I really appreciate the range of views here.  May I ask the question a slightly different way.  I realize that at least 50% or 60% of the functionality in Ozone 6 Advanced is already there with the various plugs that come with Sonar Producer.  Some of the differences include dynamic EQ, multi-band stereo imager, and a much more powerful harmonic exciter.
 
Let's say somebody gave you Ozone 6 Advanced for free.  And let's say you really like those Izotope plug-ins.  Would you use the Ozone plug-ins inside Sonar for your mastering process, or would you work directly in the Ozone GUI instead?

mettelus
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. 

I had a demo of Ozone 6 Advanced at the AES show in LA, and mostly liked what I saw. After reading the threads you recommended though, checking the features more closely, and looking at the ridicules upgrade price, I'll be sticking with Ozone 5.
Thanks,
 
Walt

I guess for me, once you've used a certain piece of software and know it well, using something else that doesn't work as well is not an option.  
And it's not just plug ins, I actually don't use more than one or 2 when mastering, That being a hi pass EQ or the Loudness Maximizer if I need a 1 or 2 Db gain to get my RMS at my target . I'm mostly trimming, fade outs, looking for peaks and analyzing the RMS level. 
 
My Sonar mixes are 98 % fine, some would say they are ready for release as a finished product.
I add multi band limiting to my master buss and use it sparingly to catch overs. But this is only one of a couple of steps if I am to reach my goal of  around 13Db average RMS level. 
 
 
The final steps using Wave lab is the icing on the Cake ( pun intended har!) . I'm sure if I started playing with some fancy mastering plug ins I could make my tracks sound even better. But I'm not into overdoing effects in general. 
Sonar does have most of the tools and the missing ones can be added on, but it's the GUI interface that kills it for me. You won't understand until you've worked in the other environment, then you would see too. Or maybe you'd hate it, but I love working this way and I can a make a better job of it.  
 

Like to do my mastering on Ozone 5 (basic slob version - ha).
 
Sonar runs everything else up to that point.  Being a basement musician tinkerer I find the Mastering tool focus of Ozone to be very helpful.  My attempts to master in Sonar always fell short of the mark.  Ozone gets past my music hobby ig'nance and then minor twaeks from there give me the impression that I know something.
 

For what its worth, when I started down the road to learn the concepts of mastering (and I'm about on page 10 of 300) I quickly learned that there was far more I could learn in the mixing department.  It might be a good blog addition that compares 'I had to make the changes here in the master, but if the mix had (changes in EQ, level, effects, balance), the master process would take less of a change'.
 
Given my learning, I seem to work on whole projects at a time which include 8-15 songs.  I keep all of those songs in its own folder.  Then I make a master folder.  When I mix down, I usually go to a 24 bit, 96k render, no dither and down 6db or so. Each mixed song in the project has its own master for the project.  I have a mastering template (love the templates!!!), which has the CA2A on each track but not engaged, and the Quad curve EQ opened up so I can see the wave form.  On the master buss in this order LP 64 compressor. the LP 64 EQ - Waves L3-16. AND A BIG THANKS HERE - on this forum, I heard about a free bundle from MeldaProduction.  I follow the L3-16 with their loudness analyzer, Manalyzer and stereoscope.  I use the CA2A to take a db or two off of the top from time to time, not always.  I use the (magical) LP tools for the brunt of the work, they really are quite good.  Then the L3-16 to bring up the loudness while listening first, then watching the three Melda meters.
 
Three points - I definitely use X3, separate project from the mix with its on organized folder for mastering.  There are free plugs out there that really do help (and this forum helps you find just about anything you need) on and above those that shape and control the sound. Sonars CA2A, and LP tools provide the most work ahead of the Waves L3.  
 
I am just learning the intricacies of that maximizer so I cannot compare it to anything, but I think it was a good investment personally.  I have learned in this forum that its just a tool - there are so many other good products out there that its a great idea to read a members comment, download the free trial, and see for yourself.
 
Best Regards,
 
Lance    

We seem to be talking about 2 different things here.  I think the OP means mastering VST software, although process can just as easily mean mastering software like Sound Forge or the process of mastering.
 
SONAR can do it all, just not as easily as a dedicated mastering program like SF.
 
As far as the software suite for mastering, that depends.  There is no reason why you couldn't use the linear stuff (in fact, that is why they developed it, if I'm not mistaken).  For mastering especially, I think it is what you are used to.  I used Voxengo stuff for mastering before Cake came out w/ their suite.  I like it, I know it and can dial in my sound quickly from my presets.  Even tho I have (many) other choices now I still use Voxengo. 
 
Although Ozone etc. suites have a lot of bells and whistles you might find helpful, the built-in effects in SONAR and just about every other DAW/editor are more than powerful enough to deliver if you learn them.  There isn't that much sonic difference between them if you just want clean limiting and EQ, which ideally is what mastering calls for.  If you want color, go analog.  That is the difference between acrylic and water color.
 
@

I think many of us agree that Sonar, withe aid of a few analysis programs can handle mastering just fine and for the old school those plugins are not needed. In many ways this is morphing into the mastering as a seperate process vs not which is slightly different than what OP asked.  I don't think the answer to either is whether one is inherently better but which works better with your workflow. I could certainly do most things in Sonar but years of taking my projects into soundforge for mastering has given me a process that works for me and I often return to, paricularly when pressed for time. If you are proficient in a certain method, variations of that method are likely to work better for you initially. I occasionally , master in sonar but find myself now getting more favorable results more effeciently with t-racks but I attribute it to me being used to it being a seperate process with a dedicated tool. Would it be safe to say the vs debate is one of long term vs short term goals? I would go as far as to say that a beginner or someone used to a seperate product workflow will do much better out the gate but could potentially do even better within Sonar since there is a larger palette. All of t-racks plugs are available to user individually and there are many plugs regarded as superior to any of the units within any of these dedicated solutions.

+1, so much of this comes down to your preferred work flow and what makes you most productive and comfortable. For me, the change was more for convenience, as I like the ability to customize several effects, how they are chained, and that saving this setup to a single preset (in one external plugin) worked for me. That said, please also bear in mind that you can do this with PC/FX chains right inside SONAR as well. Again much is preference, not that one method is superior.

Quick aside regardless of routes you try is to save presets often and with descriptive names. As you embellesh these, your work flow will improve.

I have Ozone 6 Advanced.
 
Hopefully it's clear by now that you don't have to use Ozone as a stand alone for mastering. It works great as a plug in in SONAR if you prefer that. That's how I use it. I find that it's hard for me to completely separate the process of mixing and mastering, i.e. some mastering changes require tweaks in the mix.
 
I think that much of what I want to do could get done with SONAR tools, in theory at least. But things like EQ matching (comparing your recording with a commercial recording and correcting the EQ to match) are in Ozone but not SONAR. Setting up K metering is in Ozone but not SONAR. There are other examples. And Ozone is easy to use.
 
As you can guess, I'm an Izotope fan. Ozone, Nectar, and Alloy are all part of my process in SONAR.

I bit the bullet for Ozone 6 Advanced.  I really don't like the pricing -- such a large gap between basic and advanced.  I understand that gap in RX4 because they are clearly marketing the advanced package to radio stations and other outfits that do lots of production work unrelated to music.  Those folks can swallow the Advanced price tag easily.  But I don't see the same value proposition in Ozone.  Nonetheless, I would like to get some experience with the dynamic EQ, so I went for it.
 
I am recording a live show tonight.  It is 8 tracks live.  I'm planning to simplify my mixing process in Sonar (no multiband compression, EQ only on individual channels, limiter for safety only - no crunching, no stereo expansion).  Then I'll run that mix through Ozone stand-alone.  We'll see how this compares to previous recordings of the same band in the same room where I did everything in one pass under Sonar.