Mixing in stereo is the easy way out

ste20man

New member
Hi.

I recently read a quote by Geoff Emerick that said 'Mixing in stereo is the easy way out'.

He was referring to the fact that when you mix in mono you can't get clarity of an instrument by shifting it to one side of the mix or the other.

I'm still quite new to this but it seems to make sense to me and I would like to hear my music in mono. The problem is is that I'm not sure how to achieve that. I'm not sure if it is something that I should do inside my DAW on something that is on my USB interface.

I'm using FL Studio and am using a Focusrite Saffire 6 interface, .pdf below.

Saffire 6 USB Audio Interfaces - 2 IN / 4 OUT USB audio interface featuring two Focusrite preamps

I'm hoping that someone will know how to achieve this and has the time to explain it to a noob. I'd really appreciate it.

Cheers, Ste. :guitar:
 
I don't really understand the quote, but I guess that doesn't matter.

I'm not familiar with FL Studio. Some DAWs have a mono button on the master fader that will sum everything to mono.
Other than that, if you have all of your tracks panned center, your mix is essentially mono.
The only real reason to hear your mix in mono nowadays is to check for phase issues. It's unlikely that anyone else will ever hear your mix in mono.
 
The only real reason to hear your mix in mono nowadays is to check for phase issues. It's unlikely that anyone else will ever hear your mix in mono.

Phase issues is about the only reason I check my mix in mono as well. Major artists will want mixes where they can be shifted mono and sound good if they were to be played on radio or somehting like that (especially in department stores, etc.). But yeah, the only reason I do mono nowdays is for phase checking and correction.

As for how to acheive listening to you mix in mono. Most DAW's have an option to mixdown your tracks to a mono track. Otherwise you may need to mark where all your pans are at, then center them, then revert back after the mono listen. If you google "mono mix in fl studio" I got like 5 different forum topics on it, one with a video. Maybe worth checking out.
 
If you really want to mix in mono (not just check mono for phase issues and whatnot)...then you have to record for mono.

The masters of mono recording, like Phil Spector, would spend hours setting up everyone in the room. Mind you, there wasn't tons of overdubs/multi tracking, so stuff was being done on 1, 2 or 4 track machines...with just some basic bouncing, so the mono mix was already being set up in the room with the players, and each instrument and singer would be painstakingly moved, adjusted until the balance was working, especially on the songs that went for that "wall of sound" approach.
Many other great mono records were done well due to simplicity and focus on arrangement of music, and arrangement of players in the room.

When you just record one track at a time, and then try to put them all together in a mono mix...it's not quite the same thing, and you have to work real hard at getting the levels, EQ and wet/dry just right to properly stack a mono mix.
Back in mono recording days...by the time they were recording, the mono mix was usually already working, and they didn't labor for hours/days just "mixing". Heck, many records were recorded, mixed and pressed in a matter of a few hours. Entire albums done in a day or two....
 
I always start mixing in mono and don't pan a thing until everything enjoys a reasonable amount of clarity.

If a mix sounds good in mono, it will sound good when spread around. The opposite isn't necessarily true...
 
I always start mixing in mono and don't pan a thing until everything enjoys a reasonable amount of clarity.

That sounds like a really good technique, and a good way to get a stereo mix going... :cool: ...never tried that, though I honestly don't get too hung up about worrying over mono quality anymore.
I check the mix in mono...but that's it, as mixing for mono and mixing for stereo are two different intents and approches...IMHO....no different than mixing for 5.1 VS stereo would be.
 
I always start mixing in mono and don't pan a thing until everything enjoys a reasonable amount of clarity.

+1 for this technique which is how I tend to work as well. It's not that I'm mixing primarily for mono (though I have to be worried about mono compatibility for a lot of theatre stuff) but my workflow just tends to be getting the mix "mostly there" before I start panning things around the sound field. I've never really thought about the "why" on this--it just seems natural to me, probably because I'd been mixing a good long while before I had to consider stereo.
 
Don't forget that mp3 encoding can reduce stereo separation. That's just one of many situations where lack of mono compatibility can make your mix sound bad or at least different from what you intended.

Getting a good solid mix in mono before panning things is just good practice. There's no downside to it and there's no upside to disregarding mono.
 
I always start mixing in mono and don't pan a thing until everything enjoys a reasonable amount of clarity.

This is how I always start a recording. The only time I really use stereo is if I record something with double kick and I'm trying to make the bass stand out against it. I hear allot of metal recordings where the bass is almost inaudible because of the double kick.
 
Mono mixing when ending up in stereo is my bete noire. I've listened to what people say and take it on board but I'm still at a loss as to how it makes a difference to mix in mono if it's going to end up in stereo. But that doesn't mean much. There's lots of things I once never understood which I do now.
 
Mono mixing when ending up in stereo is my bete noire. I've listened to what people say and take it on board but I'm still at a loss as to how it makes a difference to mix in mono if it's going to end up in stereo. But that doesn't mean much. There's lots of things I once never understood which I do now.

Why wait until your song is on the radio to find out it doesn't work in mono? AM is mono. Receivers often partially or fully sum FM to mono if the signal is weak. Imagine the excitement of hearing your music on the radio only to realize that it sounds substantially worse than it did on your monitors, and that thousands of people are hearing it that way too.

If you start your mix in mono and check it now and then in mono you can avoid that fate.
 
Why wait until your song is on the radio to find out it doesn't work in mono?
I'd say there's more chance of me running into Elvis on the Maida Vale section of the Edgware Road than my hobbyist ditties ending up on the radio !
Imagine the excitement of hearing your music on the radio only to realize that it sounds substantially worse than it did on your monitors, and that thousands of people are hearing it that way too.
While I'm far from jaded and cynical, I'm afraid I'm beyond excitement now.....
If you start your mix in mono and check it now and then in mono you can avoid that fate.
This is the part I just can't get my head around. If you've mixed something in stereo, how does it become mono ? Say for example, you've got drums, bass and vocals in and around the centre, guitar at 9 o'clock, organ at 3 o'clock, sax coming in at 11 o'clock, a bit of mellotron at 4 o'clock and backing vocals at 8 o'clock and you're happy with the stereo mix. How do you replicate that in mono ? Ostensibly, you could do a mono mix with just one monitor, but you couldn't do a stereo mix with just one. I have a hard time getting my mind around how, if you got everything hunky dory panned centrally, those relationships don't automatically alter as you then start moving things around the spectrum. The way I'd have to mix something that's stacked in the middle with 6 or 7 other elements would be different to that same element having it's own specific space.
Perhaps my ignorance is shining through loud and clear here, which prompts me to ask, what exactly is mono as you understand it ?
 
If you start your mix in mono and check it now and then in mono you can avoid that fate.

This certainly is a good approach...but the thing I don't agree with is the suggestion to set the balance and everything else in mono before panning...and then leaving it like that after panning.
As I said...mixing in mono and mixing in stereo are two different intentions and AFA any EQ and porcessing...it can make a substantial difference if it's in mono or stereo.

Yeah...there may some situations where your mix will get played in mono...but if there's such a big concern for that...then why bother mixing in stereo at all? :)

I'm still saying that I'll check it in mono, but I certainly don't mix for mono or worry about the odd playback in mono. It's no different than worrying about someone playing back your mix on a dinky system VS a decent system.
Unless you're one of those folks that pans mostly everything dead center in a stereo mix, so that in mono it doesn't sound that much different...IMO, a well-done stereo spread sounds nothing like a mono mix...so they will never sound alike, therefore why worry about it other than checking for phase and basic anomalies.

Of course...that's just my way...YMMV.
 
I have a hard time getting my mind around how, if you got everything hunky dory panned centrally, those relationships don't automatically alter as you then start moving things around the spectrum. The way I'd have to mix something that's stacked in the middle with 6 or 7 other elements would be different to that same element having it's own specific space.

I think we have a couple of overlapping concepts here, and that is muddying the waters.

The first is that summing to mono will substantially change the tone and level of certain things due to phase and sometimes polarity, which is a simple fact of physics. There's not a lot of room for argument. Mono compatibility is a good thing if the mix is ever summed because it minimizes those changes. This is mostly what I have been referring to. Bleed into multiple mics that are then panned apart (and then summed by a radio station or whatever) is one source of this problem, as are stereo effects.

The second is that, according to some, if the levels and tones work in mono (assuming those phase/polarity issues are sorted and not affecting things) it will make for a better sounding stereo mix. It's not about mono compatibility, it's about a good sounding mix. With this second point I happen to agree, but I think there's room for different approaches like yours. It's an aesthetic decision.

There's always going to be some change going between mono and stereo. For your mixing style and likely audience don't stress too much about that, just check occasionally to be sure there are no drastic tonal alterations or level shifts. A good monitoring setup should have a quick and easy way to listen in mono (best not to do this with track pan controls), but many home rigs don't. It can be helpful to do the mono check with one speaker switched off, but it's not critical.
 
I go along with that which Massive said.
I've also a mono project I began some time ago - I haven't finished it as it's without vocals.
I've recorded the project in mono & to tape, (4 track cassette but hey), as well in an attempt to get as close to the roots of the process as I can.
That said, it's a LOT harder doing it one bit at a time as mentioned. Spector & Wilson, even Norman Petty, (he was a crumb but he recorded the Crickets beautifully), used ensembles in the studio & essentially recorded those emsembles "live" as in they were playing as an ensemble together in a room. The rooms chosen were for the qualities in relation to natural room sound/reverb, blending the sound of the ensemble, suitability of the room EQ etc etc. Monitoring on a single speaker can be VERY important too as a pair of stereo speakers can have slight differences between them than create an image that isn't monaural.
READ about it if you're interested in it. Greg L did a mono mix of one of his covers last year (it was just the flick of a switch kind) but the songs really sounded great in stereo and, if set up properly, would've sounded even better in mono I'm sure. I THINK it was a Beach Boys cover but can't be sure.
 
The second is that, according to some, if the levels and tones work in mono (assuming those phase/polarity issues are sorted and not affecting things) it will make for a better sounding stereo mix. It's not about mono compatibility, it's about a good sounding mix. With this second point I happen to agree, but I think there's room for different approaches like yours. It's an aesthetic decision.

Yes...that's probably true that if it sounds good in mono it will be fine in stereo if you just pan it out from that mono mix.
I'm just saying that IMO, that would be just a way to maybe start...but once it's panned out, I think there's much more you can do with a stereo mix, and that's what I'm focused on, rather than trying not to disrupt the initial mono mix or worrying about maintaining the mono compatibility. I check the mono...but that's about it.

IOW...to me...a stereo mix is MUCH more than just a great mono mix panned out...but as you say, it's an aesthetic decision and there are many approaches that can work well.
 
Yes...that's probably true that if it sounds good in mono it will be fine in stereo if you just pan it out from that mono mix.
I'm just saying that IMO, that would be just a way to maybe start...but once it's panned out, I think there's much more you can do with a stereo mix, and that's what I'm focused on, rather than trying not to disrupt the initial mono mix or worrying about maintaining the mono compatibility. I check the mono...but that's about it.

IOW...to me...a stereo mix is MUCH more than just a great mono mix panned out...but as you say, it's an aesthetic decision and there are many approaches that can work well.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is even if your levels are good in mono, that is not always the case when you start panning. Keep in mind Panning Law that states that as you pan, the perceived loudness drops off of a particular track. With ProTools, I believe it is 2.5 dB, so if you pan a track 100% right, you may need to boost it by 2.5dB to get its perceived loudness back to what it was in mono. So yes, While starting a mix in mono for clarity and balance is good, you may need to still make adjustments when you start creating a stereo field.
 
So yes, While starting a mix in mono for clarity and balance is good, you may need to still make adjustments when you start creating a stereo field.

Exactly.

That's the point I'm making....mixing for mono and stereo are two different things, and there's much more to a good stereo mix than just panning a great mono mix.
 
Exactly.

That's the point I'm making....mixing for mono and stereo are two different things, and there's much more to a good stereo mix than just panning a great mono mix.

Agreed. I feel the same way too. Even though doing some mixing in Mono may benefit stereo (and vice versa), they are two different things in the end and should be treated as such.
 
One thing to keep in mind, however, is even if your levels are good in mono, that is not always the case when you start panning. Keep in mind Panning Law that states that as you pan, the perceived loudness drops off of a particular track. With ProTools, I believe it is 2.5 dB, so if you pan a track 100% right, you may need to boost it by 2.5dB to get its perceived loudness back to what it was in mono. So yes, While starting a mix in mono for clarity and balance is good, you may need to still make adjustments when you start creating a stereo field.

Pan law is one reason I didn't take the mix-for-mono idea too literally, but you have it backwards. Pan law lowers the signal at the center by some amount to address the fact that putting the signal in two speakers increases the volume. But how much gain you get at center depends on the room, and there are different pan laws, so pan law is only an approximation and the stereo will always sound a bit different from the mono. I have no problem with little changes in perceived levels. I'm more concerned with big changes in levels and serious tonal alterations due to phase/polarity issues. In most cases than can be checked as early as tracking.
 
Back
Top