You are obviously talking about something, you never experienced yourself, because first in Dolby Atmos a sound NEVER is located below you and second, with good headphones you can definitely hear the positioning of a sound in the room around you, be it behind, besides or above you. Ok, the experience is not as good as in a Dolby Atmos speaker environment, but it's by far better as Stereo.

Thank you for your reply and pointing out the fact that you can't hear sound below you. I know this but the point I was trying to make was that they (Apple and Dolby) are promoting headphones as being able to hear the sound 'around' you - if they can magically make this happen with headphones which are ONLY left and right then surely, they can magically make the sound come from below - why not in this "magical Atmos/Spatial headphone" world of theirs? Next time I will stay technically on point.

I have listened to ("experienced") the examples on proper studio headphones and no, it's not different from a normal stereo widener with some room and EQ and it sure as hell isn't above, or behind you - see I got it right, I didn't say below you this time round.

Don't believe me? Close your eyes while listening to a source that does not prompt you audibly or visually to where the sound is located. It's a scientific impossibility and that's the gaslighting part.

Is this technology useless for headphones. Absolutely not. It would be great to have an Atmos/Apple type Spatial plugin that can be applied to a normal stereo mix while mixing but then it only "improves" the current stereo standard.

The issue here is people being forced to use a "new technology" and because of that having to buy new macs and headphones all because they tell you, you can hear the sound above and behind you - you can absolutely not! It's the largest gaslighting episode in the music industry ever.

edlane1 wrote... It's a scientific impossibility and that's the gaslighting part.

Is this technology useless for headphones. Absolutely not. It would be great to have an Atmos/Apple type Spatial plugin that can be applied to a normal stereo mix while mixing but then it only "improves" the current stereo standard...

Not to start a debate but there's more to immersive audio for headphones than that. Psycho-acoustics is a real thing that relies on more than the limited view of 'one for left, one for right'. It has been before Atmos and with improved technology the effect will only improve.

johndoe313 wrote
No there were two different aspects:

1. When I bought the ADA8200 as extension for my Studio 1810 (without C), it somehow didn't work with the Studio 1810 as Master. I cannot exactly recall what happened then - but I had issues with crackles etc. After deciding to use the ADA8200 as Master, and Studio 1810 as slave, everything was fine.

The 1810 only has an ADAT input for connecting preamps, but no Wordclock. Just an s/pdif I/O which could be used, but the ADA8200 does not have that. So unless you used other devices, the ADA8200 was freewheeling its clock and the 1810 never really was a master. So, no sync, which causes crackles. Setting the ADA8200 as master in this scenario is the only way to set it up.

2. The Crash issue is something different: if the Master Clock is "hardcoded" (so to say) in my ADAT interface, Studio One cannot switch Sample Rate on the fly. When I load the ATMOS demo song, it tries nevertheless (44.1 --> 48) which resulted in a (reproducable) freeze of my Mac which I only could recover by a "hard" shutdown with the power switch.

I tried that here with an 1810c and an external ADAT preamp. It does not crash here with the current version, but of course there are probably a few more deviations between our setups. Such a setup should not crash/freeze. BTW., setting the wrong rate will cause some funky aliasing when recording, sounding like using a Digitech Whammy.

SwitchBack wrote

edlane1 wrote... It's a scientific impossibility and that's the gaslighting part.

Is this technology useless for headphones. Absolutely not. It would be great to have an Atmos/Apple type Spatial plugin that can be applied to a normal stereo mix while mixing but then it only "improves" the current stereo standard...

Not to start a debate but there's more to immersive audio for headphones than that. Psycho-acoustics is a real thing that relies on more than the limited view of 'one for left, one for right'. It has been before Atmos and with improved technology the effect will only improve.

I am aware of these plugins by Dear Reality and so forth. I have tested some of them and it does not sound above or behind. I am just being honest with myself and everyone else.

Psycho-acoustics is a powerful concept and makes a listener think the sound is above or behind them when they see the visual representation of the panner in front of them.

The fact of the matter is that it just does not sound above or behind you. Yes, low frequencies have always been perceived as being lower than high frequencies but that's normal and needless to say a sound coming from behind will sound further (more room reflections) and duller (less highs) than a sound in front, but none of these automatic adjustments actually make it sound like the sound is coming from behind or above you.

It's all perception. Someone says something is a certain way and gives a reason as well as a visual representation of what it's supposed to be and then some people actually believe they can hear it. The mind can play all kinds of psycho-acoustic tricks on us.

Ears are super microphones that can determine direction in the real world and no dummy head microphone setup or amount of elegant code will ever be able to recreate the actual magic of the human ear.

flow wroteThe 1810 only has an ADAT input for connecting preamps, but no Wordclock. Just an s/pdif I/O which could be used, but the ADA8200 does not have that. So unless you used other devices, the ADA8200 was freewheeling its clock and the 1810 never really was a master. So, no sync, which causes crackles. Setting the ADA8200 as master in this scenario is the only way to set it up.

Now that you are saying it… didn‘t remember that the Studio 1810 only had ADAT In. Correct. Now with the RME I have a fully bidirectional connection.

flow wroteI tried that here with an 1810c and an external ADAT preamp. It does not crash here with the current version, but of course there are probably a few more deviations between our setups. Such a setup should not crash/freeze. BTW., setting the wrong rate will cause some funky aliasing when recording, sounding like using a Digitech Whammy.

Thanks for trying to reproduce this. But I think the new interface and the now "correct" configuration have done it for me.

Guys, please show some courtesy and respect towards the topic here.
Start another thread towards your topic.
Thank you. 👍

Anderton wrote: "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."

Worth a try, right? I got a chance to use your suggested approach to trying Dolby Atmos with Stereo headphones. I followed your settings to the note. I think everyone who tries this approach will come away with their own opinions. Here's mine.

General impressions: What I discovered while using Dolby Atmos with Studio One in Stereo mode.

*Little to almost no difference to near or far distance. Yes, there is a subtle change moving the pan node near to far and as you state, its not just volume that is changed. There's a very subtle distance positioning that is barely noticable. From my experience, most any transient shaper will re position a good many instruments in ways often far better. Particularly when there is a quick attack such as a guitar, harp, or percussion. With a transient shaper, soft attacks cause very little difference. Dolby Atmos may be more effective in this regard. I'll listen further to continue exploring the two channel Atmos difference, but currently, I'm not impressed enough to utilize it. For reference, I list the headphones I used in this comparison below.

* Good reverb and spacial effect feedback - Mixing with headphones will typically cause reverbs to be pushed a little harder than necessary, due to the close proximity to the ear (eliminating natural room acoustics from occuring). I noticed a slight advantage to using the Surround and Stereo setting which in turn aided with keeping the reverb sounding natural during a mix. In other words, there will likely be less adverse surprises when hearing how a mix translates using an Atmos stereo reference. I kind of like using this as a quick check. Of course there's no substituting analyzing your room monitors, but for mixing via headphones, this Atmos for stereo method can surely be helpful.

* I was a little surprised positioning pan to the rear as in positioning left-right. It gave absolutely NO change to any rearward effect than what was forwardly present. I thought there might be some low frequency removal or some change in frequency . This did not occur.

* pan-pot positioning, less visible compared with existing stereo panning mode displays - Not related to actual sound, but one issue I believe is important to mention is that I find seeing these circular pan representations across mixer channels are vague at best with pan position. The track inspector can help with seeing a single track's pan position, but overall it's not very clear where multiple pan settings are (at a glance). This may not be critical to some, and other's mileage may vary. I've liked Studio One's recent horizontal binaural, dual, and standard horizontal balance displays. The polar positions cannot compare visibly. Not periphally, not otherwise. Full Dobly Atmose surround is of course another story.


In conclusion: "Better musical experience" as in this stereo comparison, for me not so much, if any at all. However I'm super glad this post was created. We all have different needs, and as Craig does, I suggest trying out Studio One in any such exploratory ways. Weather you use Dolby Atmos or not in this stereo possibility, you'll at least discover differences, or not so much. That makes you, the producer of your music, content creation or whatever, that much better when you go to packaging it.
Thanks Craig! You're awesome, Sir.

Headphones I used for these tests.
Open cans Senheizer HD650, Grado SR225e.

Closed cans Sony MDR 7506,
Audio Technica M50X,
Apple Earpod

The SR225e provided a very slight discernable stereo soundstage compared to the other headphones used here distance. However, these have the least flat response, so the higher boosted EQ curve revealed slightly better distance perception. Not surprising.

[Edited due to spelling and syntax]

edlane1 wrote... The mind can play all kinds of psycho-acoustic tricks on us...

Yes, it does. And that's exactly how ears work. Anatomically the only entry point per ear is the tiny spot where the malleus touches the eardrum. Everything else is done by the brain, processing tiny differences in timing, frequency content and a few other parameters, translating that to sense of distance and direction. From infancy every brain learns to interpret exactly how, depending on shape of ear canal, ears and head, so there won't be a 2-channel audio signal perfect for all. Your phisique may be out of the ordinary so what works reasonably well for many may not work for you, simply because your brain was trained differently. But I do assure you that for me 'surround sound' for phones works most definitely, blind test, eyes closed

@ SwitchBack. Indeed, it's amazing how the brain takes over clarifying the mechanical adjustments the ear takes in. It's the same with our eyesight.

In the brief test I provided, I listed the different headphones. They provide some subtle changes. The different styles, and EQ curves add to such changes as do open and closed back cans. Interestingly though, I didn't come away as hearing anything discernably different.
In fact, the very ambient piece of music I tested with sounded better when I returned to it as stereo only. Adding to Jemusics point about whatever you might have started with, if better will likely sound better over the other.
Not that this was an A vs B test because I remixed both to hear and compare various differences. There was little to no advantage between the two. A completely non biased observation which I know you and others would appreciate.

Being quite a subjective topic, some might be more analytical, some might be just wanting some amazing change, some not hearing enough to make a difference, some who can't wait to spend their cash, and some who just think they have to have it because it's new, it's now, and it's the latest.

I stopped in BestBuy yesterday and I can't even begin to touch on the amount of times I read signs stating "immerse" (typically white lettering with a red background). That of course being the other brain factor in all of this.

Experiment: Stand eyes closed and absolutely still in a large empty room. Have someone else circle you at some distance without making any noise, then stop and start talking first a single word, then a full sentence. Can you say (actually say it, without moving) where the other person is with respect to yourself?

This experiment can go two ways. You either keep your head absolutely still while concentrating on the direction of the sound, or you instinctively start moving your head slightly to determine the source, especially during the full sentence. And whilst there is no right or wrong in either, the second outcome suggests that, more than with the first, your brain wants to include head movement in determining the direction of sounds. Like owls.

A static spatial headphone mix will do absolutely nothing with head movement. The room will turn with your head so to say. If you’re in the second group your brain doesn’t get the shifting image it expects with head movements, so the spatial info in the headphone mix is lost on you. If you’re in the first group (and actually got the direction of the sound right) then there’s a good chance that a good spatial headphone mix will work for you.

Now Apple is offering products that take head motion into account too. Never tried them but for those in the second group it might be an eye-opener. Oh, and if you’re in the first group but you got the direction wrong then maybe you’re an owl too, in denial

SwitchBack wroteExperiment: Stand eyes closed and absolutely still in a large empty room. Have someone else circle you at some distance without making any noise, then stop and start talking first a single word, then a full sentence. Can you say (actually say it, without moving) where the other person is with respect to yourself?

This experiment can go two ways. You either keep your head absolutely still while concentrating on the direction of the sound, or you instinctively start moving your head slightly to determine the source, especially during the full sentence. And whilst there is no right or wrong in either, the second outcome suggests that, more than with the first, your brain wants to include head movement in determining the direction of sounds. Like owls.

A static spatial headphone mix will do absolutely nothing with head movement. The room will turn with your head so to say. If you’re in the second group your brain doesn’t get the shifting image it expects with head movements, so the spatial info in the headphone mix is lost on you. If you’re in the first group (and actually got the direction of the sound right) then there’s a good chance that a good spatial headphone mix will work for you.

Now Apple is offering products that take head motion into account too. Never tried them but for those in the second group it might be an eye-opener. Oh, and if you’re in the first group but you got the direction wrong then maybe you’re an owl too, in denial

Very cool.
The owl is also an excellent example, as the conical shape around their eyes, leads two their ears. This shape acting as an audible receiving dish.
Owls have to move their body or head (capability of up to 270 deg.) to determine the position of food/prey (in such extreme ways that I could talk for an hour on). In short, they can hear the foot steps of a rodent under two feet of snow, at several hundred yards away, at night. Swoop down and grab the animal through the snow, all by that determination of what they heard. Sorry, had to add that info, here.

So yeah, this is a cool example of how we humans also have (less extreme of course) ear shapes to allow us to hone in on what could be important to us. Turning our heads would be natural in getting some better reading.
So key point.

I think there's room for this kind of discussion as it relates to what some will hear, and some might not.
I chose to include the headphones I used in my impressions because a.) they differ from each other, and b.) Others will have their own discovery of Atmos positioning in the Stereo headphones domain. I didn't hear much difference, but as the acronym goes... OMMV. A small difference still matters. It's a matter of if it's enough in the perceived outcome.
p.s. Big raptor fan, here.

Lokeyfly wrote

SwitchBack wroteExperiment: Stand eyes closed and absolutely still in a large empty room. Have someone else circle you at some distance without making any noise, then stop and start talking first a single word, then a full sentence. Can you say (actually say it, without moving) where the other person is with respect to yourself?

This experiment can go two ways. You either keep your head absolutely still while concentrating on the direction of the sound, or you instinctively start moving your head slightly to determine the source, especially during the full sentence. And whilst there is no right or wrong in either, the second outcome suggests that, more than with the first, your brain wants to include head movement in determining the direction of sounds. Like owls.

A static spatial headphone mix will do absolutely nothing with head movement. The room will turn with your head so to say. If you’re in the second group your brain doesn’t get the shifting image it expects with head movements, so the spatial info in the headphone mix is lost on you. If you’re in the first group (and actually got the direction of the sound right) then there’s a good chance that a good spatial headphone mix will work for you.

Now Apple is offering products that take head motion into account too. Never tried them but for those in the second group it might be an eye-opener. Oh, and if you’re in the first group but you got the direction wrong then maybe you’re an owl too, in denial

Very cool.
The owl is also an excellent example, as the conical shape around their eyes, leads two their ears. This shape acting as an audible receiving dish.
Owls have to move their body or head (270 deg.) to determine the position of food/prey (in such extreme ways that I could talk for an hour on). In short, they can hear the foot steps of a rodent under two feet of snow, at several hundred yards away, at night. Swoop down and grab the animal through the snow, all by that determination of what they heard. Sorry, had to add that info, here.

So yeah, this is a cool example of how we humans also have (less extreme of course) ear shapes to allow us to hone in on what could be important to us. Turning our heads would be natural in getting some better reading.
So key point.

I think there's room for this kind of discussion as it relates to what some will hear, and some might not.
I chose to include the headphones I used in my impressions because a.) they differ from each other, and b.) Others will have their own discovery of Atmos positioning in the Stereo headphones domain. I didn't hear much difference, but as the acronym goes... OMMV. A small difference still matters. It's a matter of if it's enough in the perceived outcome.
p.s. Big raptor fan, here.

If you've never seen how blind people use echolocation to get around... You should go to Youtube poke around. Lots of cool stuff on how they do it using mouth clicks. I actually close my eyes and navigate to my garage studio many times using a very poor version of the clicks, leaning how to hear and locate things better.

Even if you don't intend to mix in ATMOS, it's very useful for learning how to hear the subtleties of things like reverb and sound reflections when you mix. I would guess most of us have an increased of awareness of these things. I ask my wife all the time about "which mix do you like better" and many times she can't tell the difference even when things are very obvious to me. It helps me understand how to "not sweat" some mix decisions as some times they are things that the average listener just aren't going to hear.

SwitchBack wroteNow Apple is offering products that take head motion into account too. Never tried them but for those in the second group it might be an eye-opener.

Yes, for me, listening to Atmos mixes in Apple Music, using AirPods (gen 3 or later) with Personalized Head Tracking enabled, really qualifies as "enhanced stereo", an enjoyable listening experience. It can seem gimmicky when, for example, you move your head 90° to the right, and the lead vocal (and other centered elements) move over to your left ear, but just subtle head movements add to the "realism" and "surroundness" of the music. This is my experience, and YMMV of course.

Some examples: Bob Clearmountain's Atmos mixes of The Band's first two albums, Any of Steven Wilson's Atmos mixes/remixes, Peter Gabriel's i/o (In-Side Mix), Atmos mixes by Hans-Martin Buff.

All excellent observations. Will check that on YT. As for my own aging eyes, I'm hoping I can find the garage out back, or the right car to get into, these days.
In truth though, I'm starting to need reading classes.

Asking others, and also watching their body movements is an excellent indicator of where your mix, and presentation is going.

With Dolby Atmos, for this discussion in stereo, also watch for potential head movements.

Maybe I'll give this more of a chance. I was halfway there anyway, as to the spacial effects reason alone (determining reverb amount).

Glad we're keeping the discussion around Atmos in the stereo headphone field, as these added elements of head rotation, application, or type of headphone, will allow us to share and add to this experience.

Go team!

It's really interesting hearing these opinions, I'm glad I posted this thread.

Now that I've been working with Atmos for several months, I've come to a few conclusions...

1. The binaural effect depends a lot on the material. In one of my songs, the difference doesn't seem like much between binaural and stereo. In a different song, the difference is obvious. In a thread on musicplayer.com, someone commented on the song with the more obvious Atmos effect:

"The biggest difference for me was more about the way the instruments sat from a placement POV. In that respect, my preference by far was for the Atmos mix. For lack of a better word, I feel like the overall coherence of the total mix worked better for me in the Atmos mix, from where and how the vocals sat to the balance and sonics of the drums. The guitar and keyboard parts also seemed to mesh better in the Atmos mix - it was easier for me to hear more separation on the stereo mix, where the Atmos mix had what I felt was better integration."

He summarizes well what I'm hearing.

2. When I first listened to Atmos mixes compared to stereo, I thought the difference was so minor as to not matter. In retrospect, I think that's because the music didn't change at all. The drums were still the drums, the vocals still the vocals, the relativel levels were still the same, etc.

However, the more I listened to Atmos, the more obvious the difference was when I went back to stereo. Stereo had a "flat" quality and lack of depth. Perhaps there's a certain amount of ear training goine on. I liken it to recognizing pitch correction - the more you hear it, the more easily you can identify when it's being used.

So, even though I didn't think Atmos was worth the effort at first, time has changed that opinion. In my mixes, guitars don't go flying around your head or appear in back of you, that's not my goal. My goal is to have a mix that combines the seemingly contradictory qualities of being more cohesive as a whole, yet also being able to hear each sound with greater clarity. When used properly, Atmos can make that possible, at least in my experience.

(And aside: As to the sound moving when you move your head, I see that primarily as something for gaming.)

Anderton wroteIt's really interesting hearing these opinions, I'm glad I posted this thread.

Now that I've been working with Atmos for several months, I've come to a few conclusions...

1. The binaural effect depends a lot on the material. In one of my songs, the difference doesn't seem like much between binaural and stereo. In a different song, the difference is obvious. In a thread on musicplayer.com, someone commented on the song with the more obvious Atmos effect:

"The biggest difference for me was more about the way the instruments sat from a placement POV. In that respect, my preference by far was for the Atmos mix. For lack of a better word, I feel like the overall coherence of the total mix worked better for me in the Atmos mix, from where and how the vocals sat to the balance and sonics of the drums. The guitar and keyboard parts also seemed to mesh better in the Atmos mix - it was easier for me to hear more separation on the stereo mix, where the Atmos mix had what I felt was better integration."

He summarizes well what I'm hearing.

2. When I first listened to Atmos mixes compared to stereo, I thought the difference was so minor as to not matter. In retrospect, I think that's because the music didn't change at all. The drums were still the drums, the vocals still the vocals, the relativel levels were still the same, etc.

However, the more I listened to Atmos, the more obvious the difference was when I went back to stereo. Stereo had a "flat" quality and lack of depth. Perhaps there's a certain amount of ear training goine on. I liken it to recognizing pitch correction - the more you hear it, the more easily you can identify when it's being used.

So, even though I didn't think Atmos was worth the effort at first, time has changed that opinion. In my mixes, guitars don't go flying around your head or appear in back of you, that's not my goal. My goal is to have a mix that combines the seemingly contradictory qualities of being more cohesive as a whole, yet also being able to hear each sound with greater clarity. When used properly, Atmos can make that possible, at least in my experience.

(And aside: As to the sound moving when you move your head, I see that primarily as something for gaming.)

Ah Craig, going back many years to all the conversations on the Cakewalk forum... You still have a great way of summarizing and articulating my thoughts..

Thank you for your years of tireless commitment to all things music! Speaking of which, it reminds me that I need to go post our new album "NEXT" in the "made in studio one" section!

Anderton wrote... (And aside: As to the sound moving when you move your head, I see that primarily as something for gaming.)

Since I studied the subject a bit deeper I started to wonder. You never keep your head exactly in the same direction, just like you won't always be exactly equidistant to your living room stereo speakers. It takes e.g. as little as a 2 degrees turn of the head to make a head-on 7kHz tone flip phase between ears. Depending on hearing disposition (owl or not, see experiment) those details (or lack thereof) may make spatial mixes 'realistic' or 'confusing' to some. And it must be a sizeable percentage of owls to make Apple implement head tracking for personal audio, not just for gamers. Stuff like this might make or break Atmos for the audio market

SwitchBack wroteSince I studied the subject a bit deeper I started to wonder. You never keep your head exactly in the same direction, just like you won't always be exactly equidistant to your living room stereo speakers. It takes e.g. as little as a 2 degrees turn of the head to make a head-on 7kHz tone flip phase between ears.

That's a REALLY good point. I think one reason why people like my amp sim presets is because I believe you hear guitar in a room, and you're moving around. So, I add some very subtle, constantly varying time delays to emulate that effect. You don't hear it as much as sense it, which would be the case if you were sitting in the same place. There's no way you can't move at least a little bit from time to time.