John

TerraSin
I've been looking more into the mastering software available and was wondering what the best way to go would be: WaveLab, Sound Forge or Ozone?

I have noticed a ton of complaints about Ozone 6 and the removal of a ton of functionality within the program that use to be in 5.

I was one that complained at first until I used Ozone 6. Yes reverb was removed but that was all. I never used reverb in Ozone anyway. 
 
I don't see how Wavelab or Sound forge are a choice for mastering. SF has some good plugins but so does Sonar.

John what exactly is your criteria for choosing a Mastering program? I'm curious why you wouldn't think something like Wavelab would be a good choice for Mastering. There's some great Mastering houses that use it, while others find PT better.

brconflict

John

TerraSin
I've been looking more into the mastering software available and was wondering what the best way to go would be: WaveLab, Sound Forge or Ozone?

I have noticed a ton of complaints about Ozone 6 and the removal of a ton of functionality within the program that use to be in 5.

I was one that complained at first until I used Ozone 6. Yes reverb was removed but that was all. I never used reverb in Ozone anyway. 
 
I don't see how Wavelab or Sound forge are a choice for mastering. SF has some good plugins but so does Sonar.

John what exactly is your criteria for choosing a Mastering program? I'm curious why you wouldn't think something like Wavelab would be a good choice for Mastering. There's some great Mastering houses that use it, while others find PT better.

Good question. It is a good idea to use Wavelab or Sound Forge for mastering if that is what you have. 
 
If you are a mastering house of course using them is a good idea but this is a Sonar forum. All of us have Sonar. It is more then capable of loading a two channel stereo file and doing any sort of processing you can think of. 
 
Actually mastering with Sonar is overkill but then so is using Wavelab or Sound Forge for mastering. They are great at sample accurate wave form editing.  That is something one would use at the pre mixing stage not the mixing or the mastering stage. 
 
Moving a mix over to one of the audio editors to me seems unnecessary for just mastering it. Not only that, but they are not suited to it either. Sonar can send audio out for external processing. It could use hardware for aspects of mastering (using custom hardware). I don't know how that would so easily be done with an audio editor.  
 
We know that Sonar can use 64 bit FP processing as well as 64 bit FP throughput. 
 
So what is gained with an audio editor doing mastering? To me nothing. One might say a multi track DAW is too much too. But you already have it. It wont care if you have only one stereo track in it. 
 
One neat thing about Ozone 6 is its ability to be a standalone mastering program. It can also load VSTs to add greater versatility. It may be the ideal mastering program. No need to use Sonar or a audio editor.  

John

brconflict

John

TerraSin
I've been looking more into the mastering software available and was wondering what the best way to go would be: WaveLab, Sound Forge or Ozone?

I have noticed a ton of complaints about Ozone 6 and the removal of a ton of functionality within the program that use to be in 5.

I was one that complained at first until I used Ozone 6. Yes reverb was removed but that was all. I never used reverb in Ozone anyway. 
 
I don't see how Wavelab or Sound forge are a choice for mastering. SF has some good plugins but so does Sonar.

John what exactly is your criteria for choosing a Mastering program? I'm curious why you wouldn't think something like Wavelab would be a good choice for Mastering. There's some great Mastering houses that use it, while others find PT better.

Good question. It is a good idea to use Wavelab or Sound Forge for mastering if that is what you have. 
 
If you are a mastering house of course using them is a good idea but this is a Sonar forum. All of us have Sonar. It is more then capable of loading a two channel stereo file and doing any sort of processing you can think of. 
 
Actually mastering with Sonar is overkill but then so is using Wavelab or Sound Forge for mastering. They are great at sample accurate wave form editing.  That is something one would use at the pre mixing stage not the mixing or the mastering stage. 
 
Moving a mix over to one of the audio editors to me seems unnecessary for just mastering it. Not only that, but they are not suited to it either. Sonar can send audio out for external processing. It could use hardware for aspects of mastering (using custom hardware). I don't know how that would so easily be done with an audio editor.  
 
We know that Sonar can use 64 bit FP processing as well as 64 bit FP throughput. 
 
So what is gained with an audio editor doing mastering? To me nothing. One might say a multi track DAW is too much too. But you already have it. It wont care if you have only one stereo track in it. 
 
One neat thing about Ozone 6 is its ability to be a standalone mastering program. It can also load VSTs to add greater versatility. It may be the ideal mastering program. No need to use Sonar or a audio editor.  

That makes sense, but there's a distinction between this type of Mastering and Mastering to a specific medium or pressing plant. To me, Mastering is the process of sequencing, processing heads and tails, managing silence, adding CD-track markers, analyzing the audio spectrum (or editing out artifacts in a spectrum), extensive metering, workflow, and export options, including DDP packaging. I see what you mean that editing and processing the actual audio is easily done in Sonar, but I find Wavelab right-sized and geared directly toward Mastering.
 
Anyway, I just wanted to see if I read that correctly, or how you defined Mastering. There's a big gray area there, these days. Even my term use is incorrect in the eyes of someone cutting Vinyl lacquers. heh.
 
 
 



 

brconflict

John

brconflict

John

TerraSin
I've been looking more into the mastering software available and was wondering what the best way to go would be: WaveLab, Sound Forge or Ozone?

I have noticed a ton of complaints about Ozone 6 and the removal of a ton of functionality within the program that use to be in 5.

I was one that complained at first until I used Ozone 6. Yes reverb was removed but that was all. I never used reverb in Ozone anyway. 
 
I don't see how Wavelab or Sound forge are a choice for mastering. SF has some good plugins but so does Sonar.

John what exactly is your criteria for choosing a Mastering program? I'm curious why you wouldn't think something like Wavelab would be a good choice for Mastering. There's some great Mastering houses that use it, while others find PT better.

Good question. It is a good idea to use Wavelab or Sound Forge for mastering if that is what you have. 
 
If you are a mastering house of course using them is a good idea but this is a Sonar forum. All of us have Sonar. It is more then capable of loading a two channel stereo file and doing any sort of processing you can think of. 
 
Actually mastering with Sonar is overkill but then so is using Wavelab or Sound Forge for mastering. They are great at sample accurate wave form editing.  That is something one would use at the pre mixing stage not the mixing or the mastering stage. 
 
Moving a mix over to one of the audio editors to me seems unnecessary for just mastering it. Not only that, but they are not suited to it either. Sonar can send audio out for external processing. It could use hardware for aspects of mastering (using custom hardware). I don't know how that would so easily be done with an audio editor.  
 
We know that Sonar can use 64 bit FP processing as well as 64 bit FP throughput. 
 
So what is gained with an audio editor doing mastering? To me nothing. One might say a multi track DAW is too much too. But you already have it. It wont care if you have only one stereo track in it. 
 
One neat thing about Ozone 6 is its ability to be a standalone mastering program. It can also load VSTs to add greater versatility. It may be the ideal mastering program. No need to use Sonar or a audio editor.  

That makes sense, but there's a distinction between this type of Mastering and Mastering to a specific medium or pressing plant. To me, Mastering is the process of sequencing, processing heads and tails, managing silence, adding CD-track markers, analyzing the audio spectrum (or editing out artifacts in a spectrum), extensive metering, workflow, and export options, including DDP packaging. I see what you mean that editing and processing the actual audio is easily done in Sonar, but I find Wavelab right-sized and geared directly toward Mastering.
 
Anyway, I just wanted to see if I read that correctly, or how you defined Mastering. There's a big gray area there, these days. Even my term use is incorrect in the eyes of someone cutting Vinyl lacquers. heh.
 
 
 



 

You make a good point. I also use CD Architect do burn to CD as an album. 

cparmerleeI haven't seen any complaints about the product itself.  The complaints I have seen result from Izotope's decision to align their various packages to better match the stated purpose.  Some of the things that were in Ozone 5 are really not "mastering" tools per se.  I understand people being unhappy that those bits aren't in the Ozone 6 package, but I think you have to evaluate Ozone 6 on its own merits as a mastering tool.  One of the major additions is the stand-alone mode.  To me, that makes a lot of sense, as the GUI is well organized for the job of mastering.

Take a look at Gearslutz. They have been doing nothing but complaining about it.

TerraSin

cparmerleeI haven't seen any complaints about the product itself.  The complaints I have seen result from Izotope's decision to align their various packages to better match the stated purpose.  Some of the things that were in Ozone 5 are really not "mastering" tools per se.  I understand people being unhappy that those bits aren't in the Ozone 6 package, but I think you have to evaluate Ozone 6 on its own merits as a mastering tool.  One of the major additions is the stand-alone mode.  To me, that makes a lot of sense, as the GUI is well organized for the job of mastering.

Take a look at Gearslutz. They have been doing nothing but complaining about it.

But again, are the complaints about the features or is it just people whining because reverb was removed and the Advanced package is too expensive?  I didn't find any real fault with the product.  I thought it was all quite intuitive and quickly allowed me to get some good results.

dantarbill
One pitch for using a separate "host" for mastering...or for using WaveLab anyway...
 
I think it was version 7 that added a function let you audition your plug-in chain with the output loudness normalized to match the unprocessed audio.  I forget what the name of the stupid function is (and I can't open up the app and check right now because I don't have the &@#^ dongle with me)...but it is great for evaluating whether you really improved things or not.  This insulates you from the "all other things being equal...louder sounds better" scenario.
 
I can't imagine that other mastering hosts don't have this function by now...but I don't know of a plugin that'll do this for you and SONAR as a host doesn't have this.

Ozone 6 does this, as does Ozone 5
 
Ozone 6 isn't as bad as all the threads seem to suggest, it's actually quite good, love the stand alone. Is it better than 5 or worse than 5 ? who cares, I have both 5 Adv and 6 Adv, it's all pretty subjective anyway, some people just love Ozone 6.
 
There is really only one way to find out . . .
 
Nothing against Sonar, it's great, I have all the PC modules (cakewalk), all I know is, I can get a far better sound in an instant with Ozone 5 or 6 Adv, then I can get through a far greater amount of time spent fiddling with native sonar stuff. That frees me up to play, which is what I love best.
 
Sounds good to me, and that's all I care about, because ultimately it's only me I have to please.
 
 

Bumping an old thread (yes I've read the whole thing)
 
I've just mastered a collection of songs for a CD using Sonar and I'm looking at mastering software for better workflow.
 
I like using Sonar as I'm familiar with it and the all the tools, I was able to work quickly and got good results. I loaded each song (file) as a seperate track and used track solo to listen and work on each track. (Perhaps loading all the songs into one track would be better?) The biggest issues was having multiple FX plugins open for each track. Exporting the individual tracks is easy once you've worked it out (ie the output files are the correct length not all the length of the project, ie the longest song). I also used some free software called Toscanalyzer; in addition to some very interesting analysis functions it is very easy to preview songs. Load the entire CD then you can ad cue points to jump around the CD, or press any section to play. You can very quickly hear the sonic differences between tracks. Combining those two functions with in one piece of software would be fantastic.
 
Most of the software I've looked at appears to be (just) wave file editors. Only Ozone seems to incorporate the concept of tracks (songs). That would be a major work flow improvement. Does any other software handle tracks like this?

In this project I didn't have to produce a CD image, I could just individual supply wav files, I put appropriate fades and silence at the end of files. I'm not sure how important things like cross fades are. 
 
Brett
 
 
 
 
 
Toscanalyzer:
http://www.studiotoolz.net/toscanalyzer/

I use sonar for mastering...it's fine for said task...although I use Waves Hcomp as a compressor and Waves Kramer Master Tape too...but the pro channel EQ set to pure is designed for mastering...the concrete limiter is fantastic too...once I figured out how to use the bass boost soft clip properly...it really is the bomb...I tend to gather all my tracks after they have been mastered and use either pyro audio creator or sound forge for cleaning up the ends and cd creation or mp3s I honestly don't see the need for a seperate two track editor for mastering...

Ben.

Ben, how does Soundforge handle multiple files?