AllanH

Anderton
I always start my mixes in mono. Once I get a space for every instrument and it sounds good in mono, then I go to stereo and wow...then it really rocks.

Would you mind providing more details on how your mixing process works?

Got a few hours? 
 
Seriously...over the past four months, I've been going through massive changes in my workflow. More or less by accident, I've plunged into a totally non-linear approach to songwriting. This has carried through into tracking, overdubbing, and mixing. I no longer have discrete stages of producing music in the conventional sense.
 
The one thing that has remained constant is I use virtually no mono tracks, they're almost all stereo but they're placed in the center. Shifting sounds more to the left or right doesn't happen until the very last stages of mixing. My background (and main love) is live performance, so I'm always striving to get that feel with recordings. There are very few "left" and "right" tracks, and I never pan hard left or right anyway. Instead, I'm looking for a big, defined, broad soundstage.
 
Also I try to use the minimum amount of tracks possible needed to get the point across. I feel that every track you add diminishes the impact of the other tracks. As a result a lot of my songs have only 6 or 7 tracks, so they tend to mix themselves. For example, if you have only one track, you don't have to mix at all 
 
The corollary of this change in workflow is speed. My previous album Neo- took me a little over 4 years. I'm wrapping up my next one (working title "Simplicity") now, and I started it in late September. For me, that's blazing fast. Part of it is because I don't have to agonize over mixes 

Hi All . . . this is a great thread, keep it coming . . . there are a lot of valuable insights here, I'm saving it in my archive. For myself, Mono is a test I always seem to run at mastering time, but that may be too late in the process. I really like the idea of starting Mono, and panning it out as you go, I haven't experimented with that enough.
 
The idea of trying to sum up the mix with as few tracks as possible is a real nugget here, I've been trying to do that, though it's really mostly valid for pop songs, in orchestral music it seems the mono mix test can be unforgiving, especially when a lot is happening.

The interesting part here is that when in mono less tracks actually sound clearer.  Mono will highlight the clarity of less going on.  I have always said many have way too much going on.  If any of you had the experience of starting a song and handing it over to a really great producer, the first thing they would do is rip half of it out!  All the great songs we know have a certain clarity as a result of a good producer.  There is usually no wastage in there! 
 
Orchestral music was listened to in mono for many years so yes it can be done.  If you think about the orchestra you can actually break it down into relatively few sections. Strings, Brass, Woodwinds, Percussion etc.. So the question might be for those of you who are doing orchestral arrangements.  Are all the strings on the same page or have you got 15 different string lines going on when maybe one or two is the go at the most.  Same with the other sections. Maybe you need those sections to be more together and making the same sort of statements within a section.  Instead of having two many lines going on within a section.
 
Stereo will allow you to hear to many lines going on within a section by panning but with mono we don't have that luxury so much.   Don't be afraid to actually make the whole orchestra be only making a few statements e.g. melodies and counter lines etc.. Don't be tempted to be getting tons of stuff happening just because there are so many players involved. 
 
Listen to good orchestral music.  I have played percussion in a few orchestras and it is always interesting hearing what the various sections are up to.  Lots of unisons and harmonies going on but often less lines at once than you think.   I was mentored by a guy who did excellent orchestral library music and he always kept it simple and direct and powerful.

Thanks for asking this question Steve. I have been thinking this same thing for quite some time and now, here it is. I am sure between all these responses, the correct answer must be there. I knew the concept behind the "mono test" but couldn't really figure out the relevancy for the reasons some have spoken of. Anyway, thanks to you asking this question so I didn't have to, I took listen's advice and went to the Panipulator (great name!) and clicked over to mono. Fearing a complete absence of everything (not really, but almost), I was happy to hear that nothing disappeared as I have read so many times, here and there, would occur. In my estimation, they are all correct about one thing: stereo seems magical after coming from mono and one comes away with the thought that they are doing better than they may have hoped. You know, I don't think that I will change the way I am doing this (stereo/mono) but like chuckebaby, I will be referring back and forth as I need to.
 
I guess what I have learned here today is that if it (tune/mix/song) sounds okay or good in mono then not only will it also sound good in stereo but you will know that you have passed the mono test and can put that particular question or doubt behind you.
 
Just my little take on this and thanks for asking so I wouldn't have to bother chucke and Anderton.
 
thanks,
 
bob

jude77
I always understood the purpose of the "mono-test" (sounds like something your doctor would do) was to reveal any frequency problems in a mix.  If you go to mono and the voice disappears behind the guitar then you know you have a problem, so work to fix it.  I was always told "if it sounds good in mono it'll sound great in stereo".

This - in my opinion - is invaluable.   I check every mix in mono for this reason -

in fact - if you look up a pensados place epsiode with mixed by ali, he says that he mixes in mono right up untill the very end
 

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread.  I also like to mix in mono and only pan near the end of the mix process.
 
I also have an Auratone clone that I use a lot for mono.  It has so many other uses other than just hearing the mix in mono, too.  It has made a HUGE difference to my mixes.  It focuses you on the midrange, and, thanks to a tip from Danny D, helps me a lot with mixing my bass tracks as well.

I used to struggle w mixing ...( I still do at times ) anyway that stems from not having a proper studio space and mixing while being surrounded on all sides due to apt living ...
This past year I have spent most of my time  looking for a solution that will work for my current situation which may or not change ..(apt living )
This may be old news for some folks ..for me it isnt ,
I will only use headphones for tracking and deep editing . Plus I will never even try to set my levels or create my guitar sounds or any other sounds using them ...
I went out and picked up a cheap Bluetooth speaker w an aux input , Velcro'ed that mini rig to a tripod and set that bad-boy right behind my lap top at eye and ear level. Next I sent my 2i4 's output to the aux in of these BT  speakers ..
Since the stereo aspect of this little rig is such a small foot print I have left my stereo interleave set only to Mono while using this set up ...
I do have monitors for later staging ...Yet, the less my neighbors hear of me and my music , the better off I am.
This way I can pick and choose my battles
A few things became very apparent in short time too me ...
Every preset on every synth, plug and amp sim is only there for one purpose ..to hype the sound of the thing while it sounds good being played alone / solo...that's how they get to sell emm to you folks
In the real world as far as I'm concerned they all sound like what starts w s and ends with hit ....
How can any manufacturer determine what's gonna sound right for me ? I have 100's of gigs of loops and sounds that I don't use for this very reason 
The only reason I keep them around is I like to nick the playing parts and learn them on my geetar ...lol 
 
Setting levels throughout the mix / song is much easier in mono because I can hear all the places the frequency's
of each instrument overlap ...
I can cut my bass and boost my kick w the same frequency I cut from the bass and hear them cooperate much better...
I find it much better to use subtraction as opposed to augmentation when it comes to EQ'ing and gain staging. Working in mono makes it much easier for me to hear very small changes and how they affect the overall sound of my tune ...
I don't have to use much automation because I can copy and past sections of my parts where I have altered my EQ settings to gell with the other instruments EQ settings depending on how dense the section of the arrangement is ...
 
Another interesting thing about my time spent in mono land ...
 
Before going there , I started wondering if my ears were getting  shot
When working in stereo I would have to borrow Mr Magoo's ear horn and place it right next to my studio monitors just to be able to hear the subtle differences the big money / boutique plugs were bringing to the table while using them in a modest pedestrian way ...for a while there I thought I was dealing w a placebo experiment  ...  
Mono solved that one real quick ....
 
anyway it has been fun rapping w Ya'll
 
Kenny
 

kennywtelejazz
Every preset on every synth, plug and amp sim is only there for one purpose ..to hype the sound of the thing while it sounds good being played alone / solo...that's how they get to sell emm to you folks

very good point kenny! i tend to high pass pretty much everything, get rid of the mud

Sorry for the silly question, but I'm kind of newbie.  When I switch to mono should I listen to a single speaker separate from my monitors or through both of my monitors.  If separate, what is a good speaker for that?
 
Aric