Ozone 3

357mag · 05-23-2008, 05:20 PM

I just learned about a product called Ozone 3. Looks very impressive. I was wondering if anybody knows if it requires the use of a dongle. And if anybody here uses it with Reaper.

bluzkat · 05-23-2008, 05:38 PM

From the iZotope website:

Authorization:
iZotope offers two methods of authorization: The challenge/response authorization is available for all plug-in formats. The Pro Tools formats (RTAS/AudioSuite/HTDM) include additional support for the standard iLok™ Smart Key.

357mag · 05-23-2008, 06:05 PM

So does that mean that it does not require the consumer to plug in that USB hardware key into the back of his computer? What does challenge/response mean?

Since you can download this software from the company's website, I'm kind of thinking that no dongle is required, since when you download software, it's purely electronic, no hardware is transferred.

I found some info on what challenge/response means. Bottom line is it does not appear that Ozone 3 uses any dongles.

357mag · 05-23-2008, 10:50 PM

Another question I'd like to ask is even though it is designed for mastering, can you use it normally? What I mean is this: Right now I have my guitar track recorded. In Reaper, to add effects to the track, you just hit the FX button and then a big window comes up and shows all the individual effects that are available. Right now I've added a digital delay, an exciter, and a parametric EQ to my guitar track. Let's say I'm not at the "mastering" stage yet. Can I use Ozone to just simply add individual effects(the ones that Ozone provides of course)to my guitar or bass or drum track, just like I'm doing now with the built-in Reaper effects? So in that regard, I would be using Ozone kind of like the Reaper effects.

technogremlin · 05-24-2008, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

Another question I'd like to ask is even though it is designed for mastering, can you use it normally?

Yes. You can use 'mastering' effects as regular effects and the other way around. Many 'mastering' effects have specific presets to use it on individual tracks as well (drums, vocals, etc.). And you can build a very good mastering suite just by combining 'normal' effect plugins like a compressor, EQ, etc.

One point of caution though: some mastering effects are doing a lot of things at once and that means (in most cases) CPU-load. So inserting these kind of effects to several tracks independantly might eat your CPU for lunch

nicholas · 05-24-2008, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

Can I use Ozone to just simply add individual effects(the ones that Ozone provides of course)to my guitar or bass or drum track, just like I'm doing now with the built-in Reaper effects? So in that regard, I would be using Ozone kind of like the Reaper effects.

Like technogremlin says, you can, but personally as a rule I wouldn't.

There are quite a few mastering suite plug-ins out there, most of them I wouldn't touch even if you gave them to me (like T-Racks

) but Ozone is certainly one of the better ones. However, putting it on individual tracks does seem to me a bit like a sledgehammer approach, but what the heck. Experiment, who knows, you might come up with an amazing outcome.

By the way, there's a really good PDF on Ozone and mastering in general that you can download from that site somewhere.

357mag · 05-24-2008, 10:29 AM

Well I don't like to use lots of effects if it's not necessary. Right now on my guitar track, all I have is a delay, an exciter, and a parametric EQ. That's it for that track.

For bass, I don't know yet cuz I have not recorded it, but I imagine I will put a compressor on it, maybe an EQ.

For drums, again perhaps a compressor. Don't know what else normally goes on for this instrument.

I have a Pentium IV 3.0 GHZ and 2 GB of RAM.

So from what I have listed so far, that won't eat my CPU will it?

technogremlin · 05-24-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

So from what I have listed so far, that won't eat my CPU will it?

Well no, but that wasn't your question

357mag · 05-24-2008, 12:46 PM

Some people have implied that it could be a CPU eater if there are too many instances of it running. That is what concerns me. If I put an exciter, and an EQ on one track, and then let's say a compressor and an EQ on another track, and then lets say for the drums(don't know anything about these yet), a compressor on some of the drums plus some EQ, is that too instances running?

Plus isn't there something called "freezing tracks" that will allow a person to free up CPU so he can continue to add stuff?
I think Reaper calls it "Stem Rendering". I'm not entirely clear on how that works either.

technogremlin · 05-24-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

Some people have implied that it could be a CPU eater if there are too many instances of it running. That is what concerns me. If I put an exciter, and an EQ on one track, and then let's say a compressor and an EQ on another track, and then lets say for the drums(don't know anything about these yet), a compressor on some of the drums plus some EQ, is that too instances running?

That was what I implied, but I was talking about Ozone and similar 'combined' effect units. So I thought in your last post you where talking about separate Fx instead. I think you can better build Fx chains with dedicated Fx (delay, compression, EQ, etc.) instead of loading something like Ozone on each track and switch parts of it in or out. That is simply not what Ozone was meant for.

bluzkat · 05-24-2008, 01:25 PM

357,

It really depends on your PC and which plugins you use. CPU usage varies from plugin to plugin. My suggestion would be... try it. You can monitor CPU usage in the 'Performance' meter in Reaper, it will also tell you which VST is using 'how much' CPU. After doing this a few times, you will get an idea about how much your computer can handle.

As for 'freeze', the option you are looking for is "Apply FX to items as new take".

Another 'suggestion'... spend some time with the manual for Reaper. There is a ton of good information in there with some 'practice' examples that will get you headed in the right direction.

Tedwood · 05-24-2008, 02:45 PM

My advice would be to do as much as you can to get a very good sound going in, then you shouldn't need lot's of processing. I find I only need EQ and maybe simple compression on acoustic guitar, if I get a good sound on my mike only eq and reverb, drums prolly need compression but not always eq. Reacompworks well on tracks but I would be more likely to use a multiband compressor like ReaXcomp on the master. I think ReaXcomp eats about three times the cpu as Reacomp, so there's a saving on your basic tracks.

I have found in the short time I have been using Reaper that I sometimes end up taking FX off tracks once I get a good sound at the master, and you aint going to find that out if you rendered FX on them.

You can also use one FX for several tracks as a send track, most useful for a room kind of reverb I think, read about it in the manual

Rendering stem tracks is good if you have it well thought out, but I would be very careful about having any compression on stems because you really do need to be able to fine tune it after anyway.

I only render guitar tracks to stems, and then I do them one at a time, because I will have maybe three guitar rigs using 18% cpu, I render two of them to stems and keep the lead guitar back so I can still play with it.

Of course it all depends on what you aiming to do and what works for me might not apply in your case...........tum dee dum...

357mag · 05-24-2008, 04:26 PM

Getting back to this "mastering" thing, I still don't see how you master. If all you are doing is adding another exciter to the guitar, or a compressor to the bass, or a compressor to the bass drum, that's pretty much the same thing as adding effects while you are tracking(adding effects to individual tracks as you work on the song).

Is there a certain window that opens up magically that is the "mastering window"? After you get done with the song and it basically sounds good, how do you master after that?

By the way, what other kind of effects plug-ins are high quality that you guys know of? That Waves stuff uses a dongle, which I don't care for.

Tedwood · 05-24-2008, 05:04 PM

Oh no, it's not the same. Adding compression and reverb to the master channel brings the whole mix together.

If you just add FX to tracks they will still sound separated, unless you recorded them very cleverly.

You add FX to the "Master" track in the mixer - same way as adding them to tracks

Why dont you try it out and see, with four tracks, bass drums guitar whatever. It's the only way to find out really

357mag · 05-24-2008, 05:39 PM

Thanks for that info. I was not aware that the Master Channel had an FX button that you press. So when I'm in the process of recording my guitar, or bass, or adding drums, and then I add effects individually to those tracks, that could be called "tracking"? Or is there another name for it?

But when I start the "Mastering" phase, I hit the FX button on the Master Channel, and if I apply a compressor or an exciter or an equalizer there, it effects every single instrument. And it brings the whole song together better?

But the thing is: If you apply an effect in the Mastering channel, and it affects every instrument in your project, how is that going to work? Every instrument is different. You probably would not EQ a bass the same way you EQ a guitar. Or the settings for an Exciter could be different for a guitar than a bass. I need some clarification on that would actually work.

technogremlin · 05-25-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

But the thing is: If you apply an effect in the Mastering channel, and it affects every instrument in your project, how is that going to work? Every instrument is different. You probably would not EQ a bass the same way you EQ a guitar. Or the settings for an Exciter could be different for a guitar than a bass. I need some clarification on that would actually work.

Darn, just lost an elaborate reply I was typing up. So I'll do the short version.

Your mastering Fx are not meant to add 'effects' to your track. They are meant to polish the overall mix. So the suff you do in 'mastering' is not meant to change the way the track sounds (you do that while tracking and during mixdown).

Here's my mastering Fx-chain:

- Parametric EQ to fix small (very small) problems in the overall mix. Only if needed. I use Electri-Q posihfopit

- Reverb, used to add a very small amount of overall reverb to 'gel' the track. Only is needed. I use SIR for this.

- Compressor/saturator to beef the whole track up a notch. I use PSP Vintagewarmer as my favorite, but I like several freebees too, like Endorphin and Startdust.

- Some measuring stuff to see what's going on. My default mastering chain includes Voxengo Span and Element Audio's Inspector.

- A brickwall limiter, just as a final precausion. If you do everything right thsi one should do NOTHING

. My favorite is dB-Audio's mastering limiter. There is also a nice free one from Kjearhus.

- RDR Dither for the final rendering to CD-quality.

ngarjuna · 05-25-2008, 04:47 AM

"Mastering" is not just a matter of whatever effects you have in the Master channel, although it is true that in the mastering process you do apply effects to the whole mix at once. But just because you are adding effects to the master channel doesn't specifically mean you are mastering by the common definition.

It's somewhat technical (but not overly so), but I would recommend reading the articles by Bob Katz on Digital Domain. Here is his article about mastering in general
http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/cd-mastering.html
I found all of the articles here to be a good introduction. He also wrote a book which is quite famous amongst audio types called Mastering Audio: The Art and The Science. I haven't read it yet (my copy is actually in the mail as we speak), but it comes highly recommended by virtually everyone I've ever met who has read it. If you read the Amazon reviews, the only real complaint is that it's not really intended for true laymen (there are a few other books on mastering in those reviews which were found to be less complex and more beginner oriented). If you are looking for more information than the DD website has, that might be another good place to look.

Also, as suggested above, there is a PDF file tutorial to mastering with Ozone. Even if you use freeware plugs instead (as I do, I don't own Ozone), this is also an excellent beginners how-to about mastering. You can find that here:
http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/guides.html

I would personally suggest that you will save a lot of CPU overhead to use specifically the effects you need rather than a catch-all multi-mastering tool like Ozone, but Ozone should theoretically work to give you individual effects if you really love the product for some reason. For me, it was a little pricey considering the number of excellent freeware effects that do the same thing.

357mag · 05-25-2008, 02:13 PM

Seems to me "tracking" and "mixdown" are the same thing. Unless "mixing" is something new I haven't done yet.

When you go into the mastering phase then, do you just master one song at a time? You open one project, do the mastering for that and save it. Then open up another project, do the mastering for that, save it...

ngarjuna · 05-25-2008, 02:29 PM

It definitely depends (on your approach, on what you're mastering for, on what kind of material you have and what its particular needs are), but to make an unwarranted generalization: if you're mastering multiple tracks for the same piece of media (a soundtrack in a single media piece, a CD, the like), one of the possible goals of mastering is to achieve a nice blend so that when you go from track to track it doesn't sound like a compilation album, there is actual blend. In that case, your mastering process is partially geared towards adding character to the already finished mixes so that it sounds like one soundtrack, album, etc.

To be honest, this sort of mastering discussion is quickly getting out of my pay grade. I'm sure there are plenty of others here at the forums who have actual mastering experience and can comment less generally. Actual mastering engineers (guys who get paid for it like Bob Katz) often make the claim that home equipment and environments are (usually) not accurate enough to "master" anyway.

I would say fundamentally you need to ask yourself: "what am I mastering (what material with what kinds of sounds)" and "what am I mastering for (what do I seek to achieve)" before you can get solid answers about "mastering".

technogremlin · 05-25-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

Seems to me "tracking" and "mixdown" are the same thing.

Well, generaly they are not. During tracking (recording) you are 'getting the best possible result recorded'. And although you normaly make a 'tracking mix', for example for a singer so that he/she has something to go on, you normaly are NOT working on the 'final mix' at that stage. Only after you have everything recorded and in order (takes, re-recordings, etc.) you start with the mixdown. During mixdown you are working at getting the best total and overall mix of the whole track and you don't want to bother (anymore) about recording issues (although it might be needed during mixdown to re-record something, if serious problems arise).

So for a generalised overview:

- Tracking: getting the best possible performance recorded
- Mixdown: bringing all the recorded stuff together as a final production.
- Mastering: polish the production for release, when part of something bigger (album) make the different tracks 'gell' together.

357mag · 05-25-2008, 02:47 PM

Yeah, I'm sure there will be arguments by people that say you can't do it at home yourself and all that. And I'm sure I won't be able to do as good a job as someone that has been in the business for 25 years and gets paid big bucks to do it. But most of us don't have the money to shell out for recording studios, and mastering studios, cuz they basically charge what lawyers charge.

But when I listen to my guitar track that I recorded into Reaper, and I added a parametric EQ, an exciter, and a little delay, I'm really quite happy with the sound. It sounds really alive and sparkling. It's light years ahead of the way I used to record my guitar years ago, which was plugging a mic into a cassette recorder and then hitting Record.

Tedwood · 05-25-2008, 03:14 PM

'

A wise old man once told me so long as you enjoy what you are doing you'll get good at what you do

simpsongb · 05-27-2008, 02:48 PM

Nice discussion actually...

After putzing around for a couple of years as a hobbyist (not to be confused with a Hobbit..)

I have decided that no "mastering" FX shoould be placed on the musical pice during the mixdown phase of production. I basically want to get as clean a mix as I can. Nice instrument/voice separation, while retaining character of each......nice balance...pan separation...some reverb etc....

I like to render this as a stereo wav file, and the bring up the stereo wav file in a separate project in Reaper. At this point I place all my FX on the MAster track.....I generally like to start with EQ, to see if any slight (narrow Q) changes make it sound better...then I like CLAS Exciter....after that usually ReaXComp.....I will play with some stereo separation at this point in the "mastering".....then a limiter, and finally a dither plugin.....

I have the "mastering" project saved as a template, with the FX all plugged in ...in the order I prefer them to be applied.....sometimes I just don't use some of them, if the sound just doesn't change.....

Great stuff....all in all

357mag · 05-27-2008, 09:12 PM

What is the advantage of rendering a project as a stereo wave file, as opposed to just opening up your project like it normally is, and adding the FX into the Master FX button?

technogremlin · 05-28-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

What is the advantage of rendering a project as a stereo wave file, as opposed to just opening up your project like it normally is, and adding the FX into the Master FX button?

There is no real difference. However, some people will tell you that:

1. Rendering to stereo will free up computer resources so you can have more/more-powerfull plugins on your mastering chain.

... and:

2. If you don't render to stereo you might be tempted to go back to mixing during the mastering stage.

Now, I myself don't render to stereo simply because for me point 2 is actually usefull from my perspective. I might decide during the mastering stage that something can better be changed in the mix and having the project right there in it's multitrack form makes it easy. But you sure can get lost in a 'tweaking spiral'

Tedwood · 05-28-2008, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 357mag

What is the advantage of rendering a project as a stereo wave file, as opposed to just opening up your project like it normally is, and adding the FX into the Master FX button?

I'm not sure it's an advantage, or only if you have limited resources is it an advantage, it's more of a methodology or work ethic.

Personally, I can see quite a bit of sense in it, it clearly defines the job you are doing. It makes it impossible to lose your premix and you can concentrate on the job in hand.

In the real world it would be similar to leaving the studio with a stereo mix under your arm - you said thanks and goodbye. Now all you have to do is master your tracks and you are finished.

simpsongb · 05-28-2008, 05:54 AM

I used to do everyhting in the same project. Mixing with FX on individual tracks and then mastering with FX on the Master track. I found that I was getting a bit confused. The sound I was hearing was colored by the Master track FX, so if I attempted to tweak an indiividual track, I wasn't sure I was hearing the effect of the FX correctly.

For me it separated out the tasks better. It allowed me to just mix when I mix, and once I felt I was done mixing, render and open the master project template, with all of the FX already in place on the Master track, but disabled, and start to master the song.....

357mag · 05-28-2008, 01:41 PM

About this rendering the project as a stereo wave file. I think I did that once to burn two copies of my guitar track to disc so I could give them to my bandmates to work off of. I remember seeing the MP3 icon in my folder after I was done.

But is the original project changed when you do that? When you take your project and render it to a stereo wave file, and then you open up that project in Reaper, does it look different? Do the tracks look different or something?

If I chose to do that before Mastering, maybe I should keep the original project the way it is and then make a copy of the folder, and render the copy of the folder to a stereo wave file. That way in case I want to go back to the way the project was before I rendered it to a wave file, I will be able to?

I don't want to make a permanent change to a project, and later regret it cuz I can't go back to the way it was before.

Could someone explain?

Tedwood · 05-28-2008, 04:18 PM

All that happens if you render to a stereo mix of your project is you get a stereo mix of your project mag. nothing else happens. Your project remains exactly the same as it was

Your new file will be where you told Reaper to save it, like on your desktop for instance, and it will be in the file format you chose, which could be .wav, flac, aiff, ogg vorbis, or mp3, or other. So it won't be a project, it will just be a file.
If you want another project to work from you can do that too

You would not want to save a stereo mix of your work that you want to master as an mp3 because the quality is not good enough, if you need to keep the file size down choose ogg vorbis, otherwise use higher quality like wav, flac or aiff.

simpsongb · 05-28-2008, 08:20 PM

Correct!

First, once you are done with mixing, and ready to render, save the project. I often will save it as songpreMaster or something....that saves all of the track info, etc into the target directory. It also places the songpreMaster selection in your Recent Projects under the File Menu in Reaper. Once saved, then go to File ..Render. Since you are going to use the rendered file for mastering, make sure that the output for the render is still at least 24 bits....NOT 16, which would be the setting to render the final mastered song for burning to CD.....

Also when rendering, select where you want the wav file to go, and gicve it a name. I have a folder named PreMaster, where I place all my renders that I am going to master later.

Render, and the stereo wav file should show up in the target directory. Now open a new project, and drag the wav file in using the Media Explorere in Reaper. Go to the MAster track and start playing around with FX....

Hope this helps.......