Based on practical experience gained throughout the project, both workflows revealed distinct strengths and limitations that influenced artistic decisions, technical handling, and playback outcomes.
One noticeable difference concerned vertical spatial resolution. In the Ambisonics workflow, access to a continuous vertical sound field allowed for more flexible and coherent vertical movements. In contrast, a Dolby Atmos setup, as used in this project, did not include a top center speaker. This limitation became particularly apparent in sections where vertical motion played a structural or emotional role, such as moments where sound elements were intended to move upwards. During playback in the Cube, this difference was emphasized further, as the upper loudspeaker layer consists of five speakers that could not be addressed using the chosen Dolby Atmos configuration.
Despite this limitation, the Dolby Atmos workflow proved to be highly efficient and reliable. The integration of the Dolby Atmos Renderer directly into Cubase and Nuendo allowed for seamless monitoring across different loudspeaker layouts, as well as quick evaluation of stereo downmixes and binaural renders. This level of integration significantly simplified workflow management and made it easy to check translation across formats within a familiar DAW environment.
In comparison, working with Ambisonics in Reaper was considerably more performance efficient. Even with large sessions consisting of 120 to 150 tracks, CPU usage remained comparatively low. The IEM Plugin Suite offered a powerful and intuitive toolset for spatial encoding and decoding, reverberation, and sound design tools, enabling many creative possibilities with minimal system load. This made Ambisonics particularly suitable for exploratory work and complex spatial experimentation.
Another key difference lay in signal organization and processing philosophy. The Ambisonics workflow encouraged early grouping and encoding strategies. The Dolby Atmos workflow, on the other hand, offered greater flexibility for multichannel summing and corrective processing at the subgroup level, particularly through the use of multichannel-capable plugins. While both approaches were effective, they led to different working habits and influenced how spatial and tonal decisions were made during mixing.
From a distribution perspective, the Dolby Atmos workflow proved to be more practical. At the time of writing, immersive music releases on major streaming platforms require delivery in the ADM format. Working directly within a Dolby Atmos environment allows for a straightforward ADM export that aligns with current industry standards for music distribution. This made the Dolby-based workflow particularly suitable for release-oriented productions, whereas Ambisonics workflows typically require additional conversion steps before meeting platform-specific delivery requirements.
Overall, neither workflow proved universally superior. Instead, each approach offered specific advantages depending on artistic intent, technical requirements, and playback context. The comparative use of both workflows throughout the project contributed significantly to a deeper understanding of immersive music production practices.
Practical Limitations and Session Transfer Issues
Although not directly related to the spatial workflows themselves, practical challenges arose during the transfer of sessions to the production studio system. Due to compatibility issues between different versions of the FabFilter plugins (notably Pro-Q 3 and Pro-Q 4), session interchange became unexpectedly time-consuming.
Sessions created with older plugin versions could not be opened using newer versions, and vice versa. Attempts to work around this limitation, such as using user presets, were unsuccessful, requiring all equalization settings to be recreated manually. This significantly increased preparation time and highlighted an often-overlooked aspect of production workflows: plugin version compatibility across different systems.
