One of the reasons I don't frequent this forum like I used to is exactly because of the attitude shown by some posters as typified by this thread.

I have Ozone 5 Adv and Alloy 2.
I make use of all iZotopes products and have since they began. It's one of those very clever companies that I like to fully support like Cakewalk among a few others.

While Ozone and Alloy obviously share similar code and algorithms, my experience has been that they are not the same product but complement one another.

Ozone for Mastering.
I use Alloy for channels strips and busses as its a lot lighter on CPU use. and of course Ozone Advanced has significantly more features. If I didn't have or couldn't have another compressor I'd be more than happy to use Ozone's and do quite often.

Presets are a place to start but not what I rely on for my sound.

Some of the other differences between Alloy and Ozone are certain features and functions which might be exclusive to one or the other.  I'm not at my DAW right now but I'm thinking of things like Sidechaining (Alloy) and Mid-Side processing (Ozone) which can completely transform the sound and FX processing and would therefore make each tool useful in its own right.

I don't have Ozone Advanced so I may be talking out of turn here as to what it offers, but that's as far as I can recall.  Definitely there are different presets for each product which tend to be more in the context of track FX (Alloy) and mastering (Ozone).  Of course there is a lot of overlap in the basic modules and the essential functions for these, and some of the other specific features may not be of much interest.  

To help you decide, if you have Sonar X2 and are eligible for the monthly content club offer to watch any Groove3 video for free, then there are some excellent tutorials on both Ozone and Alloy which can really help explain some of their respective features and uses.  Whenever I think I know a product I find these videos always highlight something new to me that helps me to view the functions in a new light and breathes new life into my approach.

HTH

Ummm, backwards, i don't get what your saying man, sarcasm? Whatever, it doesn't matter.

VariousArtist, you are right, i forgot to mention the mid-side processing available in Ozone, and to some people that will be a key difference; and if someone knows what they're doing i would say that mid-side processing would be a must have; on the other hand, when i switch-on mid-side processing it completely skews the mix and leaves me bedazzled as to what the hell it's doing or how i might adjust the settings to do anything worthwhile with it, so i never use it. I certainly don't ever remember the most famous hardware bus- compressors ever having mid-side processing. But i would suppose that if a veteran or real-pro got hold of mid-side processing then probably they could work some magic with it. 
But really, for 90% of people i would say that Alloy 2's side-chaining is more preferable than having mid-side.

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that Alloy 2 has 'Vintage-Bell' filters as an option in the EQ section in addition to the standard Bell EQ in Ozone. Plus Alloy 2 offers the all famous Bandaxall 'Treble or Bass' EQs which Ozone doesn't. Plus the High&Low-pass EQ filters in Alloy 2 offer a 'Sharp' option in addition to the other two options in Ozone, plus Alloy 2 also offers a 'Resonant' option in the High&Low-shelf EQ in addition to the standard fare in Ozone. 

Also if you think about it, Alloy two can be used as a totally high-end voice-channel strip in its own right with it's additional De-esser and Transient-shaper when used in combination with the other modules.

And another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that Alloy 2 allows parallel processing (To achieve the famous 'New-York Compression' technique) in the Dynamics section, and it has a separate module-button to access this ability; two separate lots of compression in tandem certainly seem more handier and more practical to me than mid-side processing. 

Also, another plus for Alloy 2, the exciter module allows the user to mix&match for any combination of Tube,Tape,Transistor and Retro emulations and blend between them or go exclusive, but Ozone only allows the user to pick one emulation and that's it. But even if the user chooses to pick only one emulation in Alloy 2, they can alter which parts of the harmonics for that emulation are added; Ozone does not allow that, and from experience the ability to do such a thing is priceless compared to the 'single emulation only' Ozone approach, because the perfect harmonic structure can be attained for more suitable results in the final master, and i would go so far as to say that it can actually make-or-break the finished mix.


Alloy 2's benefits.
-Full-blown competent mastering (with identical results to Ozone 5)
-Dedicated High-end vocal-channel
-Professional channel-strip tools for tracking

Ozone 5's benefits.
-Full-blown competent mastering

And Alloy 2 is $49 cheaper than Ozone 5, plus has a 'zero-latency' option.

Now for someone on a budget, knowing what i've just said, what do you think they are more likely to buy?

@ godparticle.  What Backwards was asking is if you did a null test?
 
Export your project with alloy, and then with ozone, and load the two wavs back into a project.  Invert the phase of one of the tracks.
 
If they are identical they will cancel each other out and you will hear nothing.  If you do hear something, it is the "difference" between the two tracks.  I have simplified this a bit.
 
It is a commonly used trick/experiment, and can be enlightening.  Google "Null Test".
I'd be very interested in your findings.

godparticle


Oh really stratman70, and exactly what is the history of my username?? I want to know, you tell me cowboy. Whatever the hell your on about.
I actually don't think you own either of these two products, cause if you did, you wouldn't be telling me your getting different results.

I have them both here and have done a one hour session with them before replying to you. I had both strapped into the master-bus and used the same modules 'with the same settings' and what was the results? IDENTICAL! Exactly as TJ confirmed to me several months ago.

And i don't know what computer your using but when i switch on either of theses two products they use the same amount of CPU. 

Can you read English matey?? My previous reply quoted their website, which was informing about Alloy 2 ON THE ALLOY 2 WEBPAGE!...so here is that quote again from Izotopes website on the Alloy 2 page...(Yes! You can have "that Ozone sound" on every element of your mix)

I am a Beta tester for Izotope so maybe TJ isn't gonna admit anything to you about their algorithms.


And i would appreciate it if you would stop following me around this forum and trying to contradict everything i say.

I have had it with you-with the magical laptop. You are now getting nasty-All 24 posts you have
Of course I own them-now I'm a liar? I use them and I get the results I stated.
 
Following you around. I posted in your mythical super charged realtek powered laptop thread where EVERYONE saw thru you.
 
Then I saw this thread where once again you are spouting misinformation . Your a bete tester for TJ? Well, what a great human being you are-you beta test for the guy and then  come here andtell folks not to waste their $$$ buying both???? Wow-that speaks volumes.
 
The scientist who "discovered or uncovered" the nicknamed God particle was Higg-The real name of the elusive beginning of it all particle-reaction. The Higg particle/. It was nicknamed the godparticle  by those "outside" the scientific family" as the God Particle becuase it is possibly the beginning of everything-before electrons, neutrons, etc.
 
 

The scientist who "discovered or uncovered" the nicknamed God particle was Higg-The real name of the elusive beginning of it all particle-reaction. The Higg particle/. It was nicknamed the godparticle by those "outside" the scientific family" as the God Particle becuase it is possibly the beginning of everything-before electrons, neutrons, etc.

 
All one has to do is watch a few episodes of The Big Bang Theory and it all becomes clear...     ;-)
 
 
I've also been eyeing up the Alloy deal.   I currently have Ozone 3, so I'm a bit behind the curve.
 

Hello All, I know I have a tendency to get in a debate :-) so to speak. But I am annoyed by some folks who come in here making all kind of weird claims.
Especially when they have 20 posts and know it all.
 
A quote I received today from TJ, Izotope honcho and cheif programmer. I filled him in about the claims made here by one particle
 
Hopefully this will set the record straight-
 
The email unedited.....................
 
Hello Frank,

Thanks for letting us know.

While there may be a few basic elements (Some EQ curves and the default compressor implementation for example) that are shared between Ozone 5 and Alloy 2, there are quite a few features that are unique to each plug-in. Please also note that Alloy 2 is specifically also optimized for Low-Latency, Low-CPU, and Low-Memory usage, which is also a large difference from Ozone 5, which requires more resources at the benefit of higher quality processing in certain modules.

Which features specifically is this referencing?

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
TJ

iZotope, Inc.
http://www.izotope.com/%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E

Hey Stratman;
I too sent an email to TJ which supports both our positions, Lets hope it clears up the mis-quotes and quotes out of context that our newer member has thrown around.

My question/s to TJ:

"there's a bit if a debate going on over in the SONAR forum here: 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2757280
regarding the subject of similarities between Alloy 2 and Ozone with one contributor claiming to have been told by TJ that Alloy 2 and Ozone 5 share the same algorithms and therefor must sound the same. He cites his own experience as proving that there is no difference in the 2. If that is the case then what is the significance of that point?
 
I on the other hand find the 2 products similar but providing different sounds and differing CPU loads with Alloy being less CPU intensive on the same application.
 
what say you. Thanks for any comments
 
Michael Vogel"


TJ's reply:

"While there are some shared underlying structures between Alloy 2 and Ozone 5, there are quite a few differences in the implementations and with regards to a few other features that are unique to each plug-in.

The main important larger difference is that Alloy 2 is specifically optimized for low-latency and low-CPU usage, and Ozone 5 is designed to utilize more resources in order to achieve higher quality processing. As such there may be differences in implementations of specific features that may seem similar, in order to achieve this performance difference.

There are also quite a few other differences as Alloy 2 has a multi-band transient shaper, dual multi-band compressor modules, additional EQ curves, additional exciter blending options, etc.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
TJ"

I don't want to get involved with this thread but I have for years promoted Ozone on the Sonar forums. 

I agree 100% with both Stratman and Mike. The other opinion being offered has to be viewed as inaccurate and misleading. 

To answer the OP. Ozone to me is a must have. Alloy is one of many channel strips. I don't see a need for me to have Alloy. You can of course decide for yourself. There is no wrong decision possible.  

.... NOTE :  this price does NOT include VAT .... which is then added !

ULTRABRA


Got an email myself now from Izotope - with this same offer.    What works out at 74 EUR, for Alloy 2, it seems like a great deal.