How do I set up ATMOS without spending a fortune? Cubase user.

[Xenon 6]

So I am thinking of setting up ATMOS in a 7.4.2 configuration. The main front speakers will be Mackie HR824's. I am thinking of 8 JBL LSR306P MKII (I already have 2) for the surround and top speakers, and PreSonus Pro 10 Sub for sub woofers. They claim to get down to 20Hz. There is a total of 13 speakers. Most of the speakers won't do that much so they only need be of moderate quality? So speakers sorted? Also, I am just doing music, it is not like it has to be a certified ATMOS room for cinema releases.

I have 2 RME FireFace 800 interfaces that connect to my Windows PC via firewire. (Total of 16 analogue outputs). This has been a really solid setup for me for many years.
I use Cubase and that appears to have good support for ATMOS.
This is where things uncertain for me. I have always worked with a hardware mixer for my audio plumbing. The Mackie CR1604 VLZ is only a stereo output. Even if I use all the 4 stereo mix buses the only gets me to 10 outputs, could do 7.1 but, not enough for ATMOS.

I am thinking I plug each of the 13 speakers directly into an output of the Fireface 800s and set the physical outputs up on an ATMOS output bus in Cubase. From there I just control the output volume I want with the Cubase master fader? At low volumes I won't have much bit depth in my monitoring setup?

Most of my tracking I would just continue to do in stereo through my mixer. ATMOS only becomes an issue when I want to do the mix?

Has anyone done something like this? Can you give me suggestions?
I do hope the required solution is NOT requiring a Grace Reference Monitor Controller, or if we do need something like this maybe Behringer produces a budget friendly alternative?
Is there anything that takes a dual ADAT inputs and gives me the required 13 speakers outputs with a master volume control?

I have heard Spotify and Apple Music won't accept mixes unless they are in ATMOS format? If Dolby can get ATMOS installed into the majority of new cars then it will have so much traction we will all have to go down that path. I am also thinking a big part of the music listening experience will become the soundscape it creates.
ATMOS suggests some interesting approaches for multi-microphone recording techniques. This will be interesting to explore.

ATMOS Remixes
I am also thinking there will be huge amounts of work available using AI to un-mix classic albums, then remix them in ATMOS. This may present opportunities to add new vocal harmonies and other instrumentation, hopefully with the input of the original artists.
I had a very interesting experience years ago. I had a rock star in my car for a trip of about 5 hours. I asked him if he minded if I put his albums on. He was happy with this. He started singing along with the recordings, and kept saying "I should have done..." wanting to add harmonies and new lines. I am thinking a lot of artists will love the opportunity to revisit earlier work. The record companies will love the idea of reselling the same old (revised) material in a new ATMOS format.

 

[Papanate]

Most of my tracking I would just continue to do in stereo through my mixer. ATMOS only becomes an issue when I want to do the mix?

That is generally how people do it - they don’t track in ATMOS (At least not very often) - they do a mix in Atmos.

Has anyone done something like this? Can you give me suggestions?

I’ve done a few ATMOS mixes - but I don’t use a home setup - way to expensive for the return - we went to RAK studios in London to do a couple of mixes - Genelec
speakers all the way around - it sounded great - but no ones really listening to ATMOS mixes in the environment it is intended for - so we don’t do it much if at all.

I do hope the required solution is NOT requiring a Grace Reference Monitor Controller, or if we do need something like this maybe Behringer produces a budget friendly alternative?
Is there anything that takes a dual ADAT inputs and gives me the required 13 speakers outputs with a master volume control?

Not that’s inexpensive - or at least not that I’m aware of.

I have heard Spotify and Apple Music won't accept mixes unless they are in ATMOS format?

You heard wrong.

If Dolby can get ATMOS installed into the majority of new cars then it will have so much traction we will all have to go down that path. I am also thinking a big part of the music listening experience will become the soundscape it creates. ATMOS suggests some interesting approaches for multi-microphone recording techniques. This will be interesting to explore.

It’s highly unlikely that Cars will go to ATMOS - at best it will be the high cars- and even then only an option not standard.

ATMOS Remixes
I am also thinking there will be huge amounts of work available using AI to un-mix classic albums, then remix them in ATMOS. This may present opportunities to add new vocal harmonies and other instrumentation, hopefully with the input of the original artists.

Yes there are a lot of possibilities with AI - most of which will ruin the music IMO.

I had a very interesting experience years ago. I had a rock star in my car for a trip of about 5 hours. I asked him if he minded if I put his albums on. He was happy with this. He started singing along with the recordings, and kept saying "I should have done..." wanting to add harmonies and new lines. I am thinking a lot of artists will love the opportunity to revisit earlier work. The record companies will love the idea of reselling the same old (revised) material in a new ATMOS format.

Well there is that - but Companies are not going to invest in the dreams of rock stars unless they can sell 3 million of the album.

 

[jamesperrett]

I get the feeling that Atmos is going to go the same way as all the previous attempts at quadraphonics and then surround sound for music. Lots of marketing hype but very little real interest. Home cinema enthusiasts are really the only people who have embraced immersive audio.

 

[Xenon 6]

Colt Capperrune makes some strong arguments for the future of ATMOS:
Colt Capperrune on ATMOS

 

[Xenon 6]

My question was not should I. My question is how.
ATMOS mixes are something I can offer as a product from my studio which may give me a competitive advantage in my services.
I want to know from a person who has done it: Can I just plug the 13 required speakers into outputs from two RME FireFace 800 interfaces I already own and control them from within Cubase adequately? I am thinking about volume control as I have always used a hardware mixer with my FireFace outputs.

 

[Xenon 6]

So I think I have a solution? I was looking at my Mackie CR1604 VLZ and if I connected speakers to the mix busses I could get a 5.1 system working but that is not enough for a 7.4.2 ATMOS system. I would need an 8 buss system. That is the cheap solution! Buy a used 8 buss mixer and use the mix buss to control the ATMOS speakers. It is not something it was designed for but it will work in the role. There are plenty of cheap Mackie 32 8 bus mixers on the used market.

All I need to do now is buy a bigger house to fit it in. ??
Does anyone have any better ideas?

 

[Xenon 6]

So I think I have found a good reasonable priced solution. Audient Oria
I would really like to know if anyone has any better ideas?
More details can be found here:

 

[rob aylestone]

I'm really confused now about what on earth you are doing. why would you even consider one of those mixers? I had one twenty year ago, but Cubase can address whatever ins and outs you have. Perhaps an X32 rack as an interface would be more suitable, especially as it's features such as gains and delays could be controlled by Cubase? As I'm not remotely interested in Atmos, I don;t know how their render engine actually integrates with Cubase. I'm assuming you already bought it and installed it and know how it addresses the inputs and output? I'm guessing Cubase sees it as an output device, or maybe a routing device? How does it work?

 

[JimmyS1969]

Bullshit is what Atmos is to me. Or at least a very limited market for some 'over the top' audiophiles.

As far as I know, the human brain can only focus on two point sources at one time. Stereo in itself is a mind screwing thing from the start. We find it pleasing in music, but from evolving it is more meant for finding direction of either prey or threats from others that wish to eat us.

To screw with the human brain with multiple sources to me feels uncomfortable. I just don't get it.

Even with 5.1 systems, I find movies to be a bit too overdone. Cool I suppose for action movies, but even then it just sounds fake too me unless in a theater environment.

I cannot forget the button that came on some 'boom boxes' that was called 'stereo widener' that made old school songs sound more 'stereo'. Much time I spent trying to duplicate that effect. Turns out is was just basic delay/phase manipulation. When that was figured out and realized it only worked for the one particular playback device, the goal was quickly terminated.

So, not to come across as a 'grumpy old man' kind of guy, What are your desires and what makes the use of Atmos something important to you? Is there a market for that?

Even in the video you posted, dude talked about how bad Atmos mixes have been. So why defy what the human brain can comprehend?

Honest question.

Think about the high end market of audiophiles that spend that kind of money for audio gear. That is a very limited market. Now add to that the Atmos systems.

Do you think that would be a productive niche? Maybe, maybe not. How many typical consumers have a well treated room large enough to actually use the benefits of an Atmos system? Not so many I would guess. Maybe I am wrong...

It sounds like a 'snake oil' sales bullshit thing to me.

But then, I am just some guy on the internet that isn't selling you anything.

Spend your money as you see fit for yourself.

 

[Serendipity Records]

Atmos for music would seem to be logically limited to high-profile artists due to the expense of the whole thing. I'm a big Colt fan and sure, Atmos is a very cool concept etc. but totally unrealistic for far too many artists to ever become THE standard format.

 

[Xenon 6]

I'm really confused now about what on earth you are doing. why would you even consider one of those mixers? I had one twenty year ago, but Cubase can address whatever ins and outs you have. Perhaps an X32 rack as an interface would be more suitable, especially as it's features such as gains and delays could be controlled by Cubase? As I'm not remotely interested in Atmos, I don;t know how their render engine actually integrates with Cubase. I'm assuming you already bought it and installed it and know how it addresses the inputs and output? I'm guessing Cubase sees it as an output device, or maybe a routing device? How does it work?

Indeed, I can see you are confused.
Cubase has support for ATMOS built in, fully supported. The balance control maps the whole 3D space once you load the ATMOS module. Avid Pro Tools Ultimate also include a built-in Dolby ATMOS panner.

Why would I consider doing ATMOS mixes? Because paying clients are asking for ATMOS mixes. (If paying customers wanted mono, Quadraphonic or 5.1, I would provide whatever they are willing to pay for.) I made it quite clear, my question is HOW not WHY.

I have not bought anything yet. I want to understand how other people are doing it first, and subject my ideas to peer review.

Between Cubase and the speakers we need to go through an interface and do volume control etc. on the speakers.
There are plenty of great interfaces with native ATMOS support, including the Grace Design M908 that is US$9,400. There is the Apogee Symphony I/O MK II at US$7,345. That is expensive for me.
I could control a 7.1.4 ATMOS speaker setup using the busses of a Mackie 8 Buss mixer. A very basic, cheap but workable solution.

The Audient ORIA interface has extensive control for ATMOS configured speakers and only costs US$2,700, much cheaper than the Grace Design or Apogee solution. This is what Sound on Sound has to say about the Audient ORIA interface and ATMOS control: https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/audient-oria
My suspicion is there will be a whole lot more players in this space soon.

 

[Xenon 6]

Atmos for music would seem to be logically limited to high-profile artists due to the expense of the whole thing. I'm a big Colt fan and sure, Atmos is a very cool concept etc. but totally unrealistic for far too many artists to ever become THE standard format.

I suspect Behringer (and most other players) will be offering an ATMOS interface soon so the cost of admission will fall dramatically.
From the consumer end I suspect it will be driven by car systems. Apple Music and Spotify appear keen on the format too.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Like any business, base your needs upon demand for your services.

How many artists are going to demand it?

Not many are Metallica.

Do the clients listeners have high end rooms to listen to your clients in?

Are you that great of an enginner/producer that you could possibly be at that level?

Ask these questions man...

Big product bandsha e

If you are in the budget you shoed me to get your feet wet, that do what makes you happy.

Mr obvious here would say treat the room and spend not on a half assed Atmos system made for playback.

To do it successfully, you would need to nix in a perfectly tuned room.

And also sell your room-to the client to hear it again..


Thunj about that man. It it really even marketable?

Most clients gut posse because it don't in there.

Why would you wished to make they even better?

Oh. Yeah, they are not worthy likely.



Do you! I am surprised how you went to a home recording to ask about a million dollar atusii

 

[rob aylestone]

To be frank, you seem to be the Atmos expert, have the module already installed and Cubase is working fine with it. Great. So why the ancient mixer idea then, plus the expensive Audient unit? If Cubase can do it, what is the two and a half grand gizmo going to do. Sadly, I think you were hoping some of us were into Atmos, but I don't think any of us are? You've already decided modest speaker quality is enough, and don't want a Grace, so this really seems to be up and down? Incidentally Spotify and Apple have no issue with mono recordings, so Atmos might be something their listeners are not that worried about?

I appreciate you are really keen on it, but seem hellbent on a perculiar direction. As a studio owner with 16 outputs from Cubase, you surely have 8 you can use for Atmos - after all, if you are considering the ancient mixer in the chain, it contributes nothing Cubase cannot already do, and is downstream of the Cubase Atmos routing isn't it?

If you're keen on pioneering, it's a go it alone thing really, isn't it? I doubt few are as up to speed as you already are. It's not as if you can even post a mix as we can't listen to it. I dabbled a bit 45+ years ago with QS and SQ, and 4 tracks and it left me a bit unimpressed then. I suspect the same applies now. Good luck with your quest. Watch out for windmills.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I think you're going to need matched speakers for proper monitoring. Mixed speaker types seem likely to throw off the imaging.

 

[Farview]

The only issue I see with using the Mackie is you will have 8 separate volume controls that can quite easily get out of alignment with each other.

You would be better off dealing with the lower bit depth at low volume and just use the volume control in cubase.

The mixed speaker thing is a much bigger compromise than the changing bit depth as you adjust the volume in cubase. Adding an old mackie to handle volume duties will do more harm to the signal and the mix calibration than the bit depth problem would.

You might be over-prioritizing stuff that doesn't make very much difference at all.

 

[DM60]

I get the feeling that Atmos is going to go the same way as all the previous attempts at quadraphonics and then surround sound for music. Lots of marketing hype but very little real interest. Home cinema enthusiasts are really the only people who have embraced immersive audio.

I tried getting into SACD, it was OK. I have to say, stereo for music at least, is the best sound format I have heard. I agree.

 

[Xenon 6]

So I have been looking in lots of places for an answer to my question. How to do ATMOS mixes cheaply?
My question was never 'should I do them', it was 'how to do them cheaply'.
I have found an answer, but I think the guy in the video below has gone much cheaper than I will.
It turns out my question hinges on affordable speaker management systems and the Audient Oria for US$2,700 might do this job well.

It surprised me how much emotion asking about ATMOS mixing stirred up. In answer to some of the questions raised above.

• I am very much in a home recording studio based in a converted garage. I have done a reasonable good job of sound treatments using 11kg/m³ Earthwool Acoustic Insulation batts. Not perfect, but reasonable.
• I already have 7 of the required 12 speakers for 7.1.4 ATMOS, so it is not a $1M investment.
• I don't have ATMOS set up yet so I don't have ATMOS mixes to post.
• Most of the artists I work with now are female singer/songwriters doing pop or light rock music. They have smaller budgets so the payback time on equipment purchases is fairly long.
• I would have thought that other home recording people may have experimented with ATMOS and have some answers, hence asking about it on this forum. A lot of innovative stuff is done by experimenters in home studios BEFORE it gets into the professional world.
• I have been at this on and off for 24 years and still have a lot of my early equipment. Even my computer is 9 years old, but has enough power to do what I require.

 

[rob aylestone]

Cheaply does not in my book cost three grand.

 

[DM60]

So I have been looking in lots of places for an answer to my question. How to do ATMOS mixes cheaply?
My question was never 'should I do them', it was 'how to do them cheaply'.
I have found an answer, but I think the guy in the video below has gone much cheaper than I will.
It turns out my question hinges on affordable speaker management systems and the Audient Oria for US$2,700 might do this job well.

It surprised me how much emotion asking about ATMOS mixing stirred up. In answer to some of the questions raised above.

• I am very much in a home recording studio based in a converted garage. I have done a reasonable good job of sound treatments using 11kg/m³ Earthwool Acoustic Insulation batts. Not perfect, but reasonable.
• I already have 7 of the required 12 speakers for 7.1.4 ATMOS, so it is not a $1M investment.
• I don't have ATMOS set up yet so I don't have ATMOS mixes to post.
• Most of the artists I work with now are female singer/songwriters doing pop or light rock music. They have smaller budgets so the payback time on equipment purchases is fairly long.
• I would have thought that other home recording people may have experimented with ATMOS and have some answers, hence asking about it on this forum. A lot of innovative stuff is done by experimenters in home studios BEFORE it gets into the professional world.
• I have been at this on and off for 24 years and still have a lot of my early equipment. Even my computer is 9 years old, but has enough power to do what I require.

I think the "payback" is really at the heart of the discussion. There is no improvement of the mix, no improvement of the presentation of the music and for most of us, no reason to experiment with the format for most of us.

I looked into it, and my comments about SACD was very much in the direction of "a surround sound" type system and why I didn't go any further. ATMOS brings nothing worthwhile to the table for music, and just like Quad, SACD, DVD Audio, etc. not worth the effort or money. That is probably why you are not getting much input.