Is there much difference between the retender that ships with N12 v the new Dolby Atmos Production Suite.
Any reason to use/prefer one over another?
I am in a bit of limbo as I am playing with 9.1.4 which means I need to use all the beds and 4 objects.
The LW and RW are very useful for building a stage and bring the main artiest into the virtual room.Dolby Atmos Production Suite vs. Atmos Mastering Suite
Any thoughts?
PS my first goal is working with Atmos Music on headphones
As I mentioned in another thread, Resolve just added 9.1.6 monitoring to their internal Atmos renderer, so I would imagine Nuendo will also get that capability soon.
As far as other differences, the full Atmos renderer gives you a lot more options for monitoring. You can have speaker arrays, which is used fully would give you 29 full range channels and 1 subwoofer channel. Not quite as much as a theatrical environment, but a lot more than anything Nuendo offers. It also has per speaker EQ and multiple live re-render streams. Finally, it allows you to export a Dolby Digital+ Atmos MP4 file, which is something none of the DAW’s with integrated renderers can do.
Major downside is that on windows there’s no way to have the renderer running on the same computer as your DAW, since for some reason the Dolby Audio Bridge is Mac only and there’s no Windows equivalent to that program.
Dolby has indicated to me that 9.1.4 is no issue - if they think I am going back in the attic to add 2-more ceiling speakers! 4 is enough!
I am getting a copy of the latest Dolby Suite from Dolby.
I ordered the biggest Max studio so speed and memory shouldn’t be an issue.
I am talking out of my hat as I haven’t gotten my gear yet, but for music, would it make sense to the 9.1 as the beds and make the 4-ceiling objects? I will worry about exporting if i come up with anything useful.
I want to focus on music and have no plans to dabble in film, maybe just up-mix music and effects. Leave dubbing to others. I had enough.
On another note is there an automatic panner anywhere (plug-in?), meaning I can set a mono sound to circle the room or go back and forth between 2 channels with an adjustable speed control and law…s
At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, I want to mention this again: Atmos is object-based. This means that Nuendo’s internal renderer can also handle 9.1.6. Only the level meter in the internal renderer is limited to 7.1.6. (But you can hardly see anything on the small meters anyway. 
)
I could be mistaken but as I understand it; a bed track is the equilvent of a discrete track. According to Google there are ten (10) ‘bed’ tracks e,g. 7,1,2 or 9.1, Then there are up to 118 objects…
I’m well aware of what Atmos is.
I’m also well aware that it needs to be rendered to some kind of channel based format in order to HEAR anything. Nuendo’s internal renderer only supports Atmos rendering up to 7.1.4, at least at this point. Try creating a 9.1.6 output bus and put the internal renderer on it, and you’ll see a blank screen telling you that it can’t support that format.
Davinci Resolve has just recently added a 9.1.6 output mode to it’s internal Atmos renderer, and I’m guessing whenever Nuendo 13 comes out it will also have that ability.
The DAR has a lot more flexibility when it comes to monitoring. Also, you can export mp4 files for QC. I like how you can also adjust the buffer setting, versus the required fixed 512 in the DAW renderer.
Dolby has a trial version so you can decide for yourself.
Again, because Atmos is object-based, the only thing that matters is the position of an object in space. There is no need to think in terms of “channels”. (At least not while mixing with objects).
The only disadvantage in Nuendo is that an object that should only be played by the “Lw” speaker, for example, will be displayed incorrectly in the internal renderer. (As the level meter only shows a maximum of 7.1.4, the signal appears to be coming from the wrong speaker. But in the final mix everything is where it should be.)
I really think we’re calling different things the ‘renderer’ here. At least I hope so.
I’m talking about the channel plugin that takes Atmos audio and positioning metadata that’s generated by Nuendo’s VST Multipanner and converts (renders) it into a format that can be played on speakers. Call it whatever you want, but that speaker format is going to be channel based.
This is not the same as writing an ADM file. The renderer is not involved with that at all and you are correct that objects exist as a point in space there that’s not tied to any particular speaker.
As you can clearly see, the internal renderer, for the purposes of monitoring, can only render up to 7.1.4. Take an ADM file to the stand alone renderer and you can render up to what’s technically 19.1.10 if you really wanted to get fancy.
I know what you mean. 
And you are right about the internal renderer: you can only monitor in 7.1.4.
But first of all, nobody is forcing you to make creative decisions when mixing. If you have a helicopter circling above your head, all the metadata will be available in the master file to feed e.g. 9.1.6 channels. Secondly, no one is forcing you to monitor your mix through the renderer. Be creative!
Hi Mas - as my aim is Atmos on headphones my question really is should I set up for a 9.1.? or 7.1.? Initial mix through the Dolby Renderer?
As I am fond of the Lw, Rw I am most curious how they will translate to binaural.
My current Pro Tools and Eventide up-mix is based on how we hear. I purchased Nuendo to see how this concept translates to rendering, and how I can make it better. I have so many things I want to try.
I will have a copy of the Atmos Renderer to experiment with…s
PS Mas could you message me…s
This is a difficult question to answer. It depends on each individual case. I do post-production. There we use the maximum 16 channels (9.1.6) available when encoding to a consumer format. Any other speaker layout (e.g. 7.1.4 or 5.1.2) is derived from this layout. (Provided there is a signal in that channel.)
If you have the option, you should experiment to see what works best for you. I wrote in the other thread that ideally you should produce in the speaker layout used by most customers. And I would guess that 9.1.6 is very rarely found in living rooms. In our experience, the “wide” speakers (Lw/Rw) are the least used by our customers. However, this should not discourage anyone from placing signals at the coordinates of these speakers if it seems sensible to do so.
Your wish is my command. 
I get to work on a lot of music for film and TV lately mostly for streaming services. Netflix and the like have gone with 7.1.4 for streaming (or will). The minimum for cinema is 9.1.6 according to Dolby. As well I mix a lot of albums in Dolby Atmos and it feels like the standard if there is one at this point is 7.1.4
The 7.1.2 bed limitation in Atmos is something I will never understand seems like a really big screwup from Dolby. For proper height, you need more channels. So it seems like beds should have been done one of three ways:
Beds are X.1.0 only. So, 5.1 or 7.1. No height information at all in the bed, it is just for compatibility with non-Atmos setups. If you want any height, you use object channels they are the only way to get it.
Beds at least 5.1.4, and maybe 7.1.4 or 9.1.6. Give enough height channels to make them useful in the beds, so you can have a mix with all the necessary information in the bed and objects are for things that need to move, or be more diffuse or whatever.
Don’t have a bed, go all object (like DTS: X). No issues with amount of speakers or location in beds if there is no bed and everything is object based.
Any of those are fine, they all have tradeoffs but I can see an argument for any of them. However the 7.1.2 bed is just silly to me. The 2 channels just don’t do it for height information, so why have them at all?
There is a curious statement in the Dolby Atmos Renderer User’s Guide, at least to me, “An object can also be a bed.” It sounds like a dog can also be a cat.
I am hoping that it means for Atmos music, I can assign the lower 10 speakers (including Lw/Rw) to beds 1-10 and the ceilings to object (beds?) 11-14.
Am I correct in my logic?
In Nuendo you can make a 7.1.4 object bed, I use this for my 7.1.4 reverbs all the time.
Wheels, I have a question for you (I have a new physical 7.1.4 studio): when mixing, do you prefer to do the mix in surround (7.1.4 or 9.1.4, whatever) and then, from a certain point in the work, go to Atmos and continue that way? Or do you start any mix intended for Atmos immediately in Atmos?
Thanks in advance.
Up to now as my Nuendo Atmos package just arrived last night, I have done everything as a discrete 9.1.4. What is the challenge for me is to renderer it all down, with the final goal being binaural …
