Test of stereo enhancers including K-Stereo

[ISedlacek]

Here are two short tracks (of different musical genres), presented in the original and then after applying four different stereo enhancers/imagers:

1) K-Stereo (Algorithmix plugin) (790 EUR)
2) Samplitude stereo enhancer (included in the programme)
3) BX control (74 EUR)
4) PSP stereo controller (32 EUR)

Now 20 sec samples (blind - in different order, the respective letter always belongs to the same enhancer)

POP:

1orig

1A

1B

1C

1D


ELECTRONICA:

2orig

2A

2B

2C

2D


And I would be very much interested to hear your impressions about how you like A,B,C,D enhancers and what each does to the track. Some preference scale (if any :)) would be interesting too. After some feedbacks, I will tell you which is which

K-Stereo was set to wide/deep + 1dB
the others to 118% stereo width enhancing

[bob katz]

Dear Ivo:

Good effort, but you've defeated to some extent the very effect you're trying to demonstrate! You started with 16 bit samples and ended with 16 bit samples. Did you dither to get the results? Even with dithering it's going to get a bit smaller. I suggest you take your originals, process them with the processes to a 32 bit float result or a 24 bit result, then zip or rar them to save space on the download. Let's not SHRINK the very things we want to evaluate!

BK

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Here are two short tracks (of different musical genres), presented in the original and then after applying four different stereo enhancers/imagers:

1) K-Stereo (Algorithmix plugin) (790 EUR)
2) Samplitude stereo enhancer (included in the programme)
3) BX control (74 EUR)
4) PSP stereo controller (32 EUR)

Now 20 sec samples (blind - in different order, the respective letter always belongs to the same enhancer)

POP:

1orig

1A

1B

1C

1D


ELECTRONICA:

2orig

2A

2B

2C

2D


And I would be very much interested to hear your impressions about how you like A,B,C,D enhancers and what each does to the track. Some preference scale (if any :)) would be interesting too. After some feedbacks, I will tell you which is which

K-Stereo was set to wide/deep + 1dB
the others to 118% stereo width enhancing

[lllubi]

hope B is K-Stereo
glues the signals or let them play in the same room
sounds very much like a record to me
would be disappointed if its not the K-Stereo

PS:the server from Algorithmix seems not to work

thanks

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Dear Ivo:

Good effort, but you've defeated to some extent the very effect you're trying to demonstrate! You started with 16 bit samples and ended with 16 bit samples. Did you dither to get the results? Even with dithering it's going to get a bit smaller. I suggest you take your originals, process them with the processes to a 32 bit float result or a 24 bit result, then zip or rar them to save space on the download. Let's not SHRINK the very things we want to evaluate!

BK

Dear Bob, the originals were 48/24 in case of 1) and 44/24 in case of 2). I simply (and automatically) dithered both originals and the results and got 16 bit files. The processes were actually done at 24 bit in all cases. I may try to keep in 24 bit even for the results. But on the other hand, it is the CD format (44/16) that will get as a result to the listeners ...

[reid]

B = K-Stereo

C = Samplitude

A = BX Control

D = PSP

Purely on the premise that 'good' sounding equals more expensive. For me B + C are affected in a positive way by their treatment, D is diminished somehow and A is 'the same but different'

Thanks for putting the comparison together

[bcgood]

So far I've just listened to the pop mix but what a nice sounding mix. Good job Ivo.

Now I couldn't help myself so I did a little test and made a little master myself. This is just me messing with it with about 7 different processes. I'm not trying to compare this to the others because I did other things other than open up the stereo image. Just having some fun. Again, great sounding mix and I love the chord changes with the vocal melody, very outside.

Sorry for the hijack!

[Lagerfeldt]

I'd love to include the new yet unreleased Sonalksis StereoTools.

The best stereo spread I've heard yet.

[ISedlacek]

Bcgood, sorry but that´s really not the point here ...

Here is the last batch of samples, this time on a nice 20 sec of vocal "acapella" in the style of Manhattan Transfer - so another field for applying nice stereo enhancement
As Bob suggested, now it is in 24/44:


VOCAL GROUP:

3orig

3A

3B

3C

3D

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

I'd love to include the new yet unreleased Sonalksis StereoTools.

The best stereo spread I've heard yet.

If you have them, please, apply it on these files as well ...

[AroundTheClock]

Hello,

To my ears, A & C sound basically like M/S coding/decoding with S being pushed forward a bit. I think C does it better.

B is really something different, not just Stereo Enhancement, each sound is kind of wrapped. But I do not like what it does on sibilance.

D totally mess up everything. Loss of clarity definitely.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Hane

I visited the Audiomasters website. A site dedicated to Adobe Audition and Cool Edit Pro. In their "Third Party Plugins" forum there's a thread about the K-Stereo Ambience Processor. Click here for the Admins opinions. Want do you think?

Mabe you better post the question in this thread ? Algorithmix K-Stereo Released

Can we here just concentrate at the comparison itself ?

[macleodgrant]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

I'd love to include the new yet unreleased Sonalksis StereoTools.

The best stereo spread I've heard yet.

i'm looking forward to hearing these - when is Q2 anyways? is it not from april on?

[Bob Yordan]

I think I will listen to how the mixes translates in mono before deciding what sounds best.

[audibell]

Hi,
the original and B sound best to me, tho' B sounds like its Mid has been upped a bunch, A sounds close to original but bigger, C & D I can't hear much between them against B. I prefer the original. They are good, in tune and very credible against the Manhattans.
WT

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Bob Yordan

I think I will listen to how the mixes translates in mono before deciding what sounds best.

Anyone listening to music in mono today ? I personally don´t care so much about mono ...

[ISedlacek]

Tomorrow I will tell which is which. More feedbacks till then are welcome

[Bob Yordan]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Anyone listening to music in mono today ? I personally don´t care so much about mono ...

Everyday on my clock radio.

[steffen]

B attracts me most (popsample)
can listen on earbuds only at the moment (sick in bed) but on the other
hand thats a real live situation

[Andreas G]

I listened to the pop-samples only.

A sounds best to me, surprisingly even in mono it seems to enhance. This is not only MS-processing, I guess it's the K-stereo. The rest seems to be MS enhancers.

C sounds nearly as wide as A, B is wider than C and D sounds the widest to me but is already out of balance. All centered signals in D are at least 1 dB to quiet compared to the rest.

I wonder why you didn't set the MS-processors more close to each other?

Andreas

Edit: BTW B reminds me very much on the BX control.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Andreas G

I wonder why you didn't set the MS-processors more close to each other?

Andreas
.

I did - all of them are set exactly to 118% stereo width: how each of them handles it, is another thing ... But of course, only 3 of them are the classical MS-processors

Originally Posted by Andreas G

C sounds nearly as wide as A, B is wider than C and D sounds the widest to me but is already out of balance.

That reminds a question from some IQ tests: and now - which of them is the narrowest ?

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

all of them are set exactly to 118% stereo width: how each of them handles it, is another thing ...

I've gotten so I don't like any additional stereo processing. I think it weakens the music.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Peakly

I've gotten so I don't like any additional stereo processing. I think it weakens the music.

In my opinion, it very much depends on the track and music. Sometimes adding a nice "aura" to the track is very pleasant and vital. Other times it does not make any good ... But there is no general rule

[Peakly]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

In my opinion, it very much depends on the track and music. Sometimes adding a nice "aura" to the track is very pleasant and vital. Other times it does not make any good ... But there is no general rule

Yeah, I thought about that. You're probably right. But the recordings I've dealt with that are real instruments and voices, I think it weakens a vital center of the music. To my ear, there is more lost than gained.

[jamsmith]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Anyone listening to music in mono today ? I personally don´t care so much about mono ...

Everyday on my TV (Comcast Music Choice)

[ISedlacek]

So here you are:

A - BX control
B - Algorithmix K-Stereo
C - PSP Stereo Controler
D - Samplitude stereo enhancer

In the meantime when playing K-Stereo, I found that 0 dB setting (or even less) is in most cases just the right amount of processing and above that, it can be sometimes already too much (in the beginning I thought that 0 dB means no effect and below it the effect is even reverse, which is obviously not so.) As one of the Murphy laws say - when all the attempts fail, read the manual :-))) There it is indeed mentioned that 0dB setting represents the average amount of the process which usually suits most materials.
In the above samples I used + 1dB. If 0dB used, the result would probably sound more natural, I think. Another thing is that you don´t have to engage both controls (wide/deep), sometimes just one of them may work ideal in certain cases. Sometimes also settings below 0dB give yet more subtle enhancement ... which may be suitable for a given material.

I really like K-Stereo (and I obviously played with it a lot more than the few fixed examples above show). It gives very subtle, almost "ethereal" kind of enhancement that is not immediately obvious (and does not change the original structure of the sound), but when switching off, you notice that something is missing ... So far I have not played with the ambience EQ section, which can still shape and adjust the right type of ambience

As you could see above, most of those who listened to the samples immediately recognised that B sounds special, different than the others. Yes, it is true, although in a real situation, I would probably use it in slightly less amount ...

I too clearly prefered K-stereo treatment over all the other processors ... The mentioned occassional tiny artifacts (touch of sibilance or mid pushing )can be easily controled by the amount and type of process)

Let us see how Sonalksis Stereo Tools would treat these samples. Lagerfeld promised to post them here on Monday.

I personally always like when the music has some nice space or invisible very decent "aura" around. Hence I am interested in this kind of subtle stereo tools

BTW K-Stereo plugin brings exactly the same type of processes and algorithms as included in these HW boxes:





It would be interesting to try also Portico Stereo Field Enhancer and SPL Vitaliser for a similar effect. But I don´t have access to these boxes right now. Although the comfort of a plugin is quite an advantage.

Still pondering about the best place of K-Stereo plugin in the ITB "fine tuning" mastering chain (after the analogue treatment).

[inlinenl]

nice topic Ivo ..super

all plugins "if used" I always put them first, I don't wan't to degrade the signal from the "real" mastering-chain with any-kind off software afterwards .. in any case off any internal up-sampling/down-sampling/dithering etc. etc. a kind off principal thing ....

any info on the internal processing off this K-software .. like upsampling/downsampling ... or does it just sound GREAT.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by inlinenl

nice topic Ivo ..super

all plugins "if used" I always put them first, I don't wan't to degrade the signal from the "real" mastering-chain with any-kind off software afterwards .. in any case off any internal up-sampling/down-sampling/dithering etc. etc. a kind off principal thing ....

Well, what about the final limiter ? I think it should be always the very last thing in any kind of chain ? (and I am afraid the software brickwall limiters - like Sonnox - are still irreplaceable by any hardware, for the common style of contemporary music production)

I usually do the main analogue processing first, followed by a small final tuning (usually with ParPLEQ) and Sonnox limiter. I used to put the stereo enhancer (if used) before the EQ ... I may experiment a bit more.

[inlinenl]

Ivo .. who needs limiting anyway ... when needed that 1 dB it's the L2 - hardware or weiss-ds1 for me .. otherwise the L2 is
just for safety at -0.3 dB or higher when working in the 96Khz area

[aivoryuk]

maybe its the settings used but I don't really like any of them.
The K-Stereo does seem the most natural but there is IMO a significant loss of low end.

I know this is only a test but I've always thought that stereo enhancers should be used very sparingly if at all.

[ISedlacek]

The ideal stereo enhancement would not include the low end. A kind of "multiband" function in K-stereo (similarly like in Samplitude Multiband Enhancer) would be quite useful I think ...