Even though I set up a Mastering Bus, I treat it more as a pre-master that could essily be used if necessary but with compression and such at a gentle enough setting that revisiting it in another application would not be overkill. I think there is benefit to mastering at a separate time, even if doing in same application. I find myself liking the narrower focus of programs like Ozone and T-racks. T-racks is a very focused program. It does not even bother with reverb. It helps me to resist the urge to " add a touch of reverb as glue" and muddying up a previously acceptable mix. The fact that I can compile an album and apply same process helps with consistency which is one of the original purposes of mastering.

CJaysMusic
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

Again, it depends on the context. SONAR doesn't really have restoration tools, and analysis options are limited. But that may or may not matter.

cparmerlee

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?

I have Ozone 5 Advanced (will upgrade to 6 when it is available). I use the separate plug ins for EQ, Dynamics, etc. in each track. When I have a final mix I export it as a stereo file and then import it back into Sonar to do final "Mastereing". If I am doing an album (for friends), I have a separate track for each song going to a separate buss that contains Ozone plus Concrete Limiter to catch any peaks that might have slipped by in the mixing stage.
Each buss then goes to the Master buss that uses Insight to look at the RMS and peak levels and the Volume level.
Since I've used this method, my songs are very nicely balanced and the volumes are consistent.
 
I like the Dynamic Plug in Ozone since it gives great visual indications to what's happening to the waveforms.
 
Walt
 

Before you get too excited about Ozone 6, be sure to check the threads in Software, like http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3109582
 
I own Ozone 5 Advanced, but that thread is making me back off any excitement regarding 6. For mastering purposes (i.e. one instance) Ozone 5 basic is a nice tool. Last year iZotope had a sale on their "Studio Bundle" at Christmas which was nice (Nectar 2 PS, Alloy 2, Ozone 5). Ozone 5 Advanced allows for modules to be inserted separately on tracks (lowering CPU usage if on tracks, but then is essentially Alloy 2 anyway) and includes some extras. The new Dynamic EQ seems to only come with Ozone 6 Advanced, and at the expense of losing other modules and a more CPU-hungry VST (which doesn't make sense), so I am waiting to get more feedback on this one first. 

Again, it depends on the context. SONAR doesn't really have restoration tools, and analysis options are limited. But that may or may not matter.

That would be the "Mastering Plugins" I said in my post

 I tend to agree to, as mentioned above by someone, that the chosen workflow greatly depends on whether you're mastering an album or a single song. As for the quality of the actual result, it shouldn't matter (?).
 
I've always tried to avoid creating a jungle of files of the same song. I bounce 2-3 different mixes to stereo tracks inside the project, then archive the other tracks and do the "mastering" inside the project. When I export for auditioning in different systems, I name the files according to the mix-version used.

 We had a thread going just a few days ago about this very topic. Short and sweet, I used Ozone since version 3 until Cake started offering better plugs. Now I very seldom use Ozone. I have version 5 and used religiously. I found that with all the plugs that Sonar Producer offers and just a few more third party plugs I am able to create a mix that is just as good as if I did use Ozone. Ozone is a great tool and if you prefer to go that route it will serve you well. Be forewarned, Ozone is a CPU Hog! Capital H!!!!!!!! It wasn't so bad at version 3 but as each version gets released the CPU hit becomes bigger. Noticeably bigger!

I don't think there's a need to do mastering as a separate step - most of us are doing everything 'in the box'. The only reason for doing mastering as a separate step is is if workflow limitations present an issue, i.e., different person performing the function, at different location, etc...

When I started using Sonar, I used the tools that came with Sonar (Producer).  About 2 years ago I tried both Ozone 5 and TRackS and settled on Ozone 5 (basic version).  What a difference!  I'm sold on the separate programs.  Several have commented that my mixes sound like they were done in Nashville (I record most country).  One of my clients is a retired Nashville songwriter and major label producer.  I've done a lot for him and he took notice of the positive difference since I started using Ozone 5.   

I use Ozone 5, and create a separate project in Sonar.  Despite the fact that I could probably use what is given in Sonar Producer, having a separate project and a separate program makes me "rethink" the song/album, and lets me evaluate it on another level with (hopefully) fresh ears.
 
Doing "mastering" at the same time as mixing takes away from the time that should exist between the two steps.  If I wait for a bit before doing my version of mastering, I always hear the project with fresh ears, and using a different set of tools (many specific to mastering) helps me to clarify what is working and what is not.