T-Racks vs. Ozone vs. BBE Sonic Maximizer

[paul minot]

First off, once you get to the mastering phase I think there is an inevitable trade-off between punch, clarity, and separation. In particular what is perceived as "punch" is saturation/compression, in which elements in the mix (or designated bandwidth, in the case of a multiband compressor) compete for dominance, maintaining a high energy level yet also maintaining a degree of rhythmic pulsation. (Does that approximate it?) Clarity and separation are generally compromised in the pursuit of "punch", so the first thing you need to consider is simply that CLARITY AND SEPARATION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE MIX, NOT IN THE MASTERING PHASE. Once this is done, you can comfortably compromise these attributes in pursuit of "punch", usually using a multiband compressor/limiter, and an endstage brickwall limiter. You can also tweak your overall mix with EQ, bringing out or reducing selected elements in the mix--but it won't clarify anything that isn't there already. An exciter-type effect such as the BBE will help clarify the mix, but such effects work best when they are used minimally. Hence again it is best to have the mix done right in the first place, with established clarity and separation.

So like has been noted before, the BBE is not comparable to T-Racks or Ozone, which are full-fledged multi-effect mastering environments. The T-Racks is a vintage-style collection of tools with high character, very motivated toward establishing "punch" but at the expense (to some degree) of clarity and separation, since it adds pleasing distortion. Ozone is a very large array of good mastering tools, with less character but much more flexibility. You really should consider Vintage Warmer as well, since it is pretty much in the T-Racks ballpark. Vintage Warmer is simply a multiband limiter with very pleasing saturation, with an endstage brickwall limiter. It has character, but not nearly as aggressive a character as T-Racks. It does not have a EQ like T-Racks does.

I use Vintage Warmer because I do not have a great mastering environment, and worry about doing damage that I can't hear. I work like hell on my mixes before the mastering phase, listening to them in multiple environments and tweaking as needed, so I will have as little corrective mastering to do as possible. Because of this, I have little need for additional EQ--I already have Renaissance EQ if I need it, however. Because Vintage Warmer has an idiot-proof brickwall limiter that sounds very nice, and three bands of saturation/limiter with defineable crossovers, again with very pleasing algorithms, ther is less overall control, but less capacity for damage. I've messed with the T-Racks demo, and although it has an aggressive sound that would be great for some, it's a bit too much for me--and the additional tools just tempt me to mess things up. Ozone is fantastic, but really requires a good environment and a lot of tweaking to do good work--if I had a mastering studio where I had to do microsurgery on others' broken mixes I would use the hell out of it, but it's just too much for me to use with confidence in my environment. For me Vintage Warmer sounds right, and is simple enough to use without fear of doing damage.

By the way, I had a BBE Sonic Maximizer back in '80s when I was working with analog tape. I used it on the output of every mix I did, with good effect--it sweetened every mix it touched, IMHO. The selling point of the BBE was that it added transients that were technically lost in the analog signal process, by advancing the timing of those transients relative to the rest of the material. Theoretically it should not be necessary to do so in the digital realm, and in fact I have never needed on my DAW mixes. It is a good process, however, if you like it.

[smart]

Anyone who's interested in BBE Sonic Maximizer should check out 4Front Contour Max:

[PeterL]

First off, once you get...

Nice and detailed review. It's all said here to answer the original question in this topic

[kritikon]

Likewise, I don't see much of a comparison between Sonic Maximiser and T-Racks/Ozone. I really like the BBE sound, but I rarely use it over a full mix - strictly subgroups only.

But as for tweaking a full mix, it's down to your own preference and the style of music between T-Racks and Ozone. As far as I'm concerned, they each have their own different character. IMO T-Racks beats Ozone on full dense mixes, especially dance orientated stuff, but Ozone can be better for sparser mixes. Ease of use, T-Racks has the edge.

But don't rule out separate plugs for finaliseing mixes - It can pay to have a quality Eq if you insist on using Eq over a mix, and different comps have different flavours also. And you can get quality limiters for free even.

If I really had to use only one, then I'd probably go for separate plugins rather than an all-in-one package. They have the added bonus that it becomes easier and quicker to use them for channel use rather than Ozone/T-Racks where you maybe want only a comp, or only Eq....but if you used those packages you have more tweaking to do to get only the one effect and they use more CPU. And I mention that because if money is tight etc, then a mastering package can also be used for tracking as well - there's no reason why you can't make good channel recordings with either T-Racks and Ozone.

Don't rely on opinions here - you really really must test out demos for those packages if you can afford only one of them - they are quite different in character.

[HHaynes]

In defense of Ozone - you can smash a mix in to oblivion with tube-type saturation, or you can add "air" and "space" by using the band-limited harmonic exciter or the stereo widener. You can selectively pick which bands of audio are affected with each effect, with modeled analog or digital linear phase crossovers with adjustable Q (bandwidth).

To say the Ozone is predisposed to one type of music or material density is complete, total and utter hogwash. You get what you pay for - not only in the cost of the app, but also in the time reading and understanding the audio concepts and time-on-task with the unit to use it in a variety of settings.

[jumps off soap box]

[Montana]

Haynes, are you affiliated with Ozone? Just curious. Thanks for the input.

[HHaynes]

I own their stuff - a long-time customer since version 1 of Ozone. I was a beta-tester for their V3 release (as I'm sure they got input from many of their long-time customers), and I made some suggestions that they're going to incorporate at some point.

I've done both classical and rock/techno mixes with Ozone, and even though the configuration is completely different (from the crossover type to the order of the modules themselves) both stood up very well. It just irritates me to see people say that a tool like Ozone "can" or "can't" do certain things.

[gizmo]

I've worked with Ozone2 and now 3. Very powerful tools, will make intense changers in a mix. The warning here is to be careful with Ozone: the better balanced your mix is to begin with, the less Ozone you need. I think in the right hands Ozone could almost turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. But if you've already done all the tweaking yourself its easy to overdo Ozone. I also like to come into Ozone very warm, and several other people have remarked on this in the past, as it gives a pretty pristine result. This is opposed to Voxengo stuff. I've used Soniformer and Curve EQ for a while now and I'm more comfortable with using them for some reason. There are lots of genius small developers but Aleksey has some kind of ears.

[HHaynes]

There are lots of genius small developers but Aleksey has some kind of ears.

As a Pristine Space and Voxformer user, I couldn't agree more.

[BDead]

I agree, gently use of a mastering suite can make your mix distinct and give it a lift, but never do that before sending it to a pro mix master house.


Just try to have your mix normalized at 0 dBu without any red peaks, if your feel your mix is good, these guys will make it better. You can always tell which songs which is mastered at pro's and which is mastered in small studioes. You have to realize that these guys have trained their ears for years and have equipment specially made for this, they work in an environment which really is created for mastering good sounds, so if you are low on cash and unsure of your own mastering skills and/or equips go to a masteringhouse, it's not that expencive and they do a good job...

[DevonB]

Just try to have your mix normalized at 0 dBu without any red peaks,

1) Avoid normalization if at all possible! Normalization introduces errors into your signal, degrading it. Try it. Take a wave, normalize it down -3, then back up +3, invert the wav, and stack it against the original. You will see what's changed.

2) Never finish your song at -0.0dB. Some older CD players can't handle above -0.2dB without distorting. If you EVER plan on turning your song into a mp3, you WILL clip, as the lower the bitrate you choose, the more it will amplify your original wave. Doing 320k usually raises around 0.2dB, whereas 192khz or 128khz usually raises around 0.4dB to your signal. If you went RIGHT to 0.0, you'll be clipping on all your peaks. Again, try it yourself and watch.

Devon

[kritikon]

I really don't see why anyone would think that a "mastering suite" can achieve any result you want and that they're all the same - of course they have very obvious differences in sonic character - it is absolutely not hogwash to say that certain types of music suit certain plugins.

In exactly the same way most synths sound different and are good for different jobs, guitars sound different to each other as do amps etc. So just because mastering FX are FX, people assume they give the same results. I have several delays which sound completely different, reverbs can vary hugely, and this knocks on to dynamics and finishing FX too - Eqs are notoriously different in character - comps...so they all sound the same do they hmmmmm I must get my ears checked then.....
Enhancers - a/b/c compare an aphex, a BBE, and Ozone enhancers - and see how different they sound and especially how each one will suit a different style of music more than one of the others. So Ozone can do wonders on every style of music, and give it every flavour you can imagine? Now that's hogwash

I'm not knocking Ozone, so nobody has to get all defensive on me - in fact it has one of the better enhancers to my ears, if used well. But there's no way you can compare it's comp to an Alesis, or to Endorphin, or to a JoeMeek etc. It has a different character is all, and that character will most definitely NOT be the best for all styles of music, just like it might have a better Eq on some styles, but try telling me it can sound exactly like an Oxford Eq or a Focusrite etc is patent garbage.

No, Ozone cannot do everything. It might be good for some music but not for others - which I found for my music - exactly why I wouldn't use it on everything I do, nor would I use T-Racks on everything I do, or the BBE etc.

Ozone is an FX suite, and no way do all FX sound the same.
Did I ever say Ozone was bad? No, because I don't think that. But it isn't a panacea either.

[HHaynes]

So Ozone can do wonders on every style of music, and give it every flavour you can imagine? Now that's hogwash

I agree - inasmuch as saying that it's **ONLY** suited to certain categories is hogwash.

Saying that other devices or software might be *better* in your opinion is **ALSO** not the same thing as saying Ozone is unsuited. It covers much, MUCH more ground than any device you named - and therefore IMHO it represents a good cross-genre solution - as the Discovery Channel, Sony, and Grammy Award winner Douglas Spotted Eagle would attest (all mentioned on their site as users). As you mentioned, it's also a more technical tool - but with power comes responsibility. Ozone is not a panacea - no - but no one here has said that.

The world is full of people with differening opinions, this forum certainly included. There's no need to dissuade and distract everyone with a paper tiger - let's move on.

Side note to DevonB - Thanks for bringing some objective information into an otherwise subjective discussion.

[BDead]

I agree with those who voted for Ozone, it's an amazing plugin with so many parameters to tweak, and I love that they have a phase meeter there too:)

But in the end this really doesn't matter if you don't send your signals through a tube amp or some sort of the same, this will really help to get your song sound professional, not some plastic noise you have programmed in your bedroom...

The last couple of years I have seen more and more pc nerds which makes music, it's becoming a science like the computer.. You can create absolutely anything just with a computer, well offcourse you got to have some sort of talent, but nowadays you can read lessons on the net like: "how to produce a top dance tune". I've seen them all over the place, so in a few years we will be faced with nonmusicians making music and selling it too.. This kinda pisses me off because there have to be some kinda soul in the music, you'd have have the feeling that this is mine, i created this, not some dude at www.topdancetune.com


So, bark bark. The dog is on alert!

[Arksun]

This kinda pisses me off because there have to be some kinda soul in the music, you'd have have the feeling that this is mine, i created this, not some dude at www.topdancetune.com

lol, i'm not remotely pissed or worried!, you know why. Because there will still be a HUGE difference between the trully great dance tracks with real soul, and the soulless crap produced by following such a guide by the less talented.

Talented producers have nothing to worry about, at the end of the day the best music is the human element.

Arksun