Curious thing, a year ahead and this plugin has not survived the test of time for me. It's not in my system anymore. Tried but haven't bought. I'll give it another try now that I'll have to put together an EP for a band. I expect it to give all of the tracks a cohesive sound. I'll report.

I don't mean to argue, but unfortunately, unlike what tutorials and well-meaning guys like Graham Cochrane try to sell, mastering is a specialized art that requires specialized equipment and acoustics besides a trained set of ears that masters records day in and day out. Anyone can try their hand (myself included) and call it a day, but mastering mojo can't happen in bedroom studios or mixing rooms.

 

Hey man it's just a tool, ozone and lurssen. Thats all it is. I prefer to use the separate modules in ozone actually. I wonder if the under the hood modules in this are actually T-Racks plugs And if so I want to know which ones because this thing does have a nice saturation to it and the EQ is really nice as well

 

Last edited: Jun 19, 2017

You don't; don't.

 

And this exactly where tools like Ozone and Lurssen MC come in handy.

 

I think I'm going to give it a spin just to see what it does to my material. If my mixes are in the ballpark of where they should be, it should subtly make them better (if it works as advertised). I'm concerned that it will kill the depth I get from having hardware as the last thing in the chain. Not sure I even need anything further except levels corrected. I guess I better post something newer up to see what the consensus is and how far I've gotten. Maybe a before/after with this plugin.

 

I was fair and actually tried it and that lack of depth was what made me not like it. I thought it was completely flat and fairly lifeless--though it did add some enhancement. I simply prefer some semblance of front to back depth. And, for me, that wasn't necessarily flat compared to hardware, but against some other plugins. Yeah, I can do wo it quite fine.

 

I'd like to try that as well, and have the crowds be the judge.

 

Most times, my judgement comes first. Pass that, then on to the crowds. Just a different mode.

 

Yes and the best way to mix a track is to use a mixing engineer. Let's just stop mixing right away!

In fact, let's stop doing anything by ourselves and just pay others to do it, because obviously we can NEVER be as good as those superhuman wizards in those big businesses, right?

I think mixing is infinitely more difficult than mastering. If you can mix well, you can master.

 

Or you could use it in a chain, you know. Put a chainer type plug/fx rack, or host it in a one so you can run it parallel, because theres no dry wet. This way you can dial it back some and then add you own mojo before or after it. Thats how I use this beast....

 

I agree with that. But a pro mastering engineer has some things no mix engineer does, such as the room, the room and the room. Then there's the hardware, then there's the experience. And then there's another pair of ears. But hey, you do what you have to do and that's OK too.

 

Ignoring that this is a gravedig, not too long ago there was this https://audiosex.pro/threads/summing-mixer-or-not.30231/

People were praising analogue emulations/consoles/mixers and suddenly it's not ok for IK multimedia?

Can you blame them for making plugins to ride the 'analogue/emulations/consoles/mixers' wave that customers (you) want nowdays?

 

its the best mastering plugin ive ever used and i have owned and used the gear and various mastering gear in question.

 

I'm not sure if I'm getting a false reading from my sarcasm monitor, but the above statement seems unlikely to be accurate. I think it can give a quick polish to a track if you need to show a doubtful client that there's no need to panic, it will sound better after more work on the mix. I've also found it useful to mix in about 25% on a stereo Buss. But Ozone does the same, but better.

 

mastering is about using a specific set tools to fix a specific set of problems in order to finalize a mix to a standard to that all your songs on a album are equal. ( or even if you making just one song too)
there are many tools that could do this, its not about a specific graphic on a plugin or color of a box or hardware unit, but what the damn thing does. yeah you can use ozone you can use many things, i can do anything i used to do with straight mastering hardware, when i use lurssen mastering console, if you can't then don't use it , use the set of tools that allow you to do what you feel are those finishing touches to finalize and standardize your songs, what is the issue here?

(by the time i hit that moment of time for which i call "ready to master" i have done a series of prep-work including dealing with the transients in such a way to make them the same width and thickness throughout a single vocal track or drum track etc. I do this through the use of harmonic content, as this is separate from eq, or dynamics or anything else, and then i do the necessary steps to eq, or dynamics range etc. each process has its steps and each process is unique to the "fingerprint" of a particular audio track . my point is by the time I get to mastering i have set things up to where only tiny things need to be done to finalize, standardize and get the finishing touches set for the song.

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2017

Oh please, let EDM die very soon. I HATE IT! I love techno, I love minimal, I love electro, I love ambient - But I hate chill-out and I hate EDM - They are the worst forms of wannabe music at all. Just my opinion.

 

To sum it up.. it's all "digital disco". What's tiresome to hear is the repetitive role the kick drum plays in the majority of the arrangements.. it's the most simple and predictable drum sequence there is.

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2017

Yeah. I don't like EDM either at the moment, but back in the days between 2010 and 2013 EDM was pretty good in my opinion.

 

I know a few mastering engineers who would laugh themselves to death if I told them all that equipment they use can be replaced by Lurssen. And I have never been advised by a professional mastering engineer that the more prep work I can do will make their job easier.

 

Put them in touch with me homie.

the lucky charms dont taste good because the colors on the box.
there is nothing magical about their equipment, it is about understanding specific criteria for solving specific set of problems.
every mastering engineer in the world will tell you the prep-work is KEY, because most of what they do is try to fix things after the fact that should have been done right before it got to them.
a great mastering engineer ALSO knows when a track hits his board , where the prep-work was done so well he need not do a thing. he plays and listens and looks at his graphs and meters and recognizes that the track is already finished.
( My point is enough prep-work could be done for which he does not need to do a single thing to it. ( sure it is rare but that is power of prep-work)

here an example of prep-work

1.working from stat to finish with 9 db rms of headroom as opposed to slamming the meters to max at each stage for transparent processes ( minus gain staging where you want to use preamps etc.)
2. building a harmonic foundation for each track or instrument ,such that the transient response is even throughout ( people normally try to achieve this with brick wall limiting but it cannot accomplish that task.
3. when finishing a mix getting the dynamic range (crest factor) in the ballpark of your reference material.
4. the frequency response slope is correct for each track instrument, such that nothing need to be artificially fixed later once you bounce to stems.
5. the perception of width and depth and height is done correctly so that the engineer is not trying to fix this later

when you combine all these steps and do them properly the mastering engineer does not have to artificially correct something that should have been done right earlier in the process

 

Last edited: Jun 30, 2017