Stereo width tools demo

[Doug Young]

Victor asked for a demo of some stereo widening tools, so here's a couple of quick and dirty examples on solo guitar (stereo). Each sample starts "normal", then switches in a widener at about 11 seconds, just after a little double-stop lick. So you should hear the stereo image change at that point - try headphones if you don't hear it. You're unlikely to hear much listening on a phone or basic computer speakers. Tracks are dry, no reverb, so you can hear the effect better.

We have:

1) Voxengo MSED in Inline mode, boosting sides by 6db (a bit heavy-handed...)
2) The SPL Vitalizer, using only the stereo expansion feature, totally maxed out (*very* heavy-handed...)
3) SPL Vitalizer, more realistic, more subtle widening



This is one of those things you have to be careful with, ours ears get used to the wider sound and then we want more of it. Like after listening to 2) and then hearing 3), you might think "why bother", give me the sound in 2 again!. But really, that's way too much, at least for me. I just want a touch to sort of make the track a tad more open.

[AcousticDreams]

Thank you once again for the wonderful stereo enhancement comparison. Stunning- beautiful melody!

I listed through headphones 5 times to each of the three examples..
And on computer speakers 3 or 4 times each.

If you don't mind...could you send the dry signal before stereo enhancement as well? That way I can really tell how much of a difference the stereo widening made.

This morning before I open your new post I started doing some research on Stereo Widening.
I thought this was one good explanation:

"Stereo width is essentially a simple concept: it’s mostly about how much difference there is between the left and the right channel. The greater the difference, the wider the mix will appear to your brain.
A wide stereo image can sound lovely, but though it’s often a very euphonic effect, it can mess with phase to the point where you end up losing punch and mono compatibility. Even though we tend to like wide mixes, it’s often the mixes that hold together best when summed to mono that will also sound best in stereo."

__________________________________________________ ______
My initial thoughts:
I did very much enjoy the Stereo Width Enhancement. Made me feel like the sound was all around me.

# 2 created uneven transitions between many of the runs...in my opinion. It unsmoothed your fantastic guitar playing...and I felt it was annoying. Peakier, in my opinion for what ever reason. Did not like two at all.

# 1...sounded the fullest, both through Headphones and on the computer. Probably the most satisfying of the three. Very open sounding. Gave me a wonderful relax feeling when listening to it.

# 3 was good but less satisfying than #1. The fullness was not there. And for that reason is was lacking in comparison to #1.

[AcousticDreams]

Have not had any of my recording gear up for several months now. Have not even turned on my new Demeter Preamp.

But in a week or so I hope to get everything up and do some more heavy Acoustic Guitar testing.

All with the specific intention of creating the best Acoustic Guitar Imaging I can. I have some unusual ideas - Theories that will be put to the test. The Basic premise is to create That rock solid Mid Side type feel, but using three real time channels(no phase reversals).

One technique will involve a variation of ChuckS's 6 to 10Db down using mics on top of each other. I will vary that quite a bit by using only a 3rd channel with one mic on top of one of the sides. I just received the special mount to accomplish this.

The other technique will involve my theories of Right angles and Phase correlation using three mics. All three mics will be at right angles to each using a three dimensional plane.

As is often the case, with what looks good on Paper, is often a failure in the field. It took me many years to design the perfect Archery Back Quiver. One that is dead quiet, can go through brush and not be hindered, and in which an arrow could drawn quickly and ultimately super comfortable. My first designs were a complete disaster. I am hoping that I have advance enough in recording that my new theories might prove rewarding. We shall See!

Stereo widening of the Right and Left channel might be the crucial element in to which the success of my experiments might be completely dependent upon.

So my Question for you Doug:

Have you ever tried Stereo Widening by using Two completely different Reverb rooms, chambers, Plate for each side?

As an example...using a plate for the left side...and a hall for the right side. In real life....there is some relevancy here. If I face outward...positioning the guitar to a big open room...but the left side of my guitar is close to a Room side Wall..then I might have two different verbs for each side. As the left side is first reflecting off the side wall...but the right mic is projecting more outward. Even with symphony orchestras....some of the players are situated towards one side.

I have not tried this at all yet. As I do not have any program material in which to experiment with. But this will be a major part of my experiment as well. What do you think?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

If you don't mind...could you send the dry signal before stereo enhancement as well? That way I can really tell how much of a difference the stereo widening made.

[/INDENT]

I may not have explained well, what I did here. The first 11 seconds of each take are "dry". So you should hear the stereo widening kick in at that point. But here's the full raw track anyway:




BTW, there are other approaches. For example, some people use mico-pitch changes on one channel to create an exaggerated stereo effect. You can also delay a side by a few ms to effectively widen a track, tho that has some side-effects.

Ozone has a multi-band stereo widener that can be useful. For example, you can even narrow a band - low bass, maybe, to keep it more centered, while widening other frequencies.

The examples I posted are deliberately a bit heavy-handed, for me at least, the ideal is pretty subtle. It's like putting salt on food - if you can actually taste the salt, it's probably too much. But I wanted you to be able to hear the effect

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

The Basic premise is to create That rock solid Mid Side type feel, but using three real time channels(no phase reversals).

One technique will involve a variation of ChuckS's 6 to 10Db down using mics on top of each other. I will vary that quite a bit by using only a 3rd channel with one mic on top of one of the sides. I just received the special mount to accomplish this.

I always prefer getting the sound I want with mic placement. Using additional mics, spread wider, or as room mics is one technique. I typically use at least 2 pairs of mics on guitar, with different stereo placements, and mix to taste. I've tried going really wide with a pair, like being 6-10 feet apart. I also often use a mid mic, to fill in the middle of an otherwise wide spaced pair. The tools we're looking at here are more something one would use (or not use) at a mastering stage, where the mastering engineer is making final, hopefully small, tweaks.

So my Question for you Doug:

Have you ever tried Stereo Widening by using Two completely different Reverb rooms, chambers, Plate for each side?

Haven't tried that. For what I do, I'm usually thinking in terms of "natural" as far as reverb, like I'm placing a guitar in a room, and different reverbs on each side sounds very unnatural - but it all depends, of course. In more produced music, not just solo guitar, people use all kinds of effects, so this might be exactly right for some recording.

With reverb, BTW, many reverbs have some sort of width control built-in, and you can always add other effects. For example, you might not place one of these widener tools on the master bus, but instead just put it on the reverb bus to widen the reverb, but not the main source.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I may not have explained well, what I did here. The first 11 seconds of each take are "dry". So you should hear the stereo widening kick in at that point. But here's the full raw track anyway:

Oh My....I am always complaining how people skip over written material and do not fully understand what was being said...

I am the guilty of my own criticisms! ha ha..you did explain it clearly...somehow I just jumped over that. I guess I was just so eager to listen to your examples that I did not let that sink in.

Well, this changes everything...I will go back and listen to all the examples with fresh ears.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Ozone has a multi-band stereo widener that can be useful. For example, you can even narrow a band - low bass, maybe, to keep it more centered, while widening other frequencies.

Check out Keith Rogers' demo of Ozone's width control in a separate thread for another example. He's only using 1 band, but it shows how it works as a full-spectrum widener.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I also often use a mid mic, to fill in the middle of an otherwise wide spaced pair.

Each of us has our own preferred ways of evaluating.

For instance, I am not good at blind tests. If you give A, B, C, D blind tests then I am good. If there is no notation whatsoever. And I am listening to track after track then my mind wanders very quickly and I loose relevance.

Not sure if it is because I become enthralled with the music being played, and thus I can not concentrate on the evaluation of differences. For what ever reason, I am poor at complete Blind Tests. Can not do them.

In evaluation of Some Liquid Sonic reverbs, they also gave the same approach as you did starting off on a dry signal and blending into the verb signal. For some unknown reason...this also does not work well for myself. Although, certainly leaps and bound better than complete blind tests with no identifying marks.

I think part of the reason for having complete dry, then the mixed wet signals to compare against..I can quickly switch back and forth. After some evaluation then I can switch from dry to mixed wet and listen to just a few seconds quickly of each and note the difference. For what ever reason, that always works best for myself.

With that being said, I was able to hear the differences between your takes. And Without a doubt...I did hear a wider image. Very pleasant. Yet, I could not evaluate which one was the best. Part of the problem is because your music sounds great any which way! ha ha...

So if you don't mind, let us bypass the plug in wideners for now and I would like to tap into your Wide Stereo micing with a mid mic techniques. This is an area that I am super interested in. Again, in my mind it is a real time versions of the two mic Mid-Side set up.

In theory, the potential is great. To have a wide stereo imaging...with a rock solid center channel so that the fundamental of the guitar is not lost.

Their is of course the age old debate of Mono versus stereo recording of an acoustic guitar. The debate stems from Acoustic Guitar mixed with other instruments. Many engineers have expressed that mono is best. But to my way of thinking...Mid-Side is a sort of combination of the two. Three mics has potential of the same thing. Wide stereo field with a center channel mono.

Not sure how Dream Guitars mixes their mics...or some of the Cedar Rock Recordings...But some of their recordings appear to be using a three mic set up. And sometimes it comes out sounding a bit thin for my tastes. Be this volume level mixing? Or Phase problems? Or just the sound of the guitar? I do not know

So I would love to hear your thoughts on the Stereo wide field with a center channel? That is an area I hope to experiment with soon.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Each of us has our own preferred ways of evaluating.

For instance, I am not good at blind tests. If you give A, B, C, D blind tests then I am good. If there is no notation whatsoever. And I am listening to track after track then my mind wanders very quickly and I loose relevance.

I actually think this means the blind test is working as expected! We often can "hear" things when we can see what we're supposed to hear, and those differences we think we hear can disappear quickly in a blind test.

Sorry my test wasn't good for you, tho. I thought I was doing the switch for you. It's hard to hear differences in stereo image between takes (for me, at least), but if you were to listen to the section, say 10-12 seconds, you'd hear the image switch, which is pretty obvious. I was just looping 3 chords, so you get the loop without the widening, then I flip it on and repeat the lick.

Their is of course the age old debate of Mono versus stereo recording of an acoustic guitar. The debate stems from Acoustic Guitar mixed with other instruments. Many engineers have expressed that mono is best. But to my way of thinking...Mid-Side is a sort of combination of the two. Three mics has potential of the same thing. Wide stereo field with a center channel mono.

That's one of the uses of MS. MS is a good choice for when you're not sure how a track will be used. You can get wide stereo for cases where it's needed, yet fall back to mono without any phase cancellation if you decide on a more complex mix/panning. Part of getting a good MS sound is getting a good mono sound from the mid mic, so you're in good shape if you decide to go mono. Something like spaced pairs, in contrast, may not sound good in mono, and someone doing solo guitar might not even check how it sounds in mono (tho, ideally, you should...)

Not sure how Dream Guitars mixes their mics...or some of the Cedar Rock Recordings...But some of their recordings appear to be using a three mic set up. And sometimes it comes out sounding a bit thin for my tastes. Be this volume level mixing? Or Phase problems? Or just the sound of the guitar? I do not know

So I would love to hear your thoughts on the Stereo wide field with a center channel? That is an area I hope to experiment with soon.

I'm not sure what Dream is doing with their mic setup, since it looks like they have a ribbon right beside a condenser if I recall.

Multiple mics definitely includes the possibility of phase complications. What I've been doing for ages gives me multiple options. Usually spaced pairs with the Schoeps or Brauners, then the AEA R88 ribbon in MS mode in the middle. When mixing, I can use all of one or all of the other, or combine them. With the R88 in MS, I can just use the mid mic to fill in the hole in the middle, or I can put the R88 in stereo, even ultra-wide, if I want. The ribbon has its own sound, and the R88 in particular can almost sound like I'm bringing in an octave lower bass, kind of like turning on the subwoofer. So it's both about stereo image and tone, and being able to blend those in any combination I want. I usually use the Auto-Align plugin to make sure the phase is ok, tho I've mostly found the right spots where I'm in phase without them.

[jim1960]

Doug, can you make that raw track downloadable? I'd like to offer up an example of another option for comparison.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Sorry my test wasn't good for you, tho. I thought I was doing the switch for you. It's hard to hear differences in stereo image between takes (for me, at least), but if you were to listen to the section, say 10-12 seconds, you'd hear the image switch, which is pretty obvious. I was just looping 3 chords, so you get the loop without the widening, then I flip it on and repeat the lick.

Believe me, Your test presentation was plenty fine. And as always...I am super thankful for your efforts. I just have my preferences for listening to tests( my limitations). "Man's got to know his limitations"
And boy do I have lots of limitations. One of my biggest problems is when I get a theory stuck in my head. The....This is how it should work, type theories.

But Now that I know even you, have a hard time telling the difference in Stereo Image takes...That might be the real problem...is that there is such subtle difference in Stereo imaging.

I will go back and just re listen clicking each time at the 11 second mark.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I'm not sure what Dream is doing with their mic setup, since it looks like they have a ribbon right beside a condenser if I recall.

The internet reveals all secrets...

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Doug, can you make that raw track downloadable? I'd like to offer up an example of another option for comparison.

Sure, done

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

[

But Now that I know even you, have a hard time telling the difference in Stereo Image takes...That might be the real problem...is that there is such subtle difference in Stereo imaging.

Well, I tried to err on the side of making these unsubtle :-). But that's why I think it's easier to hear a shift than to hear it in isolation.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by jim1960

The internet reveals all secrets...

Yeah, I'd seen that. But he doesn't explain what he does with the 2 pairs, unless I missed it. I assume "mix to taste", but that's an interesting dilemma. He's saying they use no EQ or processing, but blending a ribbon and condenser acts a lot like EQ, in that you have 2 quite different sounds (the ribbon typically being darker, and the condenser brighter) and mixing them at different levels can produce different sounds. That is similar to what I usually do with my own solo guitar studio recordings, tho.