• SONAR
  • Question on Channel Tools L and R Width Controls (p.5)
2014/11/01 09:18:53
The Maillard Reaction
"I have an MSDN license, so I get a free copy of MS Expression"
 
Thanks Geoff. I have an old license to Adobe Captivate but I don't want to install it on my DAW. I (re)downloaded Camtasia recently, but quickly remembered that I don't want that on any of my systems.
 
Maybe I'll look at MS Expression.
2014/11/01 09:24:37
The Maillard Reaction
gswitz
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.
 




I don't really know Geoff,
 
I saw pretty much the same thing you saw, and I think it is what David and Drew saw as well. Dave (bit) mentioned the Haas effect, which can certainly be introduced with the delay controls, and I think I was seeing an ever so slight shift when using the "width" controls but it seemed very, very minor and so the effect of causing a change with the width controls seemed to be primarily a change in level and simple panning.
 
I'm sticking with my summary. Q: what does the width control do? A: Not very much.
 
 
2014/11/01 11:26:57
bitflipper
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.
 
http://youtu.be/pmTb8XqawP8
 




BINGO!
2014/11/01 11:36:51
Anderton
I don't care what anyone thinks about Channels Tools, and I don't care whether they use it or not. I keep responding because what I do care about is those for whom this would be the perfect solution to a music production problem, and might pass over it either because they didn't understand how to apply it, or took comments about CT not doing much at face value. As has been pointed it, CT offers several different functions but here I'm talking only about using the width and pan controls for precise imaging in the stereo soundstage.
 
The reason why I find Channel Tools crucial is that 99% of what I track is stereo. Even something as seemingly simple as tambourine is stereo because I incorporate the room. Sources that are truly mono, like vocals, often end up in stereo due to processing.
 
With stereo the channel panpot becomes a balance control. Leaving the Pan control centered and instead using Channel Tools to provide precise stereo width imaging independently for each stream from the stereo source is extremely helpful, while placing each stream to cover a precise portion of the stereo soundstage can improve a mix's clarity. 
 
If you don't work that way, the width control won't seem to do much. If you do, the width control avoids what I did pre-Channel Tools, which was building on the Pro Tools paradigm by splitting the stereo into two mono tracks, then copying each mono track into two channels for independent control over width for each stream (four channels total - a PITA).
 
I had to do this a lot with the Antonio Soler and Bach solo harpsichord projects I recorded with Kathleen McIntosh. We both preferred close-miking the harpsichord, so I miked the high and low strings independently. With the low mic, the L channel would pan full left and with the high mic, the R channel would pan full right. I could then use the low R channel pan and R left channel pan to place the "split point" for the keyboard in the precise middle of the stereo image, and/or weight/overlap the images toward the center so it sounded like you were sitting in front of the harpsichord compared to the more exaggerated stereo obtained by using two mics (which could be addressed only partially by using two stereo tracks with conventional panning). Doing very subtle manipulations on an almost subliminal level of the stereo placement to match particular pieces, and even doing extremely subtle changes between movements, prevented having a "sameness" throughout the CDs yet retained the harpsichord's fundamental sound and character.
 
You could probably come close by using two stereo channels and playing with the pan and level controls instead of breaking it into four channels, but there's significant interaction among the controls ("okay, now the right channel seems louder, so I guess I need to increase the level of the left, then group them and bring them both down a bit..."). It's much more convenient and flexible to be able to do all that with a plug-in on a single track compared to splitting, copying, and creating additional channels, or manipulating pan and level with two channels.
 
Here's a simple experiment so you can hear how I used this with material like Kathleen's.
 
1. Load the Grand Piano 1v 4th into Dimension Pro. This is a stereo piano with low notes weighted toward the left, and high notes weighted toward the right.
2. Play a part that covers the full range of the keyboard.
3. Insert Channel Tools. Play around with the Pan and Width controls, and you'll hear how easy it is to manipulate the stereo image to weight the keyboard however you want - make it more stereo, make it more mono, emphasize the lower notes, the higher notes, etc. etc.
4. After you get a sound you like, copy the track, split it into two mono streams, and put them in different channels. Now try to use the channel amplitude and pan controls to duplicate the sound you obtained in (3), and you'll see/hear how Channel Tools make the process so much easier.
 
So how did the critics react to the recordings? I must have done something right...
 
Padre Antonio Soler Sonatas 
"This is probably the finest recording of selected sonatas of Soler that I have heard; indeed, I find it even more satisfying than the fine performances on a modern piano by the esteemed Alicia de Larrocha." 
Victor Hill - The Diapason
 
Kathleen McIntosh plays Bach 
"The playing is fresh and insightful, eager and probing... The French Overture proceeds with perfect poise... while the Fantasy and Fugue in A minor is like listening to McIntosh build a palace of sound...Highly recommended." 
Craig Smith - The Santa Fe New Mexican
 
2014/11/01 11:44:49
drewfx1
mike_mccue
 
I'm sticking with my summary. Q: what does the width control do? A: Not very much.



I think that's fair from a technical standpoint. But just because there's no complicated DSP going on doesn't mean it's not potentially useful for anything.
2014/11/01 11:45:52
Anderton
drewfx1
But just because there's no complicated DSP going on doesn't mean it's not potentially useful for anything.



See post #44 
2014/11/01 11:49:06
drewfx1
Anderton
drewfx1
But just because there's no complicated DSP going on doesn't mean it's not potentially useful for anything.



See post #44 




Yes, but mine was more concise. 
2014/11/01 11:52:30
The Maillard Reaction
drewfx1
mike_mccue
 
I'm sticking with my summary. Q: what does the width control do? A: Not very much.



I think that's fair from a technical standpoint. But just because there's no complicated DSP going on doesn't mean it's not potentially useful for anything.




I think I am figuring out that width is good for making stuff sound louder on both sides of the aisle, while simultaneously making stuff less wide.
 
News at 11... ish.
2014/11/01 12:06:08
Anderton
drewfx1
Anderton
drewfx1
But just because there's no complicated DSP going on doesn't mean it's not potentially useful for anything.



See post #44 




Yes, but mine was more concise. 




As I've mentioned before, many of my responses are directed to those "on the sidelines" reading the thread for their own edification as opposed to responding solely to those posting in the thread. I felt that with all the talk of math, vectorscopes, and theory, it would be helpful for people who are more interested in making music than arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to have an explanation from a practical standpoint why Channel Tools can be useful, a real-world example of how to apply it, and an experiment they could conduct themselves to prove its usefulness (or lack thereof, depending on the projects they do) to their own satisfaction. After that post, I don't need to say anything more on the subject. People are smart enough to make up their own minds. I just want to make sure they have as full a data set as possible.
 
Then again, filters don't do much either. They're just amplifiers that affect only certain frequencies. 
 
2014/11/01 12:19:33
John
Well I can't add anything because I don't have a big interest in how it works. I have used a few times and set it to where it sounded as I wanted and was fine with it. 
 
This thread is interesting, though. The OP asked a very good question.
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account