I have been mixing Atmos in Pro Tools over the last few years and find that overall they have done a real good job listening to their users and updating to where it is now.
But…I miss working in my favorite daw Cubase/Nuendo and would love to move into working more exclusively there for Atmos.
There are some essential improvements needed to completely make it work for professionals.
Live re renders from control room. This is a key to have a more seemless and workable monitoring solution. Most of us working in Atmos have dedicated monitor controller and in Nuendo the only way (as I know) to change from 7.1.4 to 2.0 5.1 and BIN is by going into the Atmos plugin and clicking which basically is not good. Can we choose live re renders in control room and assign them to any output?
Another essential thing is to have access to every single individual mono objects binaural settings via internal renderer. In pro tools new internal renderer you go into IO page and assign each object binaural metadata off, near, mid, far. And Cubase/Nuendo in the ADM authoring tool you have the ability to assign the standard 7.1.2 bed per channel but anytime you have a stereo track converted to an object or 7.1.4 group channel converted to an Object Bed you essentially have 11 objects tied together with only an option to set them to a single Binaural setting and this is not good. In 7.1.4 object bed you need to have the capacity to set the front of the room different then the rear and tops etc. Can we expand the settings in ADM authoring to allow for per object editing of Binaural render modes despite the channel size?
I am hoping Atmos capabilities can be improved! Can anyone advise the best place to contact to make these recommendations to people actually working on this at Steinberg?
I have only worked with Atmos in Pro Tools extensively, and agree with everything you listed if these features are not currently available.
One simple request, if it hasn’t been done in Nuendo 13 already, is to have a similar view/look of the Dolby Atmos External Renderer when it comes to the head/theater view. I’m not a big fan of the overhead look of Nuendo’s renderer, and after talking with Dolby, this seems to be a choice completely made by Steinberg.
Regarding Multi Object feature…
I have only worked on 5.1 projects on Protools and was under the impression that unlike protools, the multi object was a Nuendo only feature to achieve object based reverbs and ambiance’s. And for all other needs mono was preferred, that is one can use a group of mono or stereo. objects to get the same 7.0.4 multi object feature with individual distance placement for binaural mix.and so if one needs individual distance control then a mono 7.0.4 group is the best way to achieve it.
I Would not want this multi object feature to be done away as its part of my workflow/template. Imagine the mess it would do to a surround reverb and ambiances…
In Pro Tools there is an option to create a 7.1.4 Object Bed. This would create a 7.1.4 aux channel that has 11 assignable individual object for individual binaural metadata.
Doing the same thing in Nuendo does only give you the option to change a single binaural setting for all the 11 objects contained in a single 7.1.4 channel.
I thought today to go into Audio Connections > Group/FX, add 7.1.4 Bus then ADD ALL MONO CHILD BUSSES, then in ADM authoring tool CREATE OBJECTS FROM SELECTED TRACKS but this still created a single binaural setting for all.
That’s interesting and I can see that it can be very useful esp. in specific situations … and you may have already tried it out and if not as a temp workaround you can try Folders option to do object channel ordering. I know its not exactly what you are looking for. but you can in one sense automate the pans and still apply distance position to your liking.
An automated 7.1.4 folder track creation that behave like a group can be very useful though.
I’m having a bit of trouble following you (I would have liked a basic explanation of the techniques involved in this problem), but isn’t the problem correctable with Dolby’s External Renderer? Sorry if the question is out of scope.
To be clear, this can be resolved in the External Dolby Renderer but I would like to stay primarily inside the Internal Renderer of Nuendo.
Inside ADM Authoring you will find under settings Binaural Render Mode for Beds. This gives you the option to change Binaural Metadata for each individual channel.
All other stereo or multi channel objects gives you only one option for Binaural Settings. off, near, mid, far.
You can see that in Pro Tools internal Atmos Renderer there is the option to change each individual Binaural Mode. This tells me that it is possible in Nuendo as I believe Dolby provides Pro Tools and Nuendo same capacity to implement features.
Thanks, I understand better. It’s clear that this is a limitation of Nuendo’s internal rendering. On Pro Tools (which I didn’t choose for my first current Atmos project, as I find Nuendo to be more “user friendly” in this respect), I remember that there are also limitations of the new internal rendering compared to external rendering, even if they aren’t past the same. It seems that creating internal functions forces you to make choices.
In that case, thank you for pointing this out. I’m afraid, however, that you can’t go beyond what Nuendo’s internal rendering offers. Logically, for my part, faced with this limitation, I would have to migrate my project to Dolby’s external rendering (which I own). I’ll take a look.
But I have a question: objects are generally created according to the movements they can execute in 3D space. At this point, since they have their own movement, isn’t it risky (or superfluous) to add additional binaural parameters per channel? Doesn’t this create a potential mess in the movements already drawn? Isn’t being able to move the whole object further away or closer to home enough to guarantee more stable rendering in binaural? Perhaps that’s a consideration that SB felt was enough not to match Dolby Renderer on this point. That said, there are undoubtedly other reasons for using objects that may contradict my point and make these additional parameters attached to each channel essential. I’d love to see an example, though. If it’s convincing, then we should recommend the use of external rendering for its binaural advantages (and there are others, such as mp4 export).
p.s. In fact, I’m going to open a thread on the difference between Renderers.
I believe the most simple answer is to use the external renderer if you are mixing an album because of the added features and lack of limitations.
For simplicity the internal renderer is creatively the most enjoyable but has limitations.
In Pro Tools if your IO routing is set up properly you can seamlessly and quickly switch back and forth between the internal and external renderer. My understanding and research has led me to the conclusion that switching between Nuendo’s Internal renderer and Dolby External is not as simple.
Using Objects does not always indicate moving in 3D space as many mix engineers are using OBJECT BEDS also known as OBED and there are many instances where creating a sound source as an object has benefits aside from movement.
“At this point, since they have their own movement, isn’t it risky (or superfluous) to add additional binaural parameters per channel?”
I do not think there is an inherent risk and is based on the sound source, use of spatial effects, it’s role in the sound field. In other words you really have to experiment and find out as there are too many variables involved. I have used Objects with motion and used Binaural Mid or Far settings and it works. It is so dependent on the sound source and it’s role in the music.
Ultimately there is no reason not to allow the internal renderer to edit per object binaural settings. Engineers are discovering everyday new ways to best utilize the Dolby Atmos format, everything is so new why limit the potential of someone to discover new ways of creating sound.
Yes, I can see that, and I agree with everything you say. I have Pro Tools, which I know very well (apart from its Atmos functions, not yet under control), but I have to continue my current project with Nuendo, which incidentally has many functional qualities. I don’t want to talk about myself any more than I have to, but my work must resemble that of a few others: it’s an audio book with narration, sound effects (foleys, ambience, fx) and music. Cinema without images, in fact. Mixing this kind of work is quite complex, requiring an infinite number of equations and relationships between strata and elements of perception. That’s why I was attentive to your request, because it seems that you need to specify the binaural rendering in a very advanced way (and everything or almost everything ends up in binaural… so it’s crucial). For my part, I’m going to have to prepare the transition to Dolby’s external rendering, in anticipation of the final rendering requirements. I hope I won’t suffer too much in this task.
I’ve opened a new thread on the difference between Renderers, but I’m already convinced I’ll have to go for Dolby.
I know for post production Nuendo offers many great features. For audiobook is your final deliverable an Atmos ADM file or different format?
One sidenote is in theory you could do all of your creation, mixing in Nuendo and do final ADM mastering in Pro Tools and adjust all final Object Binaural Settings there. For such a large project I would imagine a final ADM Mastering session may be desirable.
I am very much interested in your transition between internal to external renderer. Please keep us updated and good luck!
You are doing interesting things. One of the plays taught in all audio schools is Andrew Rissik 2003 BBC Radio 3 play Dionysos which is a must hear and demands a close study. Its in English though.
We did 5 short radio plays and one was redone as a 5.1 surround short film Bayaan which went on to win several awards. It has English subs.
Do keep us posted about your project. Our best wishes to you.
My deliverable is an Atmos ADM file, but it’s on its way to a mastering facility in Montreal (Le Lab mastering), where there’s an Atmos room. I never do mastering,s aug as a customer. It’s an art and a technique I don’t possess. But I do want to specify the binaural space at the mixing stage. I can modify them once at the mastering stage, at the verification stage (and still at the creation stage all the same, in a new environment), but I want to have a fairly precise idea of all this at the mix.
As for switching to an external renderer, which scares me a bit (dit is so fragile), I’ll keep you posted. Thanks for your interest.
