Should you be mixing in mono?

[Aosta]

This guy seems to think so.

[zoidkirb]

I like to check in mono at least. But mono the whole time could really diminish the enjoyment of mixing.

[guitfnky]

I like to check in mono at least. But mono the whole time could really diminish the enjoyment of mixing.

100%

I can’t imagine how little I’d get done if I worked primarily in mono—because I wouldn’t want to work much at all.

I’ll always do at least a couple of full listens on a mono grotbox, but mixing mostly in mono is overkill.

[Noise]

My personal rule for "mixing" mono:
- Individual checking: after I add a new instrument and fx's > check mono / phasing
- Add a new snare + fx / kick + fx > check for mono and move on.
- Final Mono checking > Overall mix, just take a quick inspect and try to find phasing issues (easily done with mono)
- And done.

Note:
Also, going again for the Selig Gain Tool, always add it to the final chain of fx, you can easily check the mono with it.
Another personal rule , don't mix in full mono, it's just for checking for issues.

The good thing of taking a look in mono, it's to find some instruments that are taking too much volume / frequency space, it gives you another perspective.

[QVprod]

Mono shouldn’t destroy your listening experience that much. If it does, then it’s highlighting the problems that need to be fixed. Listening in mono is great while EQing as you get to hear where masking is happening more easily. Great for cleaning up a track. Creative decisions should be made in stereo though.

[guitfnky]

Mono shouldn’t destroy your listening experience that much. If it does, then it’s highlighting the problems that need to be fixed. Listening in mono is great while EQing as you get to hear where masking is happening more easily. Great for cleaning up a track. Creative decisions should be made in stereo though.

no, width and depth are both crucial mixing considerations. it makes no sense to remove one of them, for most of your mix process. if that were the case, no one would have decided we need a second channel, and we wouldn’t need to mix in stereo in the first place. stereo width is part of the enjoyment of music, and part of the enjoyment of mixing is creating that width (it’s also our job).

you sort of make the argument yourself when you say “listening in mono is great while EQing”. yes, it is. WHILE you’re EQing. I don’t spend most of my mix EQing.

mixing primarily in mono is maybe a good practice when you’re just starting out, or if you’re using a lot of plugins that cause phase problems, or maybe if you’re recording a lot of multi-mic setups, but otherwise, it’s not at all necessary as a main mode for making mix choices.

if I’m worried about phase problems, I pan the stuff I’m concerned about to the center, and flip polarity to check it. getting phase problems between completely different instruments is super rare, and most of the time everything is being done in the box, so that’s not a reason. the biggest thing is masking, as you say, but as long as you’re aware of the concept, and you’re using your ears, that’s super easy to avoid as well, without needing to mix in mono.

honestly, if you’re spending the majority of the time mixing while not being able to hear width information, you’re arguably doing just as much a disservice to the width of your mix as you are to the clarity of your mix, by not checking for mono compatibility.

the best approach is usually to listen in a variety of ways, across a variety of speaker setups (including single speakers), and not use any one mode as a crutch. diversify!

[QVprod]

Mono shouldn’t destroy your listening experience that much. If it does, then it’s highlighting the problems that need to be fixed. Listening in mono is great while EQing as you get to hear where masking is happening more easily. Great for cleaning up a track. Creative decisions should be made in stereo though.

no, width and depth are both crucial mixing considerations. it makes no sense to remove one of them, for most of your mix process. if that were the case, no one would have decided we need a second channel, and we wouldn’t need to mix in stereo in the first place. stereo width is part of the enjoyment of music, and part of the enjoyment of mixing is creating that width (it’s also our job).

you sort of make the argument yourself when you say “listening in mono is great while EQing”. yes, it is. WHILE you’re EQing. I don’t spend most of my mix EQing.

I never said you should do most of the mix in mono. Neither does the video. Saying that it shouldn't destroy your listening experience that much means that a good song is still a good song. Yes it will sound worse than stereo, but it shouldn't sound "bad". I would list width and depth as creative decisions; which I said should be done in stereo.

[guitfnky]

no, width and depth are both crucial mixing considerations. it makes no sense to remove one of them, for most of your mix process. if that were the case, no one would have decided we need a second channel, and we wouldn’t need to mix in stereo in the first place. stereo width is part of the enjoyment of music, and part of the enjoyment of mixing is creating that width (it’s also our job).

you sort of make the argument yourself when you say “listening in mono is great while EQing”. yes, it is. WHILE you’re EQing. I don’t spend most of my mix EQing.

I never said you should do most of the mix in mono. Neither does the video. Saying that it shouldn't destroy your listening experience that much means that a good song is still a good song. Yes it will sound worse than stereo, but it shouldn't sound "bad". I would list width and depth as creative decisions; which I said should be done in stereo.

it kind of does say that, though. checking your mix in mono isn’t the same thing as mixing in mono. the premise of the video is mixing in mono, not checking for compatibility from time to time. maybe that’s what he actually meant, in which case, that’s what he should’ve said.

of course a good song is a good song, regardless of what you listen on, but that’s beside the point. I’m sure most everyone can say they’ve enjoyed listening to great songs on supremely terrible speakers (even mono ones), and still been able to enjoy it.

downplaying the importance of width and depth by relegating them to mere creative decisions is a touch silly, IMO. next time you see an acoustic show live, you wouldn’t expect them all to be sitting in a line directly in front of you, and playing every note as hard as they possibly could—it would sound terrible.

[integerpoet]

Lately, I've been experimenting with starting a mix in mono and switching to stereo only when I've taken it as far as I can without panning anything. It feels like this gives me a more solid base. Thereafter, I check back periodically to make sure I haven't screwed the phase cancellation pooch.

FWIW, I love the Quadelectra Stereo Splitter rack extension. I see the kHs Stereo RE is free, but US$9 is, like, barely lunch, and if you don't already have mid/side processing everywhere you want it, Stereo Splitter is a good catch-all utility. I keep it disclosed at the end of pretty much every project's signal chain just before hitting the "hardware" so I can toggle the MONO button easily, though of course it does tons more than that.

[QVprod]

I never said you should do most of the mix in mono. Neither does the video. Saying that it shouldn't destroy your listening experience that much means that a good song is still a good song. Yes it will sound worse than stereo, but it shouldn't sound "bad". I would list width and depth as creative decisions; which I said should be done in stereo.

it kind of does say that, though. checking your mix in mono isn’t the same thing as mixing in mono. the premise of the video is mixing in mono, not checking for compatibility from time to time. maybe that’s what he actually meant, in which case, that’s what he should’ve said.

of course a good song is a good song, regardless of what you listen on, but that’s beside the point. I’m sure most everyone can say they’ve enjoyed listening to great songs on supremely terrible speakers (even mono ones), and still been able to enjoy it.

downplaying the importance of width and depth by relegating them to mere creative decisions is a touch silly, IMO. next time you see an acoustic show live, you wouldn’t expect them all to be sitting in a line directly in front of you, and playing every note as hard as they possibly could—it would sound terrible.

I disagree. EQ (or at least the corrective EQ that you would do in mono) is done at the beginning of the mix. The overall process of mixing however is a creative art. Labeling width and depth as creative decisions isn’t downplaying the importance at all. Every mix engineer will handle them differently the same way that 2 guitar players given the same song will play them differently.

Checking for mono compatibility is a different thing. Arguably, a mix that was started in mono will already be mono compatible. You’ve already solved any mono issues be it phasing or frequency masking. It’s one of the benefits to working that way rather than finding an issue later down the line. Regardless, these are simply different methods and neither is wrong.

[guitfnky]

it kind of does say that, though. checking your mix in mono isn’t the same thing as mixing in mono. the premise of the video is mixing in mono, not checking for compatibility from time to time. maybe that’s what he actually meant, in which case, that’s what he should’ve said.

of course a good song is a good song, regardless of what you listen on, but that’s beside the point. I’m sure most everyone can say they’ve enjoyed listening to great songs on supremely terrible speakers (even mono ones), and still been able to enjoy it.

downplaying the importance of width and depth by relegating them to mere creative decisions is a touch silly, IMO. next time you see an acoustic show live, you wouldn’t expect them all to be sitting in a line directly in front of you, and playing every note as hard as they possibly could—it would sound terrible.

I disagree. EQ (or at least the corrective EQ that you would do in mono) is done at the beginning of the mix. The overall process of mixing however is a creative art. Labeling width and depth as creative decisions isn’t downplaying the importance at all. Every mix engineer will handle them differently the same way that 2 guitar players given the same song will play them differently.

Checking for mono compatibility is a different thing. Arguably, a mix that was started in mono will already be mono compatible. You’ve already solved any mono issues be it phasing or frequency masking. It’s one of the benefits to working that way rather than finding an issue later down the line. Regardless, these are simply different methods and neither is wrong.

the implication that width and depth are creative decisions, instead of fundamental properties of sound is untrue. of course we can make creative decisions for how to apply/handle them, but they’re fundamental to sound, and trying to treat them separately *as a rule* (the assertion of this video) doesn’t make sense.

also, doing corrective EQ doesn’t only happen at the beginning of the mix. unless it’s a super simple mix, there will be new problems cropping up as you mix that need to be addressed.

and that last paragraph is not true at all. starting a mix in mono doesn’t in any way ensure that the end result will be mono compatible. add a stereo width plugin toward the end of the mix?—no problem, crank it all the way up! realize halfway through that you need to shift the timing on the bass?—no worries! you already checked for mono compatibility when you started. see the problem?

we do agree that they’re two different approaches, and I think I can safely say we also agree they’re both useful and important, in their own right. I just disagree with the premise of the video—that we should MIX in mono, instead of just regularly checking for mono compatibility. maybe I’m just being pedantic about the wording, but words have specific meanings for a reason, and if he doesn’t mean “you should mix in mono”, he shouldn’t say “you should mix in mono”.

[selig]

Try both, use what works best for you!

I have personally never been able to use any rules or templates in my work because my workflow can vary so much from project to project. Turns out this has served me well over the years because it taught me to address each situation uniquely and over time to build a BIG box of tricks to draw from.

As for the creative/technical bit - it's both, it's always been both at all stages of production for me. To ignore one OR the other at ANY point in the process is to potentially take an unwanted detour, one that will eventually have to be addressed…

[QVprod]

I disagree. EQ (or at least the corrective EQ that you would do in mono) is done at the beginning of the mix. The overall process of mixing however is a creative art. Labeling width and depth as creative decisions isn’t downplaying the importance at all. Every mix engineer will handle them differently the same way that 2 guitar players given the same song will play them differently.

Checking for mono compatibility is a different thing. Arguably, a mix that was started in mono will already be mono compatible. You’ve already solved any mono issues be it phasing or frequency masking. It’s one of the benefits to working that way rather than finding an issue later down the line. Regardless, these are simply different methods and neither is wrong.

the implication that width and depth are creative decisions, instead of fundamental properties of sound is untrue. of course we can make creative decisions for how to apply/handle them, but they’re fundamental to sound, and trying to treat them separately *as a rule* (the assertion of this video) doesn’t make sense.

also, doing corrective EQ doesn’t only happen at the beginning of the mix. unless it’s a super simple mix, there will be new problems cropping up as you mix that need to be addressed.

and that last paragraph is not true at all. starting a mix in mono doesn’t in any way ensure that the end result will be mono compatible. add a stereo width plugin toward the end of the mix?—no problem, crank it all the way up! realize halfway through that you need to shift the timing on the bass?—no worries! you already checked for mono compatibility when you started. see the problem?

we do agree that they’re two different approaches, and I think I can safely say we also agree they’re both useful and important, in their own right. I just disagree with the premise of the video—that we should MIX in mono, instead of just regularly checking for mono compatibility. maybe I’m just being pedantic about the wording, but words have specific meanings for a reason, and if he doesn’t mean “you should mix in mono”, he shouldn’t say “you should mix in mono”.

I think you're seeing my statements to the extreme. There's a reason I'm not using definite words like "only". However yes, you if mix in mono (in the beginning) and there are no phase issues, then there won't be any phase issues later on unless you then do something to change the phase. In most cases though, you probably wont. I'm thinking maybe you'd have to try this method out to understand it. If you're doing corrective EQ in the beginning - to me that's cleaning out mud and most masking. Sure you may have to make a tweak here and there, but most EQ after that will be to taste rather for making certain elements stand out less or be enhanced. I consider that creative. It's not like there's a clinical "use this EQ shape" that works on everything. So as far as width and depth, while there's technique involved, it's still a creative decision because there are various ways of how to handle them. Dribbling a ball is fundamental but Allen Iverson and Kobe Bryant had different ways of how to apply it to their game. (sorry not up on current basketball players) Going back to my musician example; two guitar players play the same song. They can be equally skilled knowing the fundamentals of their instrument, scales, chords...etc... but you will prefer one's approach over the other. Same with mix engineers. It's an art. I don't believe calling it that negates the fundamentals properties of sound. The technical side is implied in my opinion, not negated.

I believe the video is saying the same thing I'm saying. He's not checking in mono. he's starting the mix in mono and then finishing in stereo. He switches the mix back to stereo at the end. Perhaps you feel he should specifically say "start the mix in mono" since that's what he's saying?

[integerpoet]

I think the question here is a good one.

People seem to be making the mistake of thinking there is One True Answer.

And there probably isn't one other than "Understand why and when somebody would mix in mono and act accordingly."

[guitfnky]

the implication that width and depth are creative decisions, instead of fundamental properties of sound is untrue. of course we can make creative decisions for how to apply/handle them, but they’re fundamental to sound, and trying to treat them separately *as a rule* (the assertion of this video) doesn’t make sense.

also, doing corrective EQ doesn’t only happen at the beginning of the mix. unless it’s a super simple mix, there will be new problems cropping up as you mix that need to be addressed.

and that last paragraph is not true at all. starting a mix in mono doesn’t in any way ensure that the end result will be mono compatible. add a stereo width plugin toward the end of the mix?—no problem, crank it all the way up! realize halfway through that you need to shift the timing on the bass?—no worries! you already checked for mono compatibility when you started. see the problem?

we do agree that they’re two different approaches, and I think I can safely say we also agree they’re both useful and important, in their own right. I just disagree with the premise of the video—that we should MIX in mono, instead of just regularly checking for mono compatibility. maybe I’m just being pedantic about the wording, but words have specific meanings for a reason, and if he doesn’t mean “you should mix in mono”, he shouldn’t say “you should mix in mono”.

I think you're seeing my statements to the extreme. There's a reason I'm not using definite words like "only". However yes, you if mix in mono (in the beginning) and there are no phase issues, then there won't be any phase issues later on unless you then do something to change the phase. In most cases though, you probably wont. I'm thinking maybe you'd have to try this method out to understand it. If you're doing corrective EQ in the beginning - to me that's cleaning out mud and most masking. Sure you may have to make a tweak here and there, but most EQ after that will be to taste rather for making certain elements stand out less or be enhanced. I consider that creative. It's not like there's a clinical "use this EQ shape" that works on everything. So as far as width and depth, while there's technique involved, it's still a creative decision because there are various ways of how to handle them. Dribbling a ball is fundamental but Allen Iverson and Kobe Bryant had different ways of how to apply it to their game. (sorry not up on current basketball players) Going back to my musician example; two guitar players play the same song. They can be equally skilled knowing the fundamentals of their instrument, scales, chords...etc... but you will prefer one's approach over the other. Same with mix engineers. It's an art. I don't believe calling it that negates the fundamentals properties of sound. The technical side is implied in my opinion, not negated.

I believe the video is saying the same thing I'm saying. He's not checking in mono. he's starting the mix in mono and then finishing in stereo. He switches the mix back to stereo at the end. Perhaps you feel he should specifically say "start the mix in mono" since that's what he's saying?

I think you’re missing my point. the premise of the video is “should you be mixing in mono?—yes!”

that’s it.

and it’s fundamentally flawed, if you take it at face value.

I thought I made it very clear: in my view, the average mix engineer should not be *mixing* in mono. they should be occasionally checking their mixes in mono. I can’t imagine there are many professional mix engineers out there that would spend the majority of their time mixing in mono.

summing everything to mono until the last step(s) is leaving a ton of stuff on the table during a large portion of the mix process. sure, it feels good to put it all together, get it sounding good, and then widen everything back into stereo for the first time (yes, I’ve done it), but it’s completely unnecessary. it’s more of a feel-good tactic than something that provides actual value for the duration of a mix. it’s like dieting all week, so you can eat a whole pizza on Saturday night.

I’m curious though—what percentage of an average mix do you spend in mono?

regardless, I basically agree with what Selig said. whatever works for you is right, but I take great umbrage with these sorts of one-size-fits-all proclamations on how to mix well. the only one-size-fits-all rule that works for mixing is, if it sounds good, it is good.

[QVprod]

I think you're seeing my statements to the extreme. There's a reason I'm not using definite words like "only". However yes, you if mix in mono (in the beginning) and there are no phase issues, then there won't be any phase issues later on unless you then do something to change the phase. In most cases though, you probably wont. I'm thinking maybe you'd have to try this method out to understand it. If you're doing corrective EQ in the beginning - to me that's cleaning out mud and most masking. Sure you may have to make a tweak here and there, but most EQ after that will be to taste rather for making certain elements stand out less or be enhanced. I consider that creative. It's not like there's a clinical "use this EQ shape" that works on everything. So as far as width and depth, while there's technique involved, it's still a creative decision because there are various ways of how to handle them. Dribbling a ball is fundamental but Allen Iverson and Kobe Bryant had different ways of how to apply it to their game. (sorry not up on current basketball players) Going back to my musician example; two guitar players play the same song. They can be equally skilled knowing the fundamentals of their instrument, scales, chords...etc... but you will prefer one's approach over the other. Same with mix engineers. It's an art. I don't believe calling it that negates the fundamentals properties of sound. The technical side is implied in my opinion, not negated.

I believe the video is saying the same thing I'm saying. He's not checking in mono. he's starting the mix in mono and then finishing in stereo. He switches the mix back to stereo at the end. Perhaps you feel he should specifically say "start the mix in mono" since that's what he's saying?

I think you’re missing my point. the premise of the video is “should you be mixing in mono?—yes!”

that’s it.

and it’s fundamentally flawed, if you take it at face value.

I thought I made it very clear: in my view, the average mix engineer should not be *mixing* in mono. they should be occasionally checking their mixes in mono. I can’t imagine there are many professional mix engineers out there that would spend the majority of their time mixing in mono.

summing everything to mono until the last step(s) is leaving a ton of stuff on the table during a large portion of the mix process. sure, it feels good to put it all together, get it sounding good, and then widen everything back into stereo for the first time (yes, I’ve done it), but it’s completely unnecessary. it’s more of a feel-good tactic than something that provides actual value for the duration of a mix. it’s like dieting all week, so you can eat a whole pizza on Saturday night.

I’m curious though—what percentage of an average mix do you spend in mono?

regardless, I basically agree with what Selig said. whatever works for you is right, but I take great umbrage with these sorts of one-size-fits-all proclamations on how to mix well. the only one-size-fits-all rule that works for mixing is, if it sounds good, it is good.

Still think you’re talking extremes. I’ve said that it’s a tactic useful for the beginning of a mix. Creating width and depth is a fair amount of the mix. EQ, panning, saturation, reverb...etc... I wouldn’t call that a “last step”. Do I do it on every mix, no, but it’s useful when I do. I don’t see why the average engineer shouldn’t, it’s neither a beginner nor advanced technique and it does work. Purely a matter of preference. I wouldn’t take much stock in the video sounding like a “one size fits all” in presentation. I find that many tutorials are phrased this way when it only covers one topic. Anyone learning to mix should try techniques and find what works for them and they’ll likely be hearing from more than one person on YouTube. I’d only have an issue if the advice was harmful, and I don’t believe it is is this case.

[guitfnky]

I think you’re missing my point. the premise of the video is “should you be mixing in mono?—yes!”

that’s it.

and it’s fundamentally flawed, if you take it at face value.

I thought I made it very clear: in my view, the average mix engineer should not be *mixing* in mono. they should be occasionally checking their mixes in mono. I can’t imagine there are many professional mix engineers out there that would spend the majority of their time mixing in mono.

summing everything to mono until the last step(s) is leaving a ton of stuff on the table during a large portion of the mix process. sure, it feels good to put it all together, get it sounding good, and then widen everything back into stereo for the first time (yes, I’ve done it), but it’s completely unnecessary. it’s more of a feel-good tactic than something that provides actual value for the duration of a mix. it’s like dieting all week, so you can eat a whole pizza on Saturday night.

I’m curious though—what percentage of an average mix do you spend in mono?

regardless, I basically agree with what Selig said. whatever works for you is right, but I take great umbrage with these sorts of one-size-fits-all proclamations on how to mix well. the only one-size-fits-all rule that works for mixing is, if it sounds good, it is good.

Still think you’re talking extremes. I’ve said that it’s a tactic useful for the beginning of a mix. Creating width and depth is a fair amount of the mix. EQ, panning, saturation, reverb...etc... I wouldn’t call that a “last step”. Do I do it on every mix, no, but it’s useful when I do. I don’t see why the average engineer shouldn’t, it’s neither a beginner nor advanced technique and it does work. Purely a matter of preference. I wouldn’t take much stock in the video sounding like a “one size fits all” in presentation. I find that many tutorials are phrased this way when it only covers one topic. Anyone learning to mix should try techniques and find what works for them and they’ll likely be hearing from more than one person on YouTube. I’d only have an issue if the advice was harmful, and I don’t believe it is is this case.

I think you’re conflating my issues with the assertion the video makes with your own viewpoint. I’m only taking issue with your viewpoint to the extent it overlaps with the video. and it sounds like here, we’re really in agreement. it’s a good tool, but not necessary to use all the time.

and I’ve acknowledged it may just be me being pedantic about the words, but again, words matter. and he could have chosen better ones—undoubtedly*. it’s a basic tenet I had to follow when I used to write procedural documentation at my job—don’t write things in a way that assumes people will read between the lines (in banking, that’s asking for big trouble—I understand it’s much less crucial here, but that’s beside the point).

*we know this because if he’d been clearer, I couldn’t have interpreted it the way I have, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion—and as special a snowflake as I am, I’m not so unique that I’d be the only one to interpret it that way

[Billy+]

Depends on your intended consumer


I say f**k em, buy some headphones f**ker.......

[QVprod]

Still think you’re talking extremes. I’ve said that it’s a tactic useful for the beginning of a mix. Creating width and depth is a fair amount of the mix. EQ, panning, saturation, reverb...etc... I wouldn’t call that a “last step”. Do I do it on every mix, no, but it’s useful when I do. I don’t see why the average engineer shouldn’t, it’s neither a beginner nor advanced technique and it does work. Purely a matter of preference. I wouldn’t take much stock in the video sounding like a “one size fits all” in presentation. I find that many tutorials are phrased this way when it only covers one topic. Anyone learning to mix should try techniques and find what works for them and they’ll likely be hearing from more than one person on YouTube. I’d only have an issue if the advice was harmful, and I don’t believe it is is this case.

I think you’re conflating my issues with the assertion the video makes with your own viewpoint. I’m only taking issue with your viewpoint to the extent it overlaps with the video. and it sounds like here, we’re really in agreement. it’s a good tool, but not necessary to use all the time.

and I’ve acknowledged it may just be me being pedantic about the words, but again, words matter. and he could have chosen better ones—undoubtedly*. it’s a basic tenet I had to follow when I used to write procedural documentation at my job—don’t write things in a way that assumes people will read between the lines (in banking, that’s asking for big trouble—I understand it’s much less crucial here, but that’s beside the point).

*we know this because if he’d been clearer, I couldn’t have interpreted it the way I have, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion—and as special a snowflake as I am, I’m not so unique that I’d be the only one to interpret it that way

Fair enough.

[WarStar]

Isn't the rational about mono being how it translates to the Radio and in live Mono systems...?? I've also heard that the mono approach as suggested in the video seems more important for multi-mic'ed instruments and for controlling aliasing with synths especially when using stereo patches.. I think the explanation was panning mono synths maybe be more effective for eliminating phasing than deciding to use stereo patches..