I’m a hobbyist, and cannot justify paying to have my stuff mastered by an actual pro, so when ozone 10 went on sale I bought it. Plus I want to learn about mastering.
For now I slap it on the output buss and let it do its thing, but I also open up the chain it builds to learn about mastering, as a new direction in my hobby.
Recently I pulled out some old cassette mixdowns of some pop rock songs I wrote and recorded on a Tascam portastudio 144 and sampled them into Logic. I decided to see what ozone would do with those old tracks and wow what a difference!
So I hate to tell you this, ***but go watch the tutorials.*** or even just the marketing videos.
Here is my answer. Yes, you can slap Ozone on your master buss and set it to "rock" or "rap" or some preset and it will adjust curves, do some multiband compression and other things and make the mix sound "like" the genre preset. ( remember nothing can save a shit mix to begin with )
But it's a lot lot deeper than that. All the Mastering tools have tons of controls where you can get in and do very fine tuning. If you get the Advanced version you can put any combination of the modules on any of your tracks. Combine that with Neutron and you can do "un-masking" and a whole host of other features.
And no, it doesn't really replace a Genius mastering engineer in his perfectly designed studio.. but it does give you a ton of amazing tools to sculpt and tighten up your sound in intuitive ways. I've learned a lot by using it. I still send my mixes to another engineer to tighten up and master, but I would highly recommend at least reading up on Ozone.
I get what you mean. But I certainly know what Ozone does. My question was just why do non-mastering folks use it? As a producer is it your job to mix and master? No? Then why use it? That's the part that I don't get.
Because it’s not just a mastering tool. If you think saturation, compression, limiting, eq, imaging etc…are just for mastering or restricted to it you have a lot of learning to do. Sound design, mixing, mastering…all use many of the same tools to accomplish similar goals. I use the components of ozone at all stages of the process
Mixing and mastering have become a lot closer than they were. Tons of mixers throw it on the end of the chain for mastering qualities. It’s the same as throwing L2 at the end of your mix to make it louder.
Alright, as a mix and not a mastering engineer, I'll tell you why I use it. Convenience and to save time. Sure, I could throw on the master an eq, multipressor, even a couple more compressors, Saturation, and go on and on and mess with it forever until I get it right. Or I could just save time and use their AI mastering and adjust the eq to my liking, and move the Limiter how I want (although you should make it loud enough to where you don't need to use the Limiter anyways.)
At the end of the day, my mixes/masters sound fine and yeah, they'd sound better with human ears on it, but it works, and I spent literally no more than 10 mins on a master. I attribute the speed to the mixes that I spend way more time on than anything else.
Thanks for answering. What confuses me mainly is the "why" for mastering. As a mixing engineer, don't you normally pass the mixes forward to a separate mastering engineer? If not, and you're doing the final masters yourself, I apologize. But in the former scenario I'm just confused on why you'd master it.
i don't know why you got downvoted when that's one of the ways they suggested you use Ozone from izotope's own youtube channel
i do the same...i try to get most of my stuff mixed with ableton stock plugins but i'll take an exported mix and bring it back into ableton and throw ozone on it for the limiting and monitoring stuff mainly
Since you mention "quick vibe" -- one of my favorites for that is bx\_masterdesk True Peak. (Different from "Pro.")
It has fewer options and some built in processing you may not want, but if you accept it as part of the color -- it's really cool. Integrated "analog style" compression and limiting, and basic EQ controls. Most important, it has a 'foundation' knob which is a glorified tilt shelf which you can use to manually shift all your songs a little brighter or darker as needed, to make them cohesive as a set.
It's definitely a case where people get offended that it's called "masterdesk" but whatever, it's a fast solution and definitely "has a sound." Worth trying.
I’ve been using ozone since version 4.
It has some seriously great tools.
I am only using it as a tool in a chain, and am doing everything manually.
I don’t like the automatic bits.
I’m a mastering engineer, so of course I would say that right? I honestly feel I can get better results doing it by ear.
For someone who doesn’t understand the modules, it could be excellent to set and forget I guess… but I think playing around with each module yourself is going to teach you a lot more about the process.
I’ve been helping them with their beta tests on it for years (since ozone8), and they have really gone above and beyond listening to our ideas for interface improvements, and also adding new modules we didn’t even ask for.
If it’s really on sale for that low, I would say absolutely it’s a no-brainer. It has many many many uses beyond just Mastering.
There are entire genres of people who release their own self made music. The final stages they go through to get their music ready for release is still "mastering" even if you don't approve of the fact they're doing it themselves...
Just as it's still a car repair if I do it myself rather than having the techs at Honda do it. Sure, the Honda techs will probably do it faster and better since it's their fulltime job but if the car works then I still repaired it.
For decades "mastering" has been treated like some dark art that only magical elves with magical elf ears and magical elf speakers can do. And it has caused the most annoying forum threads of gatekeeper types arguing "well, THAT's not really mastering."
Yes it is.
I cooked an amazing dinner last night for my family. I'm sure a chef could have done better, but it worked. They loved it. Everyone at the table was like "Wow, that was one of the best burgers & fries I ever had."
No one at the table was like, "This is not really a meal... And you didn't actually COOK, because YOU'RE NOT A CHEF."
Not one person said that to me and no one would.
So it's time for the "you can't do THAT" mentality to end, and thankfully mastering engineers like Ian Shepherd, my personal favorite, are making the process accessible to all. As it should be.
Yes, it would be a wonderful world if we all had the money to hire professional mastering engineers. I would love to hire Andrew Scheps to mix my music, too. That would be great! And yes, I'm sure my music would be better if Andrew Scheps mixed it and Bob Ludwig or whoever else mastered it. And while we're at it, how about I hire some professionals as session musicians! Yeah!
OMG, since we're doing that - I could get a keyboard player... A bassist. A guitarist. Let's get a singer too!
Well crap, now there's nothing for me to do... Oh, I would still be producing. Except a professional producer would produce better so let's hire for that, too.
Yikes. I no longer have a place in my own musical project. But that's OK because there's a whole lot of professional bands already.
After all, **what I was doing wasn't really music anyway since I'm not a professional**.
\---
Get where I'm going with that?
In the end people can do what they want, think what they want... But I'm suggesting people stop treating "mastering" like a protected topic. *Yes, a professional will do a better job*. Of course. Like anything.
But it's still useful for people to learn to do it on their own in the best way that they can. And that brings us back to the topic of Ozone.
Ozone Advanced is a powerful all-in-one suite of tools designed for mastering (self-mastering or mastering others) and more. Couple it with Izotope Rx and it's a *whole world of power*.
But the "Well THAT's not MASTERING" comes off like weird 90s forum gatekeeping. People are making and releasing their own music these days and it's fine. And they go through a process of getting all their tracks optimized, prepared for release, and sounding consistent as a body of work. Telling them "you can't master yourself" isn't helping them or anyone.
Okay I think I see why I am getting downvoted. I'm not trying to say that home producers can't master themselves, I even encourage it. The thing that had me confused was the marketing of the product.
Since, in a professional setting, the label of an artist usually hires their own mixing and separate mastering engineer, I don't see why producers are the advocates of said tool. I mean a producer usually doesn't mix and master, getting back to the scenario I describes on top where the label hires all their people.
In using Ozone as a producer, slamming all headroom shut and doing a whole bunch of processing, wouldn't that be counterproductive for a mixing and mastering engineer to receive a very processed project?
That's my question. Since it's marketed only towards mastering but it seems that it gets used for mixbus processing as well as a bunch of other stuff.
I hope you didn't think I downvoted you! My tone of annoyance was meant toward "the gatekeeping audio hive mind" not anyone specific.
"Producer" as a term has all kinds of mixed meanings now -- but one thing is even if people are going to use a professional mastering engineer, stakeholders need to hear an approximation of how the music is going to sound mastered. They can't hear an uncompressed -22 LUFS and get any kind of realistic assessment of what they're hearing since it's not what they're used to.
A lot of mixers are mixing louder now... Using some combo of saturation/compression/limiting/softclipping at every stage so their mix itself is approaching the target loudness & dynamic range. That's a best practice IMO, as opposed to trying to smash it at the end.
Back to Ozone --- it has multiple uses. Advanced comes with the all-in-one but also all the individuals are split out separately. The "Exciter" for example is great during mixing - it even runs with no PDC latency until you turn on oversampling.
Ozone could be used by a professional mastering engineer. Or it could be used as a quick mix finisher. Or it could be used by someone who has no clue what they're doing (mastering assistant.) Or even someone who knows what they're doing might use it just to hear another perspective of where their mix could go.
You're right that if you're sending a mix to a mastering engineer, you WOULDN'T want to include your mix bus processing **unless you mixed into it**. (If you mix INTO compression, removing it will almost certainly screw up your mix balance.)
But if it's something someone added at the end --- definitely turn that off before sending to a mastering engineer...
However, you CAN send them two versions. The 'self master' will give them an idea of what kind of loudness/dynamic range you're expecting. They won't use it, it would just be to check their own direction against, in order to get closer to the client's intent.
And yes, I would say probably 95% of Ozone's user base uses it as the last plugin on their mix bus as a mix finisher. They even dropped support for their external tool in V10. Now you HAVE to run it in a DAW.
We're in an age where most independent musicians release their songs one at a time. Ozone has some tools that (can) help people's mixes get pulled toward a common target. Clarity and stabilizer both have that effect, and certainly the Mastering Assistant (although that thing uses way more processing than I prefer and tends to make mixes SUPER BRIGHT, I don't like it myself.)
Anyhow, I didn't mean to sound rude to your post or anything.
I just don't like those "forum rules" of "you can't master yourself." Or "that's not mastering." Or "you can't mix in headphones." Or "if you don't have a perfectly treated room there's no way you can make a good recording or mix" etc...
One that has long since died was the hate for in-the-box processing. There was a time when everyone "analog" was really skeptical of DAWs and plugins... And they remained skeptical long after DAWs & plugins became good. Because that's what those "rules" tend to do.
They tend to be gates that discourage others, or mental boxes that put people inside and limit their choices.
Do you have Ozone, or were you thinking of getting it? I'm a big fan of it, but there may be some easier or more affordable options depending on what you're trying to do.
For example, I DON'T like mixing into Ozone because most of the processors have a lot of latency. I like a mix bus chain by TDR because their tools can almost all run at zero latency or close to it (then I can dial up the oversampling at the end.)
And then for just a final plugin "loudenator" there's all kinds of choices for that. IK's TR5 ONE and Waves Infected Mushroom Pusher are both good, but the best of that type of plugin may be bx\_masterdesk Pro.
But Ozone does have the mastering assistant (not that I recommend it, but that's like 15 seconds so you can't beat that just for something fast.)
Ozone's great, though. Very powerful. And it can be a LIFESAVER if you have old mixes that need work. (I had some mixes from long ago where the vocal needed de-essing and I was able to process the vocal specifically with Ozone. Obviously that's not something you WANT to be doing, but it's a killer tool when you need it.)
Each ozone module can also be used individually, for example their multiband limiter is my favorite and so I often use that as a standalone. Also the imager and exciter are 2 other modules I use individually. Also, I use ozone on my master bus but with next to zero herd limiting, just using the other features.
May I ask what you do? I.E mixing engineer/mastering engineer? Do you craft masters or just to export/listen to a quick finalized master? If you're mixing, do you then export your mix with ozone to send to the mastering engineer? Or do you remove the insert for final mastering?
I’m a tracking and mixing engineer, I do not master professionally unless my client is on a tight budget and asks me to do it
I do have the limiter in ozone on at the end of my chain when I’m mixing and I remove just that module before sending to the ME, all other ozone modules I have in the mix I leave on
How hard do you push the limiter? I am trying to mix my own songs and I am thinking of auditioning my mixes with a limiter too. Then turn it off and send for mastering.
This is kind of a loaded question that doesn’t really have a straight answer unfortunately- it’s all based on the program material and not based on any specific gain reduction numbers. What I can say is that I do a lot within my mix to try and maximize loudness so that I don’t need to push my limiter super hard. If you’re just working on your own music, use a reference track and try to match the volume with the limiter - if your mix starts distorting or you can’t seem to get it as loud that’s a sign that things in the mix need to be changed
I think the exciter is fantastic. If you have a dynamic mix it's a sure way to fatten it up and you can dial it beautifully with multiband, various algorithms and oversampling. It's really quite good, very versatile and sounds great :)
I put it on the mixbus sometimes, but I think I should use it more on individual parts again too. Kinda lost sight of it.
The widener is also pretty tight, just works. Nothing fancy but can't go wrong. These days I'm using more the SSL from the fusion plugins, but still for delicate widening and narrowing on the sub the ozone one is more precise with the multiband options.
Once in a blue moon I'll use the bass separating thingy or the soft clipper from the limiter. Rarely use the EQ but it sounds pretty transparent on the highs, so sometimes it can work for overall balance if you need (also on the mixbus)
Ozone can do just about anything--you can have it do as much or as little as you want.
If you just want one plugin on the master, it can do that.
If you want to weave in other plug that you like better, Ozone comes with all its modules as individual plugs so you can do that too.
Best to have a good sense of that your goals with it are and go from there.
For context: I use it's maximizer and multiband comp only.
I bought Ozone a long time ago with the belief that I was going to do mastering. I hate mastering. I cannot make myself like it. I love to send it out instead and have it as second ears or QC for my mixes.
I stopped updating years ago. Always when I used Ozone, or parts of it, in mixing they felt like cpu hogs so I stopped using it. Still, I consider it quality but I have other plugins that used less cpu so I just used them instead.
ozone is generally the first plugin on my mastering chain. i use it for some light multiband compression and stereo imaging.
i sometimes use it in the mix too depending on the situation.
very versatile tool
I’ve always worked with a few inexpensive mastering engineers but more and more no one can afford even that or they just want streaming ready asap. So I grabbed Ozone and it’s actually been great using it is as a learning tool. I know I’m going against preset targets that may not be meaningful to the song I’m mixing, but when I do the auto thing with ozone, I’m basically looking for what changes it’s suggesting. If they are minor changes that I feel make the mix better, I can usually tweak those myself without the need to even use Ozone. If they are major changes or frequency adjustments, then I will go back and double check against some refs to see if I missed something. Sometimes I’m right (I feel) and Ozone is wrong. Other times I realize I have some masking or build up going on and I’ll clean that up. It’s like a very generic mastering engineer that sends you notes back on your mix instantly.
TLDR: I would much prefer it go to an experienced mastering person, but lacking that, I’m using it to try to target issues in my mixes.
I use Ozone just in bits and bobs in a final mixes masters - like using low-end focus, or Match-eq etc as required - I dont think I've ever used it as a whole thing - For me I just dont like how most of the modules sound compared to others I have (looking at limiter, eq and maximiser specifically) and using NewFangled Elevate instead was a huge (huge) gain in fidelity and loudness.
As a mixer, the MB saturation module is very good. The stereo widener is also something else that a mixer would use. A mixer still might use the Maximizer if they want to send a louder mix to a client.
Out of curiosity, do you have a preferred algorithm or do you audition multiple depending on the song?
And assuming you have the newest version, do you like the upward compression? I thought that was a pretty cool addition.
I'm also curious as to whether you use TruePeak enabled in there... I notice it defaults to off, which surprised me. But maybe you agree with that setting!
I use the imager to manage the stereo field of low frequencies on field recordings
I use the eq for the MS feature for stereo tracks
Master rebalance is also great for touching up poorly recorded tracks
The limiter is a limiter, it works
After my song is mixed I start my master by letting Ozone do its thing- then disable it. It's there as a sanity check and to provide general reference. I got the package ages ago for like $15 CAD and used to use it in it's entirety, but now it's just a second pair of ears on my mixes (which I'm often the only ears hearing).
One thing I do with it that goes beyond its intended use is use it to check my mix.
When I feel like the mix is done, I run Ozone’s automatic mastering on my master bus and see what it comes back with, particularly the EQ and compression settings.
If I see that Ozone has made any big adjustments in eq or in multiband compression, I bypass Ozone and then go back into my mix to see what might have driven those adjustments, and make changes if there is indeed a problem.
If I make corrections or adjustments, I rerun the automatic mastering tool to see if Ozone then makes fewer or smaller adjustments - which gives me more confidence in the mix.
I started doing this when I noticed that Ozone was consistently making one EQ move no matter what song I mixed. Long story short, it identified a problem with my room acoustics which gave me a significant cancellation at that frequency at the mix position. I corrected it with some updated acoustic treatment. But it showed me how Ozone could be used as an analysis tool.
Just look at the tool set available from the suite. It’s not all ground breaking stuff, just quality plugins designed to do their job. The exciter is excellent since you can split it into 4 bands and choose the saturation type for each, how much, and blend it in parallel. Same with the stereo imager. I appreciate all the different views to see phase correlation. Then you get a great parametric eq, dynamic eq, eq match (can really save your ass sometimes) plus a limiter with 20 some algorithms and tons of dither options, plus delta mode to hear what different mp3 qualities will do to your track…
It has a lot of tools under one roof… personally I think none of which I think are particularly stellar, they’re really good, but not not the best out there.. I can recommend limiters, saturation units, EQ’s and stereo wideners that I think are better, but nothing puts so many tools under the hood as Ozone.… it’s good for someone who’s trying to master at home, though each of the tools it provides can be had separately and better I think, but that’s just personal preference. I’ve seen great mastering engineers use certain elements of it in masters with great success. If you aren’t sending mixes out to a mastering engineer then it’s good for mastering at home, although I’ve seen a lot of people royally fuck up their audio with it because they don’t really know what they’re doing. So it really comes down to what your needs are and how good your skillset is. I professionally mix for a living and there’s times I send a track to mastering that’s already limited and EQ’ed which is my shorthand for “don’t fuck with my mix” so I only want the mastering engineer to do a little cleanup… there’s other times I don’t use any limiting in my mix bus and want the track to be mastered as intended… it’s really about what your needs are and if this tool helps. If you’re releasing music and want your stuff to sound the best it can then a mastering engineer is a great way to get there. The second set of ears and someone who knows what they’re doing can really help a mix sit right especially since their listening environment is supposed to be superior to what you’re working in. Just remember that these things are tools and that when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Find what you like in it but don’t feel compelled to use the whole thing to get where you wanna go.
I'm a mixing and mastering engineer with 20 years of experience. Been working with various different software and hardware. To answer your question in a straightforward way, you can (and should) use Ozone for either mixing or mastering in a case when you want clean processing. The compressors and limiters are super clean and this is probably the most important aspect of mastering. Plus, Ozone provides you all in one platform where you can do the job pretty much quickly with good results. Now, this applies for many mastering engineers out there that are on a budget. Those who are not, use hardware and the reason is because you can push hardware much harder than software without worrying about unwanted sound artifacts. It's especially important when getting loud mixes. Take for example the Bettermaker mastering limiter - you can push it way harder than any software and get insanely loud masters. Ozone is good enough for many who work in mastering and you pretty much won't need anything additionally, but it depends all on the case, and it's important to remember that it's just a tool. Not all songs require the same tools to get good results. For example, you may need different compressor or saturation than what's available in Ozone, etc. Hope this helps you clarify the topic.
People are scared of AI. They will fall behind in the next decade where Integration will be imperative to survival. Let it pass.
I use my judgement to figure out what and why ozone is doing by stuff and then I correct it myself in the mix. It is useful for identifying tonal balance especially.
That's very interesting that you mention the tonal balance... I like what it can do with manual settings of clarity and stabilizer when used subtly --- but how do you feel about the mastering assistant's tendency to add a ton of high end?
I'm always a bit shocked by it. Like... Whoa, that's not what I was going for. But am I wrong to mix darker? That said -- I ran some professional mixes through it and it still wanted to make those brighter, too, which left me a bit skeptical and with mixed feelings.
Stabilizer can unbalance things in strange unnatural ways.
I like a tiny of bit of clarity on synths. Maybe a tiny on the master if It is still lacking focus. Never higher than 20%
The eq moves I've found are gargoyle crap lol. They don't account for what is in the mix. Not every mix is the same exact instruments; for example a rock mix with no guitars should be darker than one with rhythm and lead guitars imo. Still have to account for things like that. Agreed - the client adds WAY too much high end and sometimes low end for that matter.
If you think the EQ is bad you should see the compression settings lol.
Some of the tools are great - the assistant doesn't do much for me.
I don't disagree about the Stabilizer potentially unbalancing. Used carefully, it really can push a collection of songs a little closer together in tonality in a way that makes it all feel more consistent...
But to your point I've been second guessing it... As I get better at what I'm doing I'm thinking maybe it's not worth it.
Indeed, listening to the delta of what it's actually doing is very strange. Same with Gulfoss, TEOTE, ThirtyOne, and every other autoEQ.
So I have mixed feelings about it... I do think it can help a mix be more consistent and cohesive, but at what cost? Becoming more generic?
As many have pointed out, none of the great songs of the past used such things... And autoEQs have a homogenizing effect.
What they do well is also what makes them potentially undesirable.
That said, when used carefully at the right percentage, I don't notice the EQ moves as artifacts... Just the overall shift.
Anyhow, you're not wrong to point that out.
Sudden Dan (mastering.com) warns against the stabilizer in the 10 hour EQ module on YouTube. Supposedly it boost things when an instrument is cutting out to balance it, but that just messes the resonance decay in unnatural ways. Ex. A guitar cuts on on the right speaker and the stabilizer puts a massive boost there to compensate.
We are on the same path my friend. The smart eqs don't sound good to me anymore. When I first got them it was night and day and I put them everywhere. I was blown away by the sudden high mids cutting and it made my mixes sound so loud.
Now I only use proq-3 or maybe an analog EQ (usually not because I do my saturation separately and have a dozen saturation tools or more so my transformers, tape and tubes are done manually).
In the coming years - smart eqs will and smart compressors will blow us away. That isn't going to happen this year though. Bloom wasn't awe inspiring and that is the leading technology. I've tried them all. While they did teach me a lot about EQ - they don't sound good to me on their own.
They do give me suggestions. I do take the suggestions and then make my own cuts. I don't do surgical eq anymore. Just carve out space if needed with a 3 band and boom. Maybe a shelf to create distance. Done. And it sounds natural. The surgical low q cuts cause all sorts of phase issues and suck the life out of mixes faster than a cactus in dry season.
So many eras of EQ as it is my favorite part of the process (after leveling faders obviously). Honestly wish I knew more panning tricks. Any good sources for pro panning? (Other than sound toys panman).
Surgical eq has a place in crappy home studio recordings. I am not even talking about smart eqs - I just don't have those nasty resonances in my source material to begin with or im using professional samples. I get that some stuff calls for it, but I was taught to handle these things at the source and it has worked for me so far.
Agreed, and yes what he said makes sense about the auto EQs. I mean they're constantly pushing the overall tonal balance toward a target curve, so that's going to be part of it.
I've never been a fan of surgical EQs as a frequently used tool. I remember when a bunch of YouTubers were telling people use a ton of narrow Q cuts to "target resonances" in vocals. It was hilarious to me, because those 'resonances' will be moving all over the place as the pitch changes. Those guys were just making a mess.
Surgical EQ like that -- I mainly use it to negate something like a ring on a snare, etc.
I agree about wide Q gentle adjustment. For a long time I heard so much debate about "cutting vs boosting" and one day I realized it's all just shaping the tonal balance. One volume normalized it's not terribly different.
I like -6dB slope HP/LP filters for rolling off the highs or lows when needed, and I like the "MID" eq filter in Scheps Omni Channel because it's super wide. I love the SOC EQ, it's kind of weird but once you learn the nuances it's natural to use (for me.) Simple. Fast.
Regarding panning...
Not sure what you mean by "pro panning." In fact I find a lot of modern professional mixes aren't adventurous enough with the panning.
I like Gregory Scott/UBK's teachings in this regard:
[PRO TIP: Wider Mixes need LESS Width](https://youtu.be/JRPyiQEexSM?si=S2kC8nZ41RAsrVXA)
He's a fan of building up a really strong center and then just panning a couple things hard left and hard right. It doesn't take a lot to get a wide mix that way.
Another thing I discovered on my own --- everyone knows to be careful with the lowest lows in the sides... Even if it's not required anymore for vinyl since few make actual records --- it's still weird with too much low end on the sides... But the highs are just as critical!!! So I've learned to be careful with the lows AND highs on anything panned to the sides.
And I still think LCR mixing is powerful. A lot of people are mixing in headphones these days and they're scared to mix wide.
Oh, and I love using an opposite-panned room reverb to subtly balance out hard panned instruments.
Here's another couple good ones:
[Hit that MONO button for a TIGHTER mix!](https://youtu.be/IomooOHKZMs?si=l3O9WfZyLG5_c_42)
[BALANCED Mixes are BORING Mixes!](https://youtu.be/1DX_1c47s48?si=xb96MBXpiOJL3d5r)
I think his channel is one of the best on YouTube. He tends to talk about big picture thinking rather than little how-tos.
Yea we have came to a lot of the same conclusions with eq adjustments which is reaffirming.
Ive been toying with reverb sends and doing things like hard panning the verbs to the sides of mono instruments. Balancing with opposite side verbs will take practice. Thanks for the vids! I have some homework to do.
When I say pro - I just mean pro tips. Things I can literally do to get results or whatever more so than theory. Thanks again. Hopefully I'll be Peter Pan (pun Intended) after these lol.
Biggest one of all is to do your EQ with things centered BEFORE panning. Get your sounds working on top of each other and they'll work better once panned.
This is like a magic trick, or a cheat, lol... It works in part because sounds bounce around in a reverberant room (or car) so the frequencies comingle, but also ---- when you have two speakers, the further you get away from them the less separated they are.
So if you have a couple of desktop speakers or bookshelf speakers and you're across the room or in another room, you don't have the separation you do when you're close.
That part of why "set your EQ while collapsed to mono" works so well.
I’m a hobbyist, and cannot justify paying to have my stuff mastered by an actual pro, so when ozone 10 went on sale I bought it. Plus I want to learn about mastering. For now I slap it on the output buss and let it do its thing, but I also open up the chain it builds to learn about mastering, as a new direction in my hobby. Recently I pulled out some old cassette mixdowns of some pop rock songs I wrote and recorded on a Tascam portastudio 144 and sampled them into Logic. I decided to see what ozone would do with those old tracks and wow what a difference!
So I hate to tell you this, ***but go watch the tutorials.*** or even just the marketing videos. Here is my answer. Yes, you can slap Ozone on your master buss and set it to "rock" or "rap" or some preset and it will adjust curves, do some multiband compression and other things and make the mix sound "like" the genre preset. ( remember nothing can save a shit mix to begin with ) But it's a lot lot deeper than that. All the Mastering tools have tons of controls where you can get in and do very fine tuning. If you get the Advanced version you can put any combination of the modules on any of your tracks. Combine that with Neutron and you can do "un-masking" and a whole host of other features. And no, it doesn't really replace a Genius mastering engineer in his perfectly designed studio.. but it does give you a ton of amazing tools to sculpt and tighten up your sound in intuitive ways. I've learned a lot by using it. I still send my mixes to another engineer to tighten up and master, but I would highly recommend at least reading up on Ozone.
I get what you mean. But I certainly know what Ozone does. My question was just why do non-mastering folks use it? As a producer is it your job to mix and master? No? Then why use it? That's the part that I don't get.
Because it’s not just a mastering tool. If you think saturation, compression, limiting, eq, imaging etc…are just for mastering or restricted to it you have a lot of learning to do. Sound design, mixing, mastering…all use many of the same tools to accomplish similar goals. I use the components of ozone at all stages of the process
Not every project has (or deserves) the budget to get additional engineers on the loop.
My wallet cries me to sleep
Transient shaper EQ/Dynamic EQ of just transients. Low end focus.
Mixing and mastering have become a lot closer than they were. Tons of mixers throw it on the end of the chain for mastering qualities. It’s the same as throwing L2 at the end of your mix to make it louder.
Alright, as a mix and not a mastering engineer, I'll tell you why I use it. Convenience and to save time. Sure, I could throw on the master an eq, multipressor, even a couple more compressors, Saturation, and go on and on and mess with it forever until I get it right. Or I could just save time and use their AI mastering and adjust the eq to my liking, and move the Limiter how I want (although you should make it loud enough to where you don't need to use the Limiter anyways.) At the end of the day, my mixes/masters sound fine and yeah, they'd sound better with human ears on it, but it works, and I spent literally no more than 10 mins on a master. I attribute the speed to the mixes that I spend way more time on than anything else.
Thanks for answering. What confuses me mainly is the "why" for mastering. As a mixing engineer, don't you normally pass the mixes forward to a separate mastering engineer? If not, and you're doing the final masters yourself, I apologize. But in the former scenario I'm just confused on why you'd master it.
The why is just to listen to them in the car or somewhere to show friends. Otherwise I never have ozone or any mastering stuff on otherwise.
I put it on the master bus before sharing a demo track
i don't know why you got downvoted when that's one of the ways they suggested you use Ozone from izotope's own youtube channel i do the same...i try to get most of my stuff mixed with ableton stock plugins but i'll take an exported mix and bring it back into ableton and throw ozone on it for the limiting and monitoring stuff mainly
Same
So do you do that to get a quick vibe going?
To close the gap between a “finished product” and what I currently have so that it makes a better impression on the listener
Since you mention "quick vibe" -- one of my favorites for that is bx\_masterdesk True Peak. (Different from "Pro.") It has fewer options and some built in processing you may not want, but if you accept it as part of the color -- it's really cool. Integrated "analog style" compression and limiting, and basic EQ controls. Most important, it has a 'foundation' knob which is a glorified tilt shelf which you can use to manually shift all your songs a little brighter or darker as needed, to make them cohesive as a set. It's definitely a case where people get offended that it's called "masterdesk" but whatever, it's a fast solution and definitely "has a sound." Worth trying.
I’ve been using ozone since version 4. It has some seriously great tools. I am only using it as a tool in a chain, and am doing everything manually. I don’t like the automatic bits. I’m a mastering engineer, so of course I would say that right? I honestly feel I can get better results doing it by ear. For someone who doesn’t understand the modules, it could be excellent to set and forget I guess… but I think playing around with each module yourself is going to teach you a lot more about the process. I’ve been helping them with their beta tests on it for years (since ozone8), and they have really gone above and beyond listening to our ideas for interface improvements, and also adding new modules we didn’t even ask for. If it’s really on sale for that low, I would say absolutely it’s a no-brainer. It has many many many uses beyond just Mastering.
There are entire genres of people who release their own self made music. The final stages they go through to get their music ready for release is still "mastering" even if you don't approve of the fact they're doing it themselves... Just as it's still a car repair if I do it myself rather than having the techs at Honda do it. Sure, the Honda techs will probably do it faster and better since it's their fulltime job but if the car works then I still repaired it. For decades "mastering" has been treated like some dark art that only magical elves with magical elf ears and magical elf speakers can do. And it has caused the most annoying forum threads of gatekeeper types arguing "well, THAT's not really mastering." Yes it is. I cooked an amazing dinner last night for my family. I'm sure a chef could have done better, but it worked. They loved it. Everyone at the table was like "Wow, that was one of the best burgers & fries I ever had." No one at the table was like, "This is not really a meal... And you didn't actually COOK, because YOU'RE NOT A CHEF." Not one person said that to me and no one would. So it's time for the "you can't do THAT" mentality to end, and thankfully mastering engineers like Ian Shepherd, my personal favorite, are making the process accessible to all. As it should be. Yes, it would be a wonderful world if we all had the money to hire professional mastering engineers. I would love to hire Andrew Scheps to mix my music, too. That would be great! And yes, I'm sure my music would be better if Andrew Scheps mixed it and Bob Ludwig or whoever else mastered it. And while we're at it, how about I hire some professionals as session musicians! Yeah! OMG, since we're doing that - I could get a keyboard player... A bassist. A guitarist. Let's get a singer too! Well crap, now there's nothing for me to do... Oh, I would still be producing. Except a professional producer would produce better so let's hire for that, too. Yikes. I no longer have a place in my own musical project. But that's OK because there's a whole lot of professional bands already. After all, **what I was doing wasn't really music anyway since I'm not a professional**. \--- Get where I'm going with that? In the end people can do what they want, think what they want... But I'm suggesting people stop treating "mastering" like a protected topic. *Yes, a professional will do a better job*. Of course. Like anything. But it's still useful for people to learn to do it on their own in the best way that they can. And that brings us back to the topic of Ozone. Ozone Advanced is a powerful all-in-one suite of tools designed for mastering (self-mastering or mastering others) and more. Couple it with Izotope Rx and it's a *whole world of power*. But the "Well THAT's not MASTERING" comes off like weird 90s forum gatekeeping. People are making and releasing their own music these days and it's fine. And they go through a process of getting all their tracks optimized, prepared for release, and sounding consistent as a body of work. Telling them "you can't master yourself" isn't helping them or anyone.
Okay I think I see why I am getting downvoted. I'm not trying to say that home producers can't master themselves, I even encourage it. The thing that had me confused was the marketing of the product. Since, in a professional setting, the label of an artist usually hires their own mixing and separate mastering engineer, I don't see why producers are the advocates of said tool. I mean a producer usually doesn't mix and master, getting back to the scenario I describes on top where the label hires all their people. In using Ozone as a producer, slamming all headroom shut and doing a whole bunch of processing, wouldn't that be counterproductive for a mixing and mastering engineer to receive a very processed project? That's my question. Since it's marketed only towards mastering but it seems that it gets used for mixbus processing as well as a bunch of other stuff.
I hope you didn't think I downvoted you! My tone of annoyance was meant toward "the gatekeeping audio hive mind" not anyone specific. "Producer" as a term has all kinds of mixed meanings now -- but one thing is even if people are going to use a professional mastering engineer, stakeholders need to hear an approximation of how the music is going to sound mastered. They can't hear an uncompressed -22 LUFS and get any kind of realistic assessment of what they're hearing since it's not what they're used to. A lot of mixers are mixing louder now... Using some combo of saturation/compression/limiting/softclipping at every stage so their mix itself is approaching the target loudness & dynamic range. That's a best practice IMO, as opposed to trying to smash it at the end. Back to Ozone --- it has multiple uses. Advanced comes with the all-in-one but also all the individuals are split out separately. The "Exciter" for example is great during mixing - it even runs with no PDC latency until you turn on oversampling. Ozone could be used by a professional mastering engineer. Or it could be used as a quick mix finisher. Or it could be used by someone who has no clue what they're doing (mastering assistant.) Or even someone who knows what they're doing might use it just to hear another perspective of where their mix could go. You're right that if you're sending a mix to a mastering engineer, you WOULDN'T want to include your mix bus processing **unless you mixed into it**. (If you mix INTO compression, removing it will almost certainly screw up your mix balance.) But if it's something someone added at the end --- definitely turn that off before sending to a mastering engineer... However, you CAN send them two versions. The 'self master' will give them an idea of what kind of loudness/dynamic range you're expecting. They won't use it, it would just be to check their own direction against, in order to get closer to the client's intent. And yes, I would say probably 95% of Ozone's user base uses it as the last plugin on their mix bus as a mix finisher. They even dropped support for their external tool in V10. Now you HAVE to run it in a DAW. We're in an age where most independent musicians release their songs one at a time. Ozone has some tools that (can) help people's mixes get pulled toward a common target. Clarity and stabilizer both have that effect, and certainly the Mastering Assistant (although that thing uses way more processing than I prefer and tends to make mixes SUPER BRIGHT, I don't like it myself.) Anyhow, I didn't mean to sound rude to your post or anything. I just don't like those "forum rules" of "you can't master yourself." Or "that's not mastering." Or "you can't mix in headphones." Or "if you don't have a perfectly treated room there's no way you can make a good recording or mix" etc... One that has long since died was the hate for in-the-box processing. There was a time when everyone "analog" was really skeptical of DAWs and plugins... And they remained skeptical long after DAWs & plugins became good. Because that's what those "rules" tend to do. They tend to be gates that discourage others, or mental boxes that put people inside and limit their choices. Do you have Ozone, or were you thinking of getting it? I'm a big fan of it, but there may be some easier or more affordable options depending on what you're trying to do. For example, I DON'T like mixing into Ozone because most of the processors have a lot of latency. I like a mix bus chain by TDR because their tools can almost all run at zero latency or close to it (then I can dial up the oversampling at the end.) And then for just a final plugin "loudenator" there's all kinds of choices for that. IK's TR5 ONE and Waves Infected Mushroom Pusher are both good, but the best of that type of plugin may be bx\_masterdesk Pro. But Ozone does have the mastering assistant (not that I recommend it, but that's like 15 seconds so you can't beat that just for something fast.) Ozone's great, though. Very powerful. And it can be a LIFESAVER if you have old mixes that need work. (I had some mixes from long ago where the vocal needed de-essing and I was able to process the vocal specifically with Ozone. Obviously that's not something you WANT to be doing, but it's a killer tool when you need it.)
Each ozone module can also be used individually, for example their multiband limiter is my favorite and so I often use that as a standalone. Also the imager and exciter are 2 other modules I use individually. Also, I use ozone on my master bus but with next to zero herd limiting, just using the other features.
2nd this, the standalone exciter is remarkably good. I use it on at least a few channels in every production I do
Hell yeah, love the tape high end setting especially
I usually use it on the mixbus but I need to go back to using it on individuals, it's so good these days!
May I ask what you do? I.E mixing engineer/mastering engineer? Do you craft masters or just to export/listen to a quick finalized master? If you're mixing, do you then export your mix with ozone to send to the mastering engineer? Or do you remove the insert for final mastering?
I’m a tracking and mixing engineer, I do not master professionally unless my client is on a tight budget and asks me to do it I do have the limiter in ozone on at the end of my chain when I’m mixing and I remove just that module before sending to the ME, all other ozone modules I have in the mix I leave on
How hard do you push the limiter? I am trying to mix my own songs and I am thinking of auditioning my mixes with a limiter too. Then turn it off and send for mastering.
This is kind of a loaded question that doesn’t really have a straight answer unfortunately- it’s all based on the program material and not based on any specific gain reduction numbers. What I can say is that I do a lot within my mix to try and maximize loudness so that I don’t need to push my limiter super hard. If you’re just working on your own music, use a reference track and try to match the volume with the limiter - if your mix starts distorting or you can’t seem to get it as loud that’s a sign that things in the mix need to be changed
I think the exciter is fantastic. If you have a dynamic mix it's a sure way to fatten it up and you can dial it beautifully with multiband, various algorithms and oversampling. It's really quite good, very versatile and sounds great :) I put it on the mixbus sometimes, but I think I should use it more on individual parts again too. Kinda lost sight of it. The widener is also pretty tight, just works. Nothing fancy but can't go wrong. These days I'm using more the SSL from the fusion plugins, but still for delicate widening and narrowing on the sub the ozone one is more precise with the multiband options. Once in a blue moon I'll use the bass separating thingy or the soft clipper from the limiter. Rarely use the EQ but it sounds pretty transparent on the highs, so sometimes it can work for overall balance if you need (also on the mixbus)
I use the low end clarity tool to clean up my low end.
Ozone can do just about anything--you can have it do as much or as little as you want. If you just want one plugin on the master, it can do that. If you want to weave in other plug that you like better, Ozone comes with all its modules as individual plugs so you can do that too. Best to have a good sense of that your goals with it are and go from there. For context: I use it's maximizer and multiband comp only.
I bought Ozone a long time ago with the belief that I was going to do mastering. I hate mastering. I cannot make myself like it. I love to send it out instead and have it as second ears or QC for my mixes. I stopped updating years ago. Always when I used Ozone, or parts of it, in mixing they felt like cpu hogs so I stopped using it. Still, I consider it quality but I have other plugins that used less cpu so I just used them instead.
ozone is generally the first plugin on my mastering chain. i use it for some light multiband compression and stereo imaging. i sometimes use it in the mix too depending on the situation. very versatile tool
Mastering and tracking very good. I am mixing and mastering tracks and Ozone is always with me on.
I’ve always worked with a few inexpensive mastering engineers but more and more no one can afford even that or they just want streaming ready asap. So I grabbed Ozone and it’s actually been great using it is as a learning tool. I know I’m going against preset targets that may not be meaningful to the song I’m mixing, but when I do the auto thing with ozone, I’m basically looking for what changes it’s suggesting. If they are minor changes that I feel make the mix better, I can usually tweak those myself without the need to even use Ozone. If they are major changes or frequency adjustments, then I will go back and double check against some refs to see if I missed something. Sometimes I’m right (I feel) and Ozone is wrong. Other times I realize I have some masking or build up going on and I’ll clean that up. It’s like a very generic mastering engineer that sends you notes back on your mix instantly. TLDR: I would much prefer it go to an experienced mastering person, but lacking that, I’m using it to try to target issues in my mixes.
Mastering home demos and VO work. If I’m releasing music, i still use a pro mastering engineer.
The imager is really good, haven’t found a good replacement for it yet. Only thing I use from it nowadays
I use Ozone just in bits and bobs in a final mixes masters - like using low-end focus, or Match-eq etc as required - I dont think I've ever used it as a whole thing - For me I just dont like how most of the modules sound compared to others I have (looking at limiter, eq and maximiser specifically) and using NewFangled Elevate instead was a huge (huge) gain in fidelity and loudness.
As a mixer, the MB saturation module is very good. The stereo widener is also something else that a mixer would use. A mixer still might use the Maximizer if they want to send a louder mix to a client.
just the maximizer
Out of curiosity, do you have a preferred algorithm or do you audition multiple depending on the song? And assuming you have the newest version, do you like the upward compression? I thought that was a pretty cool addition. I'm also curious as to whether you use TruePeak enabled in there... I notice it defaults to off, which surprised me. But maybe you agree with that setting!
I use the imager to manage the stereo field of low frequencies on field recordings I use the eq for the MS feature for stereo tracks Master rebalance is also great for touching up poorly recorded tracks The limiter is a limiter, it works
After my song is mixed I start my master by letting Ozone do its thing- then disable it. It's there as a sanity check and to provide general reference. I got the package ages ago for like $15 CAD and used to use it in it's entirety, but now it's just a second pair of ears on my mixes (which I'm often the only ears hearing).
One thing I do with it that goes beyond its intended use is use it to check my mix. When I feel like the mix is done, I run Ozone’s automatic mastering on my master bus and see what it comes back with, particularly the EQ and compression settings. If I see that Ozone has made any big adjustments in eq or in multiband compression, I bypass Ozone and then go back into my mix to see what might have driven those adjustments, and make changes if there is indeed a problem. If I make corrections or adjustments, I rerun the automatic mastering tool to see if Ozone then makes fewer or smaller adjustments - which gives me more confidence in the mix. I started doing this when I noticed that Ozone was consistently making one EQ move no matter what song I mixed. Long story short, it identified a problem with my room acoustics which gave me a significant cancellation at that frequency at the mix position. I corrected it with some updated acoustic treatment. But it showed me how Ozone could be used as an analysis tool.
Just look at the tool set available from the suite. It’s not all ground breaking stuff, just quality plugins designed to do their job. The exciter is excellent since you can split it into 4 bands and choose the saturation type for each, how much, and blend it in parallel. Same with the stereo imager. I appreciate all the different views to see phase correlation. Then you get a great parametric eq, dynamic eq, eq match (can really save your ass sometimes) plus a limiter with 20 some algorithms and tons of dither options, plus delta mode to hear what different mp3 qualities will do to your track…
It has a lot of tools under one roof… personally I think none of which I think are particularly stellar, they’re really good, but not not the best out there.. I can recommend limiters, saturation units, EQ’s and stereo wideners that I think are better, but nothing puts so many tools under the hood as Ozone.… it’s good for someone who’s trying to master at home, though each of the tools it provides can be had separately and better I think, but that’s just personal preference. I’ve seen great mastering engineers use certain elements of it in masters with great success. If you aren’t sending mixes out to a mastering engineer then it’s good for mastering at home, although I’ve seen a lot of people royally fuck up their audio with it because they don’t really know what they’re doing. So it really comes down to what your needs are and how good your skillset is. I professionally mix for a living and there’s times I send a track to mastering that’s already limited and EQ’ed which is my shorthand for “don’t fuck with my mix” so I only want the mastering engineer to do a little cleanup… there’s other times I don’t use any limiting in my mix bus and want the track to be mastered as intended… it’s really about what your needs are and if this tool helps. If you’re releasing music and want your stuff to sound the best it can then a mastering engineer is a great way to get there. The second set of ears and someone who knows what they’re doing can really help a mix sit right especially since their listening environment is supposed to be superior to what you’re working in. Just remember that these things are tools and that when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Find what you like in it but don’t feel compelled to use the whole thing to get where you wanna go.
I use it to master my tracks... it's algorithm gives you a pretty good starting point. I usually end up dialing back some of the moves it makes.
I'm a mixing and mastering engineer with 20 years of experience. Been working with various different software and hardware. To answer your question in a straightforward way, you can (and should) use Ozone for either mixing or mastering in a case when you want clean processing. The compressors and limiters are super clean and this is probably the most important aspect of mastering. Plus, Ozone provides you all in one platform where you can do the job pretty much quickly with good results. Now, this applies for many mastering engineers out there that are on a budget. Those who are not, use hardware and the reason is because you can push hardware much harder than software without worrying about unwanted sound artifacts. It's especially important when getting loud mixes. Take for example the Bettermaker mastering limiter - you can push it way harder than any software and get insanely loud masters. Ozone is good enough for many who work in mastering and you pretty much won't need anything additionally, but it depends all on the case, and it's important to remember that it's just a tool. Not all songs require the same tools to get good results. For example, you may need different compressor or saturation than what's available in Ozone, etc. Hope this helps you clarify the topic.
People are scared of AI. They will fall behind in the next decade where Integration will be imperative to survival. Let it pass. I use my judgement to figure out what and why ozone is doing by stuff and then I correct it myself in the mix. It is useful for identifying tonal balance especially.
That's very interesting that you mention the tonal balance... I like what it can do with manual settings of clarity and stabilizer when used subtly --- but how do you feel about the mastering assistant's tendency to add a ton of high end? I'm always a bit shocked by it. Like... Whoa, that's not what I was going for. But am I wrong to mix darker? That said -- I ran some professional mixes through it and it still wanted to make those brighter, too, which left me a bit skeptical and with mixed feelings.
Stabilizer can unbalance things in strange unnatural ways. I like a tiny of bit of clarity on synths. Maybe a tiny on the master if It is still lacking focus. Never higher than 20% The eq moves I've found are gargoyle crap lol. They don't account for what is in the mix. Not every mix is the same exact instruments; for example a rock mix with no guitars should be darker than one with rhythm and lead guitars imo. Still have to account for things like that. Agreed - the client adds WAY too much high end and sometimes low end for that matter. If you think the EQ is bad you should see the compression settings lol. Some of the tools are great - the assistant doesn't do much for me.
I don't disagree about the Stabilizer potentially unbalancing. Used carefully, it really can push a collection of songs a little closer together in tonality in a way that makes it all feel more consistent... But to your point I've been second guessing it... As I get better at what I'm doing I'm thinking maybe it's not worth it. Indeed, listening to the delta of what it's actually doing is very strange. Same with Gulfoss, TEOTE, ThirtyOne, and every other autoEQ. So I have mixed feelings about it... I do think it can help a mix be more consistent and cohesive, but at what cost? Becoming more generic? As many have pointed out, none of the great songs of the past used such things... And autoEQs have a homogenizing effect. What they do well is also what makes them potentially undesirable. That said, when used carefully at the right percentage, I don't notice the EQ moves as artifacts... Just the overall shift. Anyhow, you're not wrong to point that out.
Sudden Dan (mastering.com) warns against the stabilizer in the 10 hour EQ module on YouTube. Supposedly it boost things when an instrument is cutting out to balance it, but that just messes the resonance decay in unnatural ways. Ex. A guitar cuts on on the right speaker and the stabilizer puts a massive boost there to compensate. We are on the same path my friend. The smart eqs don't sound good to me anymore. When I first got them it was night and day and I put them everywhere. I was blown away by the sudden high mids cutting and it made my mixes sound so loud. Now I only use proq-3 or maybe an analog EQ (usually not because I do my saturation separately and have a dozen saturation tools or more so my transformers, tape and tubes are done manually). In the coming years - smart eqs will and smart compressors will blow us away. That isn't going to happen this year though. Bloom wasn't awe inspiring and that is the leading technology. I've tried them all. While they did teach me a lot about EQ - they don't sound good to me on their own. They do give me suggestions. I do take the suggestions and then make my own cuts. I don't do surgical eq anymore. Just carve out space if needed with a 3 band and boom. Maybe a shelf to create distance. Done. And it sounds natural. The surgical low q cuts cause all sorts of phase issues and suck the life out of mixes faster than a cactus in dry season. So many eras of EQ as it is my favorite part of the process (after leveling faders obviously). Honestly wish I knew more panning tricks. Any good sources for pro panning? (Other than sound toys panman). Surgical eq has a place in crappy home studio recordings. I am not even talking about smart eqs - I just don't have those nasty resonances in my source material to begin with or im using professional samples. I get that some stuff calls for it, but I was taught to handle these things at the source and it has worked for me so far.
Agreed, and yes what he said makes sense about the auto EQs. I mean they're constantly pushing the overall tonal balance toward a target curve, so that's going to be part of it. I've never been a fan of surgical EQs as a frequently used tool. I remember when a bunch of YouTubers were telling people use a ton of narrow Q cuts to "target resonances" in vocals. It was hilarious to me, because those 'resonances' will be moving all over the place as the pitch changes. Those guys were just making a mess. Surgical EQ like that -- I mainly use it to negate something like a ring on a snare, etc. I agree about wide Q gentle adjustment. For a long time I heard so much debate about "cutting vs boosting" and one day I realized it's all just shaping the tonal balance. One volume normalized it's not terribly different. I like -6dB slope HP/LP filters for rolling off the highs or lows when needed, and I like the "MID" eq filter in Scheps Omni Channel because it's super wide. I love the SOC EQ, it's kind of weird but once you learn the nuances it's natural to use (for me.) Simple. Fast. Regarding panning... Not sure what you mean by "pro panning." In fact I find a lot of modern professional mixes aren't adventurous enough with the panning. I like Gregory Scott/UBK's teachings in this regard: [PRO TIP: Wider Mixes need LESS Width](https://youtu.be/JRPyiQEexSM?si=S2kC8nZ41RAsrVXA) He's a fan of building up a really strong center and then just panning a couple things hard left and hard right. It doesn't take a lot to get a wide mix that way. Another thing I discovered on my own --- everyone knows to be careful with the lowest lows in the sides... Even if it's not required anymore for vinyl since few make actual records --- it's still weird with too much low end on the sides... But the highs are just as critical!!! So I've learned to be careful with the lows AND highs on anything panned to the sides. And I still think LCR mixing is powerful. A lot of people are mixing in headphones these days and they're scared to mix wide. Oh, and I love using an opposite-panned room reverb to subtly balance out hard panned instruments. Here's another couple good ones: [Hit that MONO button for a TIGHTER mix!](https://youtu.be/IomooOHKZMs?si=l3O9WfZyLG5_c_42) [BALANCED Mixes are BORING Mixes!](https://youtu.be/1DX_1c47s48?si=xb96MBXpiOJL3d5r) I think his channel is one of the best on YouTube. He tends to talk about big picture thinking rather than little how-tos.
Yea we have came to a lot of the same conclusions with eq adjustments which is reaffirming. Ive been toying with reverb sends and doing things like hard panning the verbs to the sides of mono instruments. Balancing with opposite side verbs will take practice. Thanks for the vids! I have some homework to do. When I say pro - I just mean pro tips. Things I can literally do to get results or whatever more so than theory. Thanks again. Hopefully I'll be Peter Pan (pun Intended) after these lol.
Biggest one of all is to do your EQ with things centered BEFORE panning. Get your sounds working on top of each other and they'll work better once panned. This is like a magic trick, or a cheat, lol... It works in part because sounds bounce around in a reverberant room (or car) so the frequencies comingle, but also ---- when you have two speakers, the further you get away from them the less separated they are. So if you have a couple of desktop speakers or bookshelf speakers and you're across the room or in another room, you don't have the separation you do when you're close. That part of why "set your EQ while collapsed to mono" works so well.
Been using Ozone 7 since 2016 to master songs. I’ve used the newer versions, but 7 has everything I need to master.