Right now, immersive audio is often framed as the “next step,” as if stereo is something we’re meant to move beyond. That framing misses the point.
Stereo and immersive formats aren’t a hierarchy. They’re different tools, designed for different listening experiences. One isn’t automatically more advanced, more professional, or more artistically valid than the other.
The right format is the one that serves the song.
Formats aren’t progress bars
A lot of the current conversation around immersive audio implies forward motion: stereo to immersive, old to new, basic to advanced. That’s not how formats actually work.
Formats don’t replace one another; they coexist. Each one emphasizes different aspects of music, and each one asks the listener to engage in a different way. Stereo didn’t stop being effective just because immersive formats became available.
What stereo does exceptionally well
Stereo remains the most widely used listening format in the world, and not by accident.
It excels at:
- focus
- impact
- immediacy
- emotional clarity
A strong stereo mix tells the listener exactly where to pay attention. There’s a directness to it, a sense of front-facing communication that works beautifully for music built around groove, vocals, or emotional punch. For many songs, that focus is the experience.
What immersive changes
Immersive formats don’t simply add speakers. They change perspective.
Instead of presenting a single, forward-facing image, immersive mixes invite the listener inside the music. Space becomes part of the composition. Placement becomes expressive. That can be powerful, but it also changes how the music is perceived.
Immersive listening tends to reward dense or layered arrangements, textural or atmospheric material, and music that benefits from exploration rather than immediacy. That doesn’t make it better. It makes it different.
More space isn’t always more impact
One of the biggest misconceptions about immersive audio is that more space automatically equals more impact. In reality, space only works when it’s intentional. If a song is meant to feel intimate, aggressive, or direct, spreading it out can actually dilute its energy. What feels expansive in one context can feel unfocused in another. This is where format choice becomes an artistic decision, not a technical one.
From a mastering perspective
From the mastering side, stereo and immersive formats ask different questions.
Stereo prioritizes:
- translation across playback systems
- cohesion and balance in a focused field
- punch, clarity, and consistency
Immersive formats shift the emphasis:
- spatial balance becomes as important as tonal balance
- listener perspective matters more
- translation depends heavily on playback context
Neither approach is inherently superior. They simply require different assumptions and different kinds of restraint.
Availability isn’t a reason
One of the quiet pressures artists face right now is the idea that immersive formats should be used because they’re available. That’s not a creative reason. There’s nothing wrong with choosing stereo because it best supports the song. There’s also nothing wrong with choosing immersive when the music genuinely benefits from it. The mistake is treating immersive as a default upgrade instead of a deliberate choice.
Choice is the point
Stereo vs. immersive isn’t about keeping up or falling behind. It’s about fit. When the format is chosen intentionally, mastering becomes about supporting that decision, not compensating for it.
That’s how I approach every project at Nick Landis Mastering: by treating format as part of the creative process, not a checkbox.
Because the format should never lead the music.