Live sound - Mono or Stereo?

[Meriphew]

When playing clubs/small venues, do you find that most places are running sound in mono (or dual mono) vs. stereo? I'm prepping my live set (which contains pre recorded backing tracks - synths/drum machines), and I'm trying to decide on whether to record my tracks in mono or stereo. Thx for any info/advice.

[MikeRivers]

 

When playing clubs/small venues, do you find that most places are running sound in mono (or dual mono) vs. stereo?

I almost always run mono. In a small club, too many people aren't close to being centered between the speakers and would lose one channel or the other if there was much separation.

 

In large concert venues, effects and dramatic things like swoopy synthesizer patches and tom rolls are sometimes in stereo because it sort of works when the speakers are at a fair distance from any listener and they're not hearing a lot of direct sound from the stage.

 

You can certainly record in stereo and just pan it to mono on the PA console, assuming you aren't short of inputs (it'll take two, of course). But in any case, you should check your synth patches in mono to be sure that there isn't some phase effect that causes a principal part of the sound to get canceled when the channels are summed.

[Meriphew]

Thank you Mike. You're always great at giving help/advice/info (whether here or at another forum).

[MrKnobs]

I usually run stereo, here's why:

 

(1) Stereo effect returns usually sound a lot better than mono. Just because you have pan controls on the individual instruments/vocals doesn't mean you have to use them.

 

(2) A lot of places I work are fairly small. This often means that a person standing, say, stage left will hear that guitar player often to the complete exclusion of the other. If I have a stereo PA, I can put the opposite side guitarist heavier into the mix there or in the front fills to compensate, i.e. FIX the balance problem that Mike says a stereo PA can create.

 

(3) Room topologies vary, as do speaker setups. But does that mean you should create mediocre mono sound for everyone to be fair to the folks who are seated under overhangs or behind the stage? I don't think so. There are plenty of surfaces in the average club or hall to bounce things around. And, unless there is assigned seating, people vote with their feet, so give them some choices.

 

All in all, hands down better to go stereo, and there is hardly a venue I work these days with a mono PA. Having the mains wired stereo often provides a little help in debugging problems, or in working around a problem while you attempt to correct it. In other words, it's a redundancy in many areas, e.g. multiple returns for each frequency range, etc.

 

Terry D.

[MikeRivers]

Differences of opinion. I work almost exclusively acoustic shows which really don't need PA at all except that these people want to be too loud. Sending something to the PA opposite of where it is on stage would be very distracting. It wouldn't work for me, but I suppose if it works for you, there's no point in arguing about it.

 

Just about every PA system I've used or set up has been wired for stereo, but that doesn't mean I can't leave the pan pots in the center if that's the way it sounds best to most of the audience.

[Anderton]

I'm somewhere in between. I use stereo, but don't have wide spreads...it's more like "mo' better mono" than full-range stereo.

[Alan Roberts]

Well, I guess I also fall in that "in between" category. Wide panning in stereo is pointless in clubs, but the effects seem to sound better when ran stereo and then just panned near the middle. As Craig said, "'Mo' Better Mono", I guess you'd call it.

[Mike McLenison]

I went through a phase with stereo, but I'm back to mono. I use a mixer to mix the wet delayed signal through an analog chorus and mix it with the original dry signal. It's very sweet especially when I hold a note or chord.

[jive4005]

No advice. just a comment. I put EVERYTHING I do into mono. Just makes things easier to handle (for me).

 

P & H,

Slick

[philbo]

For FOH, I prefer narrow stereo (where pan pots are mostly centered, but with a bit of spread.

 

For stage wedges, I definitely prefer multichannel - - I'd like to be able to set up a mix of what instruments & vocal channels *I'd* like to hear, in the proportions I'd like to have. These proportions are almost never what somebody else would want. IMHO, there should be a separate mix for each monitor.

 

It'd be nice if there were a way to use a midi controller or some other type of remote control to set the monitor/aux sends of the FOH mixer, to allow setting up a mix from the listening position at the wedge. (where the FOH console aux buses are used to mix monitor sends.) Anything else is a poor compromise.

[MrKnobs]

It'd be nice if there were a way to use a midi controller or some other type of remote control to set the monitor/aux sends of the FOH mixer, to allow setting up a mix from the listening position at the wedge. (where the FOH console aux buses are used to mix monitor sends.) Anything else is a poor compromise.

 

Well, you know pro bands have onstage monitor mixing and the monitor mix guy is from 10 ft to 50 ft away, depending on the size of the stage. Generally the monitor mix guy sets up a basic mix for each performer (often just recalling the mixes from last night's show) and then a few yelled instructions from the performer to the mix guy gets it all good.

 

It's really a non-problem, certainly wouldn't want to add any more complexity into the system.

 

With IEMs, it's extra easy, especially if the belt packs have the "more me" feature. Then the performer rarely has to ask the monitor mix guy for anything - well, until something breaks.

 

I don't do a whole lot of monitor mixing (FOH is my thing), but sometimes I do. If the band is on IEMs I like to bring a spare set of buds and listen to exactly what each performer is hearing in theirs. After a few gigs with the same band, they rarely have to ask for anything, because (a) I know what they're hearing and (b) I know their quirks.

 

Terry D.

 

P.S. I'm completely astonished that (a) some of you guys still work clubs with mono PA, and (b) that anyone would prefer the sound of a mono PA to a stereo PA with panned FX returns. It's night and day better to go stereo, soundwise. Maybe our disconnect is that I don't work small shows, I can see how you have less to work with there and less need to put everything in the PA.

[Danny (NS::U)]

I definitely believe in mono. Everyone should get the same show (although I do also believe that if you're doing a big, complex show, you should have different zones with sound appropriate to that zone.)

 

One thing that mono allows me to do is run aux fed subs - but with the panner and not an auxiliary (physical outputs are a tad scarce on a DM24). I seriously dig it.

[Prog]

What manufacturer makes a 16 up to 32 channel mono mixer specifically for live use?

[MikeRivers]

 

What manufacturer makes a 16 up to 32 channel mono mixer specifically for live use?

Nobody. But that doesn't stop you from running the system in mono. There are a number of mixers that have a mono output which is a sum of the main mix going to the L/R outputs (the original Mackie CR1604 did), and you can get a mono output from an auxiliary send.

 

Often when I'm recording as well as mixing live sound, I'll pan the inputs just to make the recording sound more realistic, and use a mono output (or L/R sum) for the main speakers in the house.

 

I suppose your question is rooted in another question - "If I don't need two outputs, why should I pay for them?" The answer has to do with economy of scale and what most buyers want because they aren't paying THAT much extra for the extra output that they might use some day. It's like the proverbial request for the sound card with no analog I/O. Not enough customers for it to justify designing it with parts left off.