mono vs stereo mix

[cfMC]

when I first started using protools I was headphone-crazy for using the automated mixing to do constant pan manipulations for heavily stereo mixes.

but I was talking about it with a recording pal and he let slide how a mix should always be mono cause the finest point on the endeavor should be that you the artist control what the audience hears. which you can't entirely do with stereo because you never know what environment somebody might be listening in--maybe they are sitting right in front of the left speaker or something.

also in my own real world experience today such as with ipods especially I find I often only listen to music in one ear frequently.

so in my recent project I have been mixing 100% mono, and I'm really digging it. I still record a lot of stereo tracks, especially drums and acoustic guitar but essentially on anything where I want to have that option for manipulation in the ultimate mono mix.

I find myself tempted sometimes to do a few mixes in stereo. probably what I'll do is do all of them in stereo and mono just to see. in which case for LP or CD I still feel like mono should be the mix that goes around. but if I build a little project all the way into DVD content, I could include stereo mixes with that.

I welcome anybody's thoughts on these matters!

[vvv]

That'z jes' weerd!

Seriously, I mean, I love black and white films, even some recent ones, but I think of that as a, a, a choice of "medium" that suits the work.

Interesting idea, though.

Hmmmm, maybe I'll keep my next CD under 30 minutes, and include mono mixes...

Although I admit, I hate IPOD's and the like in that everybody seems to use them with file compression; don't want to encourage that!

[drumsound]

I monitor in mono a lot to make everything is working well together. It's quite easy to just pan something to make it 'fit' buy in mono you really have to have you frequency balance together. I even work the pan knobw while monitoring in mono and you can hear the diffrence tonally even though you don't hear the different position. I have put a few mono mixes on releases and I'm not sure that anyone has even noticed or comented about, which means to me that the mix works.

[Professor]

I suppose that if mixing in mono works for you then that is great. I generally don't like mixing for the 'lowest common denominator' though we always have to mix with them in mind.
There will always be someone listening in less than lideal conditions, whether that is through one ear-bud from an ipod or with their "stereo" system at home split so that one speaker feeds the living room while the other feeds the kitchen, etc. But there will also be people who really do listen to both earbuds, or who have their speakers setup fairly well in their living rooms, or who might listen in a reasonably balanced car system, or maybe even on a high-end stereo system in a dedicated listening room. Similarly, some people will only listen as a background to their life, like having the stereo on while cooking, cleaning, etc. or walking around a city with only one ear-bud in, but some will dedicate time to listening to the music in an otherwise quiet space.
For these reasons, I always think it's good to provide some amount of "ear-candy" for the real listeners - still maintaining the compatability for the lowest common denominators, but without letting the potential for the recording be lost to low expectations for the listener's system. Yes, it may mean that someone hears an automated pan on a guitar riff as the slow wandering of the volume up and down in their single ear, but it means that some other person will hear an interesting and creative bit of mixing. We always need to test for 'mono compatability' for exactly those reasons you mention, but then again it's real easy to use the same logic, perhaps that 'everyone listens in noisy cars and as background music' to justify over-compressing tracks down to perhaps 5dB of total dynamic range. Sure that would sound better on one ear of an ipod while riding on the subway, but it doesn't much serve the music or anybody who might be listening to a nice system in a quiet room.

-Jeremy

[cfMC]

I'm really happy with how the mixes actually sound as mono-- when I listen I don't think about making it sound better with panning, I think about how great it sounds right there like it sounds!

I also believe it is making me pay more attention to my arrangments in terms of making everything "fit," or at least I have the impression that when I mix stereo I feel I can accomodate stuff by panning, where in mono I make more strict choices about elements' contributions. I'm finding that's good for my style.

so while there is an element of "lowest common denominator" to the justification I feel it isnt really taking away from the results, and for me it's even beneficial.

[aeijtzsche]

To me, mono will always be the "ultimate" production because of the reason you stated, it can never be futzed with and presents one vision to the listener.

I'm kind of sad that the mono mix isn't really specifically done anymore, unless it's for AM radio or whatever. It really is an exciting discipline to mix to mono.

However, I do completely seperate mono and stereo mixes for all of my productions. I'd do 5.1 as well if I had the capabilities. Any variety you can give a listener, they may appreciate. There is a certain power in a mono mix that stereo can't capture, and there is a clarity and space in a stereo recording that mono can't capture.

So why not do both and let the listener chose their favourite?

[Professor]

I'm really happy with how the mixes actually sound as mono-- when I listen I don't think about making it sound better with panning, I think about how great it sounds right there like it sounds!

In the end, that's really all that counts. I like stereo for the spaciousness. I like surround even more, though I don't feel there is a good consistent and reliable delivery format available for project studios. (DVD-R discs are still only compatible with a small sliver of the players out there.) I used to be more obsessively worried about mono compatability and would always mix and even listen with an oscilloscope switched on to learn to read that better - now I'm not so concerned and tend to only get really mono obsessed if it's something destined for broadcast or some kind of lower denominator release. I check mono sums, but don't live by them. But that's me.

-Jeremy

[joeysimms]

Nothing wrong with mono - I'd like to have both mixes of my stuff.

[joelpatterson]

The ultimate test for a mix is to drop it into mono and see if everything is still clear. That's a brave gesture to leave it at that, then.

[mfdu]

i record mono, and then place the mono tracks in the stereo field, constantly referring back to mono.

then when i ad the bling, i keep it mono too. eg. a tracks reverb appearing exactly opposite the actual track, so in mono fold-down they retain their correlation.

so, are you talking about a full mono mix, or a stereo mix using solely mono components?

because either is actually pretty cool. esp. if your equipment can manage some tight placement of mono sources in the stereo field as well as having fold-down capability.

with crappy pre-amps, sticking to mono sources can definately improve legibility of the mix and the individual instruments.

chris.

[Girl Toes]

That does it. I'm releasing my next album in both formats.

[jmoose]

I don't think I've ever mixed anything solely in mono but I always check compatibility to make sure I haven?t screwed the pooch and some vital element disappears in mono. It might be cool to release an album that?s totally mono but doesn?t that seem so limiting artistically? Surely there?s a middle ground between 100% mono and having everything spin around the listeners head and IMHO, that?s the ground to aim for. I spend a lot of time listening in mono even when panning stuff around. These days you never know where a mix will end up once it?s released and you have to keep the high & low denominators in mind. You should go with whatever feels right for the music, whether it?s crazy 60?s panning or something more ?mainstream? but personally, I couldn?t think of limiting myself to either one or the other.

Besides, if someone does decide to listen to just one side of the record isn?t that a cool thing? I?ve spent HOURS doing just that, maybe to pick out & learn parts or just to dissect how it was all put together. And if they?re only hearing one side of the mix because of some mis-wiring?well?that?s not your fault! Besides, that can be handy...I'd use Taxman for a PA check at clubs. If I couldn't hear Ringo or he was all I heard we have a problem!!!

[mfdu]

yeah moose - when the client wants it to "sound old" or "lo fi" (at 96khz??) the first thing i try is using only mono instruments and single point-source mixing.
you know - a mono reverb maybe on hard left with main vox centered, bass hard right, guitar hard left, maybe the drum kit kept either centeredor hard to one side.
so yes it is a 2-channel mix, but as long as the reverb doesn't cause comb-filtering, it'll be mono compatable.
it also has a completely different character to a fully doubletracked and stereo-ised track.

proviso - it all depends on the song, the client, and how much coffee i've had. if it feels good . . .


chris.

[vvv]

Do note, y'all, then when he says mono, he means mono, apparently such that the same thing is in both speakers (in that he's listening to just one ear bud...) which is, I believe, a little different than, say, "Taxman"...

[mfdu]

vvv

yes (sigh) i know you're right about mono as in a single auratone, unbalanced hot/earth line.

yes yes yes.

but it was soooo much more fun to take it as mono signals in a dual mono playback environment.

but you caught me. i feel bad now for taking it off topic.

please forgive.



chris.