Using a mono speaker instead of stereo?


So I’m going to build a new speaker soon and have been pondering just building a single speaker and mixing stereo music down to mono.

There are many practical benefits to this.

Obviously it would be half the price (or twice the budget) and half the labour.

Using any stereo receiver you will have 2 channels at your disposable for one speaker and this has a bunch of uses.

The 2 channels can be used to provide an active or digital crossover for a 2 way and reap all the benefits , even for a 3 way the woofer to mid crossover can still be done digitally or actively, where the biggest and most expensive components would be normally be required for a passive crossover.


With 2 channels you can also bridge the channels and have double the power available to a mono speaker with passive crossover, while providing a balanced load to the amp.

Ok, you get a lot of benefits but it comes at the cost of stereo... but is this really all bad?

The real reason I’m considering a mono build is that when I was building my last stereo speakers I was testing and fine tuning the crossover using a single speaker, after some time I had it dialed in and it sounded really fantastic, I went ahead and built the same crossover for the other speaker.
Upon listening to them in stereo, the ’magic’ I was hearing when tuning the single speaker wasnt fully there in stereo, the single had much purer tone and cleaner image, but obviously did not have big, wide sound you get with stereo...

Large portion of sounds in stereo music are really just monoaural with different degrees of panning, for reproducing any of these sounds a stereo speaker is actually inferior to mono since 2 speakers will never be perfectly matched. 2 speakers will play it louder and that’s all.

I’m pretty close to moving ahead with a mono build but it is pretty much unheard of.... anyone have any thoughts on it?

suix6

Well there are many that support the mono lifestyle. My Dad's first rig that was handed down to me was mono. I played the Beatles and Jimi to much satisfaction on that rig. Forward to today, I'm back to mono. I can only hear out of one ear. I use a stereo set-up with the speakers only 3 feet apart. I can switch between mono and stereo and only with one ear working the stereo presentation still sounds better. History pretty much shows that stereo wiped out mono sound. Very few stayed with mono after stereo was introduced. Very much unlike quadraphonic that was a total failure in the market.  

Why would anyone want to give up the soundstage provided by stereo.  I want my system to sound as close to a live performance as possible.  Don't recall ever going to a show where all the musicians stood in a single line, front to back.  IMHO this whole idea appears to be a terrible waste.  

" Why would anyone want to give up the soundstage provided by stereo. "
The post is literally just explaining why.

If you think tonal and imaging accuracy is not important for recreating sound of live performance fair enough.

Also albums are not the same as live performances, and instruments are often recorded in mono.
A mono speaker is more ideal for reproducing mono sound sources, as explained already, but it’s basically common sense.

I fell hard for stereo the very first time I heard it. It was at a hi-fi show in the late 1950’s, I was about seven. i love it still. It’s by far my favorite iteration of hi-fidelity.

I did some testing with real mono (left or right channel only) vs stereo downmixed to mono. Downmixing clearly has problems and make some tracks sound poorer, I only notice a big improvement compared to stereo with one channel and one speaker (like when I was designing the crossover) but to simply lose an entire channel is obviously unacceptable for real use.
So that is the major reason why this is a bad idea.