Damn... this is just brilliant stuff.
 
Just when I think I have sorted out all the general variables involved in manipulating sound (not being good at manipulating it all... just knowing the various factors to pay attention to) something new pops onto my radar.
 
This all makes perfect sense and I am glad I asked. I do have a lot of thoughts and followups but they are still rather scattered and evolving as you guys explain stuff. Really I think I would only derail an awesome thread by rambling on in my usual style at this point.
 
Definitely like how Tull got brought up and the introduction of compression (or lack thereof) affecting things at different volume levels. Gonna have to really put my thinking bone on this and study but just the comments here are helping it sink in.
 
Cheeers!

Thanks for posting this Beep ... and to those that responded.  Great info here

Okay, so I'm going to drop some insane questions based on some of the subjects brought up here... specifically "mono" mixing/eqing and the "Aurotone" concept, BUT in relation to a nasty dum dum headphone mixing freak (who can only occasionally switch to actual monitors).
 
I am working on a MASSIVE mix right now with tons of guitars. I have been constantly smacking the Interleave button on my Premaster bus (which essentially acts as my Master... nothing goes onto the real Master until the end).
 
I am attempting to make everything sound good in mono as well as stereo but with this level of tracks (track count currently at 50+ and will likely end up being up to 70-80 or more) and the nature of the material (lots of double guitas, vox with harmonies, psycho drums, orchestral synths, etc) this is of course a massive challenge for a newb.
 
So I'm just trying to make sure things are EQd so at least everything can be heard reasonably clearly in mono (like nothing disappears completley when I hit the interleave button on the Premaster).
 
That's all just a set up for my real question(s).
 
Since I am forced to do most of this stuff in headphones (yes I know that sucks but it is the reality) what, if any, differences occur in that situation compared to listening to a single speaker being fed mono?
 
eg: I hit the interleave button on the main output and listen through headphones vs. a single speaker in the room.
 
In both scenarios I am getting a mono signal blasted at BOTH my ears but in one scenario it is being delivered directly into each ear by two different speakers (in the headphones which is kind of a stereo I guess due to the differences in how good each ear is and maybe discrepancies in the can speakers) and in the other it flies through the air from a single cone.
 
What are the implications here? Can I reasonably consider "mono" from a set of headphones relatively equivelant to mono from a single speaker?
 
 
and a second question...
 
This talk about the Aurotone speaker setup has me contemplating my own gear and how I could emulate that with my Mackie MRKII monitors (which are obviously not Aurotones... they have a 5"" woofer and a little tweeter about 1/5" I guess).
 
So my thought was that I could, within Sonar set it up so that the mono signal (from the master or main outs) is all being directed through one of the monitors and since I have them currently set up for a "stereo" nearfield experience (so on either side of my stoopid face) I can just reposition MYSELF physically in front of that single speaker to see what my mono output might be like flying through the air.
 
For THAT train of thought I would ask... is that insane/totally not going to even remotely serve the purpose of given me a kind of mono Aurotone style experience (of course I don't expect it to respond like an actual Aurotone) or is it a low rent/half ass kind of almost good idea for ghetto arse mono referencing?
 
 
To take this in a totally OTHER weird direction and kind of combining the two concepts AND maybe getting a bit of Aurotone style goodness...
 
I own a Focusrite VRM Box. I have not had much opportunity to play with it as of yet but am about to give it a good workout (as well as a bunch of other crazy stuff I've been reading about).
 
The VRM Box has an Aurotone emulation on it (that can be placed in I think two of the virtual environments). So summing down to mono (so the VRM recieves/outputs a mono signal.... hopefully) and then having that go through headphones how absolutely sh*te is that experience going to be as far as a mono dump.
 
I am having a hard time expressing my concerns/questions about that one BUT it's an emulation or a classic mono source getting pumped through headphones (I'm not dumb enough to think running it through my monitor(s) will be beneficial in any way) so that goes RIGHT back to the question about the difference between mono signals coming from a single speaker, through the air vs. a mono singnal being pumped through two independent speakers on headphones directly into the listeners ears.
 
 
I hope that all made sense and isn't too idiotic. I just find this kind of fascinating and of course I am always trying to not just "learn" crap but actually "understand" it so I can bend, break and even make up rules as I go when needed.
 
Cheers, as always you guys rock.
 
:-D

It's a myth that you need to specifically buy an Auratone to enjoy the benefits of a mono, midrangey monitor. They're just crummy speakers, that's all. Many believe that if your mix sounds good on one set of crummy speakers, then it'll sound good on any crummy speakers. Not so, because one crummy speaker will not be crummy in exactly the same way as another crummy speaker. All they have in common may be just general crumminess.
 
I'll now humbly accept the award for the most instances of "crummy" in a single paragraph.
 
The real benefit of Auratone-type monitoring is that a) you're listening in true mono and b) you're taking low frequencies out of the equation. Monitoring in mono forces you to achieve clarity and separation via volume and EQ alone, avoid excessive reverb/delay clutter, and of course assure mono-compatibility. Eliminating bass means you concentrate on the midrange where all the real action is, and defer worrying about the lows until later.
 
Yes, you can approximate the effect by setting your master bus interleave to Mono and applying a 6dB per octave high-pass filter that rolls off around 200 Hz. It'll sound pretty close, but it won't be exactly the same as using an actual Auratone-type speaker because two physically-separated sound sources will interact with the room differently than a single speaker.
 
I can't comment on VRM and the like, as I have no experience with it. I have the luxury of being able to make noise 24 hours a day without bothering anyone, so when I use headphones, it's to a) hear what the mix sounds like in headphones or b) listen intently for small details while editing. 

bitflipper
.... because one crummy speaker will not be crummy in exactly the same way as another crummy speaker. All they have in common may be just general crumminess.

Nothing like starting the day with a good chuckle... Great post bit...

Thanks, bit. Sounds like a plan.
 
I guess based on your description of "true mono" my concerns that listening to a "mono" mix through headphones is not actually mono are perhaps valid.
 
Is it close enough for, of course not fully pro mixing (which I'm not set up for), but to at least hear/fix some of the problems that people switch to mono for? Or is it just gonna screw things up?
 
Cheers!

Good advice.
 
Yes, I try to mix my tunes at a  low volume and get it sounding good at the lower volume, that way, turning it up will sound good. And most of the time, it does.

I don't need to rehash what's already been said.... Lots of good commentary up above.

Yup, good thread...     I personally use low volume monitoring mainly for something Bit mentioned:
"The real benefit of Auratone-type monitoring is that a) you're listening in true mono and b) you're taking low frequencies out of the equation. Monitoring in mono forces you to achieve clarity and separation via volume and EQ alone, avoid excessive reverb/delay clutter, and of course assure mono-compatibility. Eliminating bass means you concentrate on the midrange where all the real action is, and defer worrying about the lows until later."
 
That midrange aspect in particular is something I find soooo useful.