Used IEMS during last night's gig. There is a learning curve but for the most part it was a great experience. Everyone souned good in my IEMs except the guitar player. He has a lot low end in his Friedman. I was wondering afterwards if I could EQ his guitar line in my IEMs... I asked the sound man after the gig was over if I could have done it... He replied that I could only alter the guitar level in my IEMs. Is there a way for me to eq guitar for my own IEMs?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Unfortunately mixing boards usually have only 1 set of EQs assigned to each channel. Often the aux sends can be configured pre and post EQ, but not always. Getting a look at the channel strip to see how the auxes are configured and how the guitar is equalized is required to answer your question.
IMHO, running an HPF somewhere around 180 hz on the guitar channel would probably clean up all mixes a bit, but this may not be consistent with the audio techs goals for house sound. The frequency of the HPF would vary by the style of music. It's possible that global EQ could be applied to your mix but this may not provide desirable results as it may gut the sound of your bass.
The guitar microphone type and placement are also areas of interest. Most mic's develop proximity effect (bass boost), when they are close to the intended sound source. Increasing the distance between the mic and speaker a bit and/or engaging a built in HPF on the mic can help.
Some digital boards can be set up where inputs are duplicated across multiple channels. For example with a Yamaha LS9/32, you could assign channels 1-32 to your top fader level and then duplicate the input assignments across your bottom fader level (33-64). The audio tech would use the top fader level to optimize the sound for the house and the bottom fader level to equalize the signals for the monitors. I have used this type of setup before and it provides superior results but is more labor intensive, and it can be a bit confusing to understand the signal flow. Unfortunately, I believe many popular digital boards cannot be set up this way.
Is there a way? Yes, a couple. Depends on your IEM system.
Some of the more fully featured systems allow each user to adjust eq (or more basic tone) on a per-channel basis.
But even on a standard system, if you have an open channel on the mixer, your band's SE could split the guitar to that channel and include it (w/ eq set to your taste) for your IEM mix. That's not likely to happen if you're working with a house sound engineer, especially if you're not the only band on the night's bill.
Some of the more fully featured systems allow each user to adjust eq (or more basic tone) on a per-channel basis.
But even on a standard system, if you have an open channel on the mixer, your band's SE could split the guitar to that channel and include it (w/ eq set to your taste) for your IEM mix. That's not likely to happen if you're working with a house sound engineer, especially if you're not the only band on the night's bill.
not really; EQ'ing someone else's signal in your ear mix isn't really a thing unless you had your very own mixing board with all the channels split off from the mains.
usually for in-ears the mix should be set "pre-everything" so no EQ or other processing affects what you hear anyway.
I feel that is incorrect, IEM is always best to set up pre fader not pre dsp.
Functionality varies by brand and model. A few weeks back there was a thread discussing the Allen and Heath ME-1 personal monitor mixer. Unfortunately the ME-1 only controls volume and pan for individual channels. The ME-1 has EQ but it is applied globally. The signal for the ME-1 is derived from each channels direct out from the main mixing board, so the usual pre/post settings and functionality apply. The earliest place in the signal path available to pick off the direct out is between the input trimmer and the HPF.
i guess it's mixer-dependent, but "pre-fader" often means post-compression, which you very much do not want in your monitors.
a setting that allowed channel EQ to show up but not channel compression or gating would be OK i suppose, as long as there wasn't much need for tweaking the strip EQs out front during the show. barring that, setting the sends "pre-DSP" (as mackie calls it) or "input" (as behringer calls it) very much is the preferred way to do IEMs, that way nothing anybody does out front changes your mix on stage unless they mess with the input trim gains.
either way this doesn't allow for EQ'ing an individual channel in your ears separate from the out-front channel EQ.
Do any of the IEM mixers in this market segment allow EQ of the individual channels independent of FOH?
i've never heard of one, but that would be sweet. i find myself wishing that i could put compression on other people's channels in my mix, that way they'd be loud enough for me to hear without ever getting too loud, but i don't think that's a thing either.
i wonder if even big-dog touring digital mixers allow for this? once you're at that level the FOH mixer isn't running monitors anyway, they split off to dedicated monitor boards.
are there dedicated touring digital monitor boards that do this? it would mean the board has, i dunno, 32 channels in, 16 monitor mixes out, if each mix allowed for each individual channel to be EQ'd just in that mix then there could be literally 512 different EQ curves happening at the same time! @Geri O?
Last edited:
Running a stereo mix to a compressor that is feeding something like a Rolls PM351 would achieve your compression goals. Also, many digital boards have compression and EQ available on their outputs.
I don't know of any board/IEM mixer combo that gives each user independent control over channel EQ. The price point would probably be too high for market success as the device would require the processing power of a full feature mixing board.
See my post #2 above. With the lowly Yamaha LS9 you can at least set the board up to give separate channel processing to mains and monitors. IMHO this makes a big difference.
i could see that working, as long as i was OK with a resulting mono IEM mix. everybody else on one side, outboard compressed/EQ'd as a whole, me on the other side unprocessed, all mixed back to mono in my ears.
maybe a little more simply, i could use the 351 by running my own vox and instrument straight through it and getting a digitally compressed/EQ'd mix that was everything but me. i think it could still be set up to get a stereo L-R mix in.
trouble here is that it's still not individual EQ/comp adjustment of each channel, just of the overall output.
plus i lose the ability to tweak everything with a tablet, i'd have to reach down and adjust knobs.
most all of them do, even the cheap ones. thing there is you don't want yourself compressed in your mix.
aha, so at least the overall "monitor board" layer could have different individual channel EQ than the main layer, even if everybody still had to use that one differently EQ'd version of each channel. (never learned the LS9)
The root cause is too much low end in the guitar signal. Start there.
IMHO running mono IEMs sucks, and running stereo with band on one side and me on the other is even worse. So yeah, my recommendation would be processed stereo composite mix to PM351; then mix your bass and vocals to taste.
The functionality of the compressor is a bit limited with a full band mix. I would tend to set a simple compressor up more for peak limiting...provide protection and avoid pumping and ducking. IMHO, a multi-band is the way to go. The systems I used ran Aphex Dominators or DBX IEMs.
The last system I ran had the LS9/32 set up to split the inputs across the A/B fader levels. It was a five piece rock band and everybody got a stereo mix. Individual channels on the IEM fader level were EQed to the associated player's preference.
Another trick we built into the LS9 is to use a pair of the auxes as a stereo group to apply compression to the vocals. We routed the group back to the mains, but I am sure the same idea could be used to compress various channels for a composite stereo IEM mix as well.
The LS9/32 has 16 mix buses and we used all of them: 10 buses for 5 stereo IEMs, 2 for LR mains, 1 for subs, 1 for front fills, and 2 for stereo vocal processing. Keeping track of the signal flow across two duplicate fader levels and 16 buses was confusing and sometimes hard to understand. I especially had a hard time grasping how to send and control effects to the individual IEM mixes. As we were at the limits of the board, we used the same effects for monitors and mains, so the solution was a bit of a compromise.
Another function the LS9 has that may be useful for this purpose is 8 Matrix buses. I never used the Matrixes but I believe they have most, but not all of the functionality of the Auxes.
Basically, I am just trying to illuminate that it's possible to "trick" digital boards into doing some pretty amazing things if you can figure how to get around the configuration and OS. Of course every digital board has it's on unique capabilities and way of doing things. Some boards may be configured more eloquently to do some of the things we did with our LS9s. It's also likely the LS9 does some things other boards may not be capable of.
Last edited:
so the "me" channels of each performer would get EQ'd to make that performer happy, and the others would just get the results in their mixes? that makes sense, and since they'd certainly each have themselves louder than the rest of the band in their mixes i suppose it wouldn't be much of an issue.
s0c9
Supporting Member
Me neither..
When we ran ONLY 16 channels on our X32 producer we layered 1-16 onto 17-32 and used the upper set for our IEM mix, which kept them separate from the FOH channels like you did with the LS9.
Basically.. running TWO "layered" consoles in one and utilizing separate output busses. But, there ARE challenges with doing that - such as knowing which layer and set of channels you are on, etc. Most digital consoles I know of can do that - assuming they have enough channels available. We ended up needing 18 channels, so moved back to using the FOH channels as the IEM feeds.
However, that doesn't fix the OP's issue with too much bottom end in the guitar - as EQ'ing it out on the IEM channels affects ALL IEM mixes, not just yours - whether you have a separate IEM mix, or monitor the FOH channels.
One approach might be to use the newer Avioms or Behringer systems like churches do, as their stage-side units support per channel EQ.
But there are even hassles with doing that - like getting power to each unit, CAT5 cables, wireless units needed in proximity (if you use wireless), cables running all over the stage, and so on. NOT terribly efficient for a working band, given you can have the wireless units all racked next to your IEM console, and pretty much USELESS when you're in a 5-band lineup.
With the LS9 we would have kept 16 channels for the IEM layer and donated 2 channels to the FOH layer....you can feed the auxes from both the layers.
I have seen some threads that suggest the inputs on the M32 are assigned in groups of 8. If this is true, you were stuck and had to give up much of the IEM layer to meet your quota for FOH channels...there still may have been benefit to running 8 channels on the IEM layer, and running the other 8 from FOH layer.
Whether it will fix the problem, depends upon what the problem is....we haven't deduced that. The solution and ideal board configuration will vary depending upon what the problem is.
My guess is the IEM auxes are setup Pre EQ and the mic has a lot of proximity effect that is being dialed out of the FOH with a HPF and significant shaping of the low end. If this is the problem, duplicating the channels across across both fader levels can fix the problem because seperate EQ can be applied to FOH and IEM as we have been discussing.
In contrast, if the guitar channel auxes are set up post EQ and the sound sucks because the guitarist has crappy IEMs and needs a bunch of bass boost to compensate, duplicating the channels wont work directly. But indirectly it may, because then a better EQ curve can be applied to the FOH layer, which can be fed to everyone's IEM mix (except the guitarist) rather than using sends from the IEM layer. If the resultant sound it too thin, dual feed the IEMs from both layers. It should be easy to balance the sound if the audio tech solos up the auxes in his headphones.
Complicated and confusing perhaps, but odds are a better solution is available if the audio tech is willing to work a little harder. With a minimalist approach, only the problem channel needs to be dual assigned. If any channels are open on the top fader level, this can be achieved on one layer, so it's less confusing and easier to manage.
Last edited:
Yeah, out of reach of most club bands, but IEM rigs like the Aviom w/ A360 IEM mixer allow users to set a bass/treble balance a per-channel.
s0c9
Supporting Member
This is true.. and 8 wasn't enough for IEM mixes for us. And yes, one CAN assign any of the available 32 onboard channels (more if you use an external device like the S16) to the output buss mixes.
Latest posts
-
-
-
NAD - Thrift Store Score – Genz Benz Shuttle 3.0 w/ 10" Docking Cab- Latest: Kilroy Was Here
-
