Ozone 10/11 mastering assistant - questionable processing

[Frankie.T]

Yes i've redone the tests and you are right i was able to full null, don't know why i got different results though, but isn't important.

Anyway what matter the most, is if this makes any difference. I mean, ok the sound change (like with any natural phase processing) but this bring any problem? Or it's just different?

[motomotomoto]

The assistant is crap but the modules are quite nice imo

[Opaque]

Your comment about pre-ringing makes sense when the bands are actually processed, e.g., compressed. That's where crossover starts having effect on the result: it could be either pre-ringing or phase distortion, depending on the filter type. But in the absence of any processing, many crossovers are completely transparent (just add latency).

But this is exactly what's questionable. Regardless of how good the mix is, it seems to b always loading multiple modules that utilize spectral and multiband processing, and doing something with them. It is possible that it won't do anything much if the mix is really good , but in any demonstration I've seen so far, be it Youtube videos or my own experiments, it will do a lot of processing, even if the mix was already mastered with Ozone's master assistant. I understand that continuously adjusting closer to the target curve is a part of its machine learning algorithm, but it also means that no mix will ever be perfect enough for it not to do all that processing.

This now seems to be counterintuitive to what I thought the purpose of Ozone was - it's good if one has no idea what they're doing and has a catastrophic mix, with no intention to go back to mixing, so sort of a bad mix repair plugin, or it is to be used by professionals who will occasionally utilize one or two modules to repair some larger issue where no other, less intrusive, option is possible. On the other hand, if one already has a great mix, then it could be argued that its mastering suggestion will always do more harm than good, and it will always do its thing it seems, regardless of good the mix is or whether it was processed with Ozone before. And this is exacerbated with each new version, as now, from what I've seen, the new module Clarity almost always loads up, doing multiband stuff in addition to impact and stabilizer which also almost pop up after mastering assistant.

So now, paradoxically, if one has a great mix, it would be even wiser to completely disregard the suggestions of master assistant, deleting all modules, than it was in Ozone 9 , since the processing will (now) always be more extreme - automatically including multiple spectral, multiband modules, attempts at stem separation and separate processing of transient/sustain material. In that sense it appears to be a step backwards, as it will "cost" you more than in previous versions, in terms of artifacts and impact on sound quality, if you have a great mix and choose to run the master assistant and just tone down its suggestions.


edit: bolded just to emphasize why it's so baffling to me, I know this is all a matter of nuance

[Agg]

Your comment about pre-ringing makes sense when the bands are actually processed, e.g., compressed. That's where crossover starts having effect on the result: it could be either pre-ringing or phase distortion, depending on the filter type. But in the absence of any processing, many crossovers are completely transparent (just add latency).

But this is exactly what's questionable. Regardless of how good the mix is, it seems to b always loading multiple modules that utilize spectral and multiband processing, and doing something with them. It is possible that it won't do anything much if the mix is really good , but in any demonstration I've seen so far, be it Youtube videos or my own experiments, it will do a lot of processing, even if the mix was already mastered with Ozone's master assistant. I understand that continuously adjusting closer to the target curve is a part of its machine learning algorithm, but it also means that no mix will ever be perfect enough for it not to do all that processing.

This now seems to be counterintuitive to what I thought the purpose of Ozone was - it's good if one has no idea what they're doing and has a catastrophic mix, with no intention to go back to mixing, so sort of a bad mix repair plugin, or it is to be used by professionals who will occasionally utilize one or two modules to repair some larger issue where no other, less intrusive, option is possible. On the other hand, if one already has a great mix, then it could be argued that its mastering suggestion will always do more harm than good, and it will always do its thing it seems, regardless of good the mix is or whether it was processed with Ozone before. And this is exacerbated with each new version, as now, from what I've seen, the new module Clarity almost always loads up, doing multiband stuff in addition to impact and stabilizer which also almost pop up after mastering assistant.

So now, paradoxically, if one has a great mix, it would be even wiser to completely disregard the suggestions of master assistant, deleting all modules, than it was in Ozone 9 , since the processing will (now) always be more extreme - automatically including multiple spectral, multiband modules, attempts at stem separation and separate processing of transient/sustain material. In that sense it appears to be a step backwards, as it will "cost" you more than in previous versions, in terms of artifacts and impact on sound quality, if you have a great mix and choose to run the master assistant and just tone down its suggestions.


edit: bolded just to emphasize why it's so baffling to me, I know this is all a matter of nuance

It's just a business move, that's all. Izotope knows their shit. They already have precision-tools like RX, where you select a slice of audio, and the software drops you a dozen different 3-letter readings. There are people who can explain all those terms as if they were looking it up from a dictionary. This de-facto AI-mastering stuff is for the opposite end of the spectrum, different target audience.

[do_androids_dream]

I'm copying here what I posted in r/audioengineering, since it didn't really trigger many responses. Btw, I do like Ozone and its modules, all of great quality, but the I'm really confused with the decisions on default suggestions given by the master assistant.


If possible I'd like to hear some opinions of professional mastering engineers regarding the way Ozone operates.

By default, when one lets the mastering assistant run, it creates a suggestion always using a huge number of these newer, specialized modules that rely on spectral and multiband processing. Now they've added even more stuff, in the form of stem separation, transient/sustain processing across all modules, and the clarity module.

Isn't all this spectral and multiband stuff bad by definition if it can otherwise be avoided, regardless of whether one can clearly hear the artifacts, phasing, etc. created by all this? It seems to me that, instead of trying to match the spectrum target using relatively minimal processing (eq, dynamic eq, compression, exciter), it will always overload the track with things like impact, clarity, stabilizer, spectral shaper, all using multiple bands and spectral mangling, which is especially weird when you see Jonathan Wyner and Em Mancini in their videos trying to use minimal processing, even explicitly avoiding using multiple bands where possible.

Isn't it a step backwards in some ways, increasingly becoming a track (bad mix) repair focused thing instead of just clean mastering, due to piling more and more spectral and multiband fuckery, which is essentially intended to reshape the entire track - and it does this always, as it is impossible, I believe, to request a suggestion/balancing with only selected modules?

Where to start.. and where to finish lol.

I've been an ME for around 10 years now. I don't use Ozone because the few times I've tried it I've been completely unimpressed (and irritated) with just about every aspect of it.

90% of mastering is eq. I spend most of my time listening and then making both broad adjustments and sometimes more surgical notching and specific problem addressing. Most of this will be achieved with simple eq. The other times it will be dynamic eq or multiband work (usually in addition to regular eq work). I see things like Ozone as, at best, gimmicks and marketing. It's also a fussy mess of an interface. It also, somewhat unforgivably in my view, gives the impression that anyone can 'master' just by buying the software.

You're absolutely right in saying that it's a step backwards - for all concerned. Nothing replaces experience and ultimately, hiring a great engineer when the time is right to unleash your creations to the world.

[Jac459]

Where to start.. and where to finish lol.

I've been an ME for around 10 years now. I don't use Ozone because the few times I've tried it I've been completely unimpressed (and irritated) with just about every aspect of it.

90% of mastering is eq. I spend most of my time listening and then making both broad adjustments and sometimes more surgical notching and specific problem addressing. Most of this will be achieved with simple eq. The other times it will be dynamic eq or multiband work (usually in addition to regular eq work). I see things like Ozone as, at best, gimmicks and marketing. It's also a fussy mess of an interface. It also, somewhat unforgivably in my view, gives the impression that anyone can 'master' just by buying the software.

You're absolutely right in saying that it's a step backwards - for all concerned. Nothing replaces experience and ultimately, hiring a great engineer when the time is right to unleash your creations to the world.

Can you be a bit more specific about your reasoning and why you find it garbage? I am pretty sure Ozone project team members have access to seasoned ME and are getting their feedback already. And they are themselves certainly a bit knowledgeable about mastering also.
What make them so wrong and you so right ?
Nobody is putting that much money into a product just to make marketing bullshit, they should at least try to make something useful (even if not their first priority, let's agree it is there second).

I certainly don't disagree that EQ is fundamental but what is wrong with their. I have ProQ3 and Ozone and I prefer ProQ3... for the interface. Soundwise, Ozone is very good imho. Same for their MB and limiter...

Finally, when you say that it is better to hire a great engineer..... hum ...... I mean obviously !!!
But maybe there is a cost factor to take into account...
It is like going to people trying to find good holidays in a camping... and telling them that a 5 stars in Polynesia would be better... Sure but what about those who can't ??

[do_androids_dream]

What make them so wrong and you so right ?

It's not that they're 'wrong', it's that most of what they market about Ozone is essentially tools to rescue really bad mixes. Learn your craft and you won't need all this stuff..

[Jac459]

What make them so wrong and you so right ?

It's not that they're 'wrong', it's that most of what they market about Ozone is essentially tools to rescue really bad mixes. Learn your craft and you won't need all this stuff..

On that we agree.

[plexuss]

I'm not suprised by this. I stopped using Ozone at 8. This was shortly after they starting implementing more automation. It never worked for me. Nor did any other automation tools I've tried since then, iZotope or otherwise. I dont know if its my source material (my own music) or I just dont jive with automated results. My preference is to create manual effects and mastering chains and tweek manually. For someone who also is having challenges gelling with automated audio tools, I'd suggest not spending much time trying to make it work and switch to a manual workflow.

[Uncle E]

But this is exactly what's questionable. Regardless of how good the mix is, it seems to b always loading multiple modules that utilize spectral and multiband processing, and doing something with them.

It's offering suggestions, a jumping off point. Hopefully people are putting on the finishing touches themselves, including bypassing modules that aren't needed.

[Uncle E]

Nothing replaces experience and ultimately, hiring a great engineer when the time is right to unleash your creations to the world.

Yes, of course you're right. But Ozone Master Assistant is a useful tool that might get someone 90% of the way there. There are certainly more questionable mastering solutions out there.

[Opaque]

But this is exactly what's questionable. Regardless of how good the mix is, it seems to b always loading multiple modules that utilize spectral and multiband processing, and doing something with them.

It's offering suggestions, a jumping off point. Hopefully people are putting on the finishing touches themselves, including bypassing modules that aren't needed.

Of course, I didn't think anyone would literally just leave it as is after running the master assistant. But, my point was that it effectively always utilizes most of the new modules and processing options, regardless of the mix quality (at least from what I've seen online and experienced in Ozone 10). So if the mix is mostly there and you just want to put some finishing touches, and the modules loaded by assistant are doing something subtle, then it could be argued it's worse than previous versions and doing more harm, as it will automatically do all kinds of spectral manipulation, attempt stem or transient separation, and will load at least 3-4 multiband plugins with numerous crossover points.

Simultaneously, if one should just remove extra modules, like spectral shaper, impact, clarity, or stabilizer, then the eq you leave loaded makes less sense because it all together contributed to matching the ideal curve. So say you compensate and adjust just the eq by hand, then you're back closer to the suggestions that Ozone 9 assistant might have given.
On a good mix, it seems like it would do more harm than good with all the trickery it does by default, and increasingly so with each new version, which is such a weird direction to go into considering what mastering assistant is supposed to be, or at least how I understood it.

[Jac459]

Nothing replaces experience and ultimately, hiring a great engineer when the time is right to unleash your creations to the world.

Yes, of course you're right. But Ozone Master Assistant is a useful tool that might get someone 90% of the way there. There are certainly more questionable mastering solutions out there.

I agree. And as a mediocre mixer/masterer, my experience is that AI assistant is good and the little modules are helping also.
The AI modules help to go in the right direction and "low end focus", "clarity" help to fix issues that are otherwise complex to fix if not a full-time seasoned pro.

[AdvancedFollower]

Joke's on them. I use Ozone 10 Standard which doesn't include Tonal Balance or Spectral Shaper. The assistant gives me sensible and easy to understand starting points using just a few standard modules like the EQ, Dynamic EQ, Compressor and Limiter, which can then be manually tweaked to refine the master.

As I mentioned in the other Ozone thread, if the assistant wants to make drastic changes to your mix, it might mean there's something wrong with the mix itself. If you have the ability, it might be better to go back to the mix and fix the problem and then re-run the assistant to see if makes less drastic suggestions. I feel like some of the more advanced features in Ozone are more for "rescuing" a terrible mix like if someone literally recorded a band performing in their garage on their phone or something...If you already have a decent mix, such drastic measures shouldn't be needed.

[Jac459]

Joke's on them. I use Ozone 10 Standard which doesn't include Tonal Balance or Spectral Shaper. The assistant gives me sensible and easy to understand starting points using just a few standard modules like the EQ, Dynamic EQ, Compressor and Limiter, which can then be manually tweaked to refine the master.

As I mentioned in the other Ozone thread, if the assistant wants to make drastic changes to your mix, it might mean there's something wrong with the mix itself. If you have the ability, it might be better to go back to the mix and fix the problem and then re-run the assistant to see if makes less drastic suggestions. I feel like some of the more advanced features in Ozone are more for "rescuing" a terrible mix like if someone literally recorded a band performing in their garage on their phone or something...If you already have a decent mix, such drastic measures shouldn't be needed.

If you take clarity for example, do you feel it as a drastic measure ? I mean sure, if you push everything to the max, it may be over the edge but compare that to a compressor or an EQ, the effect of clarity is much more subtle and I guess difficult (if possible) to get without spectral processing. Now you will certainly say that with a proper mix, with all the unneeded frequencies properly cleaned, the phases properly matched and the whole properly EQed, you probably don't need it... But still, I feel it is a subtle tool to subtly correct problems you may have in a very simple way.