... I really don’t care what he thinks with such a strong opinion.
But now you do?
I already said to process in stereo and combine L and R into a mono FRFR monitor, and check your live sounds for any issues. If you find issues use bypass to find the source of the issue then edit or re-route to eliminate the interference. i.e. rethink how you route and set things, to learn what works and how to avoid creating those issues (which for me, are fairly rare now).
As for creating 'internet facts', here's one you're too blinkered to see for yourself. You're creating an imaginary perceptual and financial hurdle to potential new users, via making people (falsely) think they need to buy a pair of quality FRFR speakers to use such a system properly in a mandated stereo config. When just buying one powered FRFR speaker would be sufficient to get them learning how to use that alone, with excellent results. You are creating the impression it can't really be done that way which is actually what's not true.
Do you want to create fake hurdles to uptake? I would have thought not. I suggest you re-read the links that you posted, above about the mono verses stereo question and pay particular attention to the remarks by the live players commenting, as most are basically saying the same thing I'm telling you. Note that most prefer to play gigs mono (even with two FRFR speakers).
Now ask yourself, how they are doing that? Much like I do, I bet. And why do they prefer mono then, if they have the gear to use it in stereo?
Yes, I recommend people eventually get two FRFR powered speakers. But even with two myself I still often use stereo for at home, and mono both of them for live depending on the stage, room and mix options. And more often than not I'll run both bins in mono, beside each other, but benefit from better dispersion and twin-bin 'omph'. This is because after using a stereo spread on stage for a couple of years I played a gig mono, and realised I loved it that way. I was missing nothing when playing through them in mono, plus the crowd didn't even notice the difference. So I realised I'm happy to process in stereo and play gigs in mono, which greatly simplified my setup. I use less stage room and the band likes that, and I like that. I can use both bins, or just one for some gigs.
Thus I don't even think in stereo-processing imagining terms, as the image doesn't matter to me. I think in PARALLEL processing terms, instead, and make sure the results work in mono, as a priority. Parallel processing that works in mono also generally sounds great in stereo too, if I want to use the stereo image option. Mostly I don't, that's not my objective, except at home it's nice for plinking.
So rather that presuming I don't understand the stereo options, or their benefits, perhaps realise you're a bit blinkered and dismissive to other legit ways of doing this and to parallel-processing as the OBJECTIVE. And not for stereo-imaging to be the objective, or even necessarily desireable. If you want stereo imaging, fine. All I want is the parallel effect options, and I don't care if the person on mix chooses to make of it a stereo image or not. But I'm not accepting being told what I do is 'wrong', or that I'm creating false 'internet facts', when from my point-of-view that's just the pot calling the kettle black. 2c
Horses for courses.
