Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[David Morison]

Not sure Jerome. I'd have to experiment a bit. I would think feeding mono to both sides would be more acceptable to a player and I think I have enough adapters and cables for that - somewhere in the dark depths of my cases I have just about every configuration of adaptor ever made. It's an obsession of mine he he !

Check the manuals for any gear you consider investing in - I'd hope that the receiver should be able to be configured to deliver the mono input to both ears without resorting to external adapters.
HTH,
David.

[Steve Oldridge]

Check the manuals for any gear you consider investing in - I'd hope that the receiver should be able to be configured to deliver the mono input to both ears without resorting to external adapters.
HTH,
David.

David, most of the standard units (EW, PSM, AT, etc) I have worked with do that.. L or R input on xmitter assumes mono, which is split to both ears on the receiver side. So a [mono] AUX1 feed to an xmitter results in same in each ear.

[Dave Bednarski]

Make an emergency cheat sheet for yourself on doing common tasks, because... for me.... always *just enough* time lapses by and something, some how, despite lock outs, etc... gets changed... and one of the girls is all "my in ears aren't working" and hands me a sweaty receiver.  I am staring at this thing suddenly feeling like my parents trying to program a VCR.

If any of your musicians are using cheapo universal ear buds, then... keep a set similar at the mix position... and try not to always reach for your comfy nice quality headphones when working on their crappy in ear mix. skull candy buds have a sound of their own. 

[Bill McIntosh]

Debbie -- I use two different IEM systems. 

My church has the Sennheiser system (we also use Sennheiser wireless mics) run in mono.  Multiple receivers from one transmitter.  Some of the praise team vocalists don't bother with them, just listen to the wash from the mains.  No wedges on stage, one tiny amp pointed sideways, electronic drums -- stage is whisper quiet. 

The other is an AT M series system I use with a cover/bar band.  Two female singers, they explicitly refused anything in the IEM except their vocals.  (Actually they get a lot of wash in the vocal mics.)  I set the receivers in "personal mix" and patched directly from the mic outputs to the IEM xmitter as a split.  All the pieces go in a separate 6U box, so they have a completely self-contained mic/IEM wireless pack for gigs with house PA.

Anyway, one vocal goes to left channel, one to right channel in the xmitter.  The personal mode is mono, but allows separate levels for the two input channels in each receiver -- so each girl can dial up "more me" as the need it to stay in tune with each other. 

This won't work for everyone, and took some experimenting to find what worked for us.  We have four other musicians -- lead guitar, bass, drums, and guitar/keys/harmonica/mandolin/whatever.  They get three mixes in wedges with some vocals as well.

Of the two systems -- I would prefer the Sennheiser.  It does everything the AT does, plus more info on the display and (probably) a more robust and reliable build.  The AT has been hit with occasional interference, but since it travels a lot that's not a surprise.

We have not had issues with range on either system, max distance has been about 100 feet straight line from xmitter to receiver.

[AllenDeneau]

Lots has been said above that is very good advice, moving to In Ear monitors is not as easy as channging from wired to wireless mics, it's a progression.

I mix with in ears very frequently and love it when I mix them, mostly.

As said above, there are a few very important things to consider. Fit & QUALITY of the in ear monitors themselves is HUGE! Almost guaranteed if you provide the tx & rx someone in the band will try to use a cheap pair of ear buds and not enjoy their new experience. Bass players and drummers will certainly benefit from the higher cost multiple tunes buds to get the low frequency response they'll need to feel comfortable with their in ears. Shure SE215's are just fine for most vocalists etc... however a slight jump up to the 315's, still single driver, and the music becomes more "lively". Move to the 425's and now you're getting some great sound with very respectable low frequency response. Of course you went from $99 ear buds to $300 but it's worth it. Or you can go for JL Audio's 16 driver in ear for @ $1500 I believe, LOL

The next is the dynamix range of the wireless units themselves. Some of the cheaper units don't have great dynamic range and cut off or "squish" the signal causing it to be lesser quality. For example, the Shure PSM 200's are decent HOWEVER, they don't have the dynamic range of the higher Shure models and they also have a lot more "noise" in the system as well. Are they bad, nope, just not as good sounding as the PSM 600's, PSM 700's etc.... That being said, you can pick a used PSM 200 system up for @ $300 and it'll probably work fine for you. BE ADVISED, they are MONO only...

Mono vs stereo: I prefer stereo, if I can, because the sound imaging is much clearer with a bit of panning. Just like stereo FOH is a bit cleaner and more dynamic, so goes the same for in ears. Pan a bit and you, as said above, make room for a whole lot of sound in the mix. The other benefit to stereo units, if you have the sends available, is you can actually do 4 mono mixes with 2 stereo units which reduces your rack spaces, your investment and your frequencies in use.

Dynamics: Just like monitors you'll still need some good dynamics such as limiting and eq to get the best possible result. Wedges get rung out for feedback but in ears get eq'd for flavor...

Frequency coordination is yet another concern and who knows how that's going to go down next time, UGH...

When IEM's first hit the market many hated due to their isolating nature. All the sudden people felt stranded on an island even though their stage was jam packed. So then came the idea of adding a mic or two at FOH or on the downstage lip to get more "ambiance" which helped a bit. Then companies came out with in ear processing such as DBX's IEM units to help create a better listening experience but they add cost and rack spaces.

The next resolution, and in my opinion was the best, was adding an ambient mic to the receiver bodypacks so the performer could dial in how much "stage noise" they wanted. That helped create a better listening and localization experience. None of our Shure's have it and it seems mostly it's really all relegated to the personal mixers such as Avioms, Roland M48's etc...

If your band plays in many "live" rooms with lots of reflections, they'll undoubtedly struggle with the isolation factor in the beginning. If you've never used good isolating ear units, when you put them in it's like you enter a vacuum and you're all alone, very different feeling...

The other thing to consider also is now your "monitoring" of the monitor mix is going to be best suited by a great set of in ear buds as well. My first experience with wireless in ears tought me that... I had a singer hearing a whistle in her ears but I could never hear it with the headphones I was using. I went a bought my Shure E3's and BAM, there it was. So be sure to use something with similar characteristics and quality as what your performers are using to give you the best control.

Now for the final piece, unless you think you can actually make more $$ with this and other bands by supplying the wireless units, not the in ear units themselves, I'd leave the ownership up to the band themselves. You can supply all the connections necessary but I'd let them buy it themselves. Just my 2 cents.

Hope that helps.

[Jason Glass]

Hi Debbie,

Just another point on the stereo vs. mono IEM issue;

When dealing with seasoned veteran studio and touring musicians, each player generally wants his or her own instrument or vocal on top of their mix, and doesn't usually care to hear much mix-dictated EQ or compression on their own instrument.  This presents a conundrum, in that all channels become optimized as the "front and center" channel.  It becomes impossible to create a good mono mix where each channel is EQ'd to make them all fit together in a way that allows the listener to easily pick out each instrument.  When the mix is stereo, you can use panning to mitigate this, to some degree.

Another way to deal with this problem, when you have enough channels of a digital monitor console at your disposal, is to create duplicate channels of instrument and/or vocal inputs.  Process one of them as you deem appropriate for a good mix, and use the other with minimal processing to feed the mix of the person playing the thing.

[Debbie Dunkley]

I am arranging a meeting with the band members to sit down and talk about this subject.  At this point, I think it is imperative to share with them everything that has been discussed here. Great comments guys - really helpful and far more to consider than I could have even imagined.....

[Bob Charest]

I am arranging a meeting with the band members to sit down and talk about this subject.  At this point, I think it is imperative to share with them everything that has been discussed here. Great comments guys - really helpful and far more to consider than I could have even imagined.....

Debbie,

We are a 9-member band, and we have our LS9-32 sending out 6 stereo mixes: One each for the three lead vocalists, one for me (bandleader/keyboardist/recording feed,) one for the horns, and one for the rhythm section. It's worked out well for us. Letting everyone work out their own IEM monitor mix has been very good. We use Air Fader clients to let the members control their own IEM mixes.

The horn players and the rhythm section have to agree on how their respective mixes should be handled, but that's not been a problem. We used to have a stereo pair of mics for ambient input, but the members dispensed with that after they got used to having IEM's. Although many who have commented on this thread don't mind working in "living mono" the stereo mixes we use have made everything easier for us - we feel that spatial location is important to relating to the monitor mix with IEM's, and the band is panned to reflect a soundstage that represents the physical location of the band members. Yes they burn auxes, but we have enough to have two concurrent effects on FOH and in the IEM's after the stereo mixes are sent, so that's been cool.

I was helped by many on this forum when I was implementing our system... what a great resource this place is!

Best regards,
Bob Charest

[Tom Roche]

My take on IEMs from a BE perspective:  I enjoy mixing bands that use IEMs because no/little stage volume usually means much better FOH sound.  It's even better when they run their monitor mixes.  I also think IEM gear should be the band's responsibility, especially the buds, but keep in mind that I don't do this for a living.  Pro musician friends have always recommended getting molds as they isolate far better and are more comfortable than universal IEMs.

My take on IEMs from a drummer perspective:  I love using them because 1) I can hear the instruments much better; 2) I can keep the level down, which protects my ears; and, 3) less gear to haul in/out.  My band is VERY slowly going to IEMs.  Since we're using aux channels from a Mackie DL1608, my caution to them: No messing with guitar/bass amp gains during the show because they affect the aux levels.  For some reason the bass player keeps turning up over the course of the gig, which in turn causes the lead to turn up, and then the rhythm G turns up.  I told them I was non-negotiable when it comes to protecting my ears; that it was a no-go if they didn't stop the volume wars.  I also remind them to be mindful when disconnecting guitars to avoid LOUD pops.

As for mono or stereo ... it has never been a concern for me.  I did a little panning when using the Behringer monitor system, but tend to keep everything centered.  I can see the allure of stereo and panning instruments, but just don't find it necessary.  What's more important to me is the level of the instruments.  Frankly, I never came across anyone who complained about the sound stage when using a wedge monitor.

By the way, I use the entry level Shure SE215.  I didn't want to spend too much in the beginning since I didn't know what to expect.  Happy enough with the sound that I haven't thought too seriously about upgrading.  I heard from owners of higher end Shure models who didn't think the cost justified the slight sound improvement over the SE215.  I heard good things about Westone and 1964 Ears, so may look into them.

[Debbie Dunkley]

I did it. I purchased 2 Sennheiser EW300 2 G3's.

This is why:
Hubby decided he wanted to go that route in the band he plays in and we figured it made the investment more cost effective.
So.......I pulled the trigger on one system yesterday morning. I got it brand new with 2 receivers - for $975 out the door. Also, Sennheiser are offering $100 on the system right now (started march 1st). Brings the total to $875......pretty good right? System sells at $1300.
I was feeling quite proud of myself getting it at that price.
Then I needed to find another receiver to provide mixes for 3 people in mono. The receivers are $500 each which is crazy considering what I spent on 2 receivers, transmitter, the whole caboodle. One complete system with 2 receivers works out at only $375 more than 1 receiver ( no rebate on receiver alone).
So, I went ahead and got another complete system at the same price ($975- minus $100 rebate), no limit to the amount of rebates so bottom line....2 complete brand new systems all for $1750.
I am selling a few things on CL to help pay for it and I can sell a couple of floor monitors as I have 7 total.

So now the fun starts and I have a new learning curve to overcome. You have all armed me with plenty of information so I have a good start I think.  For the main band I intend to use one transmitter in stereo and the other as 2 mono feeds for 3 players - drummer already wired with his own system.  The players are providing their own headsets - I have stressed the importance of getting good quality phones and custom buds. The rest is down to them. I hope I have no issues with RF battles, etc.

Once I have it all down, I am looking forward to a feedback free life. Not to mention a neater looking stage, less wires on stage, less spill beer into and much less to transport etc.  I work hard to eliminate feedback and succeed most of the time but it would be nice to not have to think about it.

What do you guys think???

[ProSoundWeb Community]