How Do YOU Use Ozone?

Izotope recommends applying Ozone 4 to a 2 channel stereo mix

That's what your master bus is

So, yeah, option 1) is how I work with Ozone. Mainly because I need the flexibility to go back to the mix and make various adjustments/edits depending on the needs of the project. We're constantly making revisions to old stuff going back many years. If I had to bounce out a mix and re-apply mastering to it I'd never get done by the deadline.  This way the mastering is saved with the project.

2-channel stereo mix = 2-bus = master bus

Ozone is meant specifically for your final mix because it may be too resource-intensive to have more than one instance per project. (iZotope makes another, similar product called Alloy that is a lighter load and therefore more practical for individual tracks.)

This does NOT mean that Ozone can't go on a track or a sub-bus. I often use it on vocal busses. The downside is that 2 or more instances of Ozone can drag a CPU to its knees, especially on top of the other heavy-duty plugins you're probably also using during the final phases of a project. Ozone also adds significant latency, so you really don't want it to be there at all during tracking.

Hi,

I agree - Ozone on the master. Putting it on channels or buses is quite a bit of overkill and will suck up resources (iZotope's Alloy product is a better suited for channels and buses).

Very good advice from Sven: hold off on using Ozone at all until the mix is truly complete.

However, I still like to master in place because just as changing the mix messes with Ozone, so does Ozone mess with the mix. For me it's more convenient to do the mastering in the same project in case I need to tweak the mix in response to what Ozone does to upset the balance.

I tried the EQ matching feature for the first time recently. This really cranked up the upper mids. The song I was matching with was "Goliath" by Karnivool, which is a well recorded song that I really like the sound of and was aiming for. I had to back off quite a bit to like around 20% on the slider for it not to be too harsh.

You have illustrated perfectly why EQ matching never delivers on its promise to provide a shortcut to spectral nirvana. It just doesn't work - unless the two tracks have identical instrumentation and levels.

EQ matching can be a lifesaver in specific circumstances, though. I used it when I decided to re-track a verse from a 5-year-old song. Same vocalist, but a different room and a different microphone. EQ matching (using Ozone) made the new verse fit right in with the existing clips.

How about matching the sound of one mic to another? Have you tried that with any success?

Sort of. It's really not possible because the frequency response of a microphone is so complex. No mic has just one spectral curve you can try and match to.

Even tracking the same singer into the same microphone on different days can result in spectral differences, just because the singer wasn't standing in exactly the same spot or addressing the mic from the same angle, or the mic was tilted differently, or different things were in the room at the time. That's why mic shootouts are worthless unless the mics are used to simultaneously record the same performance.

I don't own Ozone at this point but a user of the program mentioned to me that it can actually analyze a tune (let's say Peg / Steely Dan) and apply the same mastering settings to your existing tune. It didn't really make sense to me because I'm thinking you'd have to have the same exact hardware that was used...any thoughts on this?

I don't own Ozone at this point but a user of the program mentioned to me that it can actually analyze a tune (let's say Peg / Steely Dan) and apply the same mastering settings to your existing tune. It didn't really make sense to me because I'm thinking you'd have to have the same exact hardware that was used...any thoughts on this?

See post #10. EQ matching does not work to the extent that it will make your song sound like Steely Dan or the Beatles or Lady Gaga just by forcing a similar EQ curve. If your song has a hole at 1KHz but your target has a peak at 1KHz, it's because your instrumentation did not contribute as much at that frequency, and you can't make something out of nothing just by applying a boost at 1Khz.

EQ matching features do have some value in addition to the specific example I gave above, and that is to use the target curve as a general guideline. Experienced recordists will not need to do this, but it's a helpful tool for beginners who might not know what the curve should look like.

And just what should the curve look like? Start analyzing a bunch of your favorite commercial recordings and you will soon realize that while they may be broadly similar, there is no universal EQ curve. Every one will be different. The value is in learning to recognize the overall shape you'll want to emulate, based on your analysis of similar commercial recordings. Just don't try to match it exactly.