The Ninth One:

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/ozone.html

 

Thank you for the heads up. Let me warm up my index finger so I can get ready to delete twice the amount of promotional spam from them :p

 

Apple brought this s*** trend to release a new OSX every year and companies following the trend.. However izotope always bring something new. My iZ vst folder is a complete mess cause of this non sense of releasing new instead of updating and improving what's already there.

 

this VST thing has become a big marketing bulls**t made for selling, new hyped plugins every hour... i mean wtf; why would ever a great known audio engineer would use Ozone version 20 over all that beautiful hardware they are surrounded by, this is pure bulls**t ...i dont mean VST are bullshit, some do great job, but NEVER like and analog hardware, NEVER! ...even a cheap one adds some grains of what not i dont know what to name it, that vst never had and never will; untill Ozone v 21 comes out... just wait for it...kidding, obviously! this engineers are put in front of of companies for selling, saying ''im using this, its my go to; there never has been a plugin able to to this, and that to my sound, blah blah...'' ...if you ever send your tracks to them they most likely will do mastering depending how much cash you give; and hardware mastering doesent come cheap; plugins mastering its easier and of course they do the job better since they have years of trained ears... in short; the more chash you give the better the result... maybe not all of them do this but mostly...

...seeing this;

“I find the new Ozone 9 to be incredibly powerful and easy to work with. Within several minutes, I had come up with an internal combo of processing in Ozone 9 that beat my mix bus of 10 individual plug-ins."
Greg Wells

GRAMMY-winning Producer (Adele, Katy Perry, Keith Urban

...and this,

"Ozone is my go to in-house mastering tool. When working on an album, I use Ozone to make each new version sound exciting and focused."
Butch Vig

Producer: Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Garbage

...it makes me sick, I repeat they are good plugins, I use them because i cant afford HW, great HW, but you have all the things v8 has with 9, even old Ozone 5 is awesome... and yeah, Izotope has made a hobby with enail spamming along with Pluginboutique mails ...

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2019

Thanks for the info. Will be steering clear of this iZotope product as well.

 

Quite correct observation. Because they 're bored and/or not paid enough by the artist, and of course they get paid to endorse products just like athletes do.
Cheers mate

 

Did you actually download the Ozone 9 trial?
It offers a new MatchEQ and Low End.. thingy. idk.

 

Precisely why after Ozone 5, I started to steer away from iZotope.

 

Last edited: Oct 3, 2019

I like the Match EQ

 

Analog hype isn't needed for such stuff anymore. Digital mastering revolutionized the bad sounding old masters, and not the old analog tools.
Don't mislead others please.
2019:

1983:

Yeah the analog one sucks.

 

I suggest getting any engineering book on digital and analogue signals. You will quickly understand why digital is better, if you are after optimal HQ sound (and flexibility).

The obsession over 70s and 80s synths, compressors, EQs etc is just an aesthetic trend. Yes, these tools have a particular sound (that can be replicated digitally), but it's not the definition of good sound quality.
Modern analogue machines use plenty of digital components, so they are not really analogue, more like hybrids.

 

But.... but.... people on Gearslutz told me that pure analog always sounds better.

 

Digital audio has something deeply contradictory to the wave nature of sound, and that's quantization. Once you digitize some analog input, the quantization stays there forever. So, analog isn't any 'hype' but a natural way of approaching the sound. In order to save as much as possible of the analog from (tape) degradation people at SONY invented DSD, a digital emulation of analog. And it is still the best way to preserve the analog recordings.
As long as iZotope Ozone is concerned, for each of their plugins I found at least a couple of (much) better alternatives. So it is rather naive to believe that respected studios seriously use them, except maybe, when they take some quickie, low-cost order, if ever.

 

Analog processing has a lot of error. Digital processing is exact math, very accurate. By recording at 96KHz is more than enough.
You can say that for Metal guitar distortion we still need to use Tube amps, but that is only for high distorted Metal. Not this analog hype of mixing and mastering.

 

No math, with all of its exactness, can replace a continuous wave, because math is discrete by definition.

 

The continuous doesn't matter when you can't even make an accurate analog delay. When you can't even increase the gain without creating noise.

Izotope like any other vendor uses mathematical formulas to process the sound, but they do more, they program machine learning and artificial intelligence.
These people on gearslutz don't understand anything about the science of audio processing, spreading nonsense all over the years

 

Last edited: Oct 3, 2019

As one of the 'people on gearslutz /who/ don't understand anything about 'science' (who promoted it as a science?) of audio processing', I will just give to those who 'understand' it a simple example. Any qualified tone coming live from a microphone through, let's say, Antares Autotune (strictly based on absolutely accurate mathematics and 'science of audio processing') will be rendered as a tacky 'robotic' sound. If you record it, you will be unable to get rid of it ever, even if you were the greatest mathematician in the world.
Sound is an acoustic wave, analog signal is an an electrical wave emulation of it, and digital audio is a non-wave digital emulation of the electrical emulation (the mike electrical output).
Emulation of an emulation is better than it? What is the science behind it?

 

Perfect maths is not the same as nature. Autotune is a kind of perfect note pitching for vox. But if you sing higher, it means higher notes natural sounding, but if you pitch it up with autotune or melodyne you get chipmunk, or vice versa a dungeon monster. It is not digital, it is also with analog, pitch vinyl or tape.
Because you deal with pitch harmonics or create new ones with your mouth, throat etc.
Same with stretch etc.

Digital is an almost perfect and clean representation of analog signal (but with its own digital artefacts, like aliasing, quantization noise, jitter, lossy coding sh*t, near Nyquist frequency cramping, but they can be solved, minimized to super low levels), whereas analog is a perfect approach to signal presentation (but hardware and all analog stuff has its own artifacts) , but if you want true analog emulation in digital, you need more and more to code, to catch each harmonic, behaviour etc etc etc. But when perfectly emulated a unit, second same one unit will slightly different. And your first unit you have emulated will be later slightly differently sounding, because of 'dying' components, electronics inside, and getting old etc. So matching once, it doesn't mean it matches with other copy...
Depends on DSP code, not that this is just "digital is bad". Digital is bad is because you use bad implementation, or this doesn't fit material, or non-proper use, or something else. And same I can say about analog.

 

Last edited: Oct 3, 2019

damn yall really like to hate on stuff huh

 

Analog chipmunk does not ever sound 'robotic', and that is the crucial difference I was talking about. You can never truly exchange a steep straight with ladder steps. The feeling of climbing is just essentially different. Analog means 'smooth' and digital 'harsh'. And harsh is bad /in human sense for acoustics/.
Digital is just different matter (material) in whatever shape or form.
Analog artefacts always remain within the waves, and digital within mathematics.