Stereo wideners or EQ?

[Caine123]

ahhhh i missed this one , i stumbled recently in a video with a stereo enhancer in fl studio and people love to use it sometimes all around the place, im no big fan of it cause many dont mono test it and you get some phase issues etc. but i recently also saw izotopes free stereo widener, is the one from NUGEN stereoizer fully mono compatible? this is kinda great if so?

when would use use such a plugin vs eq the sides with a EQ?

[simon.a.billington]

The best approach to widening your mix, is making stuff sound more mono, believe it or not. It's counterintuitive but I'll explain further.

If you have two mono, but different sounds and panned them far left and right, you'll get a wide stereo image. Which is why they double track instruments like guitars. Other instruments like drums and pianos are often recorded using multiple (mono) mics, panning those all around the stereo field can get you a wider sound.

But then there's stereo effects like modulation or ping-pong delay that can be made to alternate between left and right, also good for a wider image. Most synths often benefit from having their image narrowed and panned left and right to offset each other. Sometimes, though, you'll want to leave a synth patch as it is so it just fills up what's left of the space.

These stereo enhancers do come in handy, though. Sometimes to make the aforementioned synth lines more mono, but sometimes they're good to enhance them just a bit. Or put them on a buss or an effect return just to enhance its imaging a little. Most panners don't sound that great beyond 125%, though, but its a taste thing.

I'll usually just use a little but of widening in conjunction with everything I suggested above. I'll often automate in the mix so verses sound bit more narrow and choruses are a bit wider so they can pop a bit more. I'll also do a mono check to make sure I'm not losing anything too vital. You can also offset your left and right channels with a small delay to help with widening, but to also counteract some of the phasing that might happen. I find a really good tool for this is Waves InPhase, but there are probably other tools out there.

[Biome_Digital]

is the one from NUGEN stereoizer fully mono compatible? this is kinda great if so?

Yes, and this is why I use it. This and Izotope's stereo widener do not destroy mono compatibility. ALL other stereo wideners I have tried mess up mono compatibility and add that awful phasing sound.

A lot of synths also have this problem.

When would I use it instead of EQ??? Usually for widening sounds, or to narrow the low end, or to turn mono sources into stereo.

[Caine123]

The best approach to widening your mix, is making stuff sound more mono, believe it or not. It's counterintuitive but I'll explain further.

If you have two mono, but different sounds and panned them far left and right, you'll get a wide stereo image. Which is why they double track instruments like guitars. Other instruments like drums and pianos are often recorded using multiple (mono) mics, panning those all around the stereo field can get you a wider sound.

But then there's stereo effects like modulation or ping-pong delay that can be made to alternate between left and right, also good for a wider image. Most synths often benefit from having their image narrowed and panned left and right to offset each other. Sometimes, though, you'll want to leave a synth patch as it is so it just fills up what's left of the space.

These stereo enhancers do come in handy, though. Sometimes to make the aforementioned synth lines more mono, but sometimes they're good to enhance them just a bit. Or put them on a buss or an effect return just to enhance its imaging a little. Most panners don't sound that great beyond 125%, though, but its a taste thing.

I'll usually just use a little but of widening in conjunction with everything I suggested above. I'll often automate in the mix so verses sound bit more narrow and choruses are a bit wider so they can pop a bit more. I'll also do a mono check to make sure I'm not losing anything too vital. You can also offset your left and right channels with a small delay to help with widening, but to also counteract some of the phasing that might happen. I find a really good tool for this is Waves InPhase, but there are probably other tools out there.

thx so much! great infos. im gonna note em down.

is the one from NUGEN stereoizer fully mono compatible? this is kinda great if so?

Yes, and this is why I use it. This and Izotope's stereo widener do not destroy mono compatibility. ALL other stereo wideners I have tried mess up mono compatibility and add that awful phasing sound.

A lot of synths also have this problem.

When would I use it instead of EQ??? Usually for widening sounds, or to narrow the low end, or to turn mono sources into stereo.

ithx, i cannot demo Stereoizer now cause my trial ended, guess i demoed it some time ago i wrote support to maybe extend.
ahhh yeah i read about Izotope stereo widener too which is even free, as you got both? what would you say to nugen stereoizer vs. izotope widener? does stereoizer has any advantages?

[El°HYM]

Pretty much what Simon & Biome said. There is also another mono - compatible Stereoizer, called Wider: https://polyversemusic.com/products/wider

[Caine123]

Pretty much what Simon & Biome said. There is also another mono - compatible Stereoizer, called Wider: https://polyversemusic.com/products/wider

thx, i saw a video on youtube and Wider is really bad sounding when pushed harder :/

[El°HYM]

Thanks, I never really used it but know quite a few who seem to like it a lot. Will watch that Vid.

[Biome_Digital]

as you got both? what would you say to nugen stereoizer vs. izotope widener? does stereoizer has any advantages?

Tbh, I'm not sure there are major differences apart from Izotope's has more bands and possibly offers a bit more control. If I only had one or the other, it would be OK, but probably pick Izotopes first.

[Ikaz7]

Tokyo Dawn Slick EQ Mastering handles the job much better than most "stereoizers", since you can determine width and pan per band.

[Biome_Digital]

Tokyo Dawn Slick EQ Mastering handles the job much better than most "stereoizers", since you can determine width and pan per band.

Can it take a mono source and make it stereo while maintaining mono compatibility (not adding a phasey sound)?

[Ikaz7]

Tokyo Dawn Slick EQ Mastering handles the job much better than most "stereoizers", since you can determine width and pan per band.

Can it take a mono source and make it stereo while maintaining mono compatibility (not adding a phasey sound)?

Ah sorry, if that is the mission, than it might be the wrong tool, since it's Slick EQ Mastering is geared towards the stereo master bus. I don't think it can process mono sources in that manner.

[Biome_Digital]

Tokyo Dawn Slick EQ Mastering handles the job much better than most "stereoizers", since you can determine width and pan per band.

Can it take a mono source and make it stereo while maintaining mono compatibility (not adding a phasey sound)?

Ah sorry, if that is the mission, than it might be the wrong tool, since it's Slick EQ Mastering is geared towards the stereo master bus. I don't think it can process mono sources in that manner.

Right, cool EQ though!

[Digivolt]

thx, i saw a video on youtube and Wider is really bad sounding when pushed harder :/

I always get confused when people recommend it because I too think it sounds really phasey when pushed.

Best "widener" I've found is Leapwing StageOne, push it as hard it goes and no phasey nonsense

[Caine123]

ok i got my demo extended.
i need to test it out more but it seems the ozone Imager 9 is more true to the sound than the stereoizer? in stereoizer i got a phasey middlesound and in imager not. when using a detuned saw sound as a test.

[Trancit]

ok i got my demo extended.
i need to test it out more but it seems the ozone Imager 9 is more true to the sound than the stereoizer? in stereoizer i got a phasey middlesound and in imager not. when using a detuned saw sound as a test.

I never tested the Steroizer but my argument I wrote on the videos comments stays the same:

The Ozone Imager 2 does a (for me) perfect job in all situations I tested...
Why shall I spend €114,- for a plugin which might be similar perfect if I got this wished result already for free??