It's really all a matter of your workflow/taste. With 6 different modes of excitation, and 4 different frequency bands to play with it, the exciter gives a lot more character to anything you're working with. You can insert your reference song (track used as a guide, quality/loudness/EQ wise, etc.) and make Ozone capture/paint the "image" of the EQ spectrum in that track and have your song that you're mastering "match" it. The one thing that Ozone sets itself apart from T-Racks is it's EQ matching ability. You can also change the mastering chain, as with T-Racks. That's not a bad thing, because there are many different parameters that you can change to your liking. It's tools are as they are and just there to be used, meaning there's no Black-76 to a Classic compressor changability. T-Racks also supplies you with a stereoscopic/phase analyzer, a Peak, RMS, Percieved Loudness meter, and of course an EQ spectral analyzer. T-Racks has it's way of forming a mastering chain, being able to set one process before or after one another: Compressor before EQ, etc. This makes processing for different genres and different styles of music very fluent and adaptable for whatever the track calls for. Brick Limiter to a Quad-Range Limiter, and so on. T-Racks has the ability to use different kinds of processors, from a classic EQ to a Linear-Phase EQ for example. That does NOT put it in front of T-Racks by a long shot, however. The one thing Ozone has that T-Racks doesn't have is an exciter. If you believe there's a better mixmaster tool out there than these two, I'm all ears! Lemme hear your experience, and what you like and/or dislike about Ozone/T-Racks. I've no experience with either, I work with the DAWs' built-in tools. Garagebandandbeyond recommended T-Racks, and those whom I chatted with on NGAP Skype chat use Ozone for the most part. It would be most helpful if someone has used both tools. Which one would you consider the better mixerer/masterer? At 8/17/13 07:08 PM, FaeryTaleAdventurer wrote: