Just wanted to share an Ozone 5 story...

I'm no mastering engineer, but like more and more musicians these days, I'm producing and distributing my own work. That's why I was a little surprised when an instrumentalist I'd used on some past work asked me if I wouldn't mind "mastering" a CD he was producing. His style couldn't be more different from mine--Americana oldtime stringband music recorded in a single day around a stereo pair of mics in an X-pattern. But his budget was $0 and I was more than happy to spend a few hours helping out a friend.

His goal was to produce a master CD-R to be mass-produced for distribution at his band's shows. He had a specific sound he wanted to attain and knew exactly what he wanted--it was very old-timey to my ears, so different from the digitally (over-) produced music I write.

So I pulled up CD Architect, a tool I'd honestly never really used (came with Sound Forge Pro) and we arranged the tracks. But despite the fact that they were all recorded in the same session, because of slight changes in the position of the instruments and singers each track sounded different. The volume levels weren't matched, and worse, the tonal qualities weren't consistent.

Within the first 10-20 minutes we had a good basic preset built in Ozone using a combination of 3-band dynamics and IRC3 that brought all of the songs much closer in line with each other. After that we honed in on the remaining tonal balance issues and it was a breeze to pick the best sounding song and then use matching EQ to even out the tracks on the CD. All told, it took under two hours for about 35 minutes of content. He walked away with a test CD that he'll live with for a few days before the final pass.

It was enjoyable to work on music that was so incredibly different in every way from mine to give me an appreciation and level of objectivity I don't have with my own music... and to work on a whole CD project at once, rather than releasing one song at a time which is typically how I work.

Also in support of Ozone 5, I just upgraded from version 4 for $99, and am impressed with the improvement in sound quality. I wasn't using Ozone 4 for the (pseudo) mastering I do because of better alternatives (bx, Sonnox, Waves, DPM), but now it's a really viable option. It even beats all the others for some things.

Still love it.

I think the EQ has come along quite a bit since Version 4. Sounds smoother to my ears.

My plug-in EQ before the analogue chain used to be Algorithmix Blue, and although I still use it occasionally the O5 Advanced standalone EQ gets more use these days. As you say, the 5 EQ is an improvement over the 4, and surprisingly versatile: good as a notcher, and also works well when I run out of analogue parametric bands.

An intriguing comment. May I ask what it is that pushes it ahead of the BLUE? Ease of use? Quality of sound in 'x' mode etc.?

I still like the Blue, but it tends to get used more for minor final tweaks in the master playlist where what I think of as its quite gentle character is often just the ticket.

The 5 EQ comes into its own as the first processor in the chain where I typically need something a bit more assertive but not heavy-handed: for me it's very 'musical' while still being able to make sizeable shifts when required in either the analogue or digital modes (most times it's analogue); the closest I've so far seen to a general-purpose plug-in EQ for the kinds of things I want to do.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Nigel.

I agree the Ozone 5 eq is a killer (I only use analog mode). Between that and the free sonic eq, I feel covered for digital eq.

I just wanted to say thanks again to Lowland...

His comment about using Ozone 5 EQ over the Algorithmix Blue for some things made me want to approach the EQ again as I have the whole O5 advanced suite sitting here, largely untouched bar the limiter.

Have been using it in analogue mode for a few days for doing subtle shaping in the low end, and I think it's very smooth, natural and unobtrusive sounding down there.
An improvement on the EQ from MD3 I was using a lot for that sort of task, certainly on the mixes I've been working on. Just sounds less processed on the Ozone EQ.

hi guys! i need a little help on the ozone 5 eq settings!!
which internal ozone 5 buffersize and latency sounds best? the difference in sound is "drastically" switching - especially in the sublowend.
last week i mastered a dance track with a very clean and boomy dance style kick. by setting an ozone hipass filter i heard an unnatural and "stretched" low end.
can someone try a few settings with the lowcut in ozone??
thanks!

There should be no dependence of sound on the buffer size at all. Try a null test.

You're more than welcome.

Ozone's (for me) slightly flashy graphical appearance is the front for some serious tools, and if one listens with an open mind that's clear enough. Although I sometimes wish there was a plain 'pro look' skin, I expect I'll eventually get over it...

the next days i'll post an excample.

so, here are 3 audio samples of a kick with the ozone eq.
the eq is working in digital mode.
there is no modulation or analogue-style plugin included.

sample 1: freq. res.: 12hz / buffer size 1024
sample 2: freq. res.: 12hz / buffer size 8192
sample 3: freq. res.: 3hz / buffer size 1024

nulltest: sample 1vs2 > -66,6 dbfs
nulltest: sample 1vs3 > -26,9 dbfs

i think, there should no difference between sample 1 and sample 2??
and why is the bass response with the 3hz so smeary??

That's right. If snapshots are the same, the result should be the same too. However if you have captured snapshots at different buffer sizes, the snapshots may be slightly different. Anyway, [email protected] would love to get more details on your case.


This may be because of a different frequency response. Better frequency resolution means worse time resolution...

thanks alexey!
it's a little bit strange to get the right settings

Did anybody get a working linking function (for example between Mid & Side EQ bands)? I don't get it :(