OZONE -vs- FINALIZER

  • Thread starter Thread starter pappy999
  • Start date Start date
P

pappy999

New member
I am currently using Ozone 3 as a cheap means of "mastering" for my modest home studio. I am thinking of upgrading to a TC Finalizer. Do you think this will be a step sideways or an upgrade? They pretty much do the same thing from what the reviews say. I was wondering if the TC unit will do a better job being OTB.

Phil
 
1st answer - Mastering Engineer (send it out).

2nd Answer - Between those 2 choices, TC Finalizer. It's good sounding hardware if, and it's a big if...... IF you know what you're doing.
 
How are you feeding signal into the Finalizer? digital connection? analog connection?

This is just my opinion...


I'm not terribly convinced at the results I used to get from the Finalizer. Don't get me wrong, it offers nice features (the wizard seems seemed impressive at the time), but it always felt like a general shoe polishing kit. Plus it always had this, "let us handle it" vibe about it. It just didn't do it for my ear and my tastes.

Assuming you're feeding a digital signal, but also considering your choices, I suppose the TC could do you well.


Personally I would make the best of the Ozone, since it has more control. The 64-bit processing (if I remember correctly) they claim is questionable.
 
I find the Finalizer to be... uhmmm... "less damaging" than Ozone.
 
Massive Master said:
I find the Finalizer to be... uhmmm... "less damaging" than Ozone.
Click to expand...

I could never figure out how to get Ozone to not sound cold sterile when I used it.

I was not terribly impressed with the Finalizer at all! :( It's processing is indeed not as offensive, but it still left a LOT to be desired.
 
Ford Van said:
I could never figure out how to get Ozone to not sound cold sterile when I used it.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I never understood it's popularity at all. For something that is such a cycle hog, it has always sounded just one step away from a first-generation 16-bit converter to me.

As far as Ozone vs. Finalizer...might as well ask me to choose between anthrax and botulism.

G.
 
Ford Van said:
I could never figure out how to get Ozone to not sound cold sterile when I used it.
Click to expand...
I had a different experience. It didn't sound cold/sterile. To me it sounded muddy/hazy. :D

But I think it's one of the better combination plugins to use as a learning tool due to the extensive metering and spectrum graphing in the UI, and the free pdf guide that Ozone provides. So in that sense I'm glad I used it for a while.

There are freeware plugs that have better sound quality for each function, and if you put it up against plugs like the Voxengo Soniformer or Elephant, which are rediculously cheap, there's no comparison at all.
 
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I never understood it's popularity at all.
G.
Click to expand...

Simple - the promise of one stop self mastering and the instant fix for everything lacking in mixes due to inexperience and equipment shortcommings. It's a siren call........

"Ozone 3 includes all the tools you need to master the commercial sound in seconds. Professionally designed presets and the acclaimed Ozone Mastering Guide walk you step by step through making radio-ready masters."

"Ozone 3 ships with a wide array of presets for many mastering situations. Get immediate results.........."

Throw in a Star Wars looking interface, and it's flys to honey.
 
Robert D said:
Simple - the promise of one stop self mastering and the instant fix for everything lacking in mixes due to inexperience and equipment shortcommings. It's a siren call........
Click to expand...
You are, of course right. I also never understood the popularity of big-bucks lotterys for the same reason.

G.
 
I agree Ozone is not as good as sending your mixes to an ME, BUT for $200 and it's ease of use, it is hard to beat if you want your music as loud as modern commercial stuff.

I am thinking of upping my "mastering" section of my studio. I have come to the end of what Ozone and Waves can do for my mixes. What do some of the ME's suggest be my next step? I would like to create a decent signal chain.
 
Where does the Waves L1, L2 and L3 stand in comparison to these 2? Same thing just different? Better? Worse?
 
I like the L2 a lot. To me it sounds transparent when not doing gain reduction, and doesn't squash transients like many limiters do when it is applying gain reduction.
 
The L3 is much better. The L2 is usable though, MUCH better than the L1!!!! If you want to thin out a track while limiting it, the L1 is for you! ;)

The L2 and L3 are better than the limiters on either of the other mentioned products.
 
RAMI said:
Where does the Waves L1, L2 and L3 stand in comparison to these 2? Same thing just different? Better? Worse?
Click to expand...
This dances around the real point. You could just as easily have asked where do Ozone and Finalizer stand in comparison to any other combination of dynamics processor, reverb and equalizer.

The point is there is *nothing* that makes either of those products "mastering tools" any more than any other signal processor is a mstering tool. Furthermore, there is nothing of any special quality to those two products that makes them especially suited for actual "mastering" over any other signal processor.

These companies simply decided to create a new market segment - and unfortunately completly distort the definition of "mastering" in the public's eye in the process - by talking basic audio tools of types already available, throwing them together into a single package, and calling them mastering tools. They're the home recording version of what Sony and Panasonic and the rest did when they decided to take cut-rate versions of component tuners, preamps, amplifiers, turntables and tape decks, throw them into one box, and call them "compact hi-fis", even though there was nothing "high fidelity" about them.

G.
 
Voxengo has some very useable tools also, with great pricing.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
This dances around the real point. You could just as easily have asked where do Ozone and Finalizer stand in comparison to any other combination of dynamics processor, reverb and equalizer.

The point is there is *nothing* that makes either of those products "mastering tools" any more than any other signal processor is a mstering tool. Furthermore, there is nothing of any special quality to those two products that makes them especially suited for actual "mastering" over any other signal processor.

These companies simply decided to create a new market segment - and unfortunately completly distort the definition of "mastering" in the public's eye in the process - by talking basic audio tools of types already available, throwing them together into a single package, and calling them mastering tools. They're the home recording version of what Sony and Panasonic and the rest did when they decided to take cut-rate versions of component tuners, preamps, amplifiers, turntables and tape decks, throw them into one box, and call them "compact hi-fis", even though there was nothing "high fidelity" about them.

G.
Click to expand...

That, I understand. I don't claim to really be "mastering" my music as much I'm trying to find a compromise between getting it louder and not ruining the sound. I know, that statement alone might start a war here :). But, if I can do it and still like the sound of the tune, then for sure. In fact, I do like the sound of my songs better after they've been L3'd, so I think I might be doing something tight. :)

But people did address the actual SOUND of the OZONE and the other one, and how they thinned out their sound. I was wondering if people had that same opinion of the L3.
Nice to know that it's considered superior to a certain extent.

There are actually 2 L3's: The "ULTRAMXAMIZER" and the "MULTIMAXIMIZER". The only difference I can see is that the "MULTI" is a muti-band and the "ULTRA" is just stereo. I don't use the "MULTI" because I don't know enough to do anything other than keep it simple.
 
RAMI said:
That, I understand. I don't claim to really be "mastering" my music as much I'm trying to find a compromise between getting it louder and not ruining the sound.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Rami, I did not mean to imply that I was directly addressing you or that you question was out of line or anything like that. Write this one off to bad BBS technique on my part. I was just using your question as a linkage point in the conversation and one that grazed what I personally thought to be a root issue. My apologies if I gave any other impression; bad form on my part :o .

And no, you shuold not be flamed for finding that comprimise, or what I prefer to think of as a sweet spot. Nothing wrong with pushing a mix volume as far as it can go. It's the second "not ruining the sound" part that most people either leave off or don't have the ear for that gives volume maximization a bad name.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Sorry, Rami, I did not mean to imply that I was directly addressing you or that you question was out of line or anything like that. Write this one off to bad BBS technique on my part. I was just using your question as a linkage point in the conversation and one that grazed what I personally thought to be a root issue. My apologies if I gave any other impression; bad form on my part :o .
Click to expand...

As if, of all people, I'd assume YOU were trying to be confrontational. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top