Julian Rodgers – Editor of Production Expert – explores five use cases he discovered in his studio for OMNIBUS 3.0.
For a tool to truly catch my attention, it needs to solve a significant problem I encounter in my daily workflow more effectively than alternative solutions. Tools that focus on a single problem have an edge—if they solve a need I have, they can demonstrate their value to me quickly. And if that tool tackles a task I don’t enjoy or removes a barrier to something I do enjoy, all the better.
Omnibus 3.0 is an extremely flexible tool, but at first glance, its full potential might not be immediately obvious. It wasn’t until it solved a simple but recurring problem for me that I realised just how useful it could be across my entire workflow. Let me explain.
I’d read about how powerful the latest version of Audiomovers’ Mac-only audio routing software was. How it could route hundreds of channels between multiple sources and share them between multiple users on multiple computers. It’s impressive. But like the majority of people, I work on my own in my studio, principally on a single computer and with only occasional in-person visits from collaborators and clients. Routing 256 channels of audio over a local network to multiple workstations isn’t something I need to do. But that doesn’t mean Omnibus 3 doesn’t do things I do need.
Omnibus 3 can route to and from almost any device, whether hardware or software. You can use it to split signals out from one source to multiple destinations and you can also use it to combine multiple sources and sum them to a single destination. And importantly it does all to this independently of sample rate because it handles all the sample rate conversion in the background. That makes it something which can make many of the issues associated with routing digital audio around a system disappear.
Routing Pro Tools To AirPods
The first problem Omnibus 3 solved for me was simple, yet frustrating – I can now route audio from Pro Tools to my AirPods.
While this may sound trivial, it wasn’t something I could do before. Once I realised Omnibus 3 could fix this issue, I quickly began exploring other potential uses for the software. Why is this so difficult? When using my MacBook Pro, each AirPod shows up as a separate audio device in the Pro Tools Playback Engine. Because Pro Tools only allows the selection of one device at a time, this prevents audio from being sent to both AirPods simultaneously. As a result, I used to carry wired headphones exclusively for working in Pro Tools while travelling.
Using AirPods with Pro Tools becomes effortless with Omnibus 3. I simply select the Omnibus virtual bus as the Playback Engine in Pro Tools, select AirPods as the output device, and route both channels to my AirPods, with sample rate conversion happening invisibly in the background.
The problem with using AirPods with Pro Tools
Routing audio from Pro Tools to AirPods
The ability to route Pro Tools to my AirPods was the “killer application” that drew me into Omnibus 3. After solving this issue, I began exploring what other common workflow hurdles it could help me overcome.
Loopback
One of these was audio loopback. Loopback is essential for a range of tasks, from recording podcast guests to routing audio for screen recording software. While I typically rely on hardware for reliability, Omnibus 3’s loopback functionality has proven just as dependable.
Routing my podcast guests from a call on Zoom into my DAW to capture with my own mic for podcast production couldn’t be simpler. Likewise for screen capture when using my DAW routing DAW audio to screen capture software or to Zoom or similar video software is simple and because of the sample rate conversion I don’t have to match the sample rates between applications and hardware, so its actually easier than using my hardware interface for loopback.
A/B DAW Mixes Against References
Referencing mixes against records you aspire to sound like is a well known strategy. But I’ll be the first to say it’s not super-convenient. I’ve tried the dedicated plugins, which has to be said do a great job. But my favoured technique is to route my streaming service of choice via a separate audio interface and into the B input of my monitor controller, allowing me a convenient way to A/B between the mix and reference at the touch of a button. Omnibus offers an alternative to this hardware based approach and it’s beautifully simple and effective.
I’ve already referred to using the Omnibus virtual bus. There is a fixed two-channel bus which is always present in Omnibus but there are three additional busses which can be added, at widths from 2 channels up to 256 channels. A/Bing between a DAW mix and a reference track relies on using two virtual busses in conjunction with the snapshot feature in Omnibus. If more flexibility is needed—for example monitoring multiple sources such as browser audio and Spotify at the same time and to different destinations—then this is straightforward, and the four Omnibus busses are always there to accommodate these scenarios.
Multiple Snapshots of routing schemes can be saved in Omnibus. They can be recalled using a keystroke and if they are also saved as Hot Snapshots they can be recalled instantly from the Hot Snapshots Panel in the Omnibus UI. If you have a Streamdeck they can of course be recalled literally with the touch of a button. If you use references but you prefer the open endedness of using your streaming service ‘live’ rather than importing files of reference tracks, this is ideal.
The way the routing works is that you route your DAW to Omnibus A and the system sound on your Mac to Omnibus B (or vice-versa) and use the routing snapshots to AB between them. It’s simple and flexible. One tip is that while there are volume controls for the busses in the device list in Omnibus, these settings are saved with the snapshot so unless you are prepared to constantly update your snapshots you’re better off matching the levels at source in the streaming software and the DAW.
A Better ‘Aux Cord’
What about other simple yet common issues in the studio? For example letting someone play audio from their computer through the studio monitors? The dreaded ‘Aux Cord’. There’s nothing wrong with having a 3.5mm jack lead dangling in the studio ready to pipe analogue audio into a pair of inputs on the interface or monitor controller. But if it’s a Mac and you have an Ethernet to Thunderbolt adaptor it’s incredibly simple to use an AVB connection instead. First set up the guest machine in the Omnibus AVB configurator, set the output in the guest machine to ‘Omnibus AVB: 2’ and route from that to your desired output, in this Aux Cord replacement application it would involve two channels but an AVB connection into Omnibus can be up to 256 channels if you need them.
Crucially Omnibus 3 doesn’t have to be installed on the guest Mac. No conversion and vanishingly low latency courtesy of AVB, which is built into MacOS. Do be aware that Ethernet switches need to be AVB compatible so direct machine to machine connection is the safest bet. Your off the shelf switch might not support AVB. Best of all, this AVB Aux Cord can be left live, ready to go all the time. You can’t do that with an analogue lead, buzzing away and making loud noises when it’s touched or plugged in!
Instant Recall of Dolby Atmos Live Re-renders
I don’t currently mix Dolby Atmos but like many people I’m feeling more and more reasons to do so, and Omnibus can be very useful as a way to store and recall live re-renders. Many Atmos-equipped Pro Tools studios use a combination of Avid hardware such as the Matrix Studio together with the DADman monitor control software and a DAD MOM controller to manage the monitoring of live re-renders. This is a great way of working, though not inexpensive, giving the freedom to check a mix at multiple channel widths, from 7.1.4 or higher all the way through surround formats down to stereo. Once properly set up Omnibus 3 can be used in a similar way to switch between various live re-renders.
This is possible precisely because Omnibus 3 does such a great job of managing inter-application routing. When running an Atmos session in Pro Tools, rather than using the internal renderer, I could use the Dolby Audio Bridge to send audio to the external Dolby Atmos Renderer application, and then use Omnibus 3 to store and recall the audio routing of the re-renders to my monitoring system.
From here you can use the Hot Snapshots feature controlled from the Mac’s keyboard or from an Elgato Stream Deck so you can very neatly toggle between monitoring formats, achieving in software something which otherwise requires a significant investment in hardware. When the time comes to invest in Atmos monitoring, Omnibus might be a crucial part of that move.
If there is a takeaway here it’s that the idea of software which can be used to route audio between applications and hardware isn’t new and I’ve had experience of other software which does the same thing. But this feels both easy and complete. I’ve tried others but they haven’t worked for me and I’ve always gone back to hardware. This one fixes the problems I actually have and the longer I’ve been using the more reasons I’ve uncovered for keeping it as part of how my studio works. It’s important to point out that the sheer flexibility and scalability of Omnibus 3 might not seem relevant to someone working alone in their studio, but there is no downside to this capability. The examples in this article are modest in scale, but as your needs grow the same tool which can solve these simple issues can also solve the biggest and most complex of projects.
So those are five specific uses I’ve found for OmniBus 3 in my studio. There are many, many more but these were the ones which were most relevant to me. What problems with routing do you have in your studio? You probably have ways to get around them but ask yourself, would a single solution to all of your routing issues be a good thing? Omnibus 3 could be the solution you didn’t know you needed. Why not give it a try and see how it can simplify your workflow.
In 2024, there aren’t many things beyond a computer which are compulsory if you want to set up any kind of studio for audio production, but along with a pair of headphones, and an external audio interface, a pair of loudspeakers suitable for monitoring your audio are pretty much mandatory. With the list of non-negotiable essentials being as short as it is, it’s worth getting it right and in this article we’ll examine what you should be looking for in a pair of monitors for your studio and why.
How are monitors different from consumer speakers?
If you are setting up your first studio, you may well wonder why you can’t just use the system you have at home which you use for listening to music? It’s a good question and like most people as old as me, my first ‘studio’ was a four track and my bedroom hifi and my principal reason for using them was so that more than one person could hear the music without passing the headphones around the room. So it does beg the question. Why do we have special ‘monitor’ speakers at all? Are they really that different?
The difference isn’t one of cost or quality.
It’s possible to spend a great deal of money on high-end hi-fi speakers, in some cases more than you’d spend on professional monitoring. While the hifi and pro worlds occasionally overlap, there are two principal differences between speakers designed for consuming music and speakers designed for producing music. The first is voicing.
The design goal of a loudspeaker designed for listening pleasure is to make music sound as good as possible. A studio monitor is designed to represent the audio in as accurate and neutral a way as possible. These two design goals overlap to some degree in that both require distortion-free, full bandwidth reproduction from the deepest bass to the highest treble, but if a hi-fi speaker is deliberately voiced to flatter the music by emphasising a particular region of the spectrum, as long as the result sounds ‘nicer’, then that speaker is improved for its intended use. This differs from a studio monitor in that the sound of the monitor influences the decisions made at the mixing and mastering stages of production, and making those decisions based on a response that deliberately emphasises or attenuates any part of the spectrum will result in less predictable results when played out in the real world on playback systems of varying quality.
This requirement for a flat neutral frequency response is well understood. A second requirement, which is sometimes less well understood is the necessity for extended headroom and system protection. When streaming music, playing back broadcast, material or playing CDs or vinyl, this material has a restricted dynamic range compared to the raw, unprocessed sounds which are likely to be encountered in a studio. The difference between the quietest and loudest sounds encountered by a consumer are significantly less than those encountered when recording live sources through a microphone, or even from electronic sources. A greater potential for damage exists and good quality monitors are designed with this in mind. As well as the physical construction of the drivers, many feature electronic protection to limit the damage which can be caused by unexpected and unpredictable signals hitting the drivers.
A bit of history
The variety, quality and value for money offered by studio monitors today is greater than it’s ever been. Much of the discussion around studio equipment holds the best quality vintage equipment of decades ago in high regard. Old microphones, mixing consoles and outboard equipment are seen as the pinnacle of design by many. But the same cannot be said of monitoring which has improved demonstrably over the decades and the best monitors of years ago cannot compete with modern offerings on technical performance.
In the very early days loudspeaker monitoring existed principally to check for technical faults, like buzzes and intermittent signals. The frequency response of very early speakers was poor. The first monitor speaker which was valued for its accuracy, was the Altec 604, versions of which stayed in continuous production from 1944 until 1998, an astonishing 54 years!
Recording studios commonly featured large main monitors which were designed as part of the control room and built into the walls, known as ‘soffit-mounting’. But these were frequently complemented by pairs of small speakers designed to give an alternative, and more real-world, perspective on the music. Small, single driver Auratones became a common sight during the 1970s and during the 1980s the Yamaha NS10, a two-way speaker with a distinctive white speaker cone, became popular as an addition to main monitors. This was originally a hifi product, which flies in the face of the commonly accepted requirement for a successful monitor loudspeaker to be flat (it was not) and to be specifically constructed for studio use. But it was popular and did much to promote the use of small, free standing two way speakers, fundamentally identical to hifi speakers, as ‘nearfield’ monitors.
Near Field Monitors
Near field monitors are speakers which are used in the acoustic ‘near field’, a region close to the speakers at which the direct sound from the speakers is louder than the sound which has been reflected off one or more surfaces before reaching the listener. Typically mounted between 1 and 2 metres from the listener, this approach reduces the influence of the room’s acoustics making it particularly suitable for home studios with less than ideal acoustic characteristics. Near field monitors in studios are overwhelmingly the most common approach in studios today. Larger monitors, often described as mid field are often found in larger rooms but the large, soffit mounted main monitor is increasingly rare these days.
Active Monitors
In the 1990s the previously unusual approach of building amplifiers into the speaker rather than using an external amplifier became much more widespread. This use of ‘active’ rather than amplifierless ‘passive’ monitors has since become the default approach for most studio monitoring. The advantages are that since the amplifiers and drivers in a monitoring system influence each other’s performance, taking this approach means that they can be designed together and perform optimally. There are also advantages advantage in the design of the crossover network used to divide the frequencies between the different drivers and since the new generation of lightweight, powerful and inexpensive Class D amplifiers have matured, many of the downsides of this approach have reduced. Passive monitors are still useful in some environments like immersive monitoring or for very large systems but if you’re choosing a set of monitors for a home or project studio they are overwhelmingly likely to be active.
DSP
Since the move towards active monitoring another significant development has been the increasing use of DSP in monitors. In a similar way to how active monitoring brought advantages in crossover design, creating the necessary filters digitally brought flexibility, better consistency and often reduced cost. But with the inherent flexibility of digital processing in DSP features such as on-board speaker calibration, allowing complex filtering to be used to match the performance of a monitor with the room in which it is being used has become increasingly common.
Virtual Monitoring
Moving into the second quarter of the 21st century a rapidly developing, and improving area of studio monitoring is in virtual monitoring – creating virtual loudspeakers in virtual rooms, all delivered via headphones. You might wonder why headphones aren’t already the answer to many of the issues around studio monitoring. After all, the room in which people work inevitably influences the performance of speakers, and usually negatively. Using headphones bypasses the sound of the room. Headphones are an important part of studio monitoring, particularly as so much more music is consumed on headphones now that streaming via mobile devices is so ubiquitous, but headphones bring their own set of issues and using loudspeakers as well as headphones is almost universally recommended.
Being able to accurately create the experience of listening to speakers in a room using a binaural rendering has always given unpredictable results because the specific cues which have to be accurately recreated in the headphones are specific to our unique physiology. The combination of ear shape and even the shape of the shoulders and torso all affect the results. They can be measured and reproduced in a Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) and this has been incorporated into the best of the current generation of products. Generic HRTFs are available. These are what is used to create binaural mixes of Atmos and Apple Spatial content on streaming platforms, but a more convincing effect can be gained using a personalised HRTF based on the specific physiology of the listener.
Two ways virtualised monitoring are used is either to recreate the experience of mixing in a virtual studio control room, a good example of this is Waves’ Abbey Road Studio 3, which places the user in the control room of the famous studio in Abbey Road favoured by Pink Floyd among others. A second use is to create a virtual immersive monitoring system for mixing in formats like Dolby Atmos. The best of these are very convincing. For example I’ve used Applied Acoustics Laboratory’s Virtuoso plugin and while the opinion among Atmos mixers that you have to at least check an Atmos mix on real Atmos monitoring at some point, the virtual option is a fantastic one for people experimenting with the format for whom Atmos monitoring is too much of a barrier to entry, or for any mixers who need to work out of the studio.
With that overview of key developments in monitoring over the years we’ve introduced a lot of issues, but returning to the key point of this article, how much should you be spending on your monitors and what do you need for your purposes?
How much should I spend?
Like most questions, it depends. The Law of Diminishing Returns is very much in play here, with smaller and smaller gains in performance coming with greater and greater increments of expense. But while it’s possible to spend a great deal of money on studio monitors, there has never been a better time to get really great value studio monitoring. The first piece of advice would be to consider your studio and what it needs to do the work you do now, and hope to do in the future. The room and the monitors are one system and there is little point in investing all of your budget in speakers when investing some of your budget in some appropriate acoustic treatment would yield better results.
On the subject of acoustic treatment, comprehensive acoustic treatment is difficult and expensive to do but the same Law of Diminishing Returns that influences monitoring also operates here and modest treatment can yield very worthwhile results. If you are renting your space solutions which don’t damage the walls, or even free-standing treatment products are available, so even if you have a landlord from hell you can still treat your space.
Back to the monitors, you can get exceptional value at the budget end but monitors are electro-mechanical and some important elements like drivers and cabinets will always be relatively expensive, though technology has impacted this. The best advice is to buy something you will keep, and many respected brands offer budget options. As your needs develop and your studio grows you will always find a use for a second pair of monitors and if you decide to sell, a pair of monitors from a well known brand will be more attractive second hand.
This should however be balanced against the fact that there is little sense in spending more than you have to. New brands emerge all the time and some offer amazing value compared to the performance they offer. A great example would be Kali Audio who shook the budget end of the industry up some years ago with their Lone Pine model which offers very respectable performance for under $500 per pair. Other examples of bargains exist, for example Fluid Audio’s FX80, a very different monitor but with comparably capable performance for very similar money. However, while you can get amazing performance for the money, it’s still a fact of file that ultimately you get what you pay for and it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that similar looking specifications and positive reviews means that your $500 monitors will sound as good as some $2000 monitors. It doesn’t work like that, though the $2000 monitors won’t sound four times as good – the Law Of Diminishing Returns again!
What features should I look out for in a first pair of monitors?
If you don’t have the budget to buy some proper entry level monitors, don’t buy super-cheap. If you can use what you already have, including headphones, and wait until you can afford what you want then do that. Unlike computers and software, monitors can have a working life of decades. Some of the very cheapest monitors aren’t very different from entry level hifi speakers but are marketed as professional monitors and you’re best waiting if you can of your budget isn’t yet sufficient.
If you look online you’ll notice there are a lot of 2 way active monitors with bass/mid drivers around 6’ in diameter. These are popular for a reason. Offering the best compromise between simplicity and performance, you’ll find great value here. Do be aware that monitors are priced both individually and as pairs. This confuses search results!
Buying quality for the long term has much to be said for it so if you want to keep costs down, rather than buying cheaper large monitors, consider buying smaller, high quality monitors. You will lose out on bass extension and volume but if you add a matching subwoofer at a later date you can rectify this, and its the midrange which is really important anyway. Many people overestimate the importance of bass performance, understandably because ample, deep bass is impressive, but if you are looking for good mix translation most of the difference between a good and a poor mix is in the midrange.
What if I want to upgrade?
It’s natural to want to upgrade equipment when budget allows, and if you’re looking to change your monitors rather than buy a first pair then a couple of questions might help. Firstly, why do you want to upgrade? What don’t your current monitors give you? If the answer is that they don’t sound good enough or your mixes don’t translate well then consider looking at your room as well as, or even instead of, upgrading. This often isn’t the answer people want to hear, but in spite of the fact that installing appropriate acoustic treatment is more complicated than buying new monitors, unless your room has already been properly treated, your current monitors are almost certainly affected by your room at least as much as the difference in sound between your current monitors and whatever you’re considering replacing them with – Sorry…
Do you need more power or low frequency extension? If so consider adding a subwoofer. The advantages of using a dedicated subwoofer is a big enough subject to be an article of its own but be aware that using a well-matched subwoofer (preferably one from the same manufacturer as your monitors) not only delivers more and deeper bass, but because of the work it relieves your monitor of, it can improve the performance of your monitors.
If your reason for upgrading is that you’ve outgrown your current monitors and you want to upgrade to more professional monitoring then make sure you are genuinely moving up rather than sideways. Quality monitor brands as favoured by the pros are great and if you are prepared to pay for it you’ll get better results, but don’t ignore your room and its acoustic treatment. If you upgrade well you can retire your old pair and replace them with something you can keep for years to come.
Can I use room correction software to improve my room?
You’ve probably already noticed that much of the advice given thus far has balanced the contribution of the monitors with the room in which they are being used. This is inescapable, the monitors and the room together make your monitoring system. The frequent references to acoustic treatment is part of that, and dealing with acoustics is often closer to DIY than production and engineering. Isn’t there a quick fix? What about “room correction software”?
More correctly referred to as ‘speaker calibration software’ these products are very clever and genuinely useful but it’s important to understand their limitations. This isn’t a deficiency in the products, it’s just a fact of physics. Speaker calibration software can’t fix ‘nulls’ caused by standing waves in rooms and these are some of the most audible acoustic issues we face. Without getting into the details of this, the most serious issues facing most small studios are in the bass and if you’ve ever noticed how some bass frequencies build up at points in your room and disappear at others, that is a standing wave. Speaker calibration software can’t fix these issues, though they can help to some degree. To fix these standing waves you need bass trapping.
Effective bass trapping is difficult to do well and be aware that thin or lightweight foam products won’t be effective at treating bass. Unfortunately physics dictates that good bass traps are necessarily large and are relatively expensive to build. There are some active products such as the PSI AVAA C20 which are both small and very effective but are not cheap.
Speaker calibration is extremely worthwhile as a complement to adequate acoustic treatment but shouldn’t be considered an alternative to it.
Specific purchasing advice
So far this article has been a general discussion of the considerations and issues facing someone purchasing monitors. A few specific products have been referenced but what about some more specific advice?
So far this article has been a general discussion of the considerations and issues facing someone purchasing monitors. A few specific products have been referenced but what about some more specific advice?
Budget monitors
If you’re looking for a first pair of monitors reviews are useful to tell you about features but keep in mind that comments on how they sound are always subjective and are affected by the room in which the reviewer is listening, what they hear in their room won’t necessarily translate you your room. Also consider the experience of the person sharing their views. The only way to really tell is to hear them in your room, but if you’re buying a first pair of monitors you might not have a great deal of experience to draw on. One thing anyone should notice with a better set of monitors is that mixing becomes easier. You get better at it because you can hear what you are doing better. That’s something everyone should notice even if you’re not sure exactly why it’s happening.
Once you’re away from the extremely inexpensive end of the market it’s hard to buy objectively ‘bad’ monitors. Much of it is about what you like. If there was such a thing as a perfect monitor it would have been found by now. Preference is perfectly legitimate. If you’re uncertain about your choice then check the returns policy before buying.
More upmarket monitors
If you’re buying better quality monitors then consider buying from a pro audio dealer rather than a ‘box shifter’. Some allow auditioning in your studio pre-purchase and some manufacturers sell direct to the public. Brand perception is much more of a factor if you are a pro running a public-facing studio or mastering room so if you feel influenced by brand, there is nothing wrong with that. A friend of mine specifically chose to equip his Atmos studio with a brand of monitors he considered ‘neutral’ in terms of the brand’s perception because he felt choosing either of his other two choices might have alienated fans of the other brand!
At the top end of the market it’s often about balancing personal preference against features. Some high-end brands are overtly technological whereas others are about refining purely analogue approaches which have been with us for decades. Both are legitimate.
What do I have and what would I buy?
I have auditioned and reviewed a lot of studio monitors. Day to day I use Neumann KH310s – I like their compact 3-way design with a large dome midrange and the sealed speaker cabinet gives excellent time performance. As a result these speakers are well known for their ‘dry’ bass. They are analogue-only, so no DSP correction but I run these via an IK Multimedia ARC Studio hardware speaker calibration box.
What would I recommend?
These are comments on speakers I know well. I haven’t tried everything, not many people have, but:
Budget – JBL306P MkII – really great for the money
Step Up First Pair – Adam A7V – popular for a reason and network control means they could be useful in an Atmos system if your needs grow.
Pro Small Room – Genelec 8341A – Astonishingly great, and tiny. Brilliant on their own but amazing with a Genelec Subwoofer
Pro Medium/Large Room – PMC 6.2 – Transmission line excellence, just beautiful
Closing thoughts
Monitors are cheaper and better than they have ever been but you still get what you pay for.
If possible buy the best you can afford and keep them, unlike computers and software, monitors have a potential service life of decades. Every studio can find a use for a second pair of quality monitors.
Remember the influence of your room is probably just as significant as the difference between one monitor and another. Basic acoustic treatment doesn’t have to be expensive but there is a practical limit to how much you can do to a room for a reasonable cost.
Audiomovers recently partnered with Anti Social Camp – the world’s largest writing camp which took place on June 10-15 across some of New York City’s most notable music venues and studios.
The event brought together 200 songwriters, artists, and producers from around the world to craft new hits, collaborate, and share their passion for music.
During the writing camp, participants were divided into groups of three: an artist, songwriter and producer.
Each team was provided with LISTENTO licenses, allowing them to complete the songs remotely and maintain the global creative partnerships formed at Anti Social Camp.
The upcoming Anti Social Camp, Vol. 2 expands on the earlier release of the Anti Social Camp, Vol. 1 compilation album. This edition features a selection of songs written and recorded at this year’s event and is set to be released later this year.
Keep up with the latest from Anti Social Camp here.
Warren Huart and Audiomovers Head of Product Igor Maxymenkowalk through OMNBIUS 3.0 and the process of configuring it for various routing scenarios. Whether you’re setting it up for a simple podcast recording or a complex multi-machine audio production, watch now on Produce Like A Pro.
The audio routing software which operates as virtual patchbay for Mac has had its biggest update yet. OMNIBUS 3.0 turns any Mac into a networked audio device which can connect 256 channels of I/O to any other Mac on the same network.
It also now supports application capture, and can be controlled via StreamDeck or MIDI controllers. Check out the full list of new features below or start your 7-day demo.
OMNIBUS can handle even the most complex routing scenarios with ease, and makes networking audio easier than ever before.
Route multichannel audio between different machines connected to the same network via AVB or NDI
Four configurable virtual audio devices with up to 256 I/O channels per device
Separate system and application audio outputs and use applications as audio sources in the OMNIBUS routing matrix
Save and load routing snapshots or entire OMNIBUS sessions and open them on other machines
Switch routing snapshots from an Elgato Stream Deck, MIDI controller, key commands or Hot Snapshot panel
OMNIBUS already allows Mac users to route audio seamlessly between all devices – physical and virtual – connected to their Mac, but OMNIBUS 3.0 adds application capture, so users can easily grab audio from any software running, rather than needing to route that audio first to a virtual device.
The audio routing software – which operates like a virtual patchbay between applications and audio devices on a Mac – now features networking functionality, with support for NDI and AVB network protocols.
This new networking functionality means OMNIBUS 3.0 can send and receive multichannel audio from any other machine on the same network, turning any Mac into an audio device with full multichannel I/O. (OMNIBUS can send and receive 256 channels of audio via AVB or 128 with NDI, but users can create multiple AVB ‘devices’ in OMNIBUS to send and receive audio).
Film and TV composer and sound designer Dan Zlotnik remarks “When collaborating, being able to patch computers with different DAWs and different sample rates straight into my session has changed my whole workflow, this is such a powerful feature. With Omnibus 3.0 I can easily and quickly network all Mac machines on the session, this has never been so easy”.
Mix Engineer Adam Hawkins says “OMNIBUS 3.0 has really sped up my workflow when mixing. I use it to A/B/C/Ding multiple sources while working on a stereo mix. I can A/B/C with my current mix, the rough mix that was sent to me, and my last pass if I’m doing a revision. When working with Dolby Atmos I use it to A/B with the 7.1.4 mix against the stereo master.”
GRAMMY-winning producer Rafa Sardina added, “OMNIBUS 3.0 represents the future of audio applications. You can just come in and start making music, there is no learning curve, no frustration with setup. You don’t need to be a scientist to make music or use audio tools, but you do need to be one to make tools like Omnibus 3.0. The future is being made by the scientists at Audiomovers.”
Setting up a home studio is a natural step for anybody who is interested in music production, but the options can at first appear bewildering. While I’m yet to meet anybody who claims to have ‘finished’ their home studio, broadly speaking the studios I’ve encountered fall into two camps – those which grow and develop over time and those which are reconsidered and started over, and over, and over.
To avoid making the wrong decisions when setting up your studio, it’s important first to ask yourself the most important question. What do you want to do in your studio?
What are you going to use your home studio for, and how?
It might be tempting to say “everything”, but for a successful studio I would suggest that that’s not a good answer. What do you do now and what do you want to do next? Trying to accommodate those two questions is probably as far as I would consider planning for. Are you a producer or a beat maker? Are you In a band? Are you a songwriter? If so, what if any audio recording do you think you’re going to need to do? Will you be completing your projects with the help of others, or do you imagine you’ll be working entirely solo? If you have answers to these questions then you’re in with at least a fighting chance of avoiding potentially costly mistakes.
What space do you have available for your home studio?
The second consideration you need to take into account is what space you have available. The majority of equipment doesn’t necessarily have to be all that expensive, instead it’s the space in which you do your work which will be the most expensive part of your studio, and the part you have the least ability to fundamentally change. You might well have the gear and the skills necessary to record your band, but unless you have a suitable space, you’ll probably be better off recording elsewhere. This doesn’t have to mean hiring a recording studio, though that is often a great idea. If you want to record bands then consider making the core of your studio easily transportable and rather than bringing the musicians to your studio, take the studio to the musicians. There are always options.
For example some instruments don’t record as well in smaller spaces. A drum kit might fit in your space at home but a low ceiling will cause reflections which will color the overhead mics which are so crucial to capturing the sound of the kit. A smaller room will limit your choices when it comes to placing room mics and even using very close miking you can never entirely avoid the sound of your room. Bigger rooms can be more forgiving to work in so it can be very worthwhile to find a suitable space you can hire. if you’re bringing your own gear it doesn’t have to be a studio, as long as it sounds good, is quiet and you can make a noise without upsetting anyone it can be a great option.
How much should you spend on a home studio?
Once you know where you are going to be working and what kind of work you want to do, the next consideration is budget. Choosing and buying gear is of course exciting, but when planning your budget be aware that the less exciting things like cables and stands all need to be factored in or you’ll end up in an environment which will make your life more, rather than less, difficult. When it comes to choosing gear, I’d recommend buying gear you won’t outgrow. A few pieces of quality gear which will stay with you as your experience and your studio grows is far better than an Aladdin’s cave of budget gear you’ll end up selling, or binning when it breaks. I’ve still got a pair of Genelec 1029a, my first proper monitors, which I use as secondary monitoring over by my keyboards now that they have been replaced by something bigger. And I still use the first condenser mic I ever bought: A Neumann TLM103 which I had to save for but it still stands up to the alternatives now that my mic locker has grown. If you can’t buy once and keep, buy no more than twice. Get something which will get you started and, when you can afford it, move up to something you’ll keep forever. Upgrade, but avoid moving sideways in terms of quality.
Computers And Software
The exception to the rule of trying to buy something you will keep forever is your computer and its software. Computers are effectively disposable. While they serve a purpose, they have to be replaced arguably sooner than any other bit of gear. Exactly which type of computer – Mac or PC – you choose is a matter of preference. The debate between Windows and Mac users rages online and will continue to do so but if you are happy using a PC then use one. Likewise if you prefer using a Mac then that is your choice. That said, in my opinion, here are a couple of advantages to using a Mac for music production. One is Core Audio, which makes life very simple for people using their computers for audio and for tasks like routing audio between applications due to the availability of very elegant software solutions which are very difficult to match without access to this technology. MacOS also supports AVB networking which, for users of hardware which uses this non-proprietary method of routing audio over ethernet networks, is significant.
The most obvious difference between using a PC and using a Mac for people starting a home studio is how it affects their choice of DAW. Logic Pro is very popular but it’s Mac only. The downsides to using Macs are that they are significantly more expensive than PCs and they are unsuitable for people who like to upgrade, rather than replace their computers. As well as a computer and some software, don’t overlook the need for a mouse or trackball. An extended keyboard is necessary for proper control of some DAWs and assuming you’re going to work with MIDI, a MIDI keyboard controller is very desirable too.
Don’t assume your computer should be a laptop. Desktop computers feel rather old-fashioned as I write this in 2024, but while modern laptops are more than powerful enough for studio use there are some practical benefits to having a dedicated studio computer, and desktops are extremely suitable for this purpose. One of the disadvantages of using a laptop is noise. Laptops are inherently less able to stay cool without relying on small, noisy fans. Fan noise is unwelcome in studios.
Which DAW?
While hardware recorders still exist, computers are now overwhelmingly the default choice for recording and audio production. As such, your choice of DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) software should be made with care as you’ll invest many, many hours learning to use this software. While there is no such thing as the wrong choice when it comes to choosing between the principal contenders, this is a decision which will stay with you throughout your involvement in audio production.
Broadly speaking all the major DAWs are suitable for any and all types of music production, but certain DAWs will be preferred in different scenarios and for producing different genres. For example, Ableton Live is extremely popular with producers of entirely electronic music, and Pro Tools is particularly prevalent in professional studios, especially for tracking, but these preferences probably aren’t what should guide your choice as much as your peer group and their choices should. Using the same DAW as other people you know who share your interests can be very beneficial in terms of support and sharing knowledge and sessions.
Audio Interfaces
With a computer, a DAW, and a space in which to work, whether that is a corner of a bedroom or a dedicated room in your house, the next decision which has to be made is choosing an audio interface. If you want to produce music entirely within your DAW and don’t anticipate needing to record any external audio at all then you might not even need an interface. You could probably get by using just the audio I/O of your computer but a dedicated audio interface is still a good idea: Having a dedicated volume control for your monitor speakers and a separate set of outputs for both monitors and your headphones is preferable, and a basic USB audio interface isn’t expensive.
Audio interfaces can cost anywhere from comfortably under $100 to several thousand dollars and while all interfaces do the same job, the quality and facilities vary hugely. In 2024 the choice of data connection between interface and computer is usually between USB3 and Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is available as standard on current Apple computers but is not standard on PCs. It provides greater bandwidth and speed than USB but USB 3 is fast enough for most tasks and the quality of stability of the device’s software driver also has a significant role to play here. Two things to be aware of here are that Thunderbolt there are many interfaces which use the older Thunderbolt 2 but most current computers have Thunderbolt 3 ports. You can use Thunderbolt 2 interfaces with Thunderbolt 3 computers but the necessary converters are quite expensive. Secondly, many USB interfaces are ‘Class Compliant’. this means that they don’t need you to install a software driver. This is very convenient and means that devices have a good chance of being suppoirted for longer. Better performance is often available using a dedicated driver though. For example RME interfaces have an excellent reputation, largely due to the quality of their drivers. This is an area where research is necessary but my advice is go with the better known companies.
If you already have a clear idea about what kind of work it is you want to do in your studio you’ll be halfway towards choosing an appropriate audio interface because you’ll have a reasonable idea about how many inputs and outputs you’re going to need. If you don’t anticipate needing to record drums or a whole band together then in terms of inputs, you probably don’t need more than two. Most audio interfaces provide facilities for recording using a microphone via an XLR input and the phantom power necessary for using condenser microphones. They will also provide a line input, usually via a quarter inch jack though this might be presented as a ‘Combi’ connector, which is a combined XLR/Jack socket in one. There will also probably be a ‘hi Z’ input which is necessary for recording the output of electric guitars and basses. If you are a DJ you might think you need phono connectors but for anything other than turntables a converter is all you need.
Recording a Band
With only two inputs, it is possible to record all the elements of a typical band recording apart from the drums. Drum kits typically require several microphones. Many people want to record bands performing together all at the same time, and this increases the requirements in terms of equipment considerably. 16 simultaneous inputs is a good number to aim for in the first instance. It’s important to identify how many of these inputs are for microphones as while it’s possible to record keyboards and guitars via line and Hi Z inputs, if you’re trying to record a drum kit at the same time as vocals and acoustic instruments you’re inevitably going to need more than eight simultaneous inputs.
If you are recording acoustic instruments, guitar amplifiers or singers, you’re going to need a microphone. If you’re buying a first microphone, consider a condenser mic. You can get a good quality cardioid pattern condenser for surprisingly little money. You won’t go far wrong with well-known brands and if you’re interested in recording in stereo then looking for a cardioid-only model which has a multi-pattern version also available means that you could buy that multi-pattern version at a later date and try recording stereo using various different techniques using your cardioid mic with your multi-pattern mic. If you’re recording vocals or podcasting then dynamic microphones can be useful. They sound ‘drier’ and as a result can be more suitable in poorly treated or noisy rooms. Be aware that while you need phantom power to use a condenser microphone (most interfaces provide this).
Latency
The other aspect of an audio interface, which needs careful consideration is the number of outputs. For basic productions two outputs, one for a pair of monitor loudspeakers and one for a pair of headphones is sufficient. If you are recording someone other than yourself you’ll probably want a second headphone output and if you are recording a whole band it is usually desirable to give everyone a separate headphone mix via its own output. But things get more complicated still with live tracking of bands because of latency. It is the often unexpected ‘fly in the ointment’ for computer-based studios which initially seem relatively straightforward.
Latency occurs because it takes a certain amount of time for a computer to do the necessary work to calculate the results of all of the mixing and processing which happens in a DAW. During mixing this doesn’t affect the user significantly. There is a very short pause between hitting play and hearing the music, but it makes little practical difference. This is not the case when recording into a DAW. Even the shortest of delays between singing or playing and hearing the result in one’s headphones can be very distracting. A powerful computer can reduce this latency significantly but not completely. If you’ve ever heard about how expensive Pro Tools HDX systems are compared to a copy of Logic Pro, the different ways these two systems handle latency is a lot of the reason this difference exists. Latency can be worked around in various different ways, but it presents a rather intractable technical issue to new users, and new users are by definition the least well equipped to navigate these problems. Some of the more advanced audio interfaces offer DSP mixers to help manage latency while recording, simpler systems provide a mix control which while less sophisticated can also be very successful at avoiding latency problems while recording.
Monitoring
For somebody setting up a studio at home for the first time it’s probably going to be used for stereo work, but if an immersive format like Dolby Atmos or Sony 360 were a consideration, that would have a bearing on the selection of an audio interface as it would need to have sufficient outputs and monitoring facilities for these purposes.
This leads us to the subject of monitoring. You have a DAW and an interface and you will also need a way to hear your work. Headphones are a given. Very few people don’t already own a pair of headphones which are suitable for use in a home studio. For studio use, bluetooth headphones are best avoided. They introduce latency and can also involve data compression which changes the audio quality. With wired headphones the main distinction to be drawn is between closed and open-back headphones. Closed-back headphones leak less sound to the outside world than open back headphones and so are more useful when recording in front of a microphone where open back headphones would produce sound, which can be heard by the microphone. They are also easier to wear for long periods. It is possible to produce and mix entirely on headphones, but most people agree that it is necessary to hear your music on loudspeakers at some point and the choice when it comes to buying a pair of monitor loudspeakers is bewildering.
Here is some general advice on choosing your first pair of monitors.
Unfortunately, there is an inescapable fact about listening to music over loudspeakers – what you hear is always influenced significantly by the room that you are listening in. While the music might sound good in your studio, frequently the music sounds different when it’s played back on a different system in a different room. This is known as poor mix translation and is a really intractable issue with home studios. I’ll cut to the chase here. There’s no magic solution. It’s just a fact of how sound behaves. However there are some things which you can do to help yourself. The behaviour of speakers in rooms is a big subject but when looking at your space and deciding how suitable it is, the size, shape and layout of the room is going to affect the results that you get.
Acoustics
If you’re recording in a room using microphones then the sound of the room will be recorded too. In typical domestic rooms this is usually undesirable. This can be addressed to some extent using acoustic treatment. Treatment is also part of the solution to issues with monitoring over loudspeakers and mix translation so treating your room is always a good idea if you can. However, there is a great deal of confusion around this subject. Firstly, acoustic treatment and soundproofing are different. Soundproofing is what you need if you need to stop sound from escaping your studio and disturbing your neighbours or if you’re working in a noisy environment and need to keep sound out of your studio. The bad news is that this is very hard to do. It requires significant expense and a lot of additional material.
Acoustic treatment is different. Acoustic treatment changes the way the room affects sounds made in it, whether that is performances being recorded or recordings being played back over loudspeakers. Acoustic treatment principally uses sound absorbing materials to soak up sound energy. The thicker the absorber material the lower the frequency it can absorb. Thin lightweight foam products or similar will not be effective at anything other than high frequencies. Many of the acoustic problems encountered in home studios tend to be at bass frequencies and these require the building of large, thick bass traps.
There are products available which some people refer to as ‘room correction’ products. More correctly they are speaker calibration products, and what they do is they measure the output of speakers in the room via a microphone and calculate the difference between that sound and the original sound and correct these differences. This sounds ideal and they can be extremely effective, but only for certain problems. One problem that they cannot solve is dips in low end response caused by ‘room modes’. These modes are caused by standing waves in rooms and cannot be fixed using the solutions. This is not well understood. Bass problems in home studios are difficult to deal with which is why so many people use alternative references like checking mixes on headphones, in the car, and in other rooms.
Choosing the right studio monitors for a home studio
Almost all monitors are active these days. This means that the amplifiers are built in to the speakers, which is both more convenient and also means that the designers can precisely match the amplification with the other components in the speakers resulting in some excellent performance for relatively little cost. For a typical home studio a two-way active monitor with a tweeter and a 6 inch bass/mid driver is an excellent place to start. There are many popular models available and, while the very cheapest might be best avoided, you don’t have to spend a great deal of money before you start getting something that’s extremely usable. Recommended brands would include Genelec, ADAM, Neumann and Dynaudio and at the more affordable end check out IK Multimedia and Kali Audio. Combine this with some acoustic treatment and some speaker calibration software and excellent results can be achieved without spending as much as you might think.
Your monitoring system is the limiting factor on the quality of results you can achieve in your home studio and rather than spending your initial budget on things which might appear to be more fun, my advice would always be to spend any spare money on acoustic treatment. Even if you’re in rented premises there are ways you can treat a room without upsetting your landlord, but rather than sticking carpet and egg boxes on the walls (both terrible ideas) do some research first.
Choosing the right plugins for a home studio
I haven’t said anything at all about which premium bundle of plugins you should buy. My advice for somebody setting up a studio would be to get to know the stock plugins in your DAW really well. Good mixes are about good decisions, not about slightly better plugins. There are some fantastic free plugins available – the quality of which sometimes rivals their paid-for counterparts. The exception to this is buying plugins which enable you to do something which would be unachievable with the tools you already have available to you. A loving re-creation of a vintage compressor is great fun, but you probably already have a compressor. However, if you need to do something which falls outside the capabilities of the plugins you already have, then of course buying a new plugin that fulfils that role is perfectly justified.
Don’t forget stands and cables, and everything else
Something which is very overlooked is the need for suitable stands, cables and even furniture. If you are going to be working for long periods, get a suitable chair. Your monitors need to be at the right height and position to provide the best stereo image. Similarly, mics need good quality stands so they stay where they are put. The need for significant amounts of cabling is vastly reduced compared to how things were in the days of mixers and tape but even these modest amounts of cabling can unexpectedly erode a budget. And lastly, once you have everything in place and you can create to your heart’s content, do you have a way to make backups of all these multitrack sessions you have created? You will need a backup one day, so start backing up now!
If you are thinking about setting up a studio for the first time it can seem that there is a bewildering number of things to consider. There are but don’t be discouraged. It’s both achievable and rewarding. Nobody’s studio is perfect so don’t think that because you have to compromise you’re doing it wrong. And remember, nobody ever finishes their studio. they might think they do but before long they will change it!
Written by Julian Rodgers – Julian Rodgers has been working in professional audio for thirty years in recording studios, live sound and education. He has been a Pro Tools user for over twenty years and as well as being Editor of the Production Expert blog writes for other publications such as Sound On Sound.
We’re in the middle of a seismic shift in the music industry thanks to the continuing demand for immersive mixes in addition to the stereo mixes we’ve been doing for decades. I think this is a positive for the industry. It opens up opportunities to hear music in ways that were difficult or impossible before, and it demonstrates the music industry’s ability to keep pace with technological advancement.
Adapting to this shift is, however, comparatively expensive. A proper immersive mixing studio is a big investment. The question of just how much immersive music mixing work can be done on headphones comes up frequently. The accepted wisdom is always ‘don’t send out an immersive mix until it has been heard on loudspeakers.’ I believe this to be true. But simply saying that is unhelpful without going into more detail.
For context, I’ve listened to a great deal of music in great Dolby Atmos studios, and have mixed a lot of music in these studios, as well. Here are some of the drawbacks of mixing on headphones, along with some of the lesser-known benefits of mixing on headphones which I have observed. The best way to work on immersive mixes with headphones is with Audiomovers’ Binaural Renderer for Apple Music.
Let’s imagine you’re working on a pop or EDM mix and you’ve already firmly established the bass and drums mostly in the Left/Center/Right speakers. Additional, lighter elements, such as an added synth part, background vocals, or percussion overdubs can be safely pushed into the height channels for excitement and added dimension. It’s unlikely you’ll make a mistake in headphones here. However, if you’re working with multiple microphones in an acoustic mix, and you have a mixture of spot microphones, room mics, or even ceiling mics at your disposal, the height channels need to be dealt with more carefully. One of my biggest Atmos mixing mistakes was during the production of a classical string quartet album. I had ceiling mics, and as I raised the level of the ceiling mics, there was a fine line between those microphones adding space, and those microphones putting a second string quartet up on the ceiling! This was nearly impossible to hear on headphones, but embarrassingly obvious on loudspeakers. Fortunately, I fixed the mistake before delivering an ADM to the record label.
Careful with those height channels!
Grammy-winning classical and jazz producer Silas Brown talks about the heights in a recent conversation: “I would find it very challenging to mix an Atmos release on headphones without at least being able to check it periodically on speakers. Some concerns I would have would be getting the height dimension and also the surround material balanced just right. But these raise different issues for me. When the height material is integrated well on speakers, I feel it adds tremendously to both the ‘3D’ quality and the suspension of disbelief, where the listener stops hearing a recording and starts connecting to the music. It’s not just about having energy above you, it changes the way I perceive an instrument in front of me, making it more 3-dimensional and ‘real’ for lack of a better term. But to get it just right is often a difference of a few degrees, or a very small change in ‘Size / Divergence’. I find that when judging the height relationship on headphones, I usually can’t tell when I’ve hit this narrow ‘sweet spot’ and the mixes therefore don’t have as much of this dimensionality.”
SIDE SURROUNDS
Over-filling the side surrounds is probably the most common mistake I hear in mediocre Atmos mixes. This tends to occur when starting an Atmos mix with a collection of stereo stems. All the stems start up front in the Left and Right, and the consistency between stereo and Atmos is very high. The mixer is then tempted to fill the space, and the very first thing they reach for are the Front/Rear pan knobs and pan a stereo stem halfway back into the room. In headphones, this sounds a bit more dimensional, and you might think it’s fine. I almost made this mistake recently while mixing an orchestral piece of music for a television show. The harp had a pair of close mics which made glisses move from left to right through stereo space in a very nice (somewhat clichéd) way. But panning this pair halfway back and listening on a 7.1.4 loudspeaker system made the harp sound like it was 19-feet wide and each gliss sounded like a stomach-churning side-surround roller coaster. Great Atmos mixes do fill the room. But we all got into the habit of making things (even individual instruments) sound as wide as possible in stereo. The Atmos loudspeaker-canvas is much bigger, there’s no need to make everything super-wide. Pushing the harp mics closer together and steering them more into their natural orchestral position was the answer, along with some immersive reverb. The harp was still impressive, but it was no longer racing across the room. Again, this problem was difficult to hear on headphones and obvious on loudspeakers.
Multi-platinum mixer Joseph Chudyk weighs in on this issue. Chudyk has a wide-ranging discography in country, indie rock, metal and pop. “One of the things I notice when I start a mix on headphones, and then transition to speakers, is that the location of musical elements is usually unnatural sounding and uncomfortable. The reason I’ve found for this is that these elements are pulled too far off the front wall with no solid foundation for the mix. And this is almost impossible to anticipate if you aren’t working in an Atmos-enabled room with speakers. This is something that even an Atmos mastering engineer would have difficulty remedying. Also, I have found that making the mix sound great in speakers almost ensures better translation to Apple Spatial Audio and Dolby Binaural. While working the other way around can create more issues and almost guarantees “chasing your tail” to get the mix to work on all consumer playback mediums.”
“You know, I think the side-surrounds are a little loud…”
IMAGING
In most cases, immersive mixing is very revealing of any problems you might have in your recorded tracks. But in one notable case, conventional headphone stereo playback can reveal imaging problems that would otherwise be missed while working in immersive—drum overheads, stereo choral mics, the spaced pair in front of an orchestra—all of these techniques aim to create a coherent soundstage where the placement of instruments or voices is well-defined from left to right. When these mics are too far apart, it creates an incoherent stage. This problem is somewhat harder to hear on loudspeakers because of natural room crosstalk. But even worse, monitoring in an immersive headphone format like Apple’s Spatial Audio, and to a certain extent Dolby’s AC-4, actually glosses over the problem because those immersive headphone formats introduce artificial crosstalk between the channels. This is a case where the engineer should always check these pairs in standard stereo on headphones. The incoherence will be easily heard as a gap in the middle, and highly incoherent imaging can cause aural discomfort. The fix is usually to toe-in the mics and/or the panning until the image is consistent. And in this case, headphones win out over loudspeakers for fixing this classic problem.
Is your stereo image so wide that there’s a giant hole in the middle?
SIZE
The object “size” control in the Dolby Atmos panner used to be one of the riskiest knobs to tweak while monitoring in headphones. This was because as the size value went up on an individual object, there was additional correlated signal being sent to the surrounding loudspeakers. But it was nearly impossible to hear this problem on headphones. I referred to this correlation as “dead-spots” in the Atmos canvas and rarely turned any object up over 10-12%. But to Dolby’s credit, they recently re-engineered the size algorithm with much smarter psychoacoustical filtering, and the result is now musically useful and a bit easier to hear on headphones. Regardless, less is more when it comes to using size in music mixes. If you are mixing in headphones, use size judiciously. High percentage values are probably best suited to television and film projects and less useful for music.
Note that this single object set to a 100% size value is delivering energy to all of the speakers in my 7.1.4 system.
METERING
Meters are not all that informative when it comes to the aesthetics of mixing. But if there were one image that could sum-up a safe, and somewhat bland style of Atmos mixing, this would be it:
You might call it “stereo with decorations.” The great majority of the energy is in the L and R. The center channel (C) has just a little ambience in it, the LFE is a bit overcooked, and the rest of the channels have a few lightweight overdubs. To be fair, this distribution of energy translates well between loudspeakers and headphones, so if you are unsure of the balance of your Atmos music mix, you could use this picture as a guide. But, I find that too much adherence to this distribution underutilizes the format. Some of my favorite, more adventurous albums tend to have a more even distribution of energy around the room.
BASS, LOW FREQUENCY EFFECTS CHANNEL AND HEADPHONES
This is more anecdotal, but I feel like the quality of bass response in high-end headphones has improved considerably in the last few years. Focal, Campfire, and AirPods Max headphones reproduce frequencies I am unaccustomed to hearing without a full-range speaker or subwoofer. The headphone brands we were using in recording studios and on film sets fifteen years ago are simply not up to today’s standards. My advice is to get AirPods Max at a minimum and use them as a consumer reference. There are a startling number of young people who own these headphones. The old maxim that ‘it doesn’t matter what the mix sounds like because the kids are listening on earbuds’ no longer applies.
It’s wise to remember that Atmos is a format that does bass-management evenly anywhere in the three-dimensional Atmos canvas. What this means is that you can mix an absolutely earth-shaking record with literally nothing in the LFE channel. Some mastering engineers take this approach. But in practice, many mixers in post-production and also in hip-hop, pop, and EDM will utilize the LFE for what it is meant for:- as an effect. With this generation of headphones, it’s important to remember where and when your LFE channel will be heard. When Dolby was building the Rrenderer, they thought long and hard about the LFE and decided to include it in the binaural AC-4 render. Apple’s Spatial Audio also includes the LFE channel. But in a stereo re-render from Atmos, the LFE is dropped. That said, the majority of stereo album mixes today are done independently of the immersive mix, and the engineer has the choice of bringing that energy into the stereo channels or not.
Touching on frequency range and bass, accomplished sound supervisor John Bowen writes, “Full frequency response, crosstalk, and room feedback – all missing to some extent on headphones. Some things that you’d never notice in headphones will pop in speakers. And speakers are a must for all things bass, including LFE balancing (if you’re using it). After years of going back and forth, I feel like I’ve developed a good feel for what I’m hearing in both cases, and that’s the real goal.” Bowen has spent many hours on film and television mix stages. These stages are typically designed to reproduce very low frequencies accurately. While I am personally impressed by the new generation of headphones, I do take Bowen’s advice and carefully check the low-frequency impact of my music mixes on a bass-managed loudspeaker system with an LFE channel.
This one goes down to 11! (11 Hertz)
CONCLUSION
From an acoustician’s point of view, the binaural headphone reproduction of a real loudspeaker-based immersive mixing studio should be indistinguishable from the real thing. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, I became aware of bespoke HRTF headphone models that Sony was making for its mix engineers so they could mix at home, but perceive the sound of one of their very large (and very expensive) film mixing stages while doing so. While that was a great solution to very unusual circumstances, I have yet to hear a headphone model that could replace even my modest 7.1.4 mixing studio. Grammy-winning recordist and mastering engineer Mark Donahue was describing his workflow on the phone to me, “I almost never listen to it on headphones. I will listen to it for maybe three minutes, checking a few spots – just to make sure I haven’t done something horrifically wrong.” This comment is ironic, because I’m listening to his recent recording of Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5 on headphones right now and it’s stunning. But maybe Mark’s comment is also informative. He knows that if the loudspeaker mix is right, the headphone mix will be, too.
For those of you using only a pair of headphones to mix and who were hoping to release an album in Dolby Atmos, I am sorry to say that the accepted wisdom is still true. Don’t send out an immersive mix until it has been heard on loudspeakers. But that doesn’t mean you have to hear it on loudspeakers. Buy a couple of hours of time in a Dolby Atmos studio with an engineer who shares your aesthetic and send them the ADM for feedback. This could be a mastering session, or just a critique. I guarantee it’s worth doing and it’s worth convincing your clients to spend a little extra to get this done. All of the pitfalls I’ve outlined above (and more) will be avoided, and you’ll be confident that your mix is playing well in every consumer listening environment.
Written by Nathaniel Reichman – Grammy-nominated producer and mixer with over twenty years of experience in the audio industry. He is the immersive-music mixer at Dubway Studios, a television re-recording mixer at Beatstreet NYC, and the audio producer for composer John Luther Adams. As co-founder of the new software company Immersive Machines, LLC, Nathaniel is pushing the envelope in both the art and science of Dolby Atmos™ home theater mixing.
In this video, Help Me Devvon, gives a full breakdown of OMNIBUS 2.0.
From routing audio between applications and hardware I/O to splitting audio from one source to several destinations for easy A/B, watch to learn how to use OMNIBUS to streamline your music production, mixing, immersive or live streaming workflow.
You can try OMNIBUS for free now at the link below.
Binaural Renderer for Apple Music is now available as a standalone application for desktop. Binaural Renderer applies Apple Spatial Audio rendering to Dolby Atmos 7.1.4, allowing you to monitor how the spatialized audio will sound when uploaded to and streamed on Apple Music.
With Binaural Renderer for Apple Music you can choose headphones or speaker profiles for music or movies with headtracking and personalized HRTF options available with supported headphones, giving you peace of mind and confidence in your mix or master.
The new standalone application features additional functionality, not available in the plugin version:
16-channel virtual driver (named ‘Binaural Renderer Link’) that allow users to place the Binaural Renderer app between the Dolby Renderer output and the output audio device of your system.
12-channel Spatial Renderer input which can be copied (Pass thru) to any audio device in a system so you don’t lose your speaker routing.
For convenience, the application also features two 2-channel pass thru aux inputs, which can be used to quickly A/B between different versions of binaural and stereo material.
You can now stream multichannel Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 audio to your iPhone or iPad, and apply Apple’s Spatial Audio rendering to the received stream with the LISTENTO iOS Player.
To take advantage, you’ll need a LISTENTO Pro subscription. Your listeners don’t need any subscription to receive the stream.
This update means engineers working on Windows machines can now monitor their Atmos audio as it will sound when uploaded to Apple Music by streaming with LISTENTO Pro to either an iPhone or iPad.
WATCH VIDEO
Just as with Binaural Renderer for Apple Music, the app connects to Apple’s spatialization processing, so any changes published by Apple will be automatically picked up, giving you peace of mind that you are hearing the same thing as listeners on streaming.
Discrete output to class-compliant audio devices
Stream audio to your iPhone or iPad with no lengthy setup or back & forth
Apply binaural rendering to 7.1.4 multichannel streams
