Hello All-
 
I imagine this has been asked many times on this forum, but for some reason my search is coming back with nothing.
 
Anyway: What is the advantage of mastering software (such as Ozone) over just using my plugins used for mixing, such as the Sonitus compressor, gate, various EQs etc.?
 
I'm planning on downloading the trial version of Ozone.
 
Any opinions, suggestions or leads to helpful forum threads appreciated.

I don't think there is any inherent advantage to using a all in one mastering suite, but I can understand that some people simply enjoy using something like that.
 
I have enough of the pieces and parts to set up a chain of my favorite plug ins which accomplishes the same thing as an all in one suite.
 
I already use those tools throughout the production process and like having specialty tools available that I really enjoy using.
 
I guess if you were just getting started you might think it is cheaper to buy an all in one, and maybe that would be a benefit to consider.

Have you read the other thread on Ozone 6 yet? 

I'm going to try to answer this from my beginner's background. I don't even know about the mastering process when I got started with Sonar - all I do was trying to record and arrange, not even mixing properly.
 
Then, I needed to do some mastering myself - after hearing complaints that my work was not as loud as the commercial one. So I jumped to Ozone / T-Racks for solution - I got two, to find out what are the similarities or differences.
 
Ozone offers many presets to choose from and I get to listen to difference results. I was also learning how to mix properly at this stage. As my mixing got better, I don't have to use Ozone much. I'm using T-Racks more, mainly for some limiting and brick walling process. All these will never be a true mastering work, just a more polished mix.
 
So, looking back, I can now simply use the Pro Channel modules and other effects at the group master to achieve some satisfactory results. However, Ozone / T-Racks play a big role for me to get comfortable to do 'mastering' task without them. ..But I'll still use them for ease use and setup.

I don't have Ozone, but use Nectar 2. The biggest advantage I've found is when I'm pressed for time. I have all the individual tools available but the package saves a lot of work and time. I load one plug instead of a rack full and start with a preset that I can tune. All the individual components are designed to work together and seem to be of a very high quality. That's why I use something like Nectar. I'd think the reasons probably apply to Ozone as well.

I started at Ozone 3 and am currently using Ozone 5 SOMETIMES. I have found that more and more I use the plugs in ProChannel more and Ozone less. Ozone can be quite a bit to deal with and the CPU hit is pretty hard. I found I get probably as good results with less CPU stress using the individual plugs I have in Sonar and ProChannel. BE FOREWARNED! Presets in any plug will be processed over the top so when you hear each preset you will jump out of your chair screaming "WOW! DID YOU HEAR THAT?". Presets should be looked at as starting points to get what You really need for the plug to do. Most mastering when done well is so subtle you will hardly tell a difference other than volume level.
Take some time to research mastering and I would bet that you have pretty much everything you need already in Sonar to get started. I use Sonar X3s tools 95% of the time when mixing and mastering.

One of the goals of mastering can be to get multiple tracks to sit well together and have a cohesive quality in terms of successive playback (granted ... this is "old school" CD thinking).  In any case, TRacks is set up to host multiple "songs" and readily switch between them.  I'm not aware that Ozone can do this, and it's certainly not something very easily done in a DAW.

Wavelab?

Studio One?