I’m using the mono button in Steinberg’s UR28M interface, I guess that’s hardware then.
Never thought of comparing it to the Control Room mono downmix. Anyone look to see if that’s fixed lately?
First of all, it doesn’t seem to have been an issue at all. If anything it’s just a way of dealing with increased level when summing to mono. One can deal with that in different ways without it being wrong. Some people prefer a constant SPL when moving things across the spectrum, others prefer level to increase as you move through the center. It’s a preference, not an issue.
Secondly, it’s a 5 year old thread.
I wouldn’t have thought there was more than one way to correctly sum signals to mono, it being a mathematical process and all. Can you clarify please - are you saying something different in the part I bolded/underlined?
I’m talking about pan-law.
In order for something to sound like it’s coming out of a center speaker that doesn’t exist you need to obviously play the same sound at the same level from both speakers at the same time. If you do that then the signal will be louder because you’re now doubling the amount of signal being played back. If it’s left only for example you’d get half of the level.
So, if you don’t want your signal to increase as it gets panned you’ll just have to lower the level once it is panned. You can either do that manually by lowering the relevant fader, or you can do it automatically by having the mixer (DAW) apply pan-law the way you like it.
So my point was that just because a software defaults to a specific way of center-panning, i.e. specific pan-law, it doesn’t mean that it’s “broken” or “wrong” or that there’s an “issue”. It’s just operating a specific way. And if you’re summing two signals to mono, whether it’s one stereo track to a mono group or in the Control Room someone has to make a choice about how to deal with it; either accept a louder signal or make up for it by attenuation of a specific amount.
Like I said, this appears to be a side discussion because I think your problems must surely have been related to phase issues in that specific instrument.
Ah, so you’re saying the pan law affects what we hear when we hit the mono button. I hadn’t thought of that.
Makes me wonder … when the consumer listens to our stereo mix on a mono cell phone, what is the effective pan law …?
Well, for the most part it’s of no consequence. If I’m panning a mono source into a stereo channel, then as I said if it’s during the mix process I can adjust what happens to the level as I’m panning by just compensating using the fader.
If it’s after the mix is done then it’s often still no problem, because it just changes the absolute total level. So if your mix plays back on a mono device then it doesn’t matter much if the device compensates or not. Because the listener just does what the listener always does: Turn the level up or down.
Good thread, thanks for the many good comments.
I’m glad Cubase allows for various Pan-pot Law settings. I mostly use equal levels, but sometimes decide that another setting is the better choice. I’d be disappointed if a Pro product didn’t make provision for this. So, good job on basic Pan Pot Law setting for Cubase.
Lots of VST-i Pianos have Key Tracking settings which can be used to widen or tighten the spread over the stereo field. I might experiment with that.
My little Scarlett interface has a Mono Switch and it’s a convenient way to check mono. All the engineers seem to agree that checking in Mono is a useful step.
I’ve been working with the Frequency EQ using Mid-Side settings to “mono the bass” and clean up the sides.
I just downloaded “Brainworx bx_solo Monitor M/S & Add Stereo Width – FREE”
I’ve seen this demonstrated in some videos and I think it might be a useful tool to have on my belt.
Take care.
it may be a five year old thread, but did they fix it?
I for one didn’t want my mono down mix normalised by default.
Phase problems between L/R will show when summed to one
When flicking the mono switch it’s a simple L+R
The best way to monitor a mono mix is via a singe speaker thus no virtual centre.
If it wasn’t a bug then there was nothing to fix.
I looked in my Nuendo Control Room and I don’t see the “normalize” you’re talking about. Where is this value? I have to ask, because it sounds like you’re talking about a pan law / auto-downmix setting. In that case it’s not a bug, it’s just a default setting.
I think we all agree on that.
Well, that depends on what the largest channel count is, at least in Nuendo. It’s not necessarily just adding left and right.
Sure, and we probably all agree on that as well.
I was talking about stereo to mono, I should have made that more clear.
The auto normalise setting (at least in C6.5) is well hidden and access is detailed in this (very old) link mono sum in the control room? (solved) - #22 by Split - Cubase - Steinberg Forums whether it’s still relevant in whatever version you’re using I do not know.
It certainly was not anything to do with “pan law / auto-downmix”
and was on by default!!!
The rest was a simple summery for anyone reading this topic 
It probably makes more sense to discuss the version Alexis has directly.
If this option exists in his version then let him know where to find it. I don’t see how pointing to that old post helps. Maybe I’m missing something.
a: yes gone off topic a bit
B: I still run V6.5 so that old post is all I have to go on and details where to find it on V6.5 if it still exists it’ll be there about.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your help and comments!
After reading this thread, there’s still something I can’t wrap my head around … how do I replicate (for intermittent testing purposes) the mono experience of a listener using a single speaker mobile phone (bass issues aside), if I’m building my mix using one pan law or another (-6, -4.5, etc.)?
Will pushing the hardware mono button sound different if I’m using a -6 pan law vs. a -3 pan law?
When the single speaker mobile phone plays a stereo track in mono, is there a relevant pan law?
Hmm, seems I’m pretty ignorant about this 
.
Thanks for any help!
I’d suggest using -3 or equal power, which is standard, and simply switch to mono. When switched to mono, listen to just one speaker if you prefer.
Yes.
There might be a pan law but it’s not relevant. The relative levels of the left and right signals have already been decided in your mix so unless you somehow start panning things in the mobile phone the mono result of summing the signals together in the mobile phone will be the same as what you heard when you listened to your mix in mono.
Pan law will possibly make a difference to the absolute total loudness/level of the resulting mono signal, but won’t change the relative levels within your mix. That’s why I said earlier that;
-
Worrying about the pan law at this stage is pretty meaningless because a user will simply adjust the level to compensate. But since it’s device-dependent it’ll be something a user does for all content, not just your mix.
-
Most likely the problem with the sound of an individual instrument changing will have to do with phase issues, not pan law. Pan law became sort of a side discussion. The basic issue with a change in balance when summing left right is most likely phase issues.
So, don’t worry about pan law when it comes to checking a mix for mono compatibility. The only difference you should experience is whether or not the mix feels louder when summed, in which case you could if you wanted to set the pan law to create equal power output instead.
One thing you could try, is to solo say the piano in the mix and collapse to mono, if you experience a significant drop in volume then you have a phase problem with that instrument. Repeat for other elements in the mix
[quote="MattiasNYC…
Pan law will possibly make a difference to the absolute total loudness/level of the resulting mono signal…[/quote]
Thank you MattiasNYC -
In this case there was no difference in the integrated LUFS of the stereo signal at different pan laws. Similarly, there was no difference in the integrated LUFS of the mono signal at different pan laws.
There was indeed a fixed difference between mono and stereo LUFS across pan laws. More in the post below …
Thank you Split -
Updated info, replaces what I typed yesterday:
When switching from stereo playback to mono, and measuring the resulting change in volume (on the LUFS Control Room meter), I noted the following:
Drop in Stereo piano volume: 3.2 dB LUFS
Drop in Vocal volume (down the center, but with some reverb/delay out to the sides): 0.3 dB LUFS
Drop in Stereo drum (EZ Drummer 2) volume (panned across the stereo field to some degree): 1.4 dB LUFS
So, since the drop in vocal volume is less than the drop in piano volume when switching to mono, I guess it’s no surprise that the voice becomes much more prominent relative to the piano (and drums to a degree as well - I hear the panned elements like cymbals a lot less in mono, relative to the centrally panned snare) .
.
.
.
So, as you and MattiasNYC suggested, I guess there is a phase issue with Pianoteq 5’s D4 Piano (Daily Practice patch), and in this case a bit with the drum VSTi as well, when collapsed to mono.
.
.
.
So I’m wondering what the best way is to keep the relative levels of all three instruments (voice, piano, drums) more equal as I play back in mono, compared to stereo …? Do I need to get and learn how to use a phase rotation plug-in for the piano (and to a lesser degree the drum VSTi)? Or would simply narrowing the stereo field in each of the piano and drum submaster groups (which feed the master out) do the trick … though I’d think that may result in some “phasiness” sounding piano/drums … ? Or something else better?
Thanks much for all so far, and for any further helpful thoughts/hints!
\
Just for record keeping, the dB LUFS values in stereo are:
Piano: -20.2
Drums: -22.4
Vocal: -19.1
Very interesting discussion.
One other factor that might be taken into consideration is whether the Acoustic Piano is being heard in Player Perspective or Audience Perspective. Most of the Piano’s I have are, to my ears, in Audience Perspective, as if the instrument is on a Stage, with the lid opened, placed perpendicularly to the audience – as pioneered by the first “rock star” of the instrument, Franz Liszt.
Liszt deliberately placed the piano in profile to the audience so they could see his face. He’d whip his head around while he played, his long hair flying, beads of sweat shooting into the crowd. He was the first performer to stride out from the wings of the concert hall to take his seat at the piano. Everything we recognize about the modern piano recital — think Keith Jarrett, Glenn Gould, Tori Amos or Elton John — Liszt did first. Even the name “recital” was his invention.
Take care for now.