Towards the end of an interview with Rick Beato, renowned FOH engineer Dave Natale—known for his work with The Rolling Stones, Jeff Beck, Prince, Tina Turner, Yes, Stevie Nicks, and Van Halen—mentioned that he mixes in mono.

When I was still mixing, I mixed in mono too. That made me wonder: how many other FOH engineers do the same? That question sparked an impromptu survey—the results of which are presented in this article.

Mixing Mono

Mono mixing comes naturally to me—maybe because I started in television sound, back when about 80% of the Dutch population was still watching TV in mono, on CRTs with a single speaker tucked into the back.

In mono, you can't rely on panning to create space. You have to mix with intent, using frequency allocation to prioritize certain elements over others. You can’t have your cake and eat it too—if everything lives in the same part of the spectrum, nothing gets heard properly. Sometimes you need to carve donut holes in the mix so the vocal can sit comfortably—not by forcing it on top of the band, but by allowing it to exist within the band.

Depth still exists in mono; you can stack elements along the Z-axis using FX. What’s in your face might be bright and dry, while what lies beyond the horizon tends to be darker and wetter.

Motivation

I feel strongly about not withholding key elements of the mix from any part of the audience—especially the “money channel.” That’s the fader that brings in the money—the lead vocal or featured instrumentalist, the reason people bought a ticket.

Take the Beatles, for instance. With four money channels, how would you pan them so that everyone hears all four? It’s like buying a car with four seats and only getting three—you’d want a refund. In the same way, if I pay to hear four Beatles, I expect to hear all four, no matter where I’m sitting.

I pretty much committed to mixing in mono after reading Bob McCarthy’s seminal article “The Emperor’s New Stereo,” which convinced me that stereo in large‑scale sound reinforcement had a built‑in expiration date.

In large-scale sound reinforcement, I’m not religiously against panning—but I used it sparingly, more to add flavor than to define the mix. I tended to reserve it exclusively for sources lower in the pecking order, like backing vocals or ambient instruments—elements that often carry a degree of built-in information redundancy.

These sources could benefit from a bit of width without compromising the clarity or impact of the core elements, especially the money channel. Judging by the survey results, many fellow audio professionals appear to feel the same.

Survey Results

Admittedly, the illustration used to promote the survey on social media was a bit clickbaity—but it worked. As a result, nearly 700 audio professionals (and counting) responded. A huge thank you to everyone who took part!

The survey consisted of three questions:

• How many years have you been mixing FOH live sound?
  • Less than 3 years
  • 3-10
  • 10+
• Which best describes the majority of your FOH mixing work?
  • Small venues (bars, clubs, 100–500 capacity)
  • Medium venues (theaters, concert halls, 500–3000 capacity)
  • Large venues (arenas, stadiums, major festivals)
• When you mix FOH — on conventional (non‑immersive) systems — do you usually mix:
  • Fully Mono (no panning; everything center)
  • Mostly Mono with some stereo elements
  • Fully Stereo (wide panning where appropriate)
  • Depends heavily on situation

Unfortunately, there was some confusion—for example, whether the question applied to corporate work as well as music. I should have clarified that it was a music‑centric survey. I also got the sense that many respondents were more focused on input channels than on whether—and how much—the output was actually panned.

In hindsight, if I’d taken a bit more time and been less impulsive, the survey could have been more concise and better structured.





Depends heavily on situation

As for those who replied, “It depends heavily on the situation,” I used ChatGPT to help analyze and summarize over a hundred responses into the key factors that influence the decision to mix in mono or stereo:

1. Venue and Audience Geometry

• Width and shape of the venue: Wider venues with poor overlap between left and right hangs often favor mono to ensure consistency for all audience members.

• Audience coverage: Many engineers mix in mono if a significant portion of the audience won’t experience a balanced stereo image.

• Room acoustics and configuration: Narrow or acoustically favorable rooms may support stereo; reverberant or complex spaces often do not.
  
  

2. PA System Design

• Placement and design: The stereo viability depends on whether both L/R arrays cover the same audience areas.

• System overlap: If arrays have little to no shared coverage, mono is preferred.

• Front fills, subs, out-fills: These elements are often mono, influencing the overall decision.
  
  

3. Content and Artistic Intent

• Genre and musical arrangement: Orchestras, acoustic content, and cinematic elements often push toward stereo. Rock, pop, and EDM may lean either way depending on setup.

• Speech vs. music: Spoken word and corporate events tend to be mono for clarity; music may benefit from stereo spread.

• Performer and artist preferences: Some artists insist on stereo mixes or want stage positioning reflected in panning.
  
  

4. Technical and Logistical Constraints

• Available channels and system capacity

• Time constraints or lack of setup flexibility

• Broadcast or recording considerations (often in stereo even if the live mix isn’t)
  
  

5. Mixing Techniques and Philosophies

• Minimalist panning: Even in stereo mixes, many engineers avoid hard panning to maintain coherence.

• Haas effect and decorrelation: Used sparingly for width without sacrificing mono compatibility.

• Contextual automation: Dynamic panning or center weighting for key moments in the music.
  
  

6. Engineer Preferences and Priorities

• Consistency for the audience: The dominant concern is that everyone hears the important elements equally well.

• Creative space vs. practicality: Some prioritize immersive experience; others focus on uniform clarity and impact.

• Stage bleed and natural source positioning: Sometimes used as a cue for compensating panning decisions.