1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Izotope Ozone, Waves Abbey Road ADT

Discussion in 'Recording' started by DonnyThompson, Apr 1, 2014.

  1. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Izotope Ozone

    This is a collection of tools, including EQ, Gain Reduction, Reverb, Multi-Band Compression, Maximizer, Exciter and Imager. I downloaded a 10 day trial of this prog yesterday; I had heard from a few engineer friends that they thought it was pretty decent, so I thought I'd give it a go.

    To be fair, I don't own and have never used boutique plugs like the UA DSP Library, which from what I've heard, has become the defacto standard for many engineers working in DAW land. My comparison is based on the average caliber plugs available.

    My overall impression is pretty positive. I like the EQ and Gain Reduction, I find them to be very "musical", for lack of a better term. The compressor is one of the best vst based plugs I've ever used, it's very natural sounding (fairly close to popular mid level rack mount compressors like the dBx 166).

    I'm not crazy about the reverb, although to be fair I haven't had a chance to spend serious time with it.

    It has a multiband, but, I can't comment because I don't really use multi band compression - I can count on one hand the number of times I've used MBC since vst's hit the market.

    I really need to stop downloading these trial version plugs/apps. LOL. I kinda want this Izotope, and I can't afford it right now.

    Waves Abbey Road ADT

    This plug was developed to emulate the infamous box that the engineers at Abbey Road invented for The Fabs.
    John Lennon liked the sound of his voice double tracked, and asked the engineers (I think it was Ken Townsend) to build a device that could duplicate him singing twice on lead vox. The engineers came up with a box that they called the "ADT", short for Automatic Double Tracking. Apparently, it worked, because Sir George ended up using it quite a bit.

    The plug from Waves was developed to emulate it. IMHO, it falls short. It's not really anything you couldn't do yourself with existing delay, pitch and modulator plugs. In short, you can already do what this particular plug was designed for, with the most basic plugs that you likely already have at your disposal.

    The price is $99. Inexpensive for a plug, but pretty redundant in that the tools used already come stock with all major DAW platforms.

    IMHO of course.
     
  2. Josh Conley

    Josh Conley Active Member

    eq and comp plugs have come a very long way from the waves c1 :)
     
  3. Makzimia

    Makzimia Active Member

    +1 on Ozone, I have 5.x advanced and Alloy 2 and Nectar 2 also. Nowadays I use them a bit more sparingly, the meter section of OA is amazing, my biggest gripe of Logic Pro X, lack of good metering.
     
  4. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    $99 here, $99 there, pretty soon it adds up to real money!
     
  5. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    At the time of that writing - my original post, I was still relying heavily on plugs. Over the course of the last year or so however, and after switching DAW platforms entirely ( from Sonar to Samplitude Pro X) I'm using them less and less, and consciously so..

    To use processor plugs in an "as needed" basis is one thing, and there are certainly times where I do use the stock plugs that come resident with Samplitude - GR, EQ, some verb and delay.... but there's a big difference in using them in this as-needed situation, versus leaning and relying on them alone to improve a mix. Understand that the more of these plugs you add, the more you have to deal with in the mix, for better and for worse.

    I'm fairly convinced in the phenomena of the more plugs you buy, the more you tend to use them - and sometimes in a reflexive knee-jerk fashion - without first considering whether you really need them or not.

    Different people will have different processes and preferences - On one end, Kurt is our analog purist guy, and if asked, he would come right out and tell you that he prefers an analog desk and a 2" deck. On the other end, there are others here who are doing mainly electronica, and they rely heavily on samples, loops, etc. as the basis of their productions. I fall somewhere in the middle, I guess. I came up learning in the analog world, and cut my teeth on consoles and tape machines, but as technology grew, and other options became available, I found myself taking more advantage of these hi-tech tools - but...I won't lie... there are times where I feel that I rely far too much on technology, and far too less on the music and the performance.

    These days, I'm trying to find a common ground, where I can take advantage of what DAW's have to offer, yet at the same time, remembering that the music is what matters the most, and that has led me to a more basic and simple approach to production - and using these various processor plugs on an as-needed-only basis, has resulted in better clarity, better imaging, and better fidelity all-round. This approach has really cleaned up a lot of the messes I was making, back when I relied on plugs to create music.

    I have a dear friend, a marvelous musician, a fantastic writer and arranger... but the worst thing that he ever did was to become a "plug-slut" - and he began a purchasing jag that continues to this day. His continual and endless quest for every plug that comes out that claims to do wonders to tracks... UAD, Izotope, Waves...you name it, he has it. And if something new comes out... a "better" compressor, a "lusher" reverb, a "new and improved" stereo imager.... he reaches for his Visa every time, and adds more and more of these to his already-bloated collection of processor plugs.

    I understand GAS - and have been one who has also suffered from this from time to time as well, like anyone else in our craft... but, I visit some of my client's home recording rooms as a consultant, and it absolutely baffles me as to why they have so many different versions of the exact same thing! Is it really necessary to have 50 different compressors, 60 different EQ's, 25 different Limiters, 38 Reverbs, 27 Delays, 2 Turtledoves ... and a partridge in a pear tree? LOL.

    I'm not trying to convince anyone either way in terns of plug usage. We all have our own methods and workflows that we prefer, or feel that works best for our own individual styles, so... use what you use, (and neither force it on anyone else or make apologies for what you do), but, make sure that you understand exactly what these processors are doing to your sonics, before you start throwing 8 different "whatevers" on every single track, just because you have them.

    Stop and think a bit before you reach for a plug.
    Make sure you understand just what it does (there are so many of my clients who have no idea what certain processors even do, yet they still insert it into their tracks ... go figure) and what the result will be once you insert it. You can have the most expensive limiter-compressor plug available, but if your music doesn't sound good when you use it, what's the point?

    In the end, the music you make is what will speak the loudest; it's your final testimony of not only what you do... but even more importantly... how well you do it.

    IMHO of course. ;)

    d/
     
    Makzimia likes this.
  6. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    You took the words right out of my mouth! Nicely put Donny.

    For the essential tools (comps, EQ), I'm convinced, plug-ins are more of an image based around a preset than a difference between each one. Its digital lol.
    oodles of plug-ins are presets for those who have never used or understand the real products they emulate. I'm not saying they suck, I am saying WE shouldn't need 10 flavours of EQ's in a digital world. Are WE nuts lol!

    The biggest laugh of 2014 for me is seeing a Dangerous BAX or MEQ as a plug-in. The the money we are wasting on all these pictures, is nothing short of laughable.
    CODERS > PLEASE CONVINCE ME I AM WRONG?

    I will say this: CODE and the coders ability to make their plug-in run on every DAW is insanity. The integrity of each plug-in is subjective to YOUR DAW and YOUR processing conflicts or setbacks which accumulate as you add or remove bit by bit.
    The best DAW's are the DAW's that need no third party plug-ins. Software should be Coded to work in the DAW it was designed for, not for every DAW on the planet. Other than specialized well tested code, most of this G.A.S is complete consumer nonsense subsidizing the dieing boutique hardware manufactures. Oodles of comps and EQ plug-ins is for the blind.

    Special effects, sampling and restoration /mastering software, that's a different story. I think Izotope Ozone, ALONG WITH other high end restoration and mastering software is unmatched. Post Production software, HD room simulators , forensic tool, spectral editing, all that, indeed! So how much of all this do we really need to make a song with drums, guitars and vocals sound good? Not much more than a good DAW that works imho. Less is more.
     
  7. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    I just started demo's of some of the new UAD plug ins that came out recently.. The BAX, Elysiia Compressor. The reissued Pulltec, The 1073 pre amp/eq.

    I'm not planning on getting any of them.. The Elysia is something I will check out more it has some stuff on it that is interesting.
    The BAX has a sound that's hard to get with the rest of my plug ins.. The only problem is I found a combination of plug ins I already have that sound better. The BAX is too scooped for my liking..

    The 1073 pre eq thing i think is better for someone with an Apollo.. for me no difference between that and the 1073 that I already own..
    The reissued Pultec isn't worth upgrading either..

    So,, to me UAD is great but not perfect.. not every plug in they have is worth getting... Mostly because they are reinventing the wheel..
    and putting things out for the cards and the Apollo.. Perhaps If I had an Apollo I would be able to appreciate something like the 1073 or 610 channel strips.

    I would like to hear if a daw could match the sound of the UAD 1073. Haven't heard anything that has that sound...
     
  8. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Can you post something with the UAD 1073 in use?
     
  9. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    Sure..

    https://www.mediafire.com/folder/n6vkblzk89ycd/1073
     
  10. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Have you ecv
    (I'm not trying to be an ass here)
    For the sake of mutual advancement, I am very much trying to enlighten us about something I think is starting to look more and more like boloney.
    I see plug-ins under a new light which is looking like one big ripoff and a huge distraction. For those playing around in this business, this is all good. But for those really looking to improve their game, but have never used the real deal and are under the presumption of these being so special, do you need to have them all...? a lot of these plugs are without doubt paint by number presets for the kids. They are like getting a preset with an image.
    As an example, I use the real BAX for filters that are only useful to me at the end of the chain of an analog matrix, nothing more. Its useless for anything more than that. You can achieve better results ITB with Samplitude. But, if you are OTB, then the real BAX is an essential ! ITB, what a joke!
    The advantage of the BAX is to make your AD more proficient during capture. The filters on it are idea for removing unwanted freq above 20k . Cheaper converters that struggle with those high freqs will capture the mix better if you reduce those freq. Same for the subs. It does have a wide sweep curve that is really sweet to, but, my stock EQ in Samplitude is better, bar none.

    So, why would I need a BAX plug-in when my DAW already has HPF and LPF.

    That being said, Chris, have you ever used the real BAX and what are you actually trying to achieve with the plug-in that can't already be done with any EQ?
    When you say you get better results with other plugs combined, I shake my head at that statement because its not the BAX that you are comparing, you are simply telling me that you are doing a lot of things you don't need to be doing.

    Buying that as a plug-in would be the biggest waste of money for me. But, it is an excellent way to subsidize the manufacturer. But then again, I'm using a DAW that doesn't have crappy plug-ins so maybe those using Pro Tools, Logic, Sonar etc, hear these third party plugs as better and so it goes... I mean, you are already plagued with mass accumulative aliasing distortion issues so whats one more to the mix.
     
  11. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    I switched from T-Racks to Izotope Ozone recently. The dynamic section is simply amazing compared to T-Racks.
    Of course T-racks looks better, those analog look a like strips.. But sonicly, Ozone lets you make it loud and clear without destroying the trancients.. I love it ! ;) Well until I win the lotery and buy all those outboard gear I dream of !! ...
     
  12. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    I was looking for a shelving eq that could be used in mastering to raise the energy in the mid to low highs.. Sometimes a bump in the bottom end is cool to. With the high and low pass filter that can help out with tightening the lows and being able to raise the mids low highs energy without the shrill. The BAX was interesting for that. It does what it says it does, it does make things sound radio like... kinda scooped sound with the highs and lows turned up. A bit of a smiley face..

    I don't own a real Bax and have never used one.. I suspect what others use it for is different than the way you use it as it's marketed as an eq with filters. Not just a set of filters.

    I have many shelving eqs they don't all sound the same.. I found The Massive Passive and the precision Eq gave me what I was looking for...

    This looks like a cool plug in.... too bad it's on a Ilock..
    http://www.thehouseofkush.com/#!the-ubk-clariphonic/c23ed
     
  13. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    I guess not all DAW are made equal. I found that the EQ on mine doesn't sound anything like the one Fabfilter makes. I end up buying their suite after a trial of their compressor, deesser, and limiter. They are visually ok and most of all they sounded better.

    For me I guess there's nothing wrong with third party plugins. What I would refrain is having 6 EQs, 12Comps etc...
    I admit I might have done too many trials. But, I have chosen 1 suite that sounds right to my ears. (At least for now..) ;)
     
  14. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    I put a lot of faith in the mastering suites like Ozone and Sequoia. Mastering products (analog and digital) are always about preserving and keeping the transients in line. I think dedicated DAW's or a dedicated suites are tight and clearer sounding compared to a mosh up of third part code that smear the transients.

    Regarding analog, the last few months I have been emulating my hybrid rig in Sequoia to almost 100%. So far, its proving superior sounding for the most part. Why, because I understand how to achieve the same steps I discovered using the real deal. Now that I know what to hear, and how and why those products where designed, it now seems to be all possible within Sequoia.
     
  15. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    I used to use a de-esser, until I realized it was inferior to the alternative. Now that I have a DAW that is able to isolate only the sss, or fff or pops etc, I no longer need a plug-in that sucks unnecessary freq and rides through the entire track doing things to the freqs that it isn't set to do. Through and entire vocal track, subject sss can vary from 4k all the way up to 6k so why would I set up something to pull out those freqs where there are no sss. Its like using dirty water in a milkshake.

    To give you an example. Using the Fabfilter compared to Object Based Editing is like using a one shade of white compared to spectral cleaning.

    Consider this a gem. If we set a de-esser to reduce 5.5k , it works but what about the ss in the higher freq? To get the same result I get manually editing only the sss of a word, i would need to use 40 de-esser plugins through a song. Can you imagine the accumulative phase.

    Once we learn how to do something ITB, you need less and less automated presets that don't really do it as well. Fast food vs ...

    usually takes me about 25min to de-ess a vox track. then its done. no plug-in needed. ;)
     
  16. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    You can manually edit using any daw can't you?
     
  17. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Yup, but Object Based Editing is the bomb.
     
  18. Makzimia

    Makzimia Active Member

    Or you can get a singer who knows how to use a mic, and a pop filter ;P. Just saying. LOL.
     
  19. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    Object edition is definitly the best way to go. But not all customers have the budget for the time it takes. When I setup a de-esser, I do so before any dynamic manipulation or EQ and I choose a thresold that doesn't affect the whole track.. Also you can set a range of detection (ex: from 4k up to 6k)
    In the end you need to listen very carefully to the track and automate a bypass on words/parts that bothers you ;)

    fabfilter-pro-ds-487757.jpe
     
  20. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    nope, you are fooling yourself. ;)

    I challenge anyone to a vocal track. You use the de-esser, then manually take it out and I guarantee, the Vox track done manually (if you know what you are doing) will sound better without question. And, it takes less time ($) in the end to mix a track.
    WHY?

    If the vocal sounds better, the Bass in the music is superior because the transients aren't effected as much. Its the accumulative thing again. Less is more. When you only reduce the suspect without plugins running in the background, its always a win win. I have the FabFilter , nothing compares to manual editing. Nothing. Automation comes at a price.

    To truly find this out, we would have to mix a complete track and compare which that would be more time than I care to loose for no benefit of mine. Simply put, I'd consider the tip before you jump for an automated plug-in.

    (better said, so I edited a few lines)
     

Share This Page