OZone 5?

[bassman]

I use Ozone 4 from time to time. For library music it is adequate but if I had
to choose all over again I would probably buy something different like the UAD mastering plugs
or similar.

[dschreiberjr]

Love Ozone 5. Like Mazz said, it's way too easy to over-do it. Personally, I avoid the presets. I think they are a good place to start for most, but they are certainly over-the-top.

Pure software review: Love the interface, and the way it sounds and functions. It's an extremely complex tool, but is a great one-stop-shop for in the box 'mastering'.

[RichardCharles]

I have ozone4 and there are so many options I am convinced I am using it wrong...or at least not neeeeearly as well I should.

To me it is easy to smear the audio. Also the computer toll is tremendous for me.

Also, speaking of the stereo bus / mastering. I recently attended a class by "Mixerman" aka Eric Sarafin, the author of Zen and the Art of Mixing. He said while not critical for electronic music, he argued fairly passionately that you should use analog gear for stereo bus compression for most other music. He said also that way your outboard gear is doing 60% of the heavy lifting. I asked how much too budget for that and he said about $3,000.

I would love to know what people thoughts are on that as well.

Also, regarding Mastering, how many people master on the stereo bus or mix down 1st and then master the stereo mix?

Thanks for any and all insights.

[andygabrys]

I bet 3,000 is a low estimate for an analog buss compression setup if you include qualit ad/da conversion. If you don't have fine converters, or good monitoring to hear what's actually happening I am not convinced you are making things better.

Most of the stuff I do is short projects, like many here, although I have recently had the chance to mix some records. In all cases, I am "mastering" on the stero bus. Its just quicker for me to make changes, and I can always find out what I think it's going to sound like mastered. I keep an eye on the output level though too, so I can always bypass all the master plugs and get a clean mix that doesn't hit digital zero.

For the record stuff I often take all the unmastered tracks and put them together in a new session where I am more concerned with relative brightness, level, stereo width etc.

I am sure it's not the right way, but it seems to work for me.

[jdhogg]

Get your mix right to start with.

I found that mix problems were helped using ozone but to fix them you had to fix the mix and then you did not need ozone.

Any DAW's built in fx will be ok.........then try out the massey limiter/ DMG compressor e.t.c.

$3000 if you use it most days maybe but for most I guess that would be classified as diminishing returns?

Get a demo of a good vst comp first and see if that does what you want.....anyway for mixing down you can increase your latency to allow more cpu grunt......so I dont think you need to spend $3k based on cpu factors.

[manninghollow]

Hey Bruce, I use ozone and find it to be very user friendly, especially if you're in a hurry. I do tend to get in trouble with presets sometimes but for the most part it's a great program. The last album I produced we used it extensively on individual instruments and mastering. It turned out great. The client liked it and I still listen to the project without any regrets.

[Cruciform]

I would love to know what people thoughts are on that as well.

Maybe if one is doing a lot of albums and material for public release, but for film/tv I don't see the need. The disparate requirements across the libraries I've written for show no standard approach so I certainly wouldn't plonk down 3k or more on hardware where the end use need does not justify it. Especially if writing for libraries who do the mixing and/or mastering.

Also, regarding Mastering, how many people master on the stereo bus or mix down 1st and then master the stereo mix?

99% of the time I mix, then add mastering plugs as needed onto the main out. Mine are CPU intensive so I don't have them turned on until required.

-----

With respect to the OP, Ozone never grabbed me. I prefer Flux above everything else.

[jdhogg]

For the record I did like ozone and found it quite educational to see how the energy was distributed for different genres.
The limiter is good etc.....
I had a good comp and limiter etc so for me there was no need.

[markjsmith]

Lately (the last month) I've been printing a mix and then mastering that. I find the time added is negligible and NEVER have CPU issues (and my poor MacBook Pro is a little long in the tooth). I even find I can hear the mix clearer with less cpu hit in mix mode. The tracks I've done this month translate a little better!

BTW this approach was the advice of a good mastering engineer!

[bassman]

Here's my experience:

For low end library cues (ie. reality tv etc) Ozone works fine but I am pretty convinced, in terms
of financial success Logics internal plugs will be fine too.

Ozone is by no means a wonder cure for a poorly written track but it's kind of handy for a library composer who wants to work fast.
It's complex and unless you have that geeky instinct for technical stuff you're most likely to use only a couple of its modules.

Hardware sounds a lot better IMO but then again for the price of a Manley compressor you can get a lot of pro mastering studio time and I think it's the best way forward for album projects.

For library music however almost anything will do as long as it's a well written track of course.