Ozone yea or nay?

[tropicalontour]

I bought Ozone 5, after sitting on the fence as Ozone 3 and then Ozone 4 swooshed past me. I love it! Kicking myself for not adopting it earlier.

[djanthonyw]

I think LOTS of people use saturation on the master channel. In fact, so many people master stuff by bouncing to analog tape--that's all about dynamics and saturation.

I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about not using saturation, what I said was why would anyone need multi-band saturation. I also brought up Nebula which offers far better saturation than anything Ozone has to offer.

[camsr]

I think LOTS of people use saturation on the master channel. In fact, so many people master stuff by bouncing to analog tape--that's all about dynamics and saturation.

I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about not using saturation, what I said was why would anyone need multi-band saturation. I also brought up Nebula with offers far better saturation than anything Ozone has to offer.

Multiband saturation, that's a tough one. I guess it's for adding harmonics easily and in a different manner. Makes everything louder... Of course useless above 10khz. I would say to bring out the mids more. I don't use multiband saturation though, so I'm on the fence with you.

[lightsfadelow]

Yea, that's why I deleted my post earlier, because I said it was serial and thought maybe I just didn't know how to make it parallel

Anyway, typically parallel compression is when you mix an uncompressed signal into a compressed signal to get thickness while preserving transient punch. For this, you don't really need parallel routing, you just need a wet/dry knob on the compressor (this is how FabFilter gives you parallel compression presets in their Pro-C plugin).

Ozone 5 does the same thing. But moreso, it does it on a per-band basis. So you can have "parallel compression" (in the way I described it) on just the midrange of your kick without letting the snap or the thud transients get out of control.

Also, to get similar transient power you can use the transient preservation in the maximizer (although that may be an Advanced-only feature).

[softska]

I think LOTS of people use saturation on the master channel. In fact, so many people master stuff by bouncing to analog tape--that's all about dynamics and saturation.

I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about not using saturation, what I said was why would anyone need multi-band saturation. I also brought up Nebula with offers far better saturation than anything Ozone has to offer.

Multiband saturation, that's a tough one. I guess it's for adding harmonics easily and in a different manner. Makes everything louder... Of course useless above 10khz. I would say to bring out the mids more. I don't use multiband saturation though, so I'm on the fence with you.

That. e.g. when tube model sounds gorgeous for the mid but make bass too muddy. Or you can use it to send a band more forward or backward without much volume change, which is rather convenient if you can't fix the mix.

Personally I love the Oz5 saturation, though I only able to use it successfully at a rather low mix level (can't really be slammed).

[lightsfadelow]

I think LOTS of people use saturation on the master channel. In fact, so many people master stuff by bouncing to analog tape--that's all about dynamics and saturation.

I think you misread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about not using saturation, what I said was why would anyone need multi-band saturation. I also brought up Nebula which offers far better saturation than anything Ozone has to offer.

In a project I'm currently working on using Ozone 5, I'm applying more tape saturation to the mids than the lows and highs. Having the multiband controls allows me to do this. That said, you can use any multiband module as a single-band module.

I've never used Nebula so I absolutely can't even get into the "yes it is better, no it isn't better" discussion with you

I do own several saturation plugins. Each one has a different character and I like different things about them. But each one kind of "locks in" a particular sound. Ozone is different--it's really up to you to create the character you want. I suppose you might be able to use the exciter to create almost any saturation sound you want rather than picking a stock saturation with a few dials to turn it up or down. I consider it more of a surgical saturation tool. And as an advanced owner, I'm finding myself using the component plugin instead of any of my other saturation VSTs now because it's surgical. I don't say "I need this to sound more like tape or tube" I say, I want to make this bass or this kick or this vocal sound warmer in the mids, or have more sheen in the highs, or more nasty distortion in the bass. But that's just how I like to work... I'm a control freak

[FarleyCZ]

Do you know if they allow student tiscounts to uprgade prices? :/

[Gonga]

Yea, that's why I deleted my post earlier, because I said it was serial and thought maybe I just didn't know how to make it parallel

Anyway, typically parallel compression is when you mix an uncompressed signal into a compressed signal to get thickness while preserving transient punch. For this, you don't really need parallel routing, you just need a wet/dry knob on the compressor (this is how FabFilter gives you parallel compression presets in their Pro-C plugin).

Ozone 5 does the same thing. But moreso, it does it on a per-band basis. So you can have "parallel compression" (in the way I described it) on just the midrange of your kick without letting the snap or the thud transients get out of control.

Also, to get similar transient power you can use the transient preservation in the maximizer (although that may be an Advanced-only feature).

Sorry about that!

Yeah I use "New York" (parallel) compression a lot, and never used a parallel configuration of modules in Alloy, but I remembered that feature and I think I assumed if Alloy had it then Ozone must also (wrongly).

Great post.

[MickGael]

I used to use Ozone, and like it fine. However, I recently added a Dangerous D-Box and an API Channel Strip to my rig, and (honestly) I find I have to do less fussing to get a good mix. Truly.

[lightsfadelow]

That's $3,000 worth of outboard gear that is only in the most vague way related to Ozone. I'm sure it's very nice... but did you join this thread just to make us jealous that you have more money than we do?

[alexfalcao]

One thing that keeps me holding to upgrade to Ozone 5 from Ozone 4 is the Interface, it's huge. I use it on Sound Forge 9 and I can not even see all controls.

[MickGael]

That's $3,000 worth of outboard gear that is only in the most vague way related to Ozone. I'm sure it's very nice... but did you join this thread just to make us jealous that you have more money than we do?

How well you know me...

If you read what I said, I used to use Ozone.

The point seems pretty simple to me: upgrading my chain largely removed my need to use Ozone. What I was trying to share is the direct observation that premium hardware has made a bigger improvement to my mixes than any plugin I own.

And for the record, why do you assume I make more money than you (or anyone here)? I saved for 2 years to make the purchases.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[lightsfadelow]

That's $3,000 worth of outboard gear that is only in the most vague way related to Ozone. I'm sure it's very nice... but did you join this thread just to make us jealous that you have more money than we do?

How well you know me...

If you read what I said, I used to use Ozone.

The point seems pretty simple to me: upgrading my chain largely removed my need to use Ozone. What I was trying to share is the direct observation that premium hardware has made a bigger improvement to my mixes than any plugin I own.

And for the record, why do you assume I make more money than you (or anyone here)? I saved for 2 years to make the purchases.

Did you see the winky face? I was just giving you a friendly jab. One more winky-face:

[MickGael]

I used to use Ozone, and like it fine. However, I recently added a Dangerous D-Box and an API Channel Strip to my rig, and (honestly) I find I have to do less fussing to get a good mix. Truly.

Interesting.

I presume you are not just running the master out of your interface to the box?

Are you using outboard synths also?

Ok so please correct me if i am wrong, you are running 4 busses from your daw from 4 interface outputs into the D-box?

and then actually going back *in* to bounce?

No external synths.

Yes, I am using the D-Box for summing as well as for monitoring. It was an upgrade from a Central Station. The D/A alone is a noticeable improvement.

The D-Box has 8 inputs (1+2, 3+4, 5+6, 7+8 - which can operate as 2 mono channels). Signal is sent from my Multiface to the D-Box via D-sub cable, and back into my DAW via XLR(L-R stereo mix) and S/PDIF. When mixing, I just assign tracks in Cubase to these bus channels. Very easy to do.

The mixdown is simply a matter of creating a "summed mix" track in the DAW. I do that by assigning the input as the summed D-Box L-R returns. Everything is monitored digitally. A-B ing the 2 signals is quite revealing, and is done with a select button.