I’ve come to this conclusion recently from using my Prophet 6 and Arturia Polybrute in particular.
Using both of these in stereo makes them less usable in tracks IMO, especially the PolyBrute which heavily leans on its stereo capabilities, and just sounds wide all the time.
Voice/Pan Spread and stereo effects sound great in isolation when you’re playing them on their own, and it can be cool/fun, but that generally makes them a pain in the arse to fit into mixes because of the amount of space they take up.
I removed one cable from the PolyBrutes output earlier and just came out of it in mono… instantly it sounded better to me, less hyped, more wholesome/vintage/direct… all of a sudden it’s got a new lease of life to me.
So, synths in mono are easier to place in mixes, no imaging/balancing/phase issues, less cables (to use and buy!)… I feel like I’m sold on it!
I think there’s def a strong argument for this approach. Especially in the context of mixes with lots of other elements that intentionally appear across the stereo field. I’ve found it’s not as easy to be as surgical with stereo placement from the stereo synths alone. So taking the mono signal makes a lot of sense.
That said, really depends on the patch. As the stereo aspect might be essential to the meat of the patch.
Before I read your post, I thought you were maybe talking about stacking voices in your poly to use as a mono synth. That’s a perfect example where using mono instead of stereo adds a lot I think.
Yeah, using polys as mono synths in unison mode is something else completely, and cool.
I’m not opposed to using/manipulating stereo, but that’s better applied down the line, the raw sound of synths that I want is best being mono. Pan positioning/movement and stereo fx are better kept back as a mix decision.
I’ve realised that it’s an issue I have with most synths I’ve had/got… the Novation Peak springs to mind, everything it does sounds wide… you put that on a track and it eats the space… it’s hard to not use it’s onboard reverb and delay (which do sound good), and you’re right, it becomes baked into it’s sound then.
Since I posted I fired up my Moog Matriarch, and that’s a similar story… it’s fantastic but I’ve always been drawn to using it in stereo and using it’s filter panning and ping-pong delay… using/playing it in mono makes it way more usable in actual tracks for me.
I don’t expect everyone to get on board with this, it just feels quite inspiring to get these personal epiphanies every now and then!
All the Elektron instruments are mono essentially, and better for it… I think of the Digitone and A4 as both being 4x mono synth/track sources with built-in stereo fx and mixer to keep them self contained… but, thankfully, Overbridge sends out their core sounds in mono to make mixing more straightforward.
I avoid pretty much anything stereo apart from effects. Much better to pan mono tracks around a mix than try to squeeze stuff around a massive stereo track.
It does make sense. If you think about listening to a band in a room. Everyone exists in a certain place. Every element has its own space. Beyond the convenience of dealing with mono signals after the fact, it makes for a more natural recording approach in that sense too.
yep, I also prefer recording instruments to mono tracks, much easier to mix mono sources, and sounds better for my music. I often use stereo send effects, but the instruments go into the DAW as mono tracks.
For folks making tracks in a single hardware box, this may be less of an issue, but when you start mixing tracks in a DAW, all the stereo-ness gets in the way and stacks up to make a mess. IMHO.
I recently switched my pro three to a mono output. I haven’t had the time to do a full mix yet but I have a feeling that the difficulty I’ve had mixing tracks from my upcoming album likely partially comes from the fact that almost everything was recorded in stereo. For the next album I’m probably going to try recording almost everything in Mono first.
Actually it was my Sub37 that triggered all this, and the fact that it’s mono doesn’t feel like a compromise at all.
That got me thinking about the Prophet 5 being mono and a classic that’s not inhibited by being mono, and, that maybe my Prophet 6 would serve me better if I just use it in mono… it’s so simple, but it feels like a revelation.
Yeah, this idea is something that’s been lurking at the back of my mind for a while, like I’ve made some horrible mistake investing so much effort, time and money in getting everything patched in stereo. All that agonising over ‘the perfect mixer doesn’t exist’ basically goes away if you run them all mono.
It’s tricky though, when the fx or voice panning are such a big part of the experience of playing the synth, that’s what I want to capture. Juno chorus, Waldorf STVC’s reverb, Perfourmer’s voice panning…
And then, it can also be inconvenient to pull out the right channel from the back of the synth, depending on how things are set up, I can’t easily reach behind all of my synths.
The solution of course is that the EU gives up on its USB-C mandate and does something useful like requiring all instrument manufacturers to have parallel and duplicate stereo and mono outputs. The world will follow.
Yeah, I’m eyeing the Take 5 and was thinking the same thing. Aside from the sound, there is also something really nice about just having to use one instrument cable when connecting to effects pedals or my interface (which has a mono jack on the front).
A couple of years ago I had some good discussions online with an older French TV/film composer who gets hired a lot to do VST demos. One of the tips he gave me for making stuff sound more authentic, if going for a more old school vibe, is to work more in mono.
The other interesting tip he gave me was to use delay instead of reverb for achieving a sense of space. I’ve always thought of myself as a big reverb fan, so it was definitely good food for thought.
Let’s say you’re working in a daw. If you are sending a synth through external fx, would you pan the effected signal if you wanted to place it somewhere in the mix?
This idea is very intriguing and would simplify things. There’s so much emphasis on things in stereo.
It depends on the type of fx being used tbh, and how they’re being used (as a send (Rev/del) or insert (gain, comp, filter, eq, etc)).
Insert fx/processors I would probably keep mono, send fx mono or stereo depending on the aim of the part within the mix.
I can well believe that, I tried one out at Superbooth this year and was really impressed by it. If I hadn’t have just got a PolyBrute I’d have probably got a Super Six.
I run my whole setup with mono outs. Everything is simpler, patchbays, effects, mixers. Elektron boxes I just use one side. Or I pan tracks hard left or right to have multiple outs.
When you multiply synths in a live setting, mono is certainly helpful. Live, my band uses a Minimoog, a Mellotron, and a Grendel—all mono. And they work great. But we also use a Perfourmer and a Typhon fed stereo into an OT and an AK fed stereo straight to the PA. Never all at once, mind you. We employ some panning, but your post makes me think that I should run more of them (maybe all?) in mono…
Interesting thread, I’ve been wondering the same in terms of maximising OTs inputs.
Usual setup is Rtym (stereo) into OT plus 1-2 synths into the other 2 inputs. Recently it’s been Virus Ti (also stereo, because it sounds so good).
But if I want acid for example, then anything else has to be in mono because there’s only one input left. I did this with a Tetra and it sounded good, each panned a bit away from centre. But some of the patched on the Virus rely heavily on panning/fx, and sound soo good. Maybe those get sampled in stereo. Guess it depends on the patch as people say above.
