I know this has been discussed off and on here.  However, as an Izotope RX4 user I have been receiving the materials about the upcoming release of Ozone 6, which is a stand-alone platform for mastering stereo tracks.  I do a lot of live recordings for various instrumental groups -- mostly for rehearsal or demo purposes.  RX4 is invaluable for cleaning up noise in the live environment.  But I have used various Sonar plug-ins for the "mastering" process (Concrete limiter, multiband compressor, EQ, etc.)
 
I am wondering how much better a dedicated suite like Ozone can be.  Is it worth the trouble of turning the production into a two-step process (mixing in Sonar and mastering in a different tool)? 
 
As separate mastering environments go, how would Ozone rank?

FWIW , I love Ozone5 & Ozone5 advanced.
Download the demo... https://www.izotope.com/en/support/product-downloads/ozone-6
 
I've bought all the ProChannel add-ons apart from Softube. Tracking wise, I like the Concrete Limiter for bass and Drums, CA-2A on Vocals, PC4K calms the mix on a bus but finding I using them less and less at the mastering stage.
Ozone 5 advanced has become a one stop shop for me.
Can't wait to get into Ozone6 

I've been using Wave Lab for mastering and 2 track live recording since 2001. 
I cannot see any other way of working on a 2 track files. It is just that it was designed to do this task from the ground up.  It's been my feature request for Sonar to at least try and improve the workflow for wave editing. 
Note that most of Sonars plug is can be shared by other software. 
 

johnnyV
I cannot see any other way of working on a 2 track files. It is just that it was designed to do this task from the ground up. 

I guess I should clarify.  Most of my live recordings are from 4-16 tracks.  I rarely do a stereo recording, so I bring that material into Sonar for mixing and other processing.  I am just trying to understand whether the benefits of a unique mastering suite justify the extra step in my case.
 
There are Sonar plug-ins for most of the functions you find in Ozone.  But it could be that the way it is all put together in Ozone (and other competitive platforms) makes it easier to make that final stereo mix shimmer.
 
I suppose ultimately I will need to spend some time with the demo version of Ozone, but I appreciate any input.
 
Maybe another way to ask the question is, can anybody identify things that are easy to accomplish in Ozone (or similar products) that are more difficult to do in SONAR?

Don't get me started as it is not my intention to bash Sonar for being week in only one out of hundreds of cool things it can do for us.  But basically if you use software that is optimized to do a certain task, then you find all the tools and features are faster and more user friendly.  
I'll just give you an example of how I use Wave Lab after I've exported from Sonar and maybe that will show you what I mean. 
 
Open the Wave file. 
Look at the start of the song, Place cursor at where I want it to start Shift /Home /Delete. 
There is noise in the 2 seconds before the song starts. place cursor at the precise place the music starts. Shift /Home / Backspace = silence. 
Open the normalizing tool and ask it to tell you the peak level. Make the decision to Normalize to -04Db. 
Look at end of song and find the spot where music has faded to zero and shift/ end/delete,  possibly add a new fade out. 
now we can master. Lots of tools. 
Open Global analyzer and find  your peak RMS level. I won't go into detail but this step is critical if you want to bring your song up to modern day levels and actually see where your at. From here you might need to manually look for peaks, apply eq to Plosives, this is where your really Mastering and is to detailed to explain. But most Daw's have none of these tools. 
 
All editing like applying a snippet of EQ to a plosive is fast and one or 2 mouse clicks.. All tools like EQ remain open in little GUI while you work. They don't close after one use. I could go on and on.
And each Wave editor has it's good and bad point's just like DAWS. I have tried all the major brand  of Wave editors  from free ware to full demos and I return to Wave Lab mostly because it's tools are so easy to use, and way  less mouse clicks away. I think you are the only one who can choose which you like the most.  So I highly recommend you get your hands on as many demos as you can and go at it. 
They are not as expensive as DAW anyhow, Wave Lab Elements was only $90.
 
Sound Forge I think was the most expensive. But it's super powerful, I just didn't like the way it flowed.   
 
And mastering is an extra step. Always has been. No one should try and do the mix down ( export)  as a master at the same time. I firmly believe in the mastering process as a completely different task. The right person, the right software make a huge difference.  

Totally apart from the functionality of the software, many pro mixers and mastering engineers attest to the value of doing these functions separately - even for the diy/home recordist that would never hire these guys. The idea is that it takes separate mindsets to mix a song and to master an album.
 
My thought it that it probably breaks down some when just working on singles. When mastering an album I master in Sonar, but do it as a separate process for the entire album. When just doing a single the mastering is tacked on to the end of the 2-bus chain.

I started to write something, but realized it would be better as a blog post. There are many possible scenarios and many possible answers. None is inherently "right" or "wrong," but right or wrong for a particular context or set of requirements.

raweber
When just doing a single the mastering is tacked on to the end of the 2-bus chain.

If I understand the Ozone 6 announcement, if you buy the "advanced" package, that has the full stand-alone suite, but the essential capabilities are also provided as VSTs, that could be tacked onto the Sonar main bus chain.
 
I guess that is my question.  Are the VSTs built into the mastering suite substantially different or more useful for the mastering process, or is it "just another bag of VSTs", so to speak?

All you need that Sonar doesn't have is a program to burn Red book CD's. Besides your mastering plugins and/or outboard gear, what else do you need? Nothing!!
 
CJ

johnnyV
And mastering is an extra step. Always has been. No one should try and do the mix down ( export)  as a master at the same time. I firmly believe in the mastering process as a completely different task. The right person, the right software make a huge difference.  

Thanks for the insights Johnny.  So I am curious about the psychology of mastering versus mixing.  Of course, in the old days, mastering was a physically separate process, tightly connected with the preparation for vinyl.  So naturally it was done by a different person in a different place using different tools.  I get that tradition.
 
But in today's environment, it seems to me the tools are more-or-less interchangeable.  You can use the Ozone tools as VSTs in Sonar, and you can take your favorite VSTs and plug them into Ozone.
 
So how do you approach the mixing process?  For example, There are times that I put a stereo expander on the main bus, and I certainly use  a multi-band compressor and the concrete limiter to make sure I don't have any clipping.  These tools usually make the mix sound "better".  So do you omit those during the mixing process and just tell yourself, "this is going to sound right after i master?"