Do you use stereo imaging plugins?  If so, why?
I recently tried the free Ozone Imager on a project.  Lead vocal track.  I'm thinking about removing it and just switching to processing the mono track with reverb/delay.  I don't know whether I like the effect of not so I'm wondering how others use it and how, if they do, feel as if it adds to their production. Also, what does the Stereoize function actually do?  I know what the spread function does, but what does Stereoize do? 
 
John B.

I use stereo enhancement all the time (well, to the limited extent I have time to actually work on music these days).  My favorites are Melda MStereoSpread on Voxengo Spatifier.  The former works with both complementary EQ and/or delay that is guaranteed to sum to mono with no destructive effects.  Spatifier does something a bit more exotic, but it results in a sum-to-mono result that is at least statistically very unlikely to create to destructive results.
 
I wrote a combined review of both of these a while back which can be found here:
http://soundbytesmag.net/twomonotostereoconverters/
 

I tend not to use plugins to widen stereo images, but I do use channel tools to narrow it - mainly with piano sounds that spread the keyboard across the whole stereo field. 
 
If I do want to stereo a part (like a guitar), I'm more likely to re-record and double the part as I find this sounds more natural.
 
For keyboard sounds (esp my favourite Roland U220 organ sound) I'll double the part and hard pan left & right. The U220 automatically delays the sound slightly (probably cos it's old and slow!), so the effect works well. I've never had phase issues using the actual hardware, but with samples of this I need to tweak it more... I should really just sample the doubled organ as a sample in its own right.
 

Is the point of these imagers to artificially create a stereo field for a mono signal?
I remixed the project in question in my original post.  It's sounds better although I did keep a small bit of the stereo widening.
 
John B.

I wouldn't use it on a lead vocal. Maybe on backing vocs to spread those out a bit.

I do just about everything in stereo. Why? It gives dimension to the tune. I get a better effect in tracking two mono sources of the same instrument and panning those than attempting to use a plugin for that. I suspect most mixes are now a stereo construct IOW done on the mix as opposed to recorded with a pair of stereo mics. 
 
I have used Waves Vitamin for some of the effect since it has the capability to decide a frequency and pan only the parts of the master you want to pan. The mid/upper mids are usually the areas I pan most in. When mixing for multiple systems I try to also make a mix that will come across in mono. More often I rely on  M/S effects as opposed to a psuedo stereo plugin.
 
Another thing to remember is a wide image on studio monitors isn't the same image on headphones. I have recently been mixing more to headphones since this is probably 99% of the audience. Mixes on headphones tend to sound less spacial depending on the panning laws set. In order to sound spacial some of the sound must be thrown back to the other side and timed just right.
 
I recently picked up Boz Pan Knob on a sale and was surprised and what such a simple plugin could do for my panning and stereo image.

The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Bing Crosby among others all expressed their dislike of stereo. Personally I think everything sounds better in mono too, or at least in a narrow stereo field. I want things to sound as live as possible. When you go to a concert, you don't have band members playing at your sides. They're in front of you and spread out just a bit on stage. Records sound better when they're mixed in just that way in my opinion. I don't like this modern trend of hard panning stuff. Sounds very artificial to me. And I still record in 16 bit because effects applied to 24 bit tracks have much too wide a stereo field. Again, sounds very artificial in my opinion. It also tends to make things sound very thin and brittle. I don't know why, but it does. Just my take on things.
 
Bill

Johnbee58
Is the point of these imagers to artificially create a stereo field for a mono signal?

 
As for MStereoSpread and Spatifier, the answer is yes.  But they can also be effective on stereo tracks that have little natural stereo spread.  I am talking about individual tracks (synths in my case, but instruments like guitars and acoustic keyboards might also benefit from this enhancement).  Neither of these plugins would be appropriate on a master bus or even a group bus in most cases.

dmbaer
I wrote a combined review of both of these a while back which can be found here:
http://soundbytesmag.net/twomonotostereoconverters/

That was an excellent read.  If you skipped it, go take a look.

Wayfarer
The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Bing Crosby among others all expressed their dislike of stereo. Personally I think everything sounds better in mono too, or at least in a narrow stereo field. I want things to sound as live as possible. When you go to a concert, you don't have band members playing at your sides. They're in front of you and spread out just a bit on stage. Records sound better when they're mixed in just that way in my opinion. I don't like this modern trend of hard panning stuff. Sounds very artificial to me. And I still record in 16 bit because effects applied to 24 bit tracks have much too wide a stereo field. Again, sounds very artificial in my opinion. It also tends to make things sound very thin and brittle. I don't know why, but it does. Just my take on things.
 
Bill

That's an interesting take on things.  When I first used drums machines for recording (waaaaaaaay back in the 80's) I used to pan them HARD left and right.  I thought it gave me a great stereo image.  When I listen to that stuff now I cringe.