The reason why we need WL in music for Atmos and other Immersive formats is because those of us working in the format need to sequence a Stereo Master + Atmos Master side by side. They need to be exact same length and just the same as stereo mastering you need to create a “montage” or sequence of the album. The options that exist don’t really cover the same level of mastering capability as WL and many of us agree that WL could potentially create a robust and effective mastering option for our workflow.
It’s really not hard to understand.
For the sake of conversation why are you so bothered by WL evolving to support a segment of the industry that has a direct need they can fill?
You have some very strong opinions about someone needing 32 speakers and their wife’s permission to listen to Immersive Audio. That sounds ridiculous to anyone that is half way educated on what Atmos is and where immersive technology is going as a whole. We could argue Atmos vs other formats, Apple and Dolby etc but the fact is there is a future for immersive audio. That is not my opinion. It’s a fact. Just like there is a future for vinyl.
The consumer is being given Immersive audio technology in all levels of consumer electronics. They are not so much asking for immersive but it is being integrated into the electronics they buy. So no matter your opinion Atmos is not dying anytime soon. It may be replaced by other immersive formats but this is another discussion. Regardless the major labels will continue to ask for it and over time it’s likely that artists will understand the formats better and want more control creatively. In my own opinion this is where the future lies with artist adoption.
You’ve stated your opinion and if you have nothing more to add then wondering why you are lurking around a thread titled Dolby Atmos if you believe it is a dying format.
It was an “aside” comment that just juxtaposed the use cases that music people vs post people encounter.
The overall comment was that including this for WL people is good because more complex work is more work, not less. We should want more of it, not less.
I indirectly “need” more Atmos because more Atmos in general means at least for now more work for more engineers. And I also want the WL people to get it because more WL users = more revenue for Steinberg = better for Nuendo users. It really is that simple.
But @tboston777 explains the actual reason for why it should go in WL very well.
absolutely yes to atmos/spacial, I run some simple montages with maybe 6-8 tracks of voice, which I would like to place in a space, with the occasional routing of musical items / FX and music,
im currently exporting my WL stems to re-chop up on occasion into reaper and using fiedler audio to do it as its too cpu intensive in WL, so an in the box solution would be amazing to not have to bounce it out
I can of course use a fully featured DAW like Nuendo (or normally protools as its just a sub per job), but I agree with Justin, I don’t need full featured with what I am doing, in reality its unnecessary for how simple it can be done in my arena to good effect, and people are crying out for re-versioning into spacial/atmos in my world without having to goto a flagship atmos studio with all the bells and whistles
in my world having voices placed all around in a 360degree environment sounds awesome in airpods, and when its done well its a pretty immersive experience, and is my growth area
Hi!
Even Cubase have support for Atmos and you can use WaveLab as editor and with ARA (Audio Random Access) so I think it’s a necessary step but of cource you use what you need in audio…
Its a shame that I’ve done all the editing in montage, but I certainly use ARA on the stems to do the analysis & loudness processing compared to reapers, as its more reliable (for me anyway)
So basically you want PG to add ATMOS for a few people who are now working in ATMOS.
We could argue Atmos vs other formats, Apple and Dolby etc but the fact is there is a future for immersive audio. That is not my option. It’s a fact.
I have been in pro audio for over 40 years and I have heard the same argument numerous times before. There was SQ and QS quad surround. I have heard the same argument about SACD and other formats designed to separate the public from their money. Where are any of those formats today? ATMOS was designed by DOLBY to basically cause people to go out and buy additional equipment and to buy redone ATMOS tracks which is what all the previous “gotta have” formats did.
My mentor had a completely equipped 5.1 mastering studio. He was heavily into commercials and his clients demanded that he provide them with a way to do 5.1 commercials. Guess what, after he spent all that money hardly any of the advertsing companies asked him for 5.1 commercials. So ???
I though that the WL Forum was an open forum and we could discuss upcoming changes in WL. So your comment You’ve stated your opinion and if you have nothing more to add then wondering why you are lurking around a thread titled Dolby Atmos if you believe it is a dying format.is strange to say the least…and I assume you do not want anybody saying anything negative about ATMOS…
FWIW
I understand and appreciate the points raised in @tboston777’s message, which I found to be well-articulated.
You are correct that ATMOS is unlikely to be a primary focus for the majority of WaveLab users. However, the same could be said for other use cases, such as audio books, audio archiving, podcasts, game production, and so on.
Personally, I aim for WaveLab to remain aligned with modern technology and, wherever possible, to offer unique solutions not found elsewhere. I also believe ATMOS has a lasting place in the industry. A few years ago, I might have been less certain, but ATMOS is not just another surround format destined to fade into obscurity. It is a well-designed system, and its true value becomes evident through practical experience.
That said, this does not mean WaveLab will attempt to replicate everything other DAWs are doing, nor does it imply that WaveLab will become more complex. In fact, there are times when WaveLab becomes simpler. For example, DVD-Audio support was introduced in WaveLab 5 over 20 years ago but was removed in WaveLab 12 as the format became obsolete.
I have no immediate plans of working in ATMOS and may never do it but if adding it provides WaveLab with more users and allows Steinberg to devote more resources to all aspects of WaveLab, then it’s a good thing.
I don’t think anybody is asking for WaveLab to become full-on mixing DAW so that they can mix ATMOS in WaveLab instead of something more appropriate like Pro Tools, Nuendo, etc. because they are “cheap” as Thomas keeps saying.
All they are asking for is a place to “master” and finish projects in the ATMOS format, just like we currently use WaveLab to master and finish projects in stereo. Final processing, sequencing, quality control, etc.
From what I can see, there is clearly a need for something similar to but much better than the Dolby ATMOS Album Assembler app and WaveLab already does all these things very well, aside from the ATMOS part so in my opinion it makes sense to add ATMOS so a much better tool exists, in particular for finishing music albums (not so much TV shows and films) that people are mastering for ATMOS and stereo.
Quad is inferior to 5.1 because it lacks the center channel. Go to a movie theater with a large screen and watch a movie in stereo and sit yourself close-ish to the screen along the left wall and then compare that to the experience of having a center speaker with a center channel.
SACD failed because a) we already had RedBook audio devices sold by 100’s of millions and people aren’t going to switch for no reason, b) in the early stages it was single-bit and you would have to roundtrip to PCM anyway to process, somewhat defeating the purpose at the time, c) it was expensive.
No. Atmos first made inroads in cinema, and it’s not just about people re-buying a music catalog. It’s about better localization, an elevation layer, and about translation to different playback systems from a single master file.
If Atmos hadn’t “won” this theater 3D format it would have been some other format, like Auro 3D, which from my understanding actually sounds a bit better. But be that as it may, it was a completely natural evolution to go from mono, to stereo, to 5.1, to 9.1, to a top layer with object panning.
The point is that either this format is here to stay, or another similar format is. 3D audio is not going away. And even if it is mainly appreciated fully in theatrical this trickles down.
The only question is if you are in that market or not, and if you have the tools to do the work or not. You now have had several responses by other people that use other tools to do Atmos work for music. Why would you not want them to use Wavelab for it?
Adding to this. Being able to playback live renderers would be super helpful 2.0, binaural, 5.1, etc… I use this a lot when checking translation with the protools internal renderer. This is so so important when it comes to mastering in atmos for me.
It is not up to me or anyone else on this forum to decide to include ATMOS into WL. It is up to Steinberg and PG. If it comes in to being then so be it.
After reading all the replies it seems as though most of you (whoever you are or do) want to at ATMOS to WL so I guess Steinberg and PG will have to decide what is best for WL.
If I were Steinberg I would question adding it to WL as it will take sales away from the more expensive Nuendo program.
BTW I heard all the same arguments for QS, SQ and SACD and they are all now obsolete. They were all supposed to “revolutionize audio playback and give consumers more realistic sounds” It never happened.
The college I worked for went out and bought the whole QUAD recording and playback system along with a Neumann QM69 “quad microphone”. We used it for two years and then we stopped using it. This was done so that the FM station that we broadcast our concerts on could use a similar system when they broadcast and was a way to do something that they thought would spotlight their station. It never did. The Cleveland Orchestra did the same thing.
I am reading what others are saying both here and on the WWW and it seems like ATMOS is not the “be all” format you are making it seem like on this forum. It is NOT that popular as you would make it seem. Lots of negative reviews on the WWW. These are just two of them.
the difference now is apple do huge numbers a year selling spatial capable EarPods compared to when QS, SQ or SACD was around, sure technically and certifiably it may not be exactly the same thing as atmos, but atmos translates extremely well into spatial audio, and I would presume going forward most DAWs will eventually have capability of some sort because of the sheer numbers of people with it (even if the majority of those people don’t know what it is till its turned on by default)
Just want to add my support here for WL having ADM mastering capabilities-- basically cover what the Dolby Assembler does, but within WL and without being so barebones. Basically the following:
-A separate lane/track that is the Atmos ADM, with the ability to switch between the stereo master and the ADM.
-Ability to EQ and limit the ADM at a minimum, as in Assembler. Maybe even a “match EQ” function that analyzes the stereo master.
-Check lufs of the ADM
-Ability to match ADM exactly in length to the stereo mix. Currently I fly the stereo master into my Atmos DAW session and bounce the exact time of the mastered stereo mix, but I could see engineers needing an easy way to do this aside from manual zooming and nudging.
-Ideally having the dolby renderer built in, as many DAWs now do. Otherwise they are offloading the licensing cost on the user, and introducing more complication by having to run the dolby renderer.
As far as all the opinions on whether Atmos is here to stay or not, and wives not wanting 32 speakers, people will continue to say that stuff, and defend that opinion just because it’s their opinion…I watched from the sidelines for years, and I finally decided it is here to stay, and invested in a rig. Also, good atmos mixes sound great on 5.1, and 5.1 is easy to setup at home. One of the reasons I think Atmos is here to stay is how well it translates to everything from 2.0 on up. Honestly, everybody has giant TVs now, and the amount of show/series/movies/games people consume is as high as ever. I think people will start to realize that a simple wireless 5.1 or 5.1.2 system is worth it to match with that 72" 7k screen. And of course cars. Yes, we have had BS fake “surround” in cars for years, but it’s a great environment for Atmos, especially with Apple/Tidal/Amazon embracing it, so I expect to see it continue to grow there.
And one final point: Atmos has a limit of -18!! IMO, his combined with having much more speakers (not cramming as much into two speakers) brings a level of space and clarity to music that I have found refreshing.
What matters is giving clients what they want and … if this means that the label A&R guy wants me to ‘even up’ an already prepared collection of ADM tracks for an EP release that I did the stereo on, I’d like to be in a position to do so.
TBH, I don’t really care for the format myself but that’s academic professionally.