Atmos Mastering?

[GilWave]

You’re not asking for some new little feature or minor bug fix. You’re asking the world's most valuable corporation to change a fundamental component of its whole spatial audio model in which it invested millions of dollars and years in designing.

Yes, it is a numbers game. I’m of the belief, if anything, dozens of QQers (out of 88 million Apple Music subscribers) politely requesting lossless surround is just doing some market research for Apple…but not in the positive way you imagine. Apple will ultimately make a decision to implement lossless surround based on broad market research and technical feasibility, not on some customer service emails.

If I could ask for a feature that would require a massive investment on Apple's (and the record label's) part it would be for Atmos Mastering.
As of now there is no standard or spec for mastering Atmos files via a mastering engineer. Most every Atmos track on Apple Music and Tidal that is listed as a Master is actually a Mix. Apple and Dolby have not specified a mastering standard, and the labels (who like to not spend any more money than they have to) do not want to shell out for another layer of production on these Atmos mixes, especially on legacy content that they've already been paid on that and view as a re-mix cash cow.

Mastering Engineer Brian Lucey of Magic Garden Mastering has mastered both The Greatest Showman soundtrack and the new Lizzo record in Atmos, using discrete analog signal processing and amplifiers to retain the integrity of all 12 tracks. I think it makes a demonstrable difference in the end product. Not all mix engineers know how to or have the equipment to master a track.

I think it was either a mistake or an error of omission to not define a mastering spec or layer in the Atmos surround standard.

 

[himey]

using discrete analog signal processing and amplifiers to retain the integrity of all 12 tracks

What does this mean, specifically the amplifiers part?

 

[GilWave]

What does this mean, specifically the amplifiers part?

He has a multi-channel analog amplifier that he runs the signals through for the mastering playback, and up to 14 channels of analog mastering-grade signal processing to sweeten/tweak/correct the individual channels. So essentially he's mastering Atmos audio like he would master a stereo record - taking the mix form the mix engineer and mastering the tracks for publishing/release.

 

[himey]

He has a multi-channel analog amplifier that he runs the signals through for the mastering playback, and up to 14 channels of analog mastering-grade signal processing to sweeten/tweak/correct the individual channels. So essentially he's mastering Atmos audio like he would master a stereo record - taking the mix form the mix engineer and mastering the tracks for publishing/release.

That is one way to skin a cat, and certainly not the only way to get a quality mix. I still don't understand how the amplifier and listening setup would make a difference compared to some of the other mixing setups I have seen. Are you saying active monitors are inferior?

 

[GilWave]

That is one way to skin a cat, and certainly not the only way to get a quality mix. I still don't understand how the amplifier and listening setup would make a difference compared to some of the other mixing setups I have seen. Are you saying active monitors are inferior?

No, I'm saying he's mastering Atmos files after they're mixed.

Almost all Atmos releases on Apple and Today, even though they say 'Master", have n to been mastered. they are submitted to the service direct from the mix engineer - so technically they are mixes, not masters.

Brian and a handful of other mastering engineers are petitioning the labels to set aside a budget for mastering Atmos tracks, like they do (and have done) for stereo tracks.

 

[himey]

No, I'm saying he's mastering Atmos files after they're mixed.

Almost all Atmos releases on Apple and Today, even though they say 'Master", have n to been mastered. they are submitted to the service direct from the mix engineer - so technically they are mixes, not masters.

Brian and a handful of other mastering engineers are petitioning the labels to set aside a budget for mastering Atmos tracks, like they do (and have done) for stereo tracks.

That sounds like a good selling card for Blu-ray releases but for mass market streaming, it would be an uphill battle.

 

[GilWave]

That sounds like a good selling card for Blu-ray releases but for mass market streaming, it would be an uphill battle.

All mass-market stereo streams on Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora have been mastered by mastering engineers - it's been a given in pre-recorded music pretty much for ever. Why should Atmos be different?

Traditionally, mix engineers don't do mastering, and mastering engineers don't mix music.

 

[himey]

All mass-market stereo streams on Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora have been mastered by mastering engineers - it's been a given in pre-recorded music pretty much for ever. Why should Atmos be different?

Tradiontally, mix engineers don't do mastering, and mastering engineers don't mix music.

The way the majority of stereo releases get mastered today, and end up squashed to smithereens, compared to very dynamic Atmos releases, I hope they don't get anywhere near them.

 

[GilWave]

The way the majority of stereo releases get mastered today, and end up squashed to smithereens, compared to very dynamic Atmos releases, I hope they don't get anywhere near them.

The mixes are smashed before they go to mastering, part of the loudness wars

 

[himey]

The mixes are smashed before they go to mastering, part of the loudness wars

Remasterd albums aren't remixed. Remasters aren't always an improvement and sound louder, and less dynamic.

 

[GilWave]

Remasterd albums aren't remixed. Remasters aren't always an improvement and sound louder, and less dynamic.

We're not talking about remastered albums.

Masters are made from final mixes. Any smashing (compression) of audio takes place in the mix phase of the process, not the mastering phase.

Legacy content originally released in stereo that is prepped for Atmos release is remixed from the master multitrack tapes into multi channel tracks and stems, mixed down for 7.1.4 surround, then is sent to the label *without being mastered"

Which is different from all the stereo releases that have come out since the dawn of stereo - they've all been mastered by a mastering engineer

 

[himey]

We're not talking about remastered albums.
Masters are made from final mixes. Any masking (compression) of audio takes place in the mix phase of the process, not the mastering phase.

Legacy content originally released in stereo that is prepped for Atmos release is remixed from the master multitrack tapes into multi channel tracks and stems, mixed down for 7.1.4 surround, then is sent to the label *without being mastered"

Which is different from all the stereo releases that have come out since the dawn of stereo - they've all been mastered by a mastering engineer

I am telling you that mastering will affect the dynamics. Your post seems to not recognize that. You seem to think that only the mix has any effect on dynamics.

My point is, whether you agree with or not, Atmos mixes are dynamic now. Most stereo mixes are not. I don't want anyone messing with the Atmos mixes as they stand now. You seem to be the only one complaining. The mastering engineers have been screwing up stereo releases, and I don't want that to happen to Atmos mixes.

Compression is done in the mastering stage, which I don't want to happen to these very dynamic Atmos mixes that I have been accustomed to and grown fond of.

 

[JediJoker]

Masters are made from final mixes. Any smashing (compression) of audio takes place in the mix phase of the process, not the mastering phase.

This is, quite simply, wrong. Dynamics processing—compression, expansion, limiting, gating, etc.—can be done at any point in the record production process, including during mastering. During recording, processing can be applied to individual tracks; during mixing, to individual tracks and/or the full mix; and during mastering, only to the full mix.

 

[BL MGM]

I am telling you that mastering will affect the dynamics. Your post seems to not recognize that. You seem to think that only the mix has any effect on dynamics.

My point is, whether you agree with or not, Atmos mixes are dynamic now. Most stereo mixes are not. I don't want anyone messing with the Atmos mixes as they stand now. You seem to be the only one complaining. The mastering engineers have been screwing up stereo releases, and I don't want that to happen to Atmos mixes.

Compression is done in the mastering stage, which I don't want to happen to these very dynamic Atmos mixes that I have been accustomed to and grown fond of.

Not the case at all.

1. Mastering is not about making things louder, in stereo or atmos. If louder was the main goal we would all be out of work to the robots.

2. Mastering atmos the track is very often -18.0 coming in and -18.0 going out.

Mastering atmos is about punch and cohesion and center image power and harmonics, not level. It's about a musicality upgrade. Trust me on this, you want GREAT mastering of atmos. The format is still in it's infancy and there are musical level to be reached at the same LUFS level. There is a lot of good that can and will happen with great mastering of atmos, which is a skill set in evolution.

You have issue with the limiting/sound of modern stereo and you are dumping it on mastering as a concept

P.S. Remasters are often worse, not always, yet are a label or artist thing to make money in most cases by making a change. Remastering has nothing to do with stereo mastering or with atmos mastering.

 

[himey]

1. Mastering is not about making things louder, in stereo or atmos. If louder was the main goal we would all be out of work to the robots

I don't think anyone was saying that. I think the argument was about the potential limiting of dynamics which hasn't been the case with Atmos and certainly has been the case today with stereo mastering. Another gentleman mentioned that was only in the mixing phase. I said it has been from mastering which is obvious since the same mix "remastered", can have less dynamics.

 

[JediJoker]

Where did anyone say this? You said mastering can't remove dynamics, you said it was only mixing. That certainly hasn't been the case with modern mastering.

Different poster. That was @GilWave.

 

[himey]

Different poster. That was @GilWave.

Thanks! I edited my reply to reflect my mistake.

 

[sjcorne]

2. Mastering atmos the track is very often -18.0 coming in and -18.0 going out.

Everyone seems to think that the -18 requirement is an unbeatable check against the loudness wars, but it's easy to get around by starting with pre-compressed stems from the stereo master session and then lowering their individual 'clip gain' to fool the VU meters in the Dolby Renderer. I reckon that once level-matched, lots of these streaming Atmos mixes of popular new music are just as smashed as their stereo counterparts.

 

[BL MGM]

I don't think anyone was saying that. I think the argument was about the potential limiting of dynamics which hasn't been the case with Atmos and certainly has been the case today with stereo mastering. Another gentleman mentioned that was only in the mixing phase. I said it has been from mastering which is obvious since the same mix "remastered", can have less dynamics.

Atmos delivery has a fixed limit of -18 integrated LUFS. That's pushed to -16 assuming true peak is not over 0

Some mixers are cheating on this already. But I digress

You equate mastering with smashing which is not correct. And when it was smashed you blame mastering. Which is not true

Artist approved work. We serve.

Atmos at the same level sounds a lot better when mastered well. Again you just don't understand mastering.

Every release is a master and in some sense is mastered. Mostly by the mixers who are low to mid skill mostly. Because the label or artists are being cheap.

Atmos is being not mastered by a specialist. Do not fear It's a better result.

 

[BL MGM]

Everyone seems to think that the -18 requirement is an unbeatable check against the loudness wars, but it's easy to get around by starting with pre-compressed stems from the stereo master session and then lowering their individual 'clip gain' to fool the VU meters in the Dolby Renderer. I reckon that once level-matched, lots of these streaming Atmos mixes of popular new music are just as smashed as their stereo counterparts.

Yes compression at mixing but never like stereo in the end. It's a more dynamic format no matter what.

And again. Stop blaming mastering. Artist approves the work. Stereo smashing was all wanted at the time

We are past the era of peak loudness.