I find that most of my music now days doesn't sound as great when played in mono - mainly due to the stereo widening techniques, which I use in most channels.

It bothers me a little bit, but not enough to stop using stereo wideners and stuff.

Is mono compatibility important to you? Do you think it matters at all?

yeah I practically mix in mono so it's important to me.

the thing is not to have a collapse that's technically free of destructive interference/phasing but just one that sounds alright in mono. that being said I tend to stay away from heavy phasing stuff in stereo. some light chorus here and there enhances presence just enough while remaining acceptable collapsed.

it should also be noted that the discrepancy you're hearing might not be a problem with the mono signal itself and its representation of your musical idea/process. chances are you're just disappointed by the lack of fancy stereo fluff. perhaps you're paying too much attention to stereo effects few listeners would notice in order to keep yourself distracted from deeper, more important and real compositional issues.

It's just phasing due to the haas effect (when in mono).

And I wouldn't call it stereo fluff. It adds quite some depth to the sound, which is quite appealing to my ears.

Make sure to keep the side channel volume below the mono channel. That way the side signal is still present for amplification at listening. If you want an easy fix, use a mid/side splitter and compress both but with the side signal threshold about 6 db lower. You can do M/S compression with any plugin in a DAW which has mixer track routing. There are also compressors with M/S routing built in for the ones that don't.

The correct term is comb filtering, because the Haas effect is inherently stereo. In mono, the delayed signals combine out of phase and cause interference (wiki) which will change the frequency response. By having the side signal lower, the interference is reduced because the signals are not equal.

If you are mixing for stereo, it is best to plan ahead in this regard. An example would be when adding reverb to a mono track: There is some mid and some side in the reverb. The common approach is to first set the reverb's level in mono only, and then add the side component to taste. This is also a good technique to control the imaging as the reverb's side signal blends with a stereo signal's side signal. Levels like this cannot be fixed after the fact, so compression on the mix bus won't change the levels between instruments.

If you want a good idea of the side level you need to sound as wide as another recording, you can use a spectrum analyser with two inputs for mid and side each. Then you can compare the levels and see where the differences are.

Another common thing to do to the side channel is a bass cut. This keeps the subs working cleanly because with bass on the side distortion usually occurs. Some things don't need a side bass cut, so check with a spectrum analyzer first, or you could be doing unnecessary filtering at the cost of CPU cycles.

It's up to the creator what ambition he/she has - whether it should sound good on creators home equipment only or by anybodys listening device.

That guides if creator is even listening to mixes in other devices and want it to sound good everywhere.

And it guides whether creator want it to sound good for those having a mono situation.

Which listeners are you making your music for?

Are you making musak for shopping malls, you probably should care a lot about mono. If it sounds crap in mono it will not be played - meaning no income.

Are you making music for radio listeners - that might have a simple mono radio on the beach - and you want that to sound crap.

It boils down to - what is your ambition.

It is also important how CLEAR you want your mix to be.

Clarity might prove more impressive than the "wideness" that some people seek.

As the temptation with unlimited tracks is to record everything in stereo, we pile it on.

I have had friends that had 48 stereo tracks of every instrument they have chosen to include in the composition.

When I ask why the tambourine is in stereo, they can't get me a good reason.

So we "mono-ize" all the tracks that were unnecessarily stereo and the one remaining stereo pad starts to shine through, now that the muck is cleaned up.

Every sound with its own mono space to claim as their own, and wow, how things clear up and the "punch" resurfaces as less is more.

Also, try using delays that refers to the tempo of the song instead of reverb.

Too many different reverbs describing too many different spaces, confuses the hell out of your auditor.

Your tracks will "clearly" start to dance.


Wideners play with phase, and evil phase relationships make people turn off, walk away and search out another mix that the phase "dances" correctly".

Came to think of a story Dave Pensado told on one of his shows.

He got a track with 15 overdubs of something.
The client got it back and thought:
- Unbelievable clarity you got there, I tried like hell get that working.

What Dave did not tell him, was that he removed 11 of those overdubs.

You answered your own question. There's better techniques than using haas effect. Try the stuff that doesn't do much phase damage.

Proof positive of "less is more".