MIXING question - MONO?

mono sources should be recorded in mono.
 
stereo sources are invented by use of microphones, typically.
 
electronic stereo signals, should be recorded in stereo.
 
 

Unless your friends mean record stereo sources onto two mono tracks. Then you do have a little more control over how each side of the stereo image may be panned.
 
Stereo sources such as virtual instruments or hardware instruments should definitely be recorded in stereo though. To kill some of the beautiful stereo images that some synths go to a lot of trouble to create would be silly IMO.

You can create a stereo track (interleaved) and you will be able to select the input sources that feed that track say Inputs 1&2. That will give you one track to deal with from then on and in that sense it is easier.
 
But you can create two mono tracks instead and select Input 1 to feed one mono track and Input 2 to feed the other mono track. The main reason for doing this though is the ability to pan around the left and right channels anywhere into your stereo field. But Cakewalk make a great plugin called Channel Tools and it can do all of those things on one stereo track only.
 
If you do use two mono tracks it is a bit of a pain because if you insert a plugin on them you will have to insert two plugins. One for each track. Then you will have to copy the setting from one plug to the adjacent one too. Same goes for dynamics processing or anything really.
 
Whereas a stereo track only needs one plug in on it and it is using the stereo version of the plug automatically but you only have to think one thing though.
 
Channel Tools lets you pan the left and right channels anywhere which is very handy. Normally they hard left and hard right but sometimes it is nice to narrow and move the stereo image around a bit to suit your mix.

There are plenty of times when I may send a track straight to the main stereo buss without going to a bus first. Bass is a good example. It often does not require a bus of its own and can go staright from track to main stereo out. Why create a buss when you don't need one. You are only creating more confusion to the buses part of your program. I actually keep the total number of buses even in a complex final mix down to quite a small number.
 
Two mono tracks and a bus requires the creation of three new things whereas a stereo track going straight out is only one.
 
Buses are good when you are sending multiple sources to the same bus.
 
 

One can actually have a lot of buses in a complex mix, so many that it rivals the number of tracks you may have. Then I think it is only adding to the confusion. You then have to spend the same amount of time searching for the correct bus as you would a track. I like keeping the number of buses down to a minimum. Although they are easy to create and use I prefer to think of them as being in the lesser number category.
 
I have never suggested a painful dilemma to anyone in my life. When you bring emotion into the situation and you are hinting at talking about others, other than ideas, you are of poor mind. Read my signature. I am only interested in ideas and good ones at that.
 
Back to the OT. Stereo track or two mono tracks. That is the idea. I see a need for both sometimes but generally these days especially since Pro Tools have moved away from the split files concept, it seems to be happening less and less. Cakewalk's Channels Tools does a great job of handling panning of left/right signals very conveniently.

Beathaven
I recently had a discussion with a few friends (who have varying degrees of understanding of mixing and mastering - amateurs all) re. mixing and mastering. One of my friends said that he had read somewhere that to achieve the best mix prior to mastering was to record all tracks - whether instruments or soft synths - in MONO mode and then using pans to seat the tracks in the image - whatever that means. Is recording tracks in MONO really the best way to go when mixing?

An answer to this question, if this is simply a question about signal routing, is: I do not think it actually matters.
 
 
 
 
The question though, leaves a lot of room for interpretation and further consideration. 
 
Here's a question. What musical instruments are "stereo"?
 
Think about that.
 
Synths have been mentioned and indeed some synths are specifically designed to make good use of stereo while others are decidedly mono.
 
Traditional instruments can be harder to define.
 
For example; a pipe organ is often times experienced in "stereo" (it's also an early synth technology) because many pipe organs have separate arrays of pipes placed left, right, and maybe even center. (other smaller ones do not).
 
What about an acoustic guitar? Is the guitar mono? It seems to be... but we usually experience it in a room or environment that includes all sorts of spatial information that is more effectively described with stereo. What happens when you play the guitar in the middle of a big field? It starts sounding more and more "mono".
 
The same considerations apply to just about any instrument... and it is unlikely that people will always agree on the answer.
 
How about an accordion? Sound comes out both sides. How close do you have to stick your head to it for it to seem like stereo?
 
How about a piano? If you are listening to a piano in a room then the spatial info of the room may be more effectively described by stereo. I used to assume that a piano is so large that it is inherently stereo but, if you ever take the time to stick your head in a piano that is being played you will notice that the piano, as the sound source, over whelms the effect of the room. The experience feels more and more mono as you approach. The sound emanates as a whole and the physical location of each string does not seem to have as specific location in the sound field as one might anticipate.
 
OK.
 
So, now let's consider a few scenarios.
 
Let's say you want to record a bunch of instruments and then use stereo mixing to place all the instruments within an image of a sound stage.
 
Is it more effective to record each instrument in stereo or mono?
 
Hard to say.
 
 
1) You can record an instrument front and center in mono and easily pan it left or right later.
 
2) You can record an instrument front and center in stereo and pan it left or right later.
 
3) You can record an instrument in stereo and orient the placement of the instrument and the stereo array to place the instrument within a stereo image of the room so that you will not need to pan anything in post. The stereo array is recording the room. You don't move the room... you move the instruments in it. 
 
With choice 1 you get a lot of control in post. You can place the instrument anywhere and then you can add a sense of enviromental ambiance after the fact using reverb etc.
 
With choice 2 you can start panning as well but you may notice that the image of the room is also panning. What happens when you start mixing different images of the room into the master mix? Placing the instrument to the left or right seems simple, but placing the walls in all kinds of different places may undermine any spatial cohesion you are striving for. The more instruments you mix together like this the more you will notice the collapse of clarity. So, this approach works better with fewer instruments in the mix.
 
With choice 3, if you had a solid pre production plan... you may end up with exactly what you hoped for, but eventually, if you use a lot of tracks like this, the room ambiance will be over whelming even though it remains remarkably cohesive. It can work great for one or two feature instruments.
 
 
 
What ever way you choose you'll probably work it out so it's ok in the end. In my experience most people mix and match and just do what they think is working best for any particular goal.
 
 
 
 
Having said all that. One may also record in stereo with a near mic technique that minimizes the contribution of the room. I do this frequently because, for what ever reason, things seem to sparkle when you close mic in stereo. Instruments that you may choose to regard as inherently mono, are still experienced by us with 2 ears. Somehow, if you close mic an instrument in stereo it seems to sound more familiar and I find that it is easier to recognize the best part of the sound I was hoping to capture. You may not hear much room and the mics may be so close that there is no discernible left or right differentiation but, IMO, it always sounds more sparkly and musical.
 
If you close mic in stereo like this you may pan in post more freely without as great a concern for the room content interacting amongst your tracks and you will be able to effectively use reverbs etc. to create or manipulate an image of a sound scape more effectively in post. It's a lot like choice number 1 and it has a magical sparkle too.
 
 
 
Wow. That's a lot of different considerations and just a small insight into the various ways you can approach your work.
 
I found it hard to infer what your specific question was so I have tried to hint at some of the various responses that may have applied.
 
I hope some of it is useful and I expect that most of it had nothing to do with your question. I hope that the stuff that doesn't seem to apply jump starts an interest in considering when and where stereo recording will be useful in your projects.
 
all the best,
mike

it is easier to automate a BASS BUS for mixing, than to automate a individual track that MAY have a limiter on it (mine always does), the levels change into the limiter depending on how you route the track into the master bus

Clip Gain Envelope

A very stimulating exchange, a lot to ponder and will definitely experiment on your themes - thanks to all esp. Jeff Evans and Mike_mccue - very much appreciated!!

I don't know a lot about this but I have found in my experience that if I have too many stereo synth sounds then my mix gets cluttered and unfocused pretty quickly. So I try to limit my stereo synths to the one sound (usually a pad) that has the best stereo effect, and add the others as mono instruments. For example, right now I'm playing with a resochord instrument in Reaktor that takes a sound source (in this case drums) and uses it to trigger 6 "strings" that resonate according to an input of MIDI notes. You can pan each string anywhere you like and it really is the most wonderful sounding effect. So that's my stereo synth, and the others I'm keeping in mono. If I introduce other stereo synth sounds, it kind of detracts from the effect of the resochord.

Maybe I am reinterpreting what the OP's friends might have meant, or mis-heard.  I have been through several discussions about "checking" mixes in mono.  Many accomplished engineers think that is a vital step in mixing.  To sum all tracks and busses to mono, and listen for phase problems.  If a mix can achieve a sense of depth in this circumstance, it will inevitably improve the overall sound in stereo.  
 
I never got into this because of the nature of my recordings.  (mostly acoustic instruments using non-mono-compatible stereo techniques)
 
Personally, I will use stereo tracks only if the microphones themselves require a hard left and right panning to achieve the proper stereo signal.  Most stereo techniques from XY, ORTF, NOS, Blumlein, AB etc. fall into this category.  Even MS codecs usually require a stereo track.  Using spot microphones for certain instruments (such as a left spot and right spot for a choir) will be placed on two mono tracks that I can easily pan into the main stereo image.  

I read on the net somewhere that recording tracks in mono is better because it's easier to edit them and I agree. Just my 2 cents!

mono sources should be recorded in mono.
 
(bone simple, to capture and to mix)
 
stereo sources are invented by use of microphones, typically.
 
(if you have a wonderful sounding space, recording with stereo pairs is the best way to place your capture in 3-d mode,  you 'invent' the stereo source in a way your ears hear naturally, in human stereo, which is really 3 d)

 
electronic stereo signals, should be recorded in stereo.
 
(they were created to already be in stereo, mess with that and you've gone off on your own)

sharke
I don't know a lot about this but I have found in my experience that if I have too many stereo synth sounds then my mix gets cluttered and unfocused pretty quickly. So I try to limit my stereo synths to the one sound (usually a pad) that has the best stereo effect, and add the others as mono instruments. For example, right now I'm playing with a resochord instrument in Reaktor that takes a sound source (in this case drums) and uses it to trigger 6 "strings" that resonate according to an input of MIDI notes. You can pan each string anywhere you like and it really is the most wonderful sounding effect. So that's my stereo synth, and the others I'm keeping in mono. If I introduce other stereo synth sounds, it kind of detracts from the effect of the resochord.

Yep.  This is an unavoidable outcome of far too many (IMO) synth presets being drowned in reverb and overloaded with delays in order to sound good when demoing them solo.  If you discard those cosmetics, the preset may be perfectly suitable for being treated like a mono instrument.  Which is not to say that spacey pads and the like should be reduced to mono.  It all comes down to the preset and the nature of in-synth effects in the preset.

This ^^^ sounds like the Haas effect