examples of a bunch of Atmos productions when it comes to Audiobooks (some more immersive than others) - Dolby Atmos Productions - Audible
We do film here, so the external render is actually not the same one. You can’t do Theatrical Dolby Atmos with the internal renderer, even though you can premix with the internal renderer, and then go to a big mix room to finalise the Theatrical mix.
Yes, the impetus for major film systems is certainly not the same. I say that, but in fact I don’t know the details of the differences. Sound pressure, I think, and the multiplication of sources. I was trying to find out on Dolby’s website what Theatrical Dolby Atmos itself entails and I didn’t find it (I’m going back there at the end of the day) . As I understand it, Nuendo’s (or now Pro Tools’) internal rendering doesn’t go there. You need external rendering. But is that enough?
Let me clarify: if an audiobook as I see them (my expression is cinema without image, even if it’s insufficient, since the sound must be more like an image), were to go from a home theater to a Dolby Atmos auditorium (or to a movie theater, why not), could the Dolby Atmos external rendering module do the job in a 7.1.4 or 9. 1.6 studio? Of course, if you follow the necessary specifications.
p.s. What (briefly) is your set-up at Yellow Cab Studios for producing soundtracks for large movie theaters? (I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on creating and operating these fine studios).
For cinema the renderer can use up to 64 speakers, which is way beyond the Home Entertainment version, and is able to export mxf files and reels for the picture lab.
There might also be extra capabilities in terms of EQ and room tuning that don’t exist in the home renderer.
But an Atmos project started in Home can be finished in Theatrical, and the other way round. It’s just a case of switching rooms and renderers.
Okay, I’m reassured by this point. With the extraordinary developments in audiobooks, which take advantage of cinema techniques, including Atmos, it’s good to know that it’s possible to upgrade the rendering. That said, to get to 64 speakers, for example, are you starting from a physical 7.1.4 system? Do you have to go and check it out in a big room or something?
I was looking at Dolby to install the Dolby External Renderer, which I couldn’t install. I came across this information:
"The External Dolby Atmos Renderer Setup option is not yet available when running Nuendo 12 on Apple silicon Macs. To use the external Dolby Atmos Renderer, Nuendo 12 running on Apple silicon needs to be run in Rosetta.
This is enabled by control-clicking on the Nuendo application in in the Applications folder, going to “Get Info” and checking “Open using rosetta” and relaunching Nuendo. "
It’s a year old, but nothing seems corrected (who’s responsible here, Dolby or SB?). I’m with Sonoma 14.3.1 and won’t move for now (14.4 is a disaster for UAD, Liquidsonic and others).
And I can’t run under rosetta, which slows down Nuendo a lot in my experience.
So, I have to forget about external rendering in Nuendo on Mac. Or go to Pro Tools, but not for this project…
I would suggest you run a test mixdown of 5.1 and 7.14 binaural and you will be surprised at the psycho acoustic nature of hearing. Waves were on the right direction with its NX and head tracking.
Binaural will always be controversial like 3D vision.
In audiobook it is the storytelling is what spooks you.
With carefully positioned infrasonic sound at 19 Hz may arouse feelings of awe or fear and the presence of the supernatural etc.
I would concentrate of what the mix down to binaural is doing to my bird tweet that is its psychoacoustic rendering to high mid frequency and the delay time dependent difference for right and left ears .
So Mixing in ansdAtmos Speaker position 7.1.2 or 4 or 6 tops and 9 floors.and binaural for audiobook drama demands different skill sets.
Dolby is after all a consumer oriented company. And there is supporting entertainment electronic industry from mobile phones to television. And what we are seeing is that anything goes from echo pods to surround bars.
Try visiting a sufi, church or temple ceremonies in India, its all calculated to produce the accompanying effects called Rasa.
Presently the toolset available in Nuendo is already a overkill.
Apple and many have abandoned mid near and far and by far sony 360 it appears has the best binaural algorithm in terms of human experience of surround.
Dear friend, I’m having a bit of trouble keeping up with you. As far as Rasa is concerned, everything’s fine because we’re in the classicism of the Indies in theater and dance, and in a refinement of aesthetic thought. I think that Western thought has considerations that come close, but I believe that they are less articulated in their conception and are not shared. Western art no longer has a unified tradition. This is both a strength and a weakness. The 21st century is giving it back a little solidity, after the splintering of the 20th century, at least in contemporary music.
As for the rest, the technique of the center in atmos, I’m a little confused reading you (even if I retain the idea of 19 Hz!). I do binaural tests sometimes, with no problem, but I must admit that I prefer my physical 7.1.4 system. That said, my impression is that binaural, as processed by Nuendo in its Dolby Renderer, better deserts the voice (placed in the center in surround, and here with a gentle widening on the sides). But then again, I didn’t push for adjustments. I need to, and that’s why I’m interested in this thread.
I’m guessing, between your lines, that you’re saying not to worry too much about all this, and that Nuendo and its internal Renderer do the job well. Dolby’s would be superfluous. Is that it?
Yes thats what I meant that you should not worry too much.
Also that Dolbys forte is theatrical experience not binaural where Apple and Sony are far ahead of the game when it comes to psychoacoustics frequency cues and headtracking with personalised Head-Related Transfer Function.
But its still about the art of psychoacoustic illusions and tricking the brain to fill in for example it is a known fact that binaurally simulating the brain at 19Hz can put you in a certain state which will play a bigger role than worrying about near far up down for multioblect.
If one wants one can group monos and stereo in a multi object style array and get all the individual positional control, where mid approximates your speaker setup at 1.5 metres , near as less that 1.5 and far beyond 1.5.
Another workflow not fully explained in the manual is when one should engage the near and far cues. In my opinion its only when you are not satisfied with the binaural mixdown. For example an actor is moving back and forth mumbling and you want to recreate the depth of the room so you would first engage and automate the lowpass of your room reverb. But say he opens the fridge but the fridge sfx sounds closer, then as a corrective step you can engage the distance cue.
All cues originate and default to mids for good reason as you surround speakers are usually placed approximately 1.5 meters from your seated position.
The two Macs we have in the Theatrical Atmos room with the Cinema RMU are 7.1 Mac Pros, so not running native Apple. So can’t comment on the inability to connect to an external RMU in native.
And I must say that I haven’t yet started re-checking plugins to be sure that everyone is Apple Sylicon ready, as the Eucon version we run to work with our older System5 consoles is now stuck in time and will never be native. So the two Mac Studios in the other mix rooms are running Nuendo as Rosetta.
I understand. The implications are greater in a shared studio with multiple rooms.
That said, Nuendo in native mode is much better. You’ll see when you get to that stage (which isn’t an emergency when the systems are working, quite the contrary).
For the Dolby Renderer Externe, I’m in N13 now (basic graphics corrections having been made) and maybe it works, but I’ve got used to my workflow and don’t want to move anything. For my current (big) project, I’m keeping it internal. Status Quo!
I have a question. About the buffer size in nuendo 13 internal render is 512…can I work in 1024 on Dolby external render? To work in huge proyect with one computer maybe it needed