dmbaer 
When placing the L control about -15 (halfway left) and initially setting L width to zero, here's what happened.  As I expanded the width control, the left channel amplitude stayed nearly constant (increased but only very marginally).  The right channel level increased more.  Frozen waveforms remained identical in all cases except for amplitude (as expected based on what the meter output was indicating).
 
So, I'm going to stick to my guns here and say that in the second case (L at -15), increasing the width changed the stereo image, but it did so by moving the phantom center to the right, and the overall level increased.  One could produce exactly the same result by leaving width at zero, moving the CT L pan position a little to the right and increasing the level slightly.... 
 
 
...Beat me by six minutes, Drew.  

 
Isn't that what I said 24 hours ago...  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
...anyways I'm glad I had the opportunity to enjoy using my custom dual tone two track test clip.

dmbaer
Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. 

 
You keep saying CT width is not doing what it's claiming to do, and perhaps there's where I just don't get where you're coming from. What exactly do you think it's claiming to do? If manipulating the width controls changes the perceived image from (a) to (b) or (c) in the diagram below, that certainly seems like it's affecting the width of the stereo image. What are you expecting to have happen? Phase or time manipulation? That's a whole different thing. You're not going to get phase or time manipulation simply by doing selective amplitude variation.
 

 
This is a traditional way of looking at width, which has it roots in the days of ancient analog consoles where stereo entered the picture only when panning the mono sources to a stereo output bus. If you fed a stereo signal into the console's two mono channels, then the panpots did indeed control the perceived width because the two channels were carrying DIFFERENT audio streams. Pro Tools brought that concept of width into the DAW world when it decided to treat stereo as dual mono.
 
Furthermore, if I understand what you're trying to accomplish correctly (which I'm not sure I do), using an identical mono signal in each channel is NOT how Channel Tools is intended to be used. In the scenario you're describing, Channel Tools is not about creating two independent streams from mono to give a stereo stream. Placement of a stream in a stereo field is not always the same thing as a stereo stream. Channel Tools is intended for a stereo stream were presumably, the two channels carry different audio streams. Of course, there are ways you can produce the same results with panning and level manipulation because what Channel Tools is doing in this context is panning and level manipulation, just wrapping it in a GUI that simplifies creating the adjustment you want.
 
If you're familiar with Pro Tools, this will make sense if you think of Channel Tools as replicating Pro Tools' width behavior: The L source splits into dual mono, where it goes into a Pro Tools mixer channel that has panpots for each of the dual mono L streams. Meanwhile, the R source also splits into dual mono, where it goes into another Pro Tools mixer channel that has panpots for each of the dual mono R streams. That's essentially what Channel Tools does, with the exception that it allows for each channel's panpots to have a constant amount of offset (i.e., the two side knobs are referenced to the center L or R control and can move simultaneously) if you want to maintain the same width as you try different stereo imaging effects. 
 
So can you please clarify a) what is it you are trying to accomplish, because maybe Channel Tools is not the right tool for that although you CAN do Haas effect stuff with the delays, b) what do you think it's claiming to do that it's not doing, and c) how exactly do you define "width" if you're not talking about panning and amplitude changes to alter the stereo imaging?

drewfx1
Expanding the width appears to be just adding gain to both L and R in a disproportionate way depending on the pan position, so that as you increase width you get a louder signal panned a bit more towards center.

YES! Exactly!!! Except you said it in fewer words (lossless data compression algorithm, I presume). And it doesn't always have to be panned a bit more toward center, you can "weight" the signal toward the left or right.
 
I really think Channel Tools makes complete sense to anyone familiar with Pro Tools and how it uses panpots on dual mono streams to influence width...just that Channel Tools does it on a pair of dual mono streams, so you don't have to tie up two mixer channels in the process.

Indeed, you did, Mike.
 
There's nothing mysterious about how Channel Tools works. The two horizontal sliders simply control the amount of crossfeed between the left and right channels. In other words, they pan each channel as if they were two mono tracks, which of course is what they are. This can shift the image in the panorama, but it can only narrow the image, not widen it.
 
The plugin also provides gain controls for Mid and Side components, a feature completely separate from the "angle" parameters. If the stereo signal already has significant left-right differences, lowering the Mid and/or raising the Side will emphasize those differences and increase the perception of "width". It can't, however, generate width (M/S differences) if none are there, i.e. a mono signal.
 
Channel Tools can, however, fake some stereo-ness using delays - it's just your standard Haas Trick. That does do something for a mono track. Personally, I avoid that feature because with short delays it can cause comb filtering when the track is folded back to mono.
 
I'm not sure if any of this answers David's original question.
 
 
 

bitflipper
I'm not sure if any of this answers David's original question.

 
No, but it's informative, to the point, and accurate 
 
How come you and DrewFX are able to say what I'm trying to say in fewer words tonight? I think I need more sleep.
 

In this video, I created two test tones using Zeta2.
 
I initialized the synths to zero out all the settings, then set the pulse to sign and sent a midi note to both separated in the spectrum so you can see them separately on spectrum analyzers.
 
Next, I opened 3 instances of DigiCheck's Spectrum Analyzer with vector scope. 1 was just left, one just right and one was stereo.
 
I then played with the various sliders to see what happened to the signals. I don't bother you with the signals in the audio of the video, but you can see them in the DigiCheck instances.
 
One thing that confused me is that I panned one tone center and one tone left, then pulled down the mid gain. My expectation was that the centered tone would fade out (it did) but to my surprise the tone in the left channel became equally loud in the right channel.
 
http://youtu.be/RKJxSQQRTkk
You can listen at 2x speed if you want by setting the adjustment in the playback of the video in the bottom right corner of the screen.
 

Ok, I'm pretty much convinced that bringing down the mid gain is the same thing as bringing up a copy of the signal with the left and right channels swapped and phase inverted. It looks identical to me. I may make a video.
 
And I think that playing with the stereo spread basically is bringing up and down the volume of the stereo swapped phase inverted track.
 
http://youtu.be/pmTb8XqawP8
 

gswitz
Ok, I'm pretty much convinced that bringing down the mid gain is the same thing as bringing up a copy of the signal with the left and right channels swapped and phase inverted. It looks identical to me. I may make a video.
 
And I think that playing with the stereo spread basically is bringing up and down the volume of the stereo swapped phase inverted track.

You have introduced Mid Side issues to the discussion. We had more or less side stepped those so far. It seems to me that you have demonstrated exactly what you should expect from a M/S matrix. In the case of your test, at approx minute 3, when you pull the mid all the way down the vector scope displays the horizonal line from s+ to s-. This indicates that the "difference" in your signal is 100%, which is what you should expect from the routing you have set up.
 
Channel Tools has a mid/side, a.k.a. same/difference, encoder and decoder in it's "stereo" input signal flow and as soon as you touch the mid or side knobs you should see some results:
 

 
BTW, What software do you use to make your videos?
 
 

I have an MSDN license, so I get a free copy of MS Expression. I usually record the audio channels (b/c I can record multiple channels at once and mix it later) with RME DigiCheck. I record audio with MS Expression too, but only to line up the audio I mix in Sonar with the video. I nudge the audio left and right until it lines up properly. I use the length of the audio recorded by Expression to define the length of the audio to include in the video and fade the ends of the clips and stuff.
 
That way, when the mix is too loud or soft compared to my voice, I can adjust it so the watcher can hear what I'm talking about.
 
Sometimes I forget or mess up something and maybe fail to record the master outs or something like that. That's what happened in the video yesterday.

So, Mike, I guess I thought that the 'Width' controls might actually just be kinda a stereo swapped phase inverted panned (left and right not necessarily at same volume) track.
 
That's where I was going with it. Or trying to go with it.
 
I'm probably completely wrong. It just looks like it might help explain the width spreaders.