Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

This thread isn't about having a discussion of what mastering is/isn't or that someone other than the person who did the recording (me) should do the 'mastering'. What I'm wondering about is would using an all-in-one suite like Ozone (regular) bring anything to the table versus using individual plugins? I ask because I have a loyalty offer of a crossgrade from any iZotope product (and I have several) of $69 US (which is good until the end of this month) for Ozone 9. I know that's not big bucks but would it really do anything useful for me?


I have almost everything from Fabfilter, a whole bunch of plugins from Plugin Alliance (Amek. elysia, Millenia, SPL), etc. Have several flavors of Pultec-style eq's, a Baxandall EQ, eq's that can do API proportional EQ at the push of a button. Same thing with compressors: feed forward/feed backward, vari-mu, regular comps. My limiter of choice is Fabfilter Pro-L. I know Ozone 9 has other modules I haven't covered. Keep in mind I work ITB.


I use Wavelab Elements for cd assemblage. Being it only has 2 insert slots for plugins per individual song I do my heavy 'mastering' in PT so I don't have to worry about having an adequate number of spaces for plugins. And this brings up an interesting point: would there be any benefit to 'mastering' in Ozone seeing as how iZotope markets it?


The last bit to this is: considering the low loyalty price I have to wonder if there's an Ozone 10 coming? It's been what 2 years since Ozone 9 dropped and there's RX9 due in October. Different products I know but still if they're doing a whole number update for one would they do the same for other products?

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

IN THEORY...

The less plugins you instantiate, the cleaner your mix (or master) will sound. And because mastering is all about subtle changes, theoretical answer would be "less plugins better sound". Even if you master with analog gear, you "plug in" a sound of AD/DA conversion so you would want to have the best converter money can buy.

In real life though, there are no rules. Use whatever gets the job done. Tweak it until you get the results you need. Then stop.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

What I just told about "in theory" means every time you make a floating-point calculation you make a (very small) rounding error. When you make a rounding error after a rounding error after a rounding error, it begins to "smear" the sound. Only a little at first, but after a while, especially if you have gone to red, the smearing is so noticeable when you disable all plugins you wander what has been going on all the time and need to start over.

TDM was great in mastering, because fixed-point math is deterministic and (again in theory) every bounce is identical to the previous bounce. This is of course only true if your plugins do not modulate anything. But the fixed-point math does not add any extra rounding errors. Only downside is you need to pay attention to gain staging, which in case of mastering is a good thing because you need to stay out of the red.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

All great points and the reason I made this thread - so I could learn a bit more from another point of view.

So in essence you're saying a single suite like Ozone would be better than a carefully curated bunch of separate plugins right? And I do pay attention to gain staging like you wouldn't believe. No modulation going on.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

In theory, yes. Less plugins means better sound, especially true with floating point mixers.

But for example if you want to use Sonnox Inflator in your final master, then you will use Sonnox Inflator in your final master even though most of your processing would be iZotope. And sometimes decisions like this make using a suite plugin impractical as that may mess up the order of processing you want to do.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Download the free demo of Ozone 9 and see if it works for you. If not, then don’t spend the $69.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

That's not the answer I was looking for. My question was something you failed to grasp - which is better: an all-in-one mastering program or separate plugins. It was never specifically about the brands mentioned. Besides the Ozone 9 demo download is for the Advanced version not the regular version.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

“What I'm wondering about is would using an all-in-one suite like Ozone (regular) bring anything to the table versus using individual plugins? I ask because I have a loyalty offer of a crossgrade from any iZotope product (and I have several) of $69 US (which is good until the end of this month) for Ozone 9. “

What did I fail to grasp? You mentioned Ozone twice in that question.

I suggested downloading and seeing for yourself.

Ozone Advanced and Standard are essentially the same with the exception of some additional features

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/ozone/features.html

Google is your friend

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

And you STILL don't get it - it's not about the specific brand - never was and is. That I mentioned Ozone a couple of times means NOTHING. I know the differences between Standard and Advanced. I'm NOT asking about brand recommendations - Janne gets that so why can't you? There are other all-in-one 'mastering' programs - would you have been happy if I just mentioned using a generic term like 'mastering program' versus mentioning a brand?


I used Ozone like people use Scotch tape to refer to any adhesive tape whether it's made by 3M or some other company.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Ok, good luck to you

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I also suggest you download Ozone 9, but for a different reason: It will allow you to test exactly what you're asking about.

Ozone 9, in Protools, can operate as an all in one suite with individual modules inside of it. But those modules also show up as individual plugins as well. So you could run a test using the suite containing the various modules, then, using the same settings in the individual plugins, run the individual plugins in the same order, not as part of the suite. Then compare the results.

There may be other programs that do this in a similar fashion, but I know this one works this way, and it's easy to find out.


Also keep in mind, before you decide to get this:

Usually when Izotope comes out with a new version of RX, then about a month behind it, is a new Music Production Suite, which contains the new RX as well. It will also have Ozone as part of it, perhaps even a new version. So definitely hold off a little bit.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

My 2 cents:
Use whatever gives you the results you want. I have done more mastering than I want(because budgets aren't what they used to be) and have done it with Ozone, as well as stacking up chains of individual plugins. Its how you reach the end result that matters. Any mastering "suite" can be fine, but Ozone's big advantage(to me) is the Master Assistant. Does it make a "better" master? Maybe, maybe not. Does it do it faster? Absolutely. Now, how do you define "better"?(and here is the missing bit of this discussion). There are 2 things that a "real" mastering pro brings to the table; awesome monitoring(their speakers and listening room usually cost as much as my house) and fresh ears(its really hard to be objective when you've listened to the song 200 times). Assuming you are lacking these 2 things(I know I am), using individual plugins can have you chasing your tail for days, while Ozone's mastering assistant might well get you in a good place quickly(time=money) and if you can let go and trust it, the AI that is at work is not going to be fooled by budget monitors in a poorly treated room(because its not listening to that). I say try the demo and listen to the results on many systems outside of your studio space(that's where all this matters the most):o

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Thanks but the individual modules are only available in Ozone Advanced and not the vanilla version. As far as holding off my loyalty price is only good until the end of September and the new rx is due out mid October.
I uninstalled the Advanced version and installed the vanilla version and have been messing around with it. Something I've found in going through the presets is that I have to really dial back the levels on the Maximizer. I gave the Master Assistant a shot on one tune and it did pretty darned good but that's only one tune.


A couple of things I really don't like is I see almost no reaction on the screen from changing the knee hardness/softness. Another thing is I don't seem to get a good readout on the gain reduction. I know there's gr going on but the metering or the gr line doesn't who much of anything until I start pulling a LOT of reduction. If there's a way to change the resolution on the gr line I haven't found it.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Update:
After of several trials go back and forth with Ozone and separate plugins I decided to get Ozone. That doesn't mean I'll never again use separate plugins to 'master' but there was just something that I could get in Ozone that wasn't all that easy to do with separate plugins. I'm thinking it's a combo of Ozone's eq's (I always liked iZotope's eq's) and the Maximizer that's bringing a bit of 'magic' to the table.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Glad its working for you! Even when I do use Ozone, I still have a couple of other things in front of it. I stick Fabfilter ProQ3 in slot B(I leave slot A empty)for a steep hi-pass, the spectral display and main metering. And the Slate Grey for some "glue"(its an SSL-style bus compressor with a side-chain filter I set to 150Hz).:-)

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

So you master in PT then I take it? I have Pro Q3 and will give your method a shot.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I do now. I used to use Wavelab, but once we got off-line bounce, that was the last buzz-kill, solved.:D

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I use the lower tier Wavelab for CD assemblage & final touch-up. Being it has only two insert slots per segment I had to find a way around that limitation. I've tried to separate mastering from mixing and thought the best way was to use a separate program from PT. Seeing as how PT doesn't really do cd assemblage I had to go to Wavelab. Yes - I have clients that want cd's.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I master in PTools and do assemblage for audio CD (when somebody really really insists on a CD...) with HOFA. I used to use Sony CD Architect, but have now moved on to HOFA - a really solid software.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I used to use Sonic soundBlade for CD mastering (license for sale, PM me if anyone is interested) because making final DDP deliverable was so easy. But it never got to 64bit so it is not compatible with my current system and I am too lazy to pull up old computer just for CD mastering.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Check out HOFA!

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I loved Sony's CD Architect and used it when I had a Windows system. It's a shame they never developed it beyond 5.2 IIRC. I have several HOFA plugins and agree they are really good. Seeing as how you're using it - how is the third party plugin hosting in the Pro version of the program?

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I have and still use Izotope's RX 8 repair Which I will use on acoustic guitar tracks , for clicks, sting buzz, or loud finger squeak... It seems like it's pretty good, and can be set be pretty transparent and to only effect specific sounds ..
However I have never tired there Mastering stuff..

In general , I am in the simpler the better > Less is more,,,, camp.

Since I have a great outboard analog Mastering Compressor . The only specific mastering plugins I use are two Massey plugins.. And I use them very sparingly and quite modestly ....
I have for a number of years used the Massey L2007 look ahead brick wall limiter
And lately I been using the Golden Master often now without the L2007 in the chain

Massey is Mac only And they have free no time limit demo downloads that are the full plugins but they do not have bypass and will not save settings with the session....

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I master in ProTools and use HOFA only for assembly for CD or DDP. Intuitive & crash-proof software & yes it does host plugs. You can demo it for free.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

You can also work in the standalone version of Ozone, in which you can load third-party VSTs.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I know that but what I want when I'm mastering is to have a full cd's worth of music lined up ready to master in the order of play. I know Ozone can load 3rd party vst's but I can't find out if each track can have it's own set of plugins and ozone settings.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

FWIW, Jack, I use the IKM T-Racks 5 Max suite when I master. Now, in full disclosure, mastering is NOT my forte and I'm not really set up for it in my studio the way it should be. However, what I have noticed since I started using the T-Racks is that I get a much cleaner and better finished sound than when I tried to do the same thing using a recipe of other plugins. Maybe its because the suite variety just works together better being designed by the same folks. Also, using the suite I use fewer plugins to get the job done, a point Janne made earlier.



But as I said, I'm not a mastering engineer, so maybe I'm not hearing things correctly, but the suite seems to work much better for me. But bear in mind, I don't do this full time for a living.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Everyone who makes the final touch is a mastering engineer. The point though is ME has fresh set of ears compared to the guy who has tweaked the song for weeks, and the room is different too. If you do it all by yourself, that takes time...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Glad that you like and master in TRacks Suite - I never would. I've tried and the sound was never as clean as I would like. Been using IK's stuff on and off through the years and while some of their plugins are ok they just don't ring my bell. Doing mid/side with IK stuff isn't all that easy - certainly not like Fabfilter Pro Q3 or in Ozone.


Don't know if you use their plugins on their own in PT but have you noticed none of their compressors have external sidechain?


As I said above glad they work out for you and am not knocking you for using them. It's just that having been exposed to some really great plugins like from Fabfilter, iZotope and Plugin Alliance I can't go back to just using TRacks. TRacks were some of the first third party plugins I purchased when I had my Windows system so I've got a long hidtory with them.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I have the IK full bundle. One of the IK plugs I actually like & use (sometimes for mastering too) is the Opto Compressor (the red one). That's a good one!

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

In Ozone, songs appear in different tabs and you can have different sets of modules for each tab. Ozone also auto-detect songs sections, it's then easy to navigate through different parts of the song. It probably has some more advantages that I'm not aware of.

It's a matter of workflow preference, you will achieve the same result either in PT or Ozone.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Thanks for the answer as the manual doesn't really say anything about my specific question. It's more about using the individual modules and not the program as a whole. I'm using regular Ozone and not the advanced version.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

To master multiple songs, I would import all the final mixes into a new Pro Tools session(on their own tracks). Mute all but one track. Insert Ozone on each track and run the Master Assistant on your first track. Once you're happy, mute that and go on to the next until all are done(almost:-)). Then, set your SOLO to the X-OR setting so you can listen to all the songs while quickly switching between tracks(to make sure they sound consistent). Once you're really happy, use Track Commit to render everything.

OR: if your session is a higher sample rate/bit depth than 44.1K/16 bit and you want finals for CD burning, enable Dither on each Ozone and Bounce each in SOLO. BTW, if your sessions is already 44.1K/24 bit, you can simply export each clip to 16 bit and PT will automatically apply dither on the way.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

What you write in paragraph one is what I currently do in Wavelab Elements. I don't have to worry about bit depth/sample rate as WE takes care of all that on it's own. I like the simplicity of doing it there as I don't have to futz around with setting song intervals in PT and other things. Doing it in PT I'd still have to import everything into a Wavelab montage so why not do it all there?


Yeah I could master in Ozone but just like using PT to master I'd still have to import into WE.

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

Whatever works for you is the best way to do it:D Which version of Elements do you have? I have 10, but still have not become proficient with it(I think I have burned 1 CD in the past 2 years:eek:)

Re: Mastering - suite versus individual plugins
 

I have WE 10. Can't go to WE11 until I get a new video card. WE11 requires an operating system higher than High Sierra.