 Ozone |
marisol
Steppa
Registration Date: 23-09-2004
Posts: 279
Helpfulness rating:
 |
|
|
|
04-10-2004 16:48 |
|
|
Surya 
The Robot
Registration Date: 04-11-2002
Posts: 11,238
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
Seems quite decent, but I haven't tried it yet...
__
"In dnb you should make people jump not swim"
- Pieter Frenssen 2004
|
|
|
04-10-2004 17:24 |
|
|
Dave_Akuma
Wicked Producer
Registration Date: 02-12-2003
Posts: 400
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
it's pretty good, check out the spectron as well....
__
|
|
|
04-10-2004 18:01 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
Trash too. there all very good programs, lots of presets, and takes up resources midly, but for overall mastering Ozone 3 works wonders. for just doing a single track leveling it's not so great. works better with multiple sounds.
__
|
|
|
28-12-2004 19:49 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
so Ozone3 is a 64-bit quality, high resources, but great quality.
__
|
|
|
29-12-2004 23:57 |
|
|
B-complex
Wicked Producer
Registration Date: 07-04-2004
Posts: 374
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
When I am mastering my tracks I usually use just Izotope ozone and l3 limiter, ozone is smth like t-racks but in vst, it features equaliser, maximizer, multiband compressor/equalizer enhancer and stereo imager.. quite powerfull tool.
__
|
|
|
30-12-2004 00:59 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
ah, but tracks is only 16 bit as well.
does it even matter though, since it's all 16 bit music?
still it just shows it's a very good tool, over all, i'd say it's the best mastering VST out there.
__
|
|
|
30-12-2004 04:04 |
|
|
wicked_wayz
Cool Producer
Registration Date: 19-03-2004
Posts: 194
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
in fm mag a discription was given in how to master a track, and they also used ozone for it (amongst also other programs). it seemed quite straightforward, but haven't tried it yet
i wouldn't waste to much time with mastering anway, and leave it to the big boys. i once compared a mastered track with unmastered dub of bigtime artist, and at first glance, ain't much difference anyway, just the transients were lowered, loudness increased (and seemingly, highs were roled off, but could be caused by cutting the record 
)
anyway, don't know much about it, since i never master 
about the 16-24 bit thing, cd is only 16 bit no? so why try going for 24 bit, and eventually cut on vinyl
|
|
|
30-12-2004 11:00 |
|
|
B-complex
Wicked Producer
Registration Date: 07-04-2004
Posts: 374
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
well, small difference between the sound you mentioned was becouse the artist itself put much effort to the track so it sounded pretty decent before final "press" mastering in studio. If anyone is interested to release his music, good sound is very important thing, and "mastering" is one of skills that are necessary for good producers. The way you mix and finalize your tracks gives you usually your unique sound.
And about the "bit" thing, when you're making music you should go for the best quality, it means that when you process your sounds mix them etc etc you should always choose 24 or 32bit quality it means that computer render sounds much more precisely and just final mixdown is converted into 44.1/16 usually using some dither so you don't loose quality. With higher bit rates you have more headroom in the mix, frequencies are much cleaner ... don't know exactly how to explain
but it just sound better.
__
|
|
|
30-12-2004 13:02 |
|
|
wicked_wayz
Cool Producer
Registration Date: 19-03-2004
Posts: 194
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
but were do you people even find 24 bit samples
on the sample cd's i've got, everything is 16 bit.
and i also thought that you shouldn't do anything on the mastering side of things yourself, if it is sent to engineer anyway. you can only make things worse for the engineer. just a proper mixdown, no?
|
|
|
30-12-2004 13:14 |
|
|
|
