IEM Transmitter, XR18, Snake Splitter setup?

[yakmastermax]

I am having difficulty researching this and was hoping for some suggestions from you guys!

I recently got an XR18 and am trying to plan out a live sound setup for it that has the flexibility to be run in a few different ways. I want to be run my own sound for DIY and smaller venues that don't have their own PA and sound engineer. This means using the XR18 as the PA mixer and using our own PA.

I also want to be able to work with "real" venues that have their own PA and sound engineer, and essentially just "insert" my XR18 in between the mics/DIs and FOH in order to produce our own IEM mixes using the XR18 as well as record live shows.

My thought was to get something (open to suggestions) like the Seismic Audio SARMSS 16 input snake splitter. The rack mount box has 16 XLR inputs then two snake outputs each with 16 XLR outs for 32 outputs total. Correct me if I am wrong but the move here would be to take the outputs of all the mics and DIs, send them to the inputs on the SARMSS, then take one of the 16 output snakes and send that to FOH while the other 16 output snake goes to the inputs on the XR18 in order to generate the IEM mixes and the recordings?
In this case I could actually use the main L/R output of the XR18 in addition to the 6 aux output buses for a total of 8 outputs, potentially 4 different stereo mixes since the "real" main mix is being done by FOH using other 16 output snake?

That being said, and being the case, does anyone know of a rackmount IEM Transmitter and receiver system/setup that can do 4 stereo channels? I would like to keep the whole thing under $600 if possible.

I was looking at the NADY PEM-04 option as well as possibly just stacking two XTUGA RW2080 units on top of one another? The NADY PEM-04 doesn't appear to do 4 stereo channels but rather just 4 mono channels?

I think the XTUGA RW2080 does stereo, but their basic rackmount unit only appears to do two channels so I would need two transmitters to get 4 stereo channels total?

Thanks for any suggestions, clarification, and education!

 

[Wasnex]

@s0c9 uses a splitter snake with an X32 Rack He also has a nice write up on WiFi in his signature that I would encourage you to read, as the built in WiFi on these is pretty unreliable.

Ref: Setting up IEM @ Gigs

 

[s0c9]

As @Wasnex says.. check out the doc in my sig.. it's NOT all encompassing, but pls feel free to ask me questions, here or thru PM.

This is our basic layout - an update to the pic in the link @Wasnex provided in his post!
Note that the splitter snake is only used at venues that have a stage box w/o their own split leg. So it's either/or where you see the splitter DASH line going to the House Snake in the diagram. At this time, we only use it at one venue!

Regardless, this setup allows us to connect and run our own stage mons (IEM + wedges) at EVERY venue. If no house PA, setup is the same.. and we run to our own PA speakers/subs using L/R main outs (7/8) from X32 Rack.

 

[s0c9]

That being said, and being the case, does anyone know of a rackmount IEM Transmitter and receiver system/setup that can do 4 stereo channels? I would like to keep the whole thing under $600 if possible.

Based on my experience.. get decent wireless.. the cheap stuff will give you nothing but headaches.
EDIT: This will make you blame the wireless process and not the cheap gear you went with! You can play with a cheap bass, but you'll HATE cheap wireless.. trust me!

If necessary, go wired (if possible) at first, then upgrade as you save.
I use the Mipro 909 system (before that - Senn G3, PSM300, PSM200, Carvin EM900 in historical order), but have also heard GREAT things about Mipro 5.8G system - out of stock until next month! They're popular and CHEAPER! Read ProSundWeb's review at bottom of the page.

Disclosure: I have ZERO affiliation with either Mipro or the website links in this post.. other than being a VERY satisfied customer!

 

[drpepper]

I put one together earlier this year with the primary use being as an IEM rig to use with house or hired sound.

The specifics of my situation are that it uses a Mackie DL1608 and rackmount Seismic Audio splitter. I wanted it to be as compact and light as possible and have wireless units in a separate rack. The layout of the Mackie required a slant-top rack.

It's worked out very well with some caveats and lessons learned that might benefit you.

First is that since the mixer has 16 channels and we generally use 14 of those, I assumed a 16 channel splitter snake would be perfect. In actual practice, I've found that more channels on the splitter would have been a good idea. It's set up with 4 drum channels, and we really only need kick and snare or hi-hat in ears. Bigger shows invariably have more drum mics and that means the sound techs have to bypass the splitter. It's not the end of the world and no one has really complained, but if I were doing it again, I probably would do a 24 channel splitter and do 8 drum channels (4 not plugged into the mixer). Things would just go more smoothly.

My size and weight hopes were dashed, but there's probably nothing that applies to you because my issues there are partly from the Mackie needing the slant-top and partly from doing separate racks for wireless units...other than it can't hurt to have some extra space because it's going to be relatively big and heavy anyway. If you are doing anything separately, plan for stackabilty (seems obvious, but I missed the memo).

Another thing that's not world-ending is that you can have any input order in your mixer that you want, but it can make things go more smoothly if regardless of how your mixer is ordered that you order the splitter inputs by the standard grouping and order used by FOH. There can be some variations, so I'd suggest checking with people you would be working with if possible and searching "standard mixer input order", but the roughly ordered groups are 1. Drums (starting with kick, snare then hi-hat) 2. Bass 3. Guitars 4. Keys 5. Vocals. 6. Other. I used the order that the mixer had been setup in on someone's advice that most places are used to dealing with this. Turns out not so much. I actually had a sound guy complain about that band's splitter when they came up in conversation. I ended up re-labeling and switching the inputs...a minor PITA that could have been avoided.

I bought a label maker for the purpose, and it was money well spent.

Good luck with it.

 

[drpepper]

Based on my experience.. get decent wireless.. the cheap stuff will give you nothing but headaches.
EDIT: This will make you blame the wireless process and not the cheap gear you went with! You can play with a cheap bass, but you'll HATE cheap wireless.. trust me!

If necessary, go wired (if possible) at first, then upgrade as you save.
I use the Mipro 909 system (before that - Senn G3, PSM300, PSM200, Carvin EM900 in historical order), but have also heard GREAT things about Mipro 5.8G system - out of stock until next month! They're popular and CHEAPER! Read ProSundWeb's review at bottom of the page.

Disclosure: I have ZERO affiliation with either Mipro or the website links in this post.. other than being a VERY satisfied customer!

I wasn't going to touch the the $600 target on the wireless, I have no experience with the cheaper units that have been coming out. But mild curiosity had me watching some review videos on youtube for a couple of the models I saw on Amazon. I really have to wonder, just like there was a time not very long ago that you could paint "the cheap stuff" in IEMs with a broad brush, if there aren't some gems or near-gems among them. A couple of the videos I watched (I can't remember the brands) were pretty glowing.

 

[Wasnex]

Bigger shows invariably have more drum mics and that mean the sound techs have to bypass the splitter. It's not the end of the world and no one has really complained, but if I were doing it again, I probably would do a 24 channel splitter and do 8 drum channels (4 not plugged into the mixer).

I don't see the problem with bypassing the splitter for the extra drum channels, other than it's a bit more confusing. IMHO it's really not much of a problem.

Two reasons I would suggest buying a bigger splitter:
1. If you plan to expand to a larger mixer later.
2. Redundancy: Always nice to have extra channels in case one goes down. However, if you only use 14 of 16 channels on the splitter you already have two extra channels.

Balance these advantages against the extra cost, size, and weight.

 

[drpepper]

I don't see the problem with bypassing the splitter for the extra drum channels, other than it's a bit more confusing. IMHO it's really not much of a problem.

Two reasons I would suggest buying a bigger splitter:
1. If you plan to expand to a larger mixer later.
2. Redundancy: Always nice to have extra channels in case one goes down. However, if you only use 14 of 16 channels on the splitter you already have two extra channels.

Balance these advantages against the extra cost, size, and weight.

Like I said, no one has ever really complained, but I see the pauses and sometimes a head scratch before moving forward. Not that I'm going to change it now, it just would have been nice to have gone in with that consideration having been made.

It'd be nice to hand it off and have no explanations, no questions, no "I need to grab a sub-snake", just bing, bang, boom. Easier is better.

Which this has made me think...I should add a big font label across that says "L and R are Stage Perspective"

 

[Wasnex]

Like I said, no one has ever really complained, but I see the pauses and sometimes a head scratch before moving forward. Not that I'm going to change it now, it just would have been nice to have gone in with that consideration having been made.

It'd be nice to hand it off and have no explanations, no questions, no "I need to grab a sub-snake", just bing, bang, boom. Easier is better.

Which this has made me think...I should add a big font label across that says "L and R are Stage Perspective"

Developing some sort of matrix like this may help:

If the audio tech will handle patching, just give him/her a sheet like this and a quick briefing. Possibly a better idea is for you are someone else in the group to handle the input patching.

 

[drpepper]

Developing some sort of matrix like this may help...

Thanks. Yes, we email detailed stage plot and splitter I/O in advance and have printed copies on hand. My experience has been, while it varies from person to person to as to how much they read (all the way from only touching the paper to move it out of the way to actually reading it in some detail), I've found that the tendency is definitely toward taking a "Let's see what we have here" with hands-on approach. I can say that I have never not been asked at least one question that was on the plot or I/O chart. The most common seems to be "Is the stage or house perspective?" even though it's plainly clear if either the plot or chart is glanced at. But I have no problem with that...better to ask and be sure than assume and be wrong, which happened recently.

 

[el murdoque]

This is not the current version of our rig, but it gets the point across. Since this pic was taken, we have added a Fischer amps battery charger and replaced one of the t.bone units with another Shure, but none of this actually alters the way this thing works.
So here is how we use it.
From top to bottom:
1. Router: The X-Air 18 ist capable of wireless, but it's weak, unreliable and can't do 5 gigahertz.
We carried some old netgear router with us for quite some time and upgraded to a 19" version just to have things neat. I consider an external router essential when working with the X-Air 18.
2. (not pictured) Fischer Amps ALC 161 MKII. This 1HE unit fills the void underneath the router. This is pure luxury, but oh so good. Never think about batteries again. Just grab a pair from the unit and reinsert when spent.
3. The IEM Transmitters. We got 6 Aux channels and 6 musicians, so there's mono only. That's why we need only three transmitters because each musician gets either left or right on the transmitter and sets the panning on the receiver accordingly.
We did use the cheap'ish t.bone units but currently upgrade to the Shure ones. They are much better.
4. The X-Air 18. &
5. The XLR Splitter (the t.racks Eight) plus the multicore(s).
Our drummer plays a Roland TD-30 that is capable of sending single feeds for each drum and cymbal, but it is absolutely fine to use the master out - the only thing that sometimes gets splitted is the kickdrum.
That's why we get by with only 8 channels on the splitter.
The cables run:
Instruments connect to the splitter. The splitter is permanently connected to the X-Air 18. As you can see, 7 inputs (Kick not split off) are in use and five aux are connected. These 5 run to the transmitters. The keen eyed will spot that aux4 is not connected. The drummer is not on wireless and an XLR to 1/4" cable runs back to his TD-30's mix in.
On the back of the unit, there is a multicore spilling out as soon as you take off the lid. this is the second output from the splitter, which will connect to the stage box if we play bigger venues.
When we play small, we connect the mains outputs to the poweramp/speakers we brought and do the mixing via iPad/laptop.

In the rear there is a neat construction that gathers all the power cables so that there is a main power switch and a single cable coming out that needs to connect to an outlet.

 

[kittywithabanjo]

Nice little set up a rackmount router would be nice in some ways but in otherways I like to be able to place the router where I want.

 

[SoCal80s]

View attachment 4451110

This is not the current version of our rig, but it gets the point across. ...In the rear there is a neat construction that gathers all the power cables so that there is a main power switch and a single cable coming out that needs to connect to an outlet.

Awesome setup! Very clean. I'd love to see how you arranged things in the back.

 

[sawzalot]

I use a similar setup to @s0c9 except we use two ART S8 3-way splitters. That lets us have a completely isolated output to the FOH system and also lets us have a third split (which I've never had a use for). The output of our X32 Rack then drives either wireless IEMs or wedges on stage. It works whether we use our X32 Rack for our own FOH or just monitors, also. I think a splitter snake is fine also.

I think your challenge will be finding wireless units within your budget. My personal wireless IEM unit is a Shure PSM-300, which is a decent enough unit and hasn't let me down--but it is $699 new by itself. I've used cheaper units and frankly they are inferior and make it harder to perform.

One band I know addressed the IEM cost issue by using wired IEMs with small/cheap headphone amps like the Rolls PM-55P and saved their gig money until they could buy the Shure PSM-300 units for their entire band.

 

[yakmastermax]

Thanks for all the input guys. I understand now that a "snake splitter" is basically essential for this type of set up. I'm looking at the SARMSS 24 as well as the 16 from Seismic Audio. Unfortunately the 16x515 (5' snake and 15' snake) is out of stock, and the 16x1515 (two 15' snakes) doesn't really make sense. Why use a 15' snake to go from the splitter to the XR18 or similar when they're in the same rack case.

I'm also considering stacking two Behringer MS8000 8 input 16 output splitters. I could then run nice tidy short XLRs from the MS8000s to the XR18, then get a single 16 channel snake that could actually be removed from the rack when not in use.

In either case, it seems like a snake splitter is the way to go. Silly little question though does the snake splitter affect the audio quality of the signal going into the XR18 at all? I ask because while I wasn't planning on doing studio recordings with the XR18, I did want to use it to record live shows, rehearsals, and things like that.

I've been digging some more on the budget IEM options. The XTUGA RW2080 (or I think equivalently the XTUGA IEM1200) doesn't have the best reviews, only offers mono, and seems to have a pretty poor tone and audio quality, dropping a lot of the lows.

The NADY PEM-04 might still be an option, except it is mono only. I'm looking at another new Chinese budget option, the Phenyx PRO PTM 10. These are $220 per transmitter and receiver combo, and do stereo.

I guess a question I have for you guys is how important stereo is vs mono. Dollars held equal would you roll the dice on a mono setup from a more reputable brand like NADY, or spend the same to get stereo but in doing so go with a budget Chinese company?

https://www.amazon.com/Phenyx-Pro-Selectable-Frequency-Mountable/dp/B07JN62MZQ

https://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/nady-pem-04-wireless-in-ear-monitor-system

 

[SoCal80s]

Why use a 15' snake to go from the splitter to the XR18 or similar when they're in the same rack case...

Keep in mind that there are different types of splitters: A splitter snake is one stage box with 2 tails such as this. And a rackmount splitter is a box on a rack that you connect directly into, such as this. And a combo of the 2 such as this.

If you do need a stage snake to run from the stage to your mixer then I recommend a splitter snake like the 1st one I linked above. If you don't need a snake, because the mixer will be on stage and you will plug everything directly to it, then you might just want a rackmount splitter like the 2nd one I linked above. (I don't see the point of the rackmount snake.) Between the 1st and 2nd choice, the 1st will give you more flexibility on larger stages. The second is less flexible, but cheaper.

 

[Matty Koff]

Thanks for all the input guys. I understand now that a "snake splitter" is basically essential for this type of set up. I'm looking at the SARMSS 24 as well as the 16 from Seismic Audio. Unfortunately the 16x515 (5' snake and 15' snake) is out of stock, and the 16x1515 (two 15' snakes) doesn't really make sense. Why use a 15' snake to go from the splitter to the XR18 or similar when they're in the same rack case.

I'm also considering stacking two Behringer MS8000 8 input 16 output splitters. I could then run nice tidy short XLRs from the MS8000s to the XR18, then get a single 16 channel snake that could actually be removed from the rack when not in use.

In either case, it seems like a snake splitter is the way to go. Silly little question though does the snake splitter affect the audio quality of the signal going into the XR18 at all? I ask because while I wasn't planning on doing studio recordings with the XR18, I did want to use it to record live shows, rehearsals, and things like that.

I've been digging some more on the budget IEM options. The XTUGA RW2080 (or I think equivalently the XTUGA IEM1200) doesn't have the best reviews, only offers mono, and seems to have a pretty poor tone and audio quality, dropping a lot of the lows.

The NADY PEM-04 might still be an option, except it is mono only. I'm looking at another new Chinese budget option, the Phenyx PRO PTM 10. These are $220 per transmitter and receiver combo, and do stereo.

I guess a question I have for you guys is how important stereo is vs mono. Dollars held equal would you roll the dice on a mono setup from a more reputable brand like NADY, or spend the same to get stereo but in doing so go with a budget Chinese company?

https://www.amazon.com/Phenyx-Pro-Selectable-Frequency-Mountable/dp/B07JN62MZQ

https://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audio/nady-pem-04-wireless-in-ear-monitor-system

I could very well be missing a lot.. but having an XR18 and having worked with a MIDAS M32 before..

Your XR 18 has ultranet capability. I mean..wireless is great and all but the Behringer p-16M's can be mounted to a mic stand and you could plug a wired set of IEMS into them, or a nice set of studio cans. From the XR18 you can daisy chain up to like 4 or 8 P-16M's for monitoring.

And for the times FoH is provided, the P-16I has 16 inputs, allowing a band to make use of the P-16Ms.

Band gets personal monitor mixes and the ability to adjust what they hear on the fly in either case.. and your headphone amp/mixer is close enough that you could get away with much less expensive wired headphone or IEM monitoring.

I mean.. given you can get all the outputs you need from the FoH mixing board anyway.. I'm not sure how easy that would be to work out in either case.. a snake splitter or a personal monitoring system like the p-16I and p-16M's.

Mayhaps the band could each provide their own p-16M and headphone solution to help soften the costs?

But I can see wireless's appeal.. freedom of movement and all. Even then, I'm pretty sure I could transmit a signal from my P-16M into a wireless transmitter if I desired as well.

Having control over my own monitor mix in a band setting though, and everybody else having that as well.. bees knees. I can turn up any piece of the band I want to without affecting what anybody else is hearing. Eliminates just about any complaint one could have with their monitor mix and the sound check is just the sound guy adjusting levels for FoH.

Maybe the toms get combined to a single channel or something, leveled out with a 4 channel mixer if the main board isn't capable of combining channels to ensure we can fit everything into 16 channels.. leaving room for a channel dedicated to each instrument and vocal mic.

 

[Wasnex]

View attachment 4451110

This is not the current version of our rig, but it gets the point across. Since this pic was taken, we have added a Fischer amps battery charger and replaced one of the t.bone units with another Shure, but none of this actually alters the way this thing works.
So here is how we use it.
From top to bottom:
1. Router: The X-Air 18 ist capable of wireless, but it's weak, unreliable and can't do 5 gigahertz.
We carried some old netgear router with us for quite some time and upgraded to a 19" version just to have things neat. I consider an external router essential when working with the X-Air 18.
2. (not pictured) Fischer Amps ALC 161 MKII. This 1HE unit fills the void underneath the router. This is pure luxury, but oh so good. Never think about batteries again. Just grab a pair from the unit and reinsert when spent.
3. The IEM Transmitters. We got 6 Aux channels and 6 musicians, so there's mono only. That's why we need only three transmitters because each musician gets either left or right on the transmitter and sets the panning on the receiver accordingly.
We did use the cheap'ish t.bone units but currently upgrade to the Shure ones. They are much better.
4. The X-Air 18. &
5. The XLR Splitter (the t.racks Eight) plus the multicore(s).
Our drummer plays a Roland TD-30 that is capable of sending single feeds for each drum and cymbal, but it is absolutely fine to use the master out - the only thing that sometimes gets splitted is the kickdrum.
That's why we get by with only 8 channels on the splitter.
The cables run:
Instruments connect to the splitter. The splitter is permanently connected to the X-Air 18. As you can see, 7 inputs (Kick not split off) are in use and five aux are connected. These 5 run to the transmitters. The keen eyed will spot that aux4 is not connected. The drummer is not on wireless and an XLR to 1/4" cable runs back to his TD-30's mix in.
On the back of the unit, there is a multicore spilling out as soon as you take off the lid. this is the second output from the splitter, which will connect to the stage box if we play bigger venues.
When we play small, we connect the mains outputs to the poweramp/speakers we brought and do the mixing via iPad/laptop.

In the rear there is a neat construction that gathers all the power cables so that there is a main power switch and a single cable coming out that needs to connect to an outlet.

Does not look like you are using wireless for the instruments. If you do use wireless for the instruments, it's generally best if they are not collocated with the IEM transmitters.

 

[Wasnex]

I use a similar setup to @s0c9 except we use two ART S8 3-way splitters. That lets us have a completely isolated output to the FOH system and also lets us have a third split (which I've never had a use for). The output of our X32 Rack then drives either wireless IEMs or wedges on stage. It works whether we use our X32 Rack for our own FOH or just monitors, also. I think a splitter snake is fine also.

I think your challenge will be finding wireless units within your budget. My personal wireless IEM unit is a Shure PSM-300, which is a decent enough unit and hasn't let me down--but it is $699 new by itself. I've used cheaper units and frankly they are inferior and make it harder to perform.

One band I know addressed the IEM cost issue by using wired IEMs with small/cheap headphone amps like the Rolls PM-55P and saved their gig money until they could buy the Shure PSM-300 units for their entire band.

IMHO if you don't need wireless, wired is way more reliable and also way less expensive.

The bands I worked with ran top of the line Shure wireless on everything: instruments, vocals, IEMs. Everything was properly configured for the region, and we used active shark fins for the receivers and an Helical antenna for the IEM transmitter. We still had occasional drop outs on the IEMs on many gigs. We had way less problems with the wireless mics and instrument packs.

I don't really see much point in wireless IEMs if you are running a wired instrument.

 

[Wasnex]

My understanding is the Seismic splitter is essentially a hardwired Y connection. This creates a physical link between the inputs of both mixers. I would suggest ensuring that phantom power is only provided by one of the mixers, and turn phantom off on the other. This means if you use condensers , active DIs, or any sort of pedal that runs on phantom you should reconfigure your phantom outs, depending on if you are using the second output on the split or not.

There are also transformer splits where one of the mixers has a direct connection to the inputs, and the second mixer is isolated using transformers. The transformer block the phantom power from reaching the second board.

There are also active splitters like the Klark Teknik DN1248PLS-DP that provides isolation between the two mixers and provides its own phantom power to the mics.