I only do this as a hobby, so my answer is probably the least important.
My entire system is completely designed for 44.1kHz. My sample library with thousands of files is 44.1kHz, most of my hardware is only configurable via DIP switch and therefore - you guessed it - set to 44.1kHz.
It would be a hassle for me to reconfigure everything to 48kHz just to try out ATMOS. So it remains as it is: for me, ATMOS is a parallel universe that I will never touch.

My guess: To employ Atmos to the same standards as what you achieve with stereo you have to study hard to understand it deeply. You can't fly it by the seat of your pants. And having to study, well...

Anderton wroteSo, what is it about Atmos compatibility that bothers people? It sure seems like a step in the right direction to me.

The only thing that ever bothered me about it was how a microscopic portion of the userbase made it sound like if Studio One did not have ATMOS - we were all doomed:

1. Studio One was going to be banished from ALL "post studios" worldwide because of no ATMOS

2. Studio One is preventing "anyone" from ever having a music career because all mainstream streaming services worldwide were (suddenly) no longer "allowing" stereo mix submissions and ALL new singles had to be in ATMOS or you would never appear on any of these services

3. Studio One is NEVER going to be considered to mix the next Marvel movie because it does not have ATMOS.

4. Studio One was great but is now a second class DAW (and generally unusable) without ATMOS

5. Or a VERY generalized quote from Summer 2023 that went something like: "Who listens to stereo anymore here in 2023? C'mon Presonus - get your head out of your a** and ADD ATMOS!!!!!!"

And then my favorite:

6. Even after Presonus delivered what could possibly be the best implementation of ATMOS in any DAW today - this same microscopic crew (that freaked out in prior to v6.5.0) - then started complaining/demanding/insisting to know why they couldn't take their 14 ATMOS mixes and compile them into a ATMOS album on the Project page. And "add" Ozone to make it really loud etc.

Seems it just wasn't enough for Presonus to give them the premier ATMOS creation toolkit - now they want the Dolby Album Renderer for free too.

Bottom line - Studio One is just fine - ATMOS or no ATMOS. Presonus did a wonderful job of including it for those that want it for their workflow and hiding it for those that don't.

VP

Ah, Newton's Third Law of Motion

Vocalpoint wrotewe were all doomed

No, doomed were those, that use Studio One professionally and release songs to streaming platforms.

And if you want to be competitive and want to reach Apple Music's playlists, you are forced to release in Dolby Atmos too. And AM is on 3rd place in the ranking of the world's greatest streaming platforms, so yes, it is important.

And before S1 V6.5 I was forced to use Logic, because S1 wasn't supporting Atmos.

And the thread starter is right ... if you have good over ear headphones and have the chance to try out Dolby Atmos, you might love the experience ... I definitely do.

Fact is songs like Time Bridges from Boris Blanks' new album Resonance show, how great Atmos can be besides all the crappy upmixes, that got released last year.

But it is right, to "master" Atmos there's a steep learning curve, but it's fun and enjoyable.

Not hate, at all. Just absolutely ZERO need for it. Chances of me needing, much less wanting it, are well below the possibility of striking oil in my backyard

kenmorganaudio wroteNot hate, at all. Just absolutely ZERO need for it. Chances of me needing, much less wanting it, are well below the possibility of striking oil in my backyard

I agree that people don't necessarily need it, but if you play with it enough, you just might want it. That's what happened to me. I tried it (hey, it was a free update, why not?), and I feel it definitely delivers a better musical experience for those who listen on headphones.

There is a learning curve, but it's not so much about learning something new as finding additional twists on what you already know. A main difference is that panning isn't just left to right, it's also closer or further away, and more centered or more spread apart. So, you could have the rhythm guitar go more to the background of a virtual space (not just softer) when the lead kicks in. You can also move sounds around in the space, like how lead singers prance around with wireless mics To my ears, it's closer to being able to reproduce more of a live music feel.

I don't use ATMOS, but just because I don't use something doesn't meant it shouldn't be done.

johndoe313 wroteMy entire system is completely designed for 44.1kHz. My sample library with thousands of files is 44.1kHz, most of my hardware is only configurable via DIP switch and therefore - you guessed it - set to 44.1kHz.
It would be a hassle for me to reconfigure everything to 48kHz just to try out ATMOS. So it remains as it is: for me, ATMOS is a parallel universe that I will never touch.

FWIW, Studio One's sample rate conversion is excellent. I think that if you set the DIP switches for 48 kHz and Studio One's Song Setup to 48 kHz, there "shouldn't" be any problems if you bring 44.1 kHz files into Studio One. Just go to Song Setup, choose 48 kHz, and hit "Apply."

At least that's the way it works with my PreSonus interface, so maybe it hassome special mojo. But I don't think so. Studio One seems to be able to deal with the hardware you have, and sample-rate accordingly. It does take a few extra seconds to do the sample-rate conversion, but that's not a big deal.

I've been using 44.1 kHz since the days of steam-powered CDs, except for clients who demanded 96 kHz. But I'm getting more and more requests for 48 kHz deliverables. Atmos put me over the edge to convert, and luckily, it hasn't been an issue at all. Hopefully your mileage wouldn't vary if you gave it a shot...

I'd also like to thank everyone for the replies. For background, when I heard the initial Atmos remixes I was VERY much turned off to Atmos. In most cases, I thought the mixes were a step down from the originals. My opinion changed when I was able to do Atmos mixes from the ground up in Studio One.

It still remains to be seen if Atmos gets traction among consumers. I suspect it will because eventually, consumers won't be given a choice. But I wouldn't bet money either way...no attempt to market surround for audio has succeeded so far, and there have been multiple attempts. Atmos may end up being consigned primarily to people who listen to music over headphones/ear buds. Clicks for my Atmos releases are consistently 50% more than clicks for stereo speakers/headphones. That may just be curiosity, though.

Anderton wrote It still remains to be seen if Atmos gets traction among consumers. I suspect it will because eventually, consumers won't be given a choice.

Craig - appreciate the conversation starter.

Still cannot see how ATMOS will ever gain traction among consumers until it is truly ubiquitous.

To me - true "traction" means every device in every situation being able to access an ATMOS mix of every song anyone would ever want to play. Simply not possible.

For vinyl junkies its a non starter. For anyone with good gear now - that has no ATMOS capability - its a non starter. Broadcast TV, sports would have to buy in and on and on.

Look how long it is taking for 4K is even start to become relevant in all the vectors it could play in. I mean - here where I live in the 3rd biggest city in Canada - I still get exactly two 4K TV feeds. After like 10 years.

And let's be honest - Apple Music (and their minuscule market share) will never be big enough to convince the other 87.5% of total streaming users who use another service

To me - ATMOS based "spatial" music feels like is nothing more than an Apple diversion/gimmick designed to prop up a music service that can never seem to get any bigger than TenCent or Amazon.

If Spotify actually decided to take this up - it "might" actually get some traction.

Now - ATMOS in the movie theater (or home theater if you have the space) - you have my attention. Essential and more than enough traction.

VP

IDK, i love it. I don't have to have it, i just like it a lot since S1 brought it out. and then there's this too: https://blog.presonus.com/2024/02/09/re ... o-panning/

Vocalpoint wroteStill cannot see how ATMOS will ever gain traction among consumers until it is truly ubiquitous.

To me - true "traction" means every device in every situation being able to access an ATMOS mix of every song anyone would ever want to play. Simply not possible.

What gives Atmos a shot is that it's metadata, not audio. It's placing sound in a space, not necessarily assigning it to speakers. If the original Atmos mix is 7.2.4, and it encounters a 5.1.0 system, it will do the best it can to translate the additional channels. If it encounters a stereo system, it can downmix to two channels and binaural. If there's no Atmos decoder, it can still reproduce binaural stereo in smartphones and such..

The Trojan Horse in this case is video, not audio. Most recent smart TVs can natively support/decode Dolby Atmos. Many also have an enhanced Audio Return Channel, which sends lossless Atmos or DTX:S signals to audio receivers or soundbars. The lag is at the content end, because there need to be more audio-only Atmos releases for the Spotifys of this world. Apple Music is already going all in, though.

Another advantage for audio is that Atmos is two-channel with headphones. Given how many people listen to music on smartphones with earbuds or headphones, music produced in a binaural format doesn't need any kind of support or decoding. You can listen to my Atmos binaural mixes on anything, as long as they're headphones.

There's precedent, too. Just about every cassette deck had Dolby B noise reduction. It was perceived as enough of a benefit to justify the licensing fees.

So, I think the crossfade from stereo to Atmos can be done over time, with minimal disruption. That's the only reason I think it has a chance for acceptance. But again, the marketing has to get the point across. Too many people think you need a huge, expensive, calibrated system to listen to Atmos. Of course, binaural audio on headphones isn't the same thing as being surrounded by speakers. But I really do think it's a major step up from stereo.

I just followed Mr. Anderton's suggestions and gave this a go for v5 two-channel stereo only. To be sure, it's an amazing difference. My questions are:

1
What will the 48khz requirement due to already sluggish performance (to say nothing of six months of using Studio One Pro that I have already burned up a 2TB SSD)? This may explain some of the hate.

2
Simple newbie solicitation. My one-click configuration and immediate playback buried the needles, but with a couple quick modifications, I managed to get things more or less in range. Though I like the effect in my classical mixes, I feel I am losing the front-edge attack of voices like violin downbow, C-trumpet, mixture stop on a pipe organ. I'll keep tweaking...

I am probably not going to commit my workflow (or even my test mix) to disk because of performance issues - I hope a future update to Studio One will deal with persistently sluggish I/O turnaround time.

edit: also, the result is as if someone has put their thumb on the tape reel: the tempo is slower and the pitch has dropped - probably because everything was originally sampled at my workflow rate of 44.1.

@ DavidMaurand, Great way to twist a theme around and ask Craig why your system is running sluggish. I don't believe Dolby Atmos adds any addition demands on ones system. After all, he stated it's simply meta added to the file. The added outputs of internal processing will simply handle that. Mmv.
****************

As to the post, I think having Dolby Atmos is a step in a given direction. Not particularly the necessary or "right direction".

In all due respect, its a better discussion to clarify the needs of the user, than ask why something is "hated". Ultimately, the choice between Dolby Atmos or even Lossless Audio for exampl 96 kHz., boils down to individual preferences and priorities. If the listener prioritizes the highest level of audio quality and doesn’t mind larger file sizes, Lossless audio will be the most satisfying for them. That's not to say, one is better than the other. They both have their place. Even the majority of songwriters who simply want to publish their work in 44.1KHz, or 48 Khz. Their stereo end product will work best for their needs. From a musical (two speaker) source, they're not in the need to have the listener be in the so called "center of it all". That's their prerogative and that's fine.

For those who want an immersive experience, and are willing to take on the added learning curve, cool. Go for it. Just know where you reside in that marketplace. It appears Presonus have made the option of using Dolby Atmos very accessible. Awesome! However, know that it works for some who want their sound placed in that environment. It should also be presented clearer to those who choose adding Dolby Atmos, that remixes require a specific path or set of rules. Even potentially, additional equipment or DSP to purchase. By reading a good number of threads in this forum alone, changing or summing final mixes is obviously not clear to them. Even more questions? Who didn't see that coming?

As long as the subject failure of defining which users would actually benefit from Dolby Atmos exists (its not all users), it would also be just as silly for them to "hate" Dolby Atmos. Or any other medium. Let's not care what those who are loose with the term "hate" have to say, anyway. That's just unnecessary drama that on the flip side, some insist Dolby Atmos is "a must". For who? Well, it's a must for them. I wonder just how much Dolby Atmos content they've actually published so far to extend "must" to every other medium, user, style of music, theater, broadcast, etc.
It's silly, and not to the point.

We use what we use, and it works.

That said, as you Craig, recently made a very good tutorial on using Presonus' new Surround Delay effect. Panning with it enhances even the stereo field on its own. I guess there's enough acoustic treatment to enable such forward, rear, left-right, spacial effect for that to impact stereo alone. Even from above. Our ears are equipped to warn or notify us of such acoustic changes. It's how we as a species, hunted, hid, and survived.

I don't think anyone can disagree, the medium is being embraced by those in control and manufacturing of pseudo head-wearing "sense around" gear, and Dolby (at a theater near you). That includes Apple, Sony, Disney, and the entertainment industry on a whole. Not necessarily the audiophile though. What the market wants to sway as "the next thing" has more than a few times fallen on its tail.


In conclusion, to expect many to adopt Dolby Atmos, and it's added complexity (albeit not difficult) without defining how and who benefits, and respectfully who might not need it, is missing the mark.

Lokeyfly wroteI don't think anyone can disagree, the medium is being embraced by those in control and manufacturing of pseudo head-wearing "sense around" gear, and Dolby (at a theater near you). That includes Apple, Sony, Disney, and the entertainment industry on a whole. Not necessarily the audiophile though.

Nailed it. This reminds me of the well-orchestrated but epic fail of 3D about 10 years ago. From TVs, to projectors, to actual movie theaters etc - all tried to bust out this tired gimmick to somehow make users think it was required and add yet more money to their coffers. Some did - a lot did not.

ATMOS is targeted to a very narrow "audio" market but in no way does it take something like an original stereo pressing of Steely's Dan's Aja and make it something special. This goes for the other millions of classic albums that every one has imprinted in their memory cells.

It will have it's fans for sure and that's cool - but I do not think it will ever bust out to be "everywhere" for music industry anytime soon (or ever).

Especially the audiophile segment which pretty much universally pans anything that threatens standard two-channel territory.

But for movie theaters - it is absolutely spectacular - as long as the room is tricked out correctly.

VP

Lokeyfly wrote@ DavidMaurand, Great way to twist a theme around and ask Craig why your system is running sluggish. I don't believe Dolby Atmos adds any addition demands on ones system. After all, he stated it's simply meta added to the file. The added outputs of internal processing will simply handle that. Mmv.

*******************

Now you're twisting my words - it's the 48khz that eats up resources. I thought that was clear. Studio One is demonstrably slow - there are meaningful benchmarks out there reinforcing that.

Dolby Atmos is a step in a given direction. Not particularly the necessary or "right direction".

True, and all that needed to be said. I enjoyed the test, the results were as suggested, and I decided that until I see better benchmarks from S1, it's not time for me to change my entire workflow as it also affects other resources.

Craig, thanks for your post and instructions - very clear, and things worked as promised.

DavidMaurand wrote Now you're twisting my words - it's the 48khz that eats up resources. I thought that was clear. Studio One is demonstrably slow - there are meaningful benchmarks out there reinforcing that.

David

Don't want to derail the spirit of this thread but blatantly stating that S1 is "demonstrably slow" is a bold (and incorrect) statement.

While it may be slow for you - but it is not slow for me. And I would think that if it were "demonstrably "slow" for the hundreds (or thousands) of us who frequent these (and many other) forums - we would already ALL experience this "slowness" and make it very known to Presonus.

Without full details of what machine/OS you are running, what plugins are chewing your CPU or what files are killing the space on your hard drive - it's hard to accept "slow" vibe here.

VP