wireless in-ear monitors

[chuck3]

After grappling with monitor difficulties, mainly in view of each place we play being so different than the others, the band is thinking about a wireless in-ear monitor system, to replace floor monitors altogether. Does anyone out there have experience with these? Pros and cons? Any particular brand recommended?

Thanks ...

[intheory]

Have played many gigs with wireless in-ears. The biggest potential issue is the mix and the volume-as long as the mix is right, and the volume is adequate (and not too loud), they are fantastic (IMO).

Don't have specific recommendations on brands, other than to advise not going cheap on this purchase

-Dan

[steveksux]

I'm using M2 by Audio Technica, only 1 gig so far, but results were fantastic. Singer uses Galaxy AS1100. I could immediately notice a huge improvement in his singing when he got the, so while I haven't heard them, I can tell they worked.

M2 has a balance control on the receiver. Theoretically you can send monitors to channel 1, and your mic solo'd (or in my case, bass), and the balance control will blend them to taste. Instant "more me", semi custom mix.

Earbuds that come with the units are probably fine for guitar or vocals, but suck for bass. You'll have to get good earbuds to be happy with the bass sound.

I like Radius Atomic Bass earbuds. They're not made for IEM use, but have great bass response, bass sounds like a bass. And the vocals are clear in them. They got plenty loud for me, without breaking up. They also did a better job of isolating outside sound than my etymotic earplugs.

There was a lot bigger difference in crowd noise when I took out the Atomic Bass vs when I took out the earplugs before I got the IEMs. The earplugs actually let in more sound. Maybe just more hi freqs, not sure. Crowd wasn't all that much louder when the earplugs came out, but the difference was surprising when I took the IEMs out after we stopped playing.

Randy

[jaywa]

Just be damn sure there are preventive measures in place against feedback. One squeal in your IEM can do more damage to your ears than a year of loud wedges.

[steveksux]

The only downside is if its not going through the board into the monitor channel, you may have trouble hearing it. Can't rely on hearing amps on stage anymore. Its easier just to mix vocals into floor wedges and letting the stage amps take care of the instruments. So there's more work for your soundman, or for whoever is running sound from the stage. Especially if you all want a separate monitor mix.

The upside is worth the trouble, clear vocal mix makes singing a LOT easier, and IEMs can control the volume, no more ringing ears at the end of the night.

Randy

[MNAirHead]

Used Rolls PM351 for individual control... Sure PSM200 for wireless.

[K-Frog]

The last band I played with went to using IEM and we got used to it. It also meant we no longer had to tote monitor wedges to gigs or the associated power amp and cables.

If you can get a good monitor mix with wedges, you can get a good mix with IEMs...IME.

[TimmyP]

M2 is good, but I'd spend the extra and get the M3. If you have the cash, the Senny300 has some advantages.

But the buds are the main part - you are better off with a Shure PSM200 with great sounding buds than a high end unit with the buds that come with the Sennheiser. I love my M-Audio IE-10, but the buggers discontinued them.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by TimmyP

M2 is good, but I'd spend the extra and get the M3.

You get more freqs to choose from, more units operating simultaneously, and digital menus, outside of that, performance is same with M2 and M3, isn't it? All bells and whistles for the avg working band. I think rather than spending the money going from M2 to M3 you'd be WAY ahead using that money to get decent earbuds. For bass, you need good buds or you'll sound like crap in the IEMs, and hate your tone. That's my opinion.

Vocalists, guitars, can get away with cheaper buds, the tough thing to reproduce is low freqs that they don't care about.

Although, I've been using Atomic Bass earbuds, made for mp3 usage, not IEM, but they have awesome bass response, and still the vocals are coming out crystal clear. I'm sure UE TF10s sound better at $400, and you can find them on Ebay for $175. I was expecting to have to spring for them, I'm a bit of an audiophile. But the Atomic Bass have good isolation, good sound, and at $40 rather than $400, hard to justify even the $99 black Friday price for the UE TF10s.

Curious what about the M3 do you feel is so much better than the M2?

Randy

[Keithwah]

Originally Posted by steveksux

You get more freqs to choose from, more units operating simultaneously, and digital menus, outside of that, performance is same with M2 and M3, isn't it? All bells and whistles for the avg working band. I think rather than spending the money going from M2 to M3 you'd be WAY ahead using that money to get decent earbuds. For bass, you need good buds or you'll sound like crap in the IEMs, and hate your tone. That's my opinion.

Vocalists, guitars, can get away with cheaper buds, the tough thing to reproduce is low freqs that they don't care about.

Although, I've been using Atomic Bass earbuds, made for mp3 usage, not IEM, but they have awesome bass response, and still the vocals are coming out crystal clear. I'm sure UE TF10s sound better at $400, and you can find them on Ebay for $175. I was expecting to have to spring for them, I'm a bit of an audiophile. But the Atomic Bass have good isolation, good sound, and at $40 rather than $400, hard to justify even the $99 black Friday price for the UE TF10s.

Curious what about the M3 do you feel is so much better than the M2?

Randy

The M3's are certainly a nicer and completely pro unit. That said, the average 5-7 piece band would get along fine with the M2 systems pretty much anywhere they would go. Limitations would be if you play alot of festivals where there are other bands gigging at the same time. Today, the odds are at least some of them will be using in ears. The M2 has far fewer channels to select a clear channel from than do the M3. If that isn't what your band ever really does, the M2's would be fine for you.

I slapped a set of Koss "The Plug" on my M2 and they get as loud as I can tolerate. Trim the foam a bit to fit snug and they've been a good cheap disposable model. At $20 I don't care how any I go through. And I pull an ear when I'm not singing on a tune to get "dialed in" to the live audience and the room in general.

The galaxy's are actually ok too. Obviously Shure and Sennheiser are really nice systems, very reliable. Not much luck with Nady and Carvin in most instances. Not saying you might not have good luck with them, but I'm in a mid-major midwestern metro area and they blow chunks for reliable reception without drifts.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Keithwah

The M3's are certainly a nicer and completely pro unit. That said, the average 5-7 piece band would get along fine with the M2 systems pretty much anywhere they would go. Limitations would be if you play alot of festivals where there are other bands gigging at the same time. Today, the odds are at least some of them will be using in ears. The M2 has far fewer channels to select a clear channel from than do the M3. If that isn't what your band ever really does, the M2's would be fine for you.

I slapped a set of Koss "The Plug" on my M2 and they get as loud as I can tolerate. Trim the foam a bit to fit snug and they've been a good cheap disposable model. At $20 I don't care how any I go through. And I pull an ear when I'm not singing on a tune to get "dialed in" to the live audience and the room in general.

The galaxy's are actually ok too. Obviously Shure and Sennheiser are really nice systems, very reliable. Not much luck with Nady and Carvin in most instances. Not saying you might not have good luck with them, but I'm in a mid-major midwestern metro area and they blow chunks for reliable reception without drifts.

Friend of min has the Galaxy 1100 model, he's pretty happy with it, I haven't tried it to compare the audio quality.

M2 supports 10 simultaneous users in a freq group, with 1o freq groups, giving you 100 channels to choose from. Even if another band is using the same unit (they come in 2 freq bands, so only a 50% chance the other band will be able to interfere with you at all, only if they have same freq band as you), you can still have 10 musicians getting their own mix simultaneously between them, and they'd have to be close enough to each other to interfere also. Get much out of 300 feet away and their signal would be too weak to interfere. M3 has vastly more freqs, and allows more simultaneous units on a freq band, don't recall how many offhand, but I think its > 1000 channels, so its unquestionably better. But its hard to imagine needing more than 10 simultaneous units between 2 bands, and having more than 100 total channels in order to find a clear one. I don't think the odds of having a problem with the M2 is very likely.

I still think for most people the extra money for the M3 would be better spent on earbuds. $200 will go a long way towards some quality IEMs that will make an immediate difference in bass response, crucial for bass players, rather than towards solving an issue that one would have to be VERY unluckly to ever run into.

Randy

[Steve Clark]

I attended a 3 day Sennheiser workshop a few weeks ago. The third day was essentially an all day soundcheck. IN the last half we were all issued in ears and could listen to all the different mixes and walk around the stage. I would love to use in ears all the time. A great experience.

[SaucyJackBass]

Originally Posted by jaywa

Just be damn sure there are preventive measures in place against feedback. One squeal in your IEM can do more damage to your ears than a year of loud wedges.

My Shure in ear system has a cut, nothing gets in past the peak. I don't think any in-ears come without that cut off. Causes clipping in sound if the cymbols get in the mix, but otherwise I would never play a live gig (or even practice) without ear protection and/or in-ear monitors.

[BluezBassist]

Using in ear monitors has been a really eye (ear?) opening experience for me..I rented a set for a gig to see if they would be a worthwhile investment and went back after the weekend and bought them...I always thought that I needed the vibe from the loudness of the stage, but putting just one bud in and mixing all the vocals and instruments I needed into it gives me all that I want...I still get the raw sound from the stage in one ear and a clean, clear mix of everything else in the other side...

I'm using a Sennheiser set up and love it...No interference, no dropouts, no problems whatsoever...

[rouge127]

I love in-ear monitors. If you really want to get the most out of them, you need to also invest in a split snake and your own board to mix your ears. That way you get the same mix every night. Relying on the sound guy to mix your ears is risky.

[Atlanta Dave]

I've been wondering about IEMs for awhile and am glad the forum is talking about it. Hail to TalkBass!

[swpyne]

I have used Ultimate Ears UE 9 Pro custom fit ear pieces with a Sennheiser IEM wireless transmitter/receiver for the last 8 years and in many situations they are an amazing asset.

Initially I found that in order to get the bass sound the way I liked in my ears it prevented me from hearing the vocal mix properly. I solved this problem by adding a Symetrix 501 compressor and a dual band DOD EQ. I have the left side of the DOD EQ connected to the side chain (in/out) of the Symetrix compressor. This enables me to add compression to just the lower bass frequencies leaving the upper register frequencies, where the vocals are, uncompressed. Notice the curve on the left side EQ with the bass frequencies boosted and the treble frequencies almost all the way off. This set-up made a huge difference. When the signal leaves the Symetrix compressor it's routed to the right side of the DOD EQ to set the "overall" EQ level in my ears.

Here is a photo of my rack.



The more expensive custom fit earpieces make a big difference as well because they totally seal your ear which allows for much better and fuller sound. Particularly for low frequencies. At the time I bought my ear pieces Ultimate Ears suggested the UE 9 Pro model (at $900.00 + the cost of having ear molds made) because they were specifically designed for bassists and drummers. I don't see this model offered any longer on their web site but they may have newer and better models now. The folks at Ultimate Ears were wonderful to work with. Fantastic customer service!

The down side of using ear monitors is that everybody in the band really needs to use them and due to the expense and moderate complexity of configuring them, many musicians don't want to bother. You're looking at an investment of between $1,500.00 and $2,000.00 per player to get a setup like I use.

Being able to play shows without floor wedges is an amazing advantage because you are able to keep the overall volume level of a live band under control. Sound men absolutely love them and honestly so do I. Even though I miss hearing the live sound of my bass amp, there is no substitute to using IEM's if you're a vocal oriented band. They enable you to sing harmonies like "The Eagles" without a whole lot of effort........

[MNAirHead]

Blues Bassist..

What you're describing is considered one of the cardinal sins by an audiologist.

either both in our out.

If anyone wants to PM me why -- feel invited... I"d rather not start a flame war about folks doing this.

[TimmyP]

The way the Feds are ****ing with the airwaves, the superior frequency capabilities of the M3 might be just the thing that saves a gig.

[fokof]

Tips:

-be sure to have a limiter at each mix output

-Get a pair of shotguns pointed to the crowd to have a "LIVE feeling"

+ 1 for an isolated split snake and digital board for IEM only


Can't comment on Wireless , I'm alergic.