Ozone 8 Advanced vs FabFilter Mastering Bundle

[scaremony]

I think it's also worth considering if you need something now or are willing to wait. Playing the waiting game is always a bad call imo, but if you're not planning on releasing anything for a while then it's a different story.

Personally, I gel with Ozone's workflow and I think it's great to have a standalone application to master in. Plus $200 is a great price. However, I also use Neutron so I can't speak to using Ozone during the mixing process.

[Crizzle]

i havent tried ozone before, but my computer is not very powerful at all, and fab filter plug ins are amazing when it comes to cpu usage

[Greenstorm33]

You could get Ozone 8 Advanced even cheaper if that sways your decision

[Anlon]

You should try both. I think none is better than the other, they just encourage a different workflow. I demoed both, because I wanted to see what all the fuss is about and while I like Fabfilter’s resizable GUI, I somehow prefer Ozone. If I bought a mastering bundle, it would be Ozone, because I think it’s a nicer workflow using a separate application. I didn’t buy either, because at moment my DAW stock plugins are enough for me. Once I master them all - in a few years - I might look at further options.

[Plumbus]

Neither Ozone or Fabfilter Imo, are you a professional audio engineer, are you making money of it? If not save rather some cash on new hardware(pc, Microphone, audio interface, etc.) or get almost free alternatives, there are many good plugins outhere, don't jump on marketing and hype bandwagon. The best plugins after 15 years of doing music are still my internal DAW effects. Learn the tools you have.

[zacha]

Both are pretty good. I prefer Fabfilter at the moment, but would happily use either.

Ozone has Fabfilter beat on price at $199, but Fabfilter seems to me to have a much lower CPU cost and a better user interface. (Ozone's interface is pretty good, it's just that Fabfilter is better.)

Three great things Ozone Advanced has that Fabfilter doesn't are a comparison option for comparing your work to a reference track as you go, the spectral shaper (which is somewhat similar to Soothe) and an option to live listen to the effect of lossy compression like an MP3 your mix. But also don't underestimate the value of Fabfilter's interfaces: they really do make life a lot simpler.

[thermal]

I've got Ozone 8 advanced (bought the MPS package with Neutron 2 advanced, Trash 2, Vocalsynth, Nectar and RX 6) and although it was expensive I would miss it if I didn't have it. It's all about that maximiser imo, no other limiter I have comes close to that level of transparency. The other day I tweaked TDR Limiter 6 until I was sure it would kick Ozone's butt, but the latter still won. In most cases I prefer the IRC III Balanced algorithm. The EQ is nice too.

In today's market I feel like izotope plugins are too expensive, although you do get a lot of functionality (Neutron has an insane level of control, but it's not fun to use). As for FabFilter, I almost got the bundle with the latest versions of Pro-L/C/Q at the huge sale they had a while back, but decided I'd be better off saving the money. Ozone's got me covered for master limiting and I have a variety to choose from when it comes to comps and EQs. Can't be going too crazy as I am a hobbyist even though I like good tools! Lol

[mgw38]

Although there is some overlap between the product lines, they are essentially very different things. I use both in every track but for very different reasons and in very different application scenarios. Ozone is a mastering application that really shines mainly in its standalone version. I would never use the main Ozone plugin in a DAW. Fabfilter is a plugin suite, probably the best out there, but it does not include any of the advanced assist features that Ozone provides. Sure, both suites provides compressors and EQs and the like, but that is really where the comparison ends.

[flugel45]

Maybe someone who has ozone advanced can comment regarding the latency of the individual plugins in latest Ozone Advanced. Back with Ozone 6 adv i recall those came with quite a bit of latency, so I judged them to not be usable during production....

Many "mastering" effects, particularly those that have "look ahead" attributes can cause a considerable increase in latency. That's just the nature of the beast.

Mastering FX were designed to be used in "the mastering process" where latency isn't typically an issue. These days users tend to utilize plugins in whatever way they like, regardless of the original design intent... which is why this "problem" crops up regularly in recording forums.

Bottom line, it's not a problem. Just know that these plugins have higher latencies, and either work around it -- or better yet, stop using mastering FX in your tracking/mixing duties.

[phixate]

If you use a top-down approach to mixing and have a workflow that bounces between creativity and mixing until the final result is reached, then Ozone is not going to cut it. It's just far too resource intensive. Ozone is made for mixes that are almost finished and just need some polishing. I really like their maximizer and exciter but as it stands they are practically unusable in my workflow. I've stacked several plugins from Fabfilter and others on my master with no problems. With Ozone 8 Advanced, even if I up my buffer, I get very high latency (which is a hindrance when trying to do anything - I actually have to disable it to re-record a part or do almost any sort of arrangement or mixing) and I also get pops and clicks, which I don't get even in a file with 30+ tracks including fx on all the tracks and master. My computer specs are ridiculously powerful so that's not the issue. At this point I'd rather use Gullfoss and FF Limiter on my master with a couple of other select plugins rather than Ozone because I can keep working without interruptions. When I'm finished with the creativity phase of a piece I might see if Ozone will be better on the master. I don't know. I guess it depends on how good the mix sounds already with other plugins.

[MountainKing]

If you use a top-down approach to mixing and have a workflow that bounces between creativity and mixing until the final result is reached, then Ozone is not going to cut it. It's just far too resource intensive. Ozone is made for mixes that are almost finished and just need some polishing. I really like their maximizer and exciter but as it stands they are practically unusable in my workflow. I've stacked several plugins from Fabfilter and others on my master with no problems. With Ozone 8 Advanced, even if I up my buffer, I get very high latency (which is a hindrance when trying to do anything - I actually have to disable it to re-record a part or do almost any sort of arrangement or mixing) and I also get pops and clicks, which I don't get even in a file with 30+ tracks including fx on all the tracks and master. I'd rather use Gullfoss and FF Limiter on my master with a couple of other select plugins rather than Ozone because I can keep working. When I'm finished with the creativity phase I might see if Ozone will be better on the master. I don't know. I guess it depends on how good the mix sounds already with other plugins.

Yes, exactly. Very good post! Thanks for that.

[SparkySpark]

I'd say it matters also on how skilled you are with music technology. With Ozone, you can just choose a preset and it will sound great, doing everything for you. I don't think that can be done with FF. 200 bucks for Ozone is a great price! If you feel you are not a superb mastering engineer and don't aspire to be, I think you should go with Ozone.

I use Ozone 8 Elements on my songs (for mastering, not for individual tracks of course). I don't have any latency issues on my rudimentary HP laptop so I don't know why it's a problem for others. (Note that I only run one instance of it, obviously.)

Also note that there is a group buy on T-Racks right now (ending Aug 31st I think). It's really insane: buy one of their plugins and get six or seven for free! Personally I'll stick with Izotope's Elements suite (I don't think I'll bother with the Advanced version), but if you want to tweak individual plugins, and treat them more like individual plugins, go with FF or maybe T-Racks.

Also let me say that I have been in contact with the support department at Izotope and they have treated me kindly and promptly.

[simon.a.billington]

The Master Assistant is indeed a powerful way to quickly get you started in Ozone. You can then either leave it all on, or turn it off and tweak it one by one.

[SparkySpark]

The Master Assistant is indeed a powerful way to quickly get you started in Ozone. You can then either leave it all on, or turn it off and tweak it one by one.

Agreed, it's very good. BTW, I upgraded to Ozone Advanced from Ozone Elements for 84 bucks and am happy I did. I especially enjoy the included Tonal Balance Control... I just hope it works as it says on the tin!

[Razzia]

The Master Assistant is indeed a powerful way to quickly get you started in Ozone. You can then either leave it all on, or turn it off and tweak it one by one.

I actually use it in kind of the opposite context, and i find it's excellent. I get 75% done with mastering something with fabfilter, uad, brainworx, etc., then i run mastering assistant with ozone last in my chain. The dynamics section is always bypassed since I'd have handled all that already, but usually at this point my ears are slightly tired and having ozone "check my work" with the dynamic eq is pretty nice. Then i tweak the maximizer a bit and call it a day.

That said, with regards to the overall thread, if i had to pick one or the other I'd go with fabfilter. For a plethora of reasons. Better interface and usability. Holds its value better - not sold at a premium initially and then heavily discounted six months later. More consumer friendly update/upgrade practices, and (drum roll) user specific upgrade paths which has long been a sore topic for those of us with many products of izotope's line. More practical for using in mixing as well as mastering.

Overall, they're more or less "equal but different" in terms of their use as mastering tools. But there are a whole host of peripheral reasons why IMO fabfilter is a better choice in a one or the other scenario