I find surround quite distracting in cars with a high number of speakers (12-16), which is common on upper trims going back 10 years or more.
Lots of songs use sounds that mimic real life sounds (like sirens, collisions, etc.). I’ve experienced this numerous times, and its just too distracting for me to bother with it.
Probably varies by musical genre, though.
Im just coming in here to say please bring Atmos to Wavelab! I love mastering in Wavelab and if the workflows and tools of Wavelab could be applied to Atmos or really just 7.1.4 channel based files it would be amazing.
A lot of folks are doing that in the immersive environment, channel based masters. That way you can take your 7.1.4 mix/master and put it out in Atmos, Sony 360, Auro3D, ect. Let the corporations do their (rather annoying and confusing) battle while we all still make great stuff and wait for the dust to settle.
Really just need to be able to handly 5.1.4, 7.1.4, and maybe 9.1.6 files. And then you output to each formats encoding(Atmos renderer for instance).
This is being considered more than what you might think 
PG…Please don’t complicate WL anymore with ATMOS. ATMOS is a dying format as no consumer is buying into it. No wife wants 32 speakers in her living room and most people do not have seperate “media rooms”. If you do decide to put this into WL than make it an optional extra. Thanks!
As well as standalone, I could see this can only bring good compatibility with Cubendo (7.1.4 channel formats etc…) when using WL as a plugin via ARA extension, for example.
As @Monte_N explains, production/sound design in the ‘immersive environment’ is an area needing attention (from high quality software solutions). Why not WL, is all he’s asking…
Yes please!
I am working in stereo in WL almost daily for various tasks as well as working in Atmos in both Pro Tools and Cubendo. WL could fill a great need in the industry and in my personal workflow for even the most simple tasks working with Atmos ADMs and other Inmersive formats. This is great news!!
“optional extra” is probably irrelevant. I doubt it would be any different from being able to work on regular surround formats. From the perspective of a person who only works in stereo 5.1 surround is “extra”, but it is invisible because you only see it when you need it. Same with immersive formats.
I also don’t think it’s dying. I think the fact that it is now included in big DAWs and NLEs as standard only makes it more likely for clients to request it as a deliverable regardless of the creative aspect of it. I was asked to do 5.1 surround for a TV show that was just people sitting around a table talking, which was completely pointless. Well my client had been asked for Atmos for it and they basically refused and negotiated down to 5.1.
Remember that part of this is going to be about the ease of conforming to various playback formats. If I deliver a mix in Atmos Home format that can downmix automatically to 5.1, to stereo and to binaural. One deliverable which covers all scenarios, from the unlikely immersive 7.1.4 home theater to earbuds.
And earbuds and consumer systems absolutely boast about Atmos and are Atmos compatible regardless of how we think they sound. Sure, no wife wants 32 speakers, and most don’t even want 5.1, but they’ll be ok with a soundbar which may have “fake” Atmos included - and as long as it does we need to be able to deliver. Same deal with binaural Atmos.
I think we should want Atmos in as many deliverables as possible as long as we can charge for it. The easier it gets to produce audio for a living the less work there is going to be for us engineers. It will be offloaded soon enough to video editors so I welcome any “complication” I can get that keeps me relevant.
It will be offloaded soon enough to video editors
In fact I have already seen that happen on two projects last year. And a close friend that manages a large film/video based facility locally is already set up to do it.
Why does WL have to do “everything” are people just so cheap that they cannot afford more than one DAW. Steinberg also makes Nuendo 13 Pro which already does ATMOS. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmkfRoCewKo. Keep WL for mastering and restoration work. This constant need for WL to do “everything” is ridiculous. FWIW
This is very judgmental and inaccurate. I don’t work in ATMOS as I don’t really care for the format for (most) music and my clientele is absolutely not asking for it, but I know a number of people that do work in ATMOS.
The lines between mixing and mastering in ATMOS are much more blurred than stereo work.
That said, I can tell you that if wanted to MIX in ATMOS and WaveLab had ATMOS, it would probably be far from the first DAW I’d use for that job. I’d probably be using Nuendo or Pro Tools.
Of all the things that are preventing somebody from getting into ATMOS that really wants to, affording another DAW to do it is probably last on the list. It’s the room, the extra speakers, the monitor controller and other things. I can’t imagine somebody would obtain and install all those things and say, once WaveLab adds ATMOS then I can finally start working in ATMOS!
It’s not about being cheap or pissing you off.
The point of these WaveLab ATMOS requests is to have something that competes with and is better than the Dolby ATMOS Album Assembler app which I have not used, but have heard it’s very limited in its ability to master and finalize an album of music in ATMOS.
This is where WaveLab is actually somewhat overdue to become the absolute best tool for that job. Things that Pro Tools and Cubase/Nuendo cannot do and will likely never do. Just like WaveLab fills that void for stereo mastering work.
It’s possible to not make a post if you don’t have something valuable to add to the thread.
In context, it has been very clearly stated numerous times by Steinberg that WL will not be competing with Nuendo in ATMOS mixing and authoring features. So probably no need to fear the ‘bloat’.
What Justin (and I) have requested, is analogous to putting together a compilation CD … except as an ADM instead of a DDP. It’s simply a natural evolution.
Sure I can do that in Nuendo Pro (which I have by the way). But that’s not the point. Having something simple, intuitive and quick to use that doesn’t involve remixing (and hopefully less clunky than Assembler) in the same DAW that I have the stereo project is desirable and valuable.
And there’s simple QC uses as well. The stereo master must exactly match the length of the ADM for Apple Music or they will bounce it back. I have had a project where the ADM was done first. It happens. While you can already open an ADM in WL and check this for a single file, things get more complicated if there is more than one track.
Anyway, we will see what this looks like if it happens.
I can see the need for a ATMOS add on to WL but I personally do not need it and it will certainly make WL more complex. I have seen WL go from WL 6.5 to WL 12.0.50 and have a lot of “stuff” added that I do not need. I have also witness (see posts on this forum) from various members asking for WL to be able to do “multitrack recording” “full MIDI implementation” and even one member wanted WL to “control my cutting lathe”. The more stuff that is added INCREASES the chances for something to be changed in the basic WL usefulness for those of us that only use WL for Mastering and Restoration use.
I think PG has been GREAT in the past about keeping the aforementioned request at bay but it seems like a lot of people want WL to be a typical DAW with a mixer and multi channel record capabilities which it, IMHO, it was never designed to do and should not become.
I still think a lot of people are so cheap they only want one DAW and think that WL should be that DAW.
Sorry if I am in the minority.
FWIW
It doesn’t, but as far as I understand it there are inherent issues with certain aspects of Atmos as it relates specifically to editing.
For us in post production this is not an issue because we can import an ADM file and edit to picture and re-export. It is however apparently different when you are trying to do things like sequence music tracks for an album. I think it has to do with meta data and object assignments. Like I said, for film and TV it’s probably a smaller issue among all other work that needs to be done, but in music I really do think Wavelab is an appropriate place to deal with it.
Since this deals with metadata and channel counts etc. I would actually think it would be worse to create this as an add-on to the software. It increases the load on Steinberg to test not just WL but WL+, and that typically results in higher costs for the customers.
Ohhhh…
I sadly couldn’t wait any longer and had to jump into protools and the external renderer + assembler to master. very clunky and time consuming, though does work after many months of testing and testing. If we could bring side-chaining and an atmos assembler where we could master with plugins that we current use in stereo with side chaining, I’m thinking Fielder audio mastering console or waves immersive wrapper kinda thing, we could be on to winner. I love Wavelab. Sad to not be using it for Atmos. happy to Beta test of course! 
Also, please don’t limit your atmos implementation to 1 bed like may other daw’s. I think protools and maybe Nuendo are the only ones that cant do multiple. 9.1.6 should be minimum and option of 48 and 96k.
Thanks!
Also I’m using a software called ‘immersive master pro’ which is super helpful to rerenderer files in different channel configurations. MP4 export is also essential. I believe the atmos external renderer is the only one that does this, though I maybe wrong. happy to be corrected.
Well the final decision is up to PG and Steinberg and I am sure they will consider all things before doing it. Why don’t the video people use Nuendo which will do everything they want and more…
As to video people doing audio related task…that has been the norm for a lot of companies for decades so what is so different now. My videographer does a lot with audio once he gets the raw audio from me. Never saw it as a threat.
FWIW
Do you mean why us in post don’t use Nuendo? We do.
But you don’t do post-audio though Thomas, right? So obviously you wouldn’t be threatened by it. My point was more about for example television shows where we are losing ground which is bad for us.
So your main reason for wanting ATMOS in WL is to save your job in post?
I worked for PBS for a year. They put in a number of “edit suites” in the station and that is where the videographers worked. They did the editing and color correction and in most cases did the audio work as well.
I was the stations audio engineer and never felt threatened but times are different now and all the networks are looking for ways to cut cost so they want a lot of the post done by the videographers which IMHO is not the best way to go but saves them having to hire a seperate audio engineer.
With the advent of AI this all maybe a moot point as there maybe less and less work for audio and or video people to do. You tell the AI what you want and it does it. We are not quite there yet BUT seeing some of the things that programs such as BlackMagic Davinci Resolve can do currently and the future is not looking too good for video or audio workers. FWIW
Maybe think about a job change???
That’s not what I wrote.
I don’t see how adding ATMOS to WL will cure your problem.
You stated that “My point was more about for example television shows where we are losing ground which is bad for us.”
More and more people are doing their own mastering (which is how I make my money) so I have had to adapt. I now do a lot more audio restoration work and transfer work than I do mastering. Maybe you need to look into alternatives.
I don’t need or want ATMOS. It is just another thing added to WL for the needs of the few.
WL is a GREAT program as it is, PG is doing GREAT things with it but it is getting more and more bloated every year and a lot of us do not need all the bloat. Maybe there needs to be a WL for the video post people with all the “bells and whistles”.
If you already use “other programs”(Nuendo) why do you need WL to do ATMOS???
FWIW