Incredibly useful, thanks a lot !

I have tried with the Dolby Atmos composer Essential and i don't have what you have in your video. Can you do a video with the Dolby Atmos composer Essential and Dolby Atmos Beam Essential?

Good information

It's pretty insane that Ableton decided not to pursue mulitchannel support for Live 12 after years spent on the update while Dolby Atmos exploded as a household format in that stretch of time. That said, your workarounds are much appreciated. Question on the area around 25 min in your video here: what happens without the Bidule plugin? Would those channels just get trimmed out of the signal, or would they fold in - for example would the .6 just sum to .2? I simply want to exploit the M4L multichannel support without encoding or panning, using the Dolby Atmos Renderer and the Dolby Panner per my usual workflow within Live, but am reluctant to spend yet another $100 on a plugin which you admit crashes on the regular to solve the 9.1.6 to 7.1.2 dilemma shown here. Thanks much!

The end-user of these models has the same responsibility to not infringe as they ever did. I've done about 50 songs with A.I. In 48 cases it worked as it should have--as they claimed. But 2 cases sounded damned close to famous voices. One case--because I loved the song so much--I put in a DAW, and changed the pitch of the voice so it didn't sound like the Artist. The other case I don't intend to try to monetize in any shape or form, but I will give it away for free because it's a good song with a much heralded singer. I'll just use another version on the album.

What are the benefits of using the external renderer? Are all the features in the “internal renderer”?

Have you tried the Dsoniq Realphones plugin? It's another mixroom style plugin and I've really enjoyed using it. They don't have an HD490 profile yet but they work with a ton of headhones and you can load custom eq profiles, or just use the environment functions without eq.

Why is the LFE omitted from the 2.0mix? I actually prefer the binaural mix with the binauralization setting all set to off more than the 2.0 mix, even in monitors.

thanks for the run through on the PT built in renderer. is it possible to still use the dolby panner in addition but with the built in renderer? asking since i do love the dolby panner's sequencer to easily add movement without having to write automation.

Thank you so much great video

Amazing video as always. Except you didn't want to, You did however forgot to set the monitoring format to binaural. You can do that easily with the monitoring settings button, top right of the Renderer window. Cheers!

they could got musicians to feed training data, I bet a lot of musicians would feed it. Now as for these labels, all they are interested in is creating music without paying the big artists. I think a few artists will endup using ai to generate music with lyrics in styles, and then reproduce the music with real instruments and real singer. ect.

A very nice review Michael ! I've a question : do you know if the unit can work without Dirac Live ? I've already invested a lot of time with REW/RePhase, so i would prefer not to change the calibration software.

Cool Mastering software. Currently I use Hornet SAMP as a mastering plugin for Dolby Atmos. I see in the comments in the Fiedler Audio video that they have an EQ module coming soon. Is the module version of Gravitas included freely with Mastering Console, or do you have to purchase Gravitas MDS seperately for that function?

it seems like a better deal then Nugen Upmix , as you get a downmixer to any format included (binaural too) and it does HOA . but the main audience seems to be the people who needs to convert from various formats to Atmos .

One thing you didn’t mention are that apparently Suno was in negotiations with one or more labels when the suits were filed, and that apparently the AI companies are not opposed to discovery. This suggests that either: -The AI companies are bluffing on the discovery aspect. -The communications with the record labels contain information that the AI companies think puts the labels in a bad light (could be a wide variety of things-comments about users, pricing, artists, etc.).

Thanks for such good info! We just buy it! Thanks for the plugin info because Zylia site does not show clear.

Hi, in you Audio Midi Setup you have speaker layouts I have never seen in my MacOS, I can only select 7.1.4, that is the maximum. Did you have to install extra software to enable these layouts? Or are these part of MacOS, and I have to do something to enable them? I have audio devices with 60+ outputs, so I have enough outputs still I can't get these options. (Never mind, I figured it out, you have Ventura in the video, which did have these settings, but in Sonoma there is only 7.1.4, and no one knows why Apple removed the rest.)

I appreciate your open-minded approach to the situation. I have a few things to add: -It’s worth noting that certain elements might be too small to merit copyright, even if the output mimics them very closely. I could see producer tags falling into that category, or be considered a trademark rather than copyright issue. -Any discussion of music AI training needs to consider what’s happening in other forms of expression. The artist lawsuits against image generators seem to be trending in the image generators’ favor, which could make the record labels’ cases more difficult. -Sound generators aren’t and won’t be exclusively made by companies with well-defined structures. The optics will change drastically if the record labels eventually start taking individuals or small groups of people to court.

Thanks so much for these tutorials! As someone who is just getting into game sound implementation, is there a way around adding custom code? I have never used any sort of scripting before. Is that knowledge generally required to put sound into a game? Or is there different software that is more straightforward? I am following line by line what is done here and its working, but I don't really understand why or what I am doing. Thanks!

Great video. Thanks! But what if I need many beds with different FX on them? What if I need, for instance, a bed for the reverb to route some objects, and then another bed with a delay to route other objects, but don´t necessarily want to put the two FX on the same bed? Can I make multiple beds for a more complex mix?

THINK OF THIS... AN IDIOT COPIES AN ELVIS SONG WORD FOR WORD LIKE ALL OF THE PEOPLE TRYING TO SHOW THAT MUSIC GENERATION AND AI IS SO EVIL... THOSE ARE PEOPLE SIMILAR TO idiots who try to crazy rocks and use them instead of updating and trying to blame the technology because they dont understand hammers. Even if you say something like auto generate,.... the AI and music is so dumb it likes NEON and other silly phrases. THOUSANDS OF AI SITES AND PEOPLE ARE USING THE TOOL OF TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE AMAZING THINGS... BUT JUST LIKE ARTIST AND ALL HUMANS they want to go try to copy and get as many experiences like listening to radio and they dont pay any artist for it. THE RECORD LABEL is greedy.

Hey there, You're talking about Dolby Atmos decoder... but is it hardware or an app ?

Step back two or three steps and you gain the perspective that the choice of words surrounding AI blinds the eye for some very basics. AI is not an autonomous entity that secretly asks itself "will I dream?". It is a software. A tool like a gun or a car. The wielder of the tool is responsible for whatever damage the tool makes. The AI doesn't infringe on copyrights. It's the owner who didn't check its output. The question how the AI did it is as irrelevant as the question what made neighbour's mastiff break into my yard and kill all the chicken. Also AI don't listen to music. The computer on which the software is run reads the data and analyses the values. That means it downloads it into its RAM. In the end the method of recreation is irrelevant. You can recreate something by storing and rereading bit for bit, or you can establish a procedure that computes the values of the bitmap anew. In the end you have copied the bitmap nonetheless. So the big question is not: what happened in the process? But: what came out? Is it too similar?

AI always takes the easy path when training, maximizing "rewards", and if that means overfitting parameters to data, it will do it. this is why making good generalized AI hard, you need absolutely massive data sets so the risk of overfitting goes down, or you need to spend countless VERY expensive training sessions patching up whatever shortcuts the AI finds.

So unless they played the music and listening to that via a mic.. you kinda always end up reading data from a download. Even streaming buffers data on your system storing it till read then later discarded so your almost certainly downloading then reading the data into the ai

This war with AI on all fronts is just stupid. AI is just a tool to quickly get to results. As any other tool. Are we going to ban AI tool just because it is deemed "too effective" by the people manually doing the stuff right now? Just imagine if some big accounting company sued IBM for using "AI" to replace manual "innovative" work of adding up numbers in the 1950's. We wouldnt't have the internet today, probably. Law salad aside (it's just irrelevant to the point and philosophy of this), every living musician learned from large body of work of other people, and didn't have the copyright for all the stuff they learned from. Listening to average music - it's all the same, copies of copies of copies of something good written a long time ago. The same that these LLM's do in couple of seconds. Who has the copyright is of course a large money grab and has nothing to do with morality, philosophy, commons sense or logic. Just big industry trying to to survive and burning money on lawyers. And of course, from now on, every musician on the planet who now claims AI is "stealing the work" is going to use the same AI tools to write their "copyrighted" music, together witl labels themselves, who are just trying to cancel out the "authors" from the money altogether. Well, breaking news - in the most money producing music today there are no real "authors" left - perhaps a few - it's just a bloody industry producing hits like sausages in a factory. The real music you can find if you dig or go to a local pub is not going to be affected by AI at all. The real creative stuff is going to only shine more in the sea of AI generated crap.

Training AI should never be subject to barriers, as much as i have to pay anyone if i train myself listening to some record. That's just beyond stupid. If they are stealing music, voices, screenplays, in part or in total to make their own pieces, then yes go after them. People lost sight of reasonable thinking.

That sounds like storing the data in a different format, nothing else.

By my observation, the industry that's been most effected by AI is voiceover actors. I've heard what appears to be AI generated voices that sound SO MUCH like a real person I've heard. I do believe that many actresses and actors as well as other people with notable voices have had their voices used to train AI such that they real people no longer own their voice and all money generated from their voice goes to the AI company. Scarlett Johansson had her voice stolen from her even after she told them no.

Not all music is not owned by record labels and as an artist, I don’t want my music training AI models but if Suno and Udio just got given a login to Spotify, then I think that my copyright has been breached. I don’t want labels to act on my behalf as it has been proven many times that they look after their own interests first…. Always…..

AI should be washing dishes and doing laundry, so we can create in peace.

The main defensive argument from the side of AI companies is that AI is trained like a young musician who learns songs and later plays similar songs, so it's not like sampling and, therefore, falls under fair use. This is bogus, at least. A young musician will have to pass years of learning and training and eventually will create some songs, while an AI computing system can be trained much faster, retain and access a vast amount of information instantly, and spit out thousands of songs per second. So, any judge and jury with common sense should understand that we are talking about two different things, we cannot say that a musician and an AI system are the same thing. It's like a country that develops nuclear weapons, saying that essentially, what happens inside the nuclear weapon is what happens when we light a candle with fire but in a more efficient, powerful, and innovative way, and therefore, by prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons it's like prohibiting Prometheus on giving fire to humans. As I said, it's a bogus argument, to say the least. The AI companies' lawyers also know what they're doing by their counterargument that the music industry tries to monopolize creativity. They hit the nerves of new musicians and creatives who are not fully developed into professionals, taking advantage of populism, and invoking a sense of innovative creativity that covers their true motive: staying in business without regulations. Any advanced technology that shifts the economy so rapidly must be regulated. All those AI companies that advocate "ethical" AI are nothing more than companies for profit, and that's how we should see them; that's their true image. I'm all for new tech, and I love what we can achieve with innovations like GenAI, but we should regulate and do it right for the future of human creativity.

Nice Video Michael very interesting

Hello, I found a different way of doing this for free with Opentrack and "Head Tracker OSC Bridge." Basically you use the OSC output in opentrack and then you use the bridge to convert the quat data that opentrack outputs into whatever format you want. No need for OSCII bridge or any scripting, and there are lots of presets in the OSC bridge program. This also probably works if you use your phone to do the head tracking as you can just send the data directly to OSC bridge. Still, I think its best to use Opentrack and do the tracking on your computer for minimal latency. That's all.

I don't think the producer tags are overfitting. If something appears many times in the training data, then the model will consider that a normal part of music, no different than say a triangle ding. It doesn't know that it's a sort of signature, it just knows it's popular in certain music. A generative AI model *should* copy things if those things are a core part of what it's generating. Imagine a world in which *every* piece of music started with the same tone. Generative AI should reproduce that tone if it's generating music. Since it doesn't know what a producer tag is, the producer tag is no different. This is fairly easily solved by explicitly training it on what a producer tag is and then adding it as a negative prompt to generation, or just filtering it out of outputs manually.

The main issue: the US Constitution states very clearly why copyright exists, to protect the advancement of technology. Copyright serves the advancement of technology. If the advancement of technology and copyright are in conflict, the advancement of technology wins, because the US Constitution wins. And AI needs to train on large amounts of data, nearly everything we have, in order to exist.

There's no reason why we can't have copyright laws that distiguish between humans and machines- so any limitiation on the use of copyright material by AI as training material need not apply to humans. While it's true that AI's don't simply store their trainng material this material must have been copied at some point to create the sources of that training- so copying for commercial use has occurred here at some stage in the process. Invoking the 'fair use' defence does involve admitting that you did indeed use copyrighted material- also to meet the conditions of fair use it must be demostrated that the use made of the copyrighted material does not impact on the ability of the copyright owner to profit from their work- but since AI music directly competes with the music it has been trained on it's hard to see how this might constitute fair use.

I don't think the RIAA has a case because "how" the finished piece was made doesn't matter. And the courts only care about the finished pieces between two ISRC's. Correct me if I'm wrong. Here's a simplified explanation of the way AI learns during training. First we have to understand how many input "parameters" it has, the more the better (usually). It's like your nose, the more olfactory sensory neurons you have (in the nose) the more distinct kinds of odor you can identify, as humans, typically that can be around 500. As AI parameters simulate neurons (to put it simply), the training allows the AI to learn unique "features" of just about any kind of media, whether audio, video, image, even electronic olfactory sensors etc. (yes there are AI based odor detection solutions in the market today) and identify things correctly. In terms of audio/music, it's just dismantling and reverse engineering the frequency, harmonics, transients, formants, etc. and finding a "feature" with every subsequent training iteration. But the special thing about AI's are that they can do the reverse and completely generate things of similar "features". It's like, you buy your favorite chocolate cake from a bakery, and through taste and smell you try and develop a similar one (if not the same exact one) and many iterations later, you come up with a weighted index to determine which recipe closely matched the one from the bakery. Ultimately you no longer need to buy it from the bakery anymore as you can now "generate" one yourself -- in all kinds of variations and sizes. So, does AI music copy from sample snippets? Not even in the slightest. What is contained in its' model files are weighted indexes and recipes. A simple solution is for AI music generation sites perform a copyright infringement check (like what KZfaq does) on every generated output and simply disqualify/discard it if there is any copyright violation. However, we already know the answer, most would pass as they are transformative enough. Just my opinion. Great video. Subscribed.

Stochastic parrot algorithms are not capable of "getting inspired" or any other kind of biological experience. They do what all computers have done since the beginning of computing, compare one set of operands to another. They don't even know that they're generating music, or for that matter know anything at all. We need to stop anthropomorphising these things, and we sure as hell need to utterly disrespect any copyright on any content they generate, regardless of any legislation or court rulings.

Interesting point regarding sampling. Perhaps the distinction should be either organic (brain) or artificial (machine code). Perhaps it should stay as it is now, that only an organic process, such as using your brain, can lead to something that can be copyrighted? How can we allow machines to copyright their own work? The prompt, while important, is not the overall defining mechanism that creates the material, it’s the trained material. So why should it ever be copyrighted? I suppose, in the long run it does not stop us from using the platform to churn up some ideas and then re-create that with real people and instruments etc.. I truly believe that if we go down this track, where a machine output can be copyrighted, we are going to lose another aspect of our humanity and creativity. Say what you will, but I’m sick of the fake world we live in, where talent appears to have been lost and we celebrate people for being famous for no reason. - wow I think I got way to philosophical 😂

Learning isn't theft and inspiration isn't theft. Some dangerous precedents could be set with this lawsuit.

Yesterday, several articles reported that both companies admitted that they ingested “essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open Internet.” No one should have been surprised because they were saying that fair use would cover it all along. I did not read anything indicating that the music was stored and I suspect that it was not. It was probably just analyzed and it ended there. The companies also stated their position, which was actually very well stated and convincing. What they appear to be saying it that the training used SHOULD be considered fair use even if it might not pass a current test for fair use because this was never addressed. But the AI company arguments under the current fair use doctrine were also convincing. They have been able to articulate how their training fit current definitions from a point of view was not being considered. The RIAA's rebuttal was not great. It amounted to "yelling and screaming" about how the companies "admitted" to "industrial scale infringement", sticking to the current thinking on fair use without considering that this specific use has not been tested. The question is really about the training itself. Is there a violation for merely "learning" from temporarily ingesting the music? Did they need to pay a licensing fee even though no such license existed for this specific purpose? If there is no violation based on current laws, the AI companies win. There are no grounds of infringement on the generated works as they are just based on patterns learned by the application. The RIAA didn't attempt to file charges on that. But what I believe there will be a settlement where the labels get a share of the revenue from Udio and Suno. That is probably what both sides are counting on and this lawsuit just got them to the bargaining table. This could take years but one never knows. Maybe it will just be some months before there's a settlement. Yes, it is VERY naïve to think AI music is going to go away. I don't think anyone really believes that. It's just said to bond with a audience of musicians with wishful thinking. There is far too much money to be made from AI music in the consumer market alone. And at some point, the commercial industry will push for AI music protection so they can effectively monetize it. I really don't think these labels and licensing companies care about their artists to any major extent when $$ is the bottom line. Music licensing services will start slow and gradually increase the amount of AI music in their catalogs without taking on any new artists. Record labels will add AI music for licensing and focus on artists who perform. Artists who do not have enough potential to be star performers will be history. Labels will probably also do what Suno and Udio are doing and open their own generator sites for the consumer market. A lot of people who are not professional musicians just like making music and generators can be big money makers.

I think the copyright laws pretend that once they fill the listening air with a copyrighted material, that should not be learned, but immediately forgotten. Now, this is indifferent of human or artificial intelligence. I see this law suit a good chance, to point out to this abusive aspect of the copyright laws. If that will be fought successfully, than this will be the first time when humans will have a huge benefit from AI. :-) There is a fundamental flaw in the copyright law assumption in this sense. The purpose of the art is to share and also allow to learn from that. Look at the language dialects, humans learn every nuance of how their fellow cohabitants speak, to the extent that we can clearly identify as "dialect" of that language. Language itself within a nation is also another level of copying each-other. How a law, such as copyright law can stand against this basic principle of human existence?! We have the right to learn from each other and no copyright law could benefit from that! That is the the core of this lawsuit, I believe! ---- I am following your channel from technical point of view and I really found beneficial for me, but this video is one exceptional good one, because it nailed the points to one of the most important step in the fight of our human development. Thank you Michael.

The main problem here is that training an AI model is comparable to getting inspired as a "real" artist. As a real human artist must not copy other work 1:1, there is much leeway in what is "copying" and what is "beeing inspired". So while this lawsuit is -- in my opinion -- mainly focussed on how the music industry can make money of AI and AI training, we must carefully watch the arguments, as definitions made in this lawsuit might have a drawback on human artists works when it comes to stricter rules on what counts as beeing inspired. There was a similar argument around image creation: If a human walks into the Louvre and looks at the Mona Lisa, and later that day starts to draw a portrait of a smiling woman, maybe even using some of the techniques seen in the Louvre, is this a copyright infringement? After all, the artist does not try to copy the original image, instead the artist tries to create an own work inspired by it. Same with audio AI. If listening to what certain music sounds like and producing new music based on what the AI has learned is a copyright infringement, they need to carefully word this ... otherwise, lawsuits between artists or record labels over tracks sounding too similar will rise before the ink on the court ruling has dried. For example, if you look around youtube, you find lots of tutorials on "how to sound like xyz" or "the secret souce xzy uses for compositions" etc. These videos are quite similar to the parameter extraction in an AI model, just this time it's training the producers heads. So if you follow these tutorials and produce a piece of music sounding like the artist you admire -- this could be a copyright infringement depending on the wording of the court ruling.

I am in process of building multiple MS Microphones for use in Spatial Arrays. You are a great resources and I bought Fiedler Audio Atmos plugins because of you. Would love to chat sometime.

Wow you have an extremely strong German accent😅

Thank you! I'm having a latency problem after adding the "aux return" on reverb return track, it became a "slap delay effect". how can I solve it?

As some other people mentioned, you can use PT Studio, which isn't cheap but definitely not as expensive as the Ultimate version. I'm a Logic, Cubase and PT user but I've been mostly using logic for about 15 years now. As most people will only ever hear the Apple Renderer's version of our Atmos mixes, it felt like the obvious choice for me. I which it was a little more flexible as far as routing goes and it does have some quirks and bugs but I dont think there is a perfect DAW out there... I'm slowly coming back to Cubase though, cause I do like to be able to make a 7.1.4 bus and the stemming export features are a huge time saver. Thanks for the content Michael, really appreciate it!

@10:50....lots of other problems with Pro Tools...won't even start, but many are now ditching it for Cubase.