Issue link: http://digital.copcomm.com/i/1451070
C A S Q U A R T E R L Y I S P R I N G 2 0 2 2 17 It's informative to look at some of the response percentages and read the comments from active Atmos re-recording mixers. Some are adamant about their approach for specific reasons while others have flexibility. "If it sounds good, it is good." Re-recording mixer Alan Sallabank has been working in surround for decades and created the highly popular Dolby Atmos tutorials available at Pro-Tools- Expert.com. As someone who helps inform and educate mixers transitioning to Atmos, I thought it would be interesting to get his thoughts on the beds vs. objects discussion. "We can think of Atmos as a blend of two technologies; fixed speakers (beds) and objects. Being horizontal and fixed- position, beds have limitations but allow compatibility and familiarity with other, older 'flat' formats. The clever thing about objects is that they're not just a variable speaker placement, they're a 360-degree spherical sound emitter. As soon as we move an object away from the wall, it interacts with all speakers in the room. "I recommend using objects for height channels, especially when doing up-mixes or using reverbs because they preserve their relative positioning within the mix much better than beds do. Additionally, working with objects makes you really think about where the sources are since they aren't typically stationary. "In the end, it's about the story; let the story dictate sound. A filmmaker can use the rectangle we're looking at to convey certain things. They can then use the full three dimensions of sound to enhance the story and the visual. 'The color's better on radio' is an old saying that applies when mixing in Atmos, as your ears are able to paint-in the sound outside of the rectangle." Given the popularity of consuming content using headphones/ earbuds, has binaural rendering affected your approach to bed/ object usage? Additional comments on the previous question: "If you start chasing all the ways a consumer might listen to content, you go down a rabbit hole from which you never come out. My primary goal is to get the mix approved and delivered." "I don't have any binaural deliveries and don't do music, so unless it becomes a delivery item, I basically don't care." Are you a member of any of the following organizations? Check all that apply. Any final thoughts you'd like to share? "Atmos is great, but somewhat cumbersome in some faster-paced workflows. Things that are simple in non-immersive formats like posting a QuickTime for approval or printing deliverables, turn into laborious processes." "Atmos is a great format to mix in and I prefer it as a future-proofed workflow, but I totally understand that most of the streaming public will not hear my final mixes like I do in my carefully designed and calibrated facility. Though it's nice to know that if users have a critical listening environment, they can enjoy the experiences like I do." "If you approach working with Atmos conventionally, you'll likely get conventional results, as you don't get the same point-location in beds. My mission is to do as much tire kicking as I can get away with— which, BTW, has been a great deal of fun so far."