Next-gen Avid Pro Tools Sneak Peek at AES

[BScout]

In 7.1.2 bed, the speaker relations are in reference to seating. The "2" top speakers are part of the arc of the surrounds (Lss and Rss.) Everything is defined in relation to seating: screen channels in front of you, rear surrounds behind you.

In a "4" top for bed, what would be the relationship and how do you define it in relation to seating (especially multi-row seating)? Quadrants of the theater? Then do people who sit closer to the screen have a different audio experience than those sitting in the rear? What makes this a "bed" anymore in the first place vs just large objects (to be redefined by how many speakers are in each quadrant -- with top bed, currently, it's defined as left top speakers as a group and right top speakers as a group.)

If they did do a 4 top speaker bed, they (Dolby) would really just have to define a fixed "large static object" per quadrant behind the scenes. Is that better than allowing the mixer to do that themselves?

[its2loud]

Originally Posted by BScout

In 7.1.2 bed, the speaker relations are in reference to seating. The "2" top speakers are part of the arc of the surrounds (Lss and Rss.) Everything is defined in relation to seating: screen channels in front of you, rear surrounds behind you.

In a "4" top for bed, what would be the relationship and how do you define it in relation to seating (especially multi-row seating)? Quadrants of the theater? Then do people who sit closer to the screen have a different audio experience than those sitting in the rear? What makes this a "bed" anymore in the first place vs just large objects (to be redefined by how many speakers are in each quadrant -- with top bed, currently, it's defined as left top speakers as a group and right top speakers as a group.)

If they did do a 4 top speaker bed, they (Dolby) would really just have to define a fixed "large static object" per quadrant behind the scenes. Is that better than allowing the mixer to do that themselves?

Nope. It is not. Very well explained. This call and need for a 7.1.4 bed is not realistic, nor is it needed. If you want more flexibility up there, use objects. That's what they're for.

[Bob Olhsson]

[QUOTE=Tweakhead;

Dolby obviously designed it all for the movie business, and have been trying to shoehorn music into the same ill-fitting structure...[/QUOTE]

Exactly!!!

[LDS]

Originally Posted by its2loud

Nope. It is not. Very well explained. This call and need for a 7.1.4 bed is not realistic, nor is it needed. If you want more flexibility up there, use objects. That's what they're for.

100% agree. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for wider bed widths in Atmos. Whenever I read comments criticising it in an attempt to diminish it back into some predicable workflow like mixing music in stereo, I smile with delight about having transitioned into post production! Personally, I think the biggest difference between post and music is that working in post strips you raw as a sound person, over and over again. You get very good at self-reflection when there are constantly non-sound people like film directors and producers sitting in the back of the room mincing your work in pure, plain 'audience' speak.

"That doesn't feel right".

You don't last long in the industry if you try and blame other stuff like Dolby for that. If a film doesn't feel right, your work means nothing. Atmos fits wholly into that structure. It is just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Stretching the creative potential out of it takes specific skills that are only learnt through harsh, unfiltered critical self-reflection. Dolby has never told any film sound person how to use their system. Simply owning a 7.1 or 7.1.4 system has never meant knowing how to mix and tell stories in those formats. You figure it out... through sweat, and tears, and frustration, and hard, soul destroying, work and criticism, and self loathing. Make no mistake @Tweakhead, film sound is not defined by some kind of 'well-fitting structure'. Film sound people are the best motherfuggin problem solvers in the whole motha-fuggin discipline of sound. That is what happens when you are forced to leave your antiquated preconceptions about how things 'should be', and all your other baggage behind in order to focus on the only thing that matters to an audience - the emotional experience.

It doesn't matter what 'genre' of sound you work in, we are in the business of selling emotions. We make stories with sound, whether they be folk songs, or stadium hits, or nightly news broadcasts, or commentary of sports games, or feature films. Its all the same stuff at its core, each just has its own unique modes and methods. Tragically, the biggest 'ill-fated structure' that Dolby probably imposed is thinking Music people might operate like film sound people. Film sound people have dedicated their lives to figuring out how an immersive storytelling experience might be enhanced by using immersive sound systems. It is literally a life long challenge. Music people on the other hand? It seems that unless the immersive sound system creates the immersive storytelling experience, it isn't worth a dime. The format is to blame. It is very 'music'. Like endless 1176 plugin comparisons. Or U47 discussions. Unless you are using a tool approved by the 'mob', your work obviously has no value at all.

Music people spend way too much time blaming the tools. Perhaps that is the consequence of the dominance of streaming platforms. Its an industry built mainly of people working in isolation. Nobody is calling them out on their BS. Nobody is demanding that they leave their baggage at the front door, and come in to focus on only the things that actually matter to audiences. If you are focused on what matters to audiences, Atmos isn't 'ill-fitting. It actually offers lifetimes of aural exploration. The difference isn't a tech spec. It is just a matter of perspective and attitude.

[marianna]

Originally Posted by LDS

100% agree. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for wider bed widths in Atmos. Whenever I read comments criticising it in an attempt to diminish it back into some predicable workflow like mixing music in stereo, I smile with delight about having transitioned into post production! Personally, I think the biggest difference between post and music is that working in post strips you raw as a sound person, over and over again. You get very good at self-reflection when there are constantly non-sound people like film directors and producers sitting in the back of the room mincing your work in pure, plain 'audience' speak.

"That doesn't feel right".

You don't last long in the industry if you try and blame other stuff like Dolby for that. If a film doesn't feel right, your work means nothing. Atmos fits wholly into that structure. It is just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Stretching the creative potential out of it takes specific skills that are only learnt through harsh, unfiltered critical self-reflection. Dolby has never told any film sound person how to use their system. Simply owning a 7.1 or 7.1.4 system has never meant knowing how to mix and tell stories in those formats. You figure it out... through sweat, and tears, and frustration, and hard, soul destroying, work and criticism, and self loathing. Make no mistake @Tweakhead, film sound is not defined by some kind of 'well-fitting structure'. Film sound people are the best motherfuggin problem solvers in the whole motha-fuggin discipline of sound. That is what happens when you are forced to leave your antiquated preconceptions about how things 'should be', and all your other baggage behind in order to focus on the only thing that matters to an audience - the emotional experience.

It doesn't matter what 'genre' of sound you work in, we are in the business of selling emotions. We make stories with sound, whether they be folk songs, or stadium hits, or nightly news broadcasts, or commentary of sports games, or feature films. Its all the same stuff at its core, each just has its own unique modes and methods. Tragically, the biggest 'ill-fated structure' that Dolby probably imposed is thinking Music people might operate like film sound people. Film sound people have dedicated their lives to figuring out how an immersive storytelling experience might be enhanced by using immersive sound systems. It is literally a life long challenge. Music people on the other hand? It seems that unless the immersive sound system creates the immersive storytelling experience, it isn't worth a dime. The format is to blame. It is very 'music'. Like endless 1176 plugin comparisons. Or U47 discussions. Unless you are using a tool approved by the 'mob', your work obviously has no value at all.

Music people spend way too much time blaming the tools. Perhaps that is the consequence of the dominance of streaming platforms. Its an industry built mainly of people working in isolation. Nobody is calling them out on their BS. Nobody is demanding that they leave their baggage at the front door, and come in to focus on only the things that actually matter to audiences. If you are focused on what matters to audiences, Atmos isn't 'ill-fitting. It actually offers lifetimes of aural exploration. The difference isn't a tech spec. It is just a matter of perspective and attitude.

Spot on LDS. This is the very same discussion that goes on in the video production world... its not the tool, its the editor.

Marianna

[marianna]

Oh and I did pass this along to the Product Management team so they can see all the chatter and feedback.

Thanks all....
Marianna

[its2loud]

Originally Posted by LDS

100% agree..

You win Post Of The Year in my book. Well said LDS. Thank you.

[its2loud]

Originally Posted by Tweakhead

It appears that several people (in the film world) cannot grasp, or simply have no personal need for Atmos bed widths above 7.1.2, and therefore are putting forth the argument that they do not want other users of Dolby Atmos (in the music world) to have access to any expanded capability other than what already exists.

So why don't they explain how a LiquidSonics Cinematic Rooms 7.1.4 or 9.1.6 reverb would be routed to the Dolby Atmos Renderer?

With 4 or 6 static height objects. Simple.

Liquidsonics provides a very clear explanation here.

https://us-east-1.linodeobjects.com/...oms_Manual.pdf

[MPizzaMusic]

Re: bed width/music mixing/Liquidsonics - There's a much simpler way to do this. Since Pro Tools has expanded track widths, my method of mixing music is to have a Main 9.1.4 Aux that serves as a "mix buss." Everything gets routed to that and then that in turn gets sent to 14 mono auxes, all feeding the render as objects, (except the lfe channel) each object panned out to a speaker. I've got a 9.1.4 system in my room so it helps. Panning an individual track in this system ends up working exactly to how a bed would work. An extremely easy workflow that gives me the ability to use a "bed" with the addition of 2 more height speakers as well as the important front wides. The 13 aux objects that route the main 9.1.4 aux to the renderer are already setup and hidden in a folder in my template. You just need to create an additional 9.1.4 Bus in your IO to allow you to send the output of the Main 9.1.4 bus to the 13 aux/objects feeding the render. But again, a one time setup. Not something you need to do in every mix. The LFE channel on the Main 9.1.4 Aux is sent to another mono aux that feeds the LFE channel on the actual bed, its the only thing actually going to the real bed.

It's also great because I have Cinematic & M7 reverbs setup in 9.1.4 which are outputted to Main 9.1.4 Aux as well. No need for multiple busses, 7.1.0 Aux's etc.. It's extremely simple.

Only downside is you lose 13 objects, but I rarely use 118 objects anyway in a song when most things are just routed to the 9.1.4 Aux.

I don't see Dolby ever changing the bed size because of the reasons people already listed in here. It would really mess with older projects.

[MPizzaMusic]

Originally Posted by Tweakhead

Thanks for the constructive reply MPizzaMusic.
I was messing with something similar in 7.1.4 but wasn't sure if it might cause decoding problems down the line having nothing in the bed other than the LFE. Shame we still need to create a bed for the sole purpose of addressing the LFE, but it's nice to know that configuration's working for you.
If this approach works in the upcoming Pro Tools version with the built-in renderer it might be the way to go, although I suspect that the separate Renderer will still offer deeper control options.

No problem. I can't imagine any decoding issues that may arise down the line since everything is technically already an object (other than LFE,) so regardless of how the Bed changes (or not) in time, the faux bed I've created will (should) always translate to objects. Who knows.. My workflow has changed probably 20 times over the last 2 years, this latest seems to be the best for me to get ideas out quickly, have control over multiple things at once, and keep things organized/simple.

Speaking of the new PT update - I have a funny feeling I'm going to end up keeping the same setup with the external renderer even after the update. Too soon to tell, of course. But I rely pretty heavily on live re-renders for sending the BIN mix back into Pro Tools in real time to route to my MTRX Studio - I use it on an audio track so I can quickly go between the ref stereo version and the current BIN (with input enable.) I also send a 7.1.4 re-render back into Pro Tools to monitor the Spatial Audio mix via Audiomovers Binaural Plugin. These two workflows I won't live without, so the ability to route the output of the Renderer is a dealbreaker for me. Very curious if Avid implements this into the Native Renderer...