s0c9
Supporting Member
And that will double/triple the price of the split snake! Sadly..
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.
IEM Transmitter, XR18, Snake Splitter setup?
- Thread starter yakmastermax
- Start date
The dual Behringer MS8000 setup might be good then since it is a transformer splitter, not just hardwired like the SARMSS
That should be superior for audio quality and help with situations utilizing condenser mics and/or other things that need 48v phantom power? That would be good for when the XR18 is being used to record.
We were planning on using wireless setups for the guitar and bass, but the wireless receiver would be on the input side of the pedalboards most likely.
I hear yall on wired IEM. We just want to be able to move around and reduce tangle/clutter because there is a good bit of instrument hopping in our set.
That should be superior for audio quality and help with situations utilizing condenser mics and/or other things that need 48v phantom power? That would be good for when the XR18 is being used to record.
We were planning on using wireless setups for the guitar and bass, but the wireless receiver would be on the input side of the pedalboards most likely.
I hear yall on wired IEM. We just want to be able to move around and reduce tangle/clutter because there is a good bit of instrument hopping in our set.
s0c9
Supporting Member
Totally valid option to wireless - and possibly much cheaper! But I don't recall the XR18 (or any other X-series consoles I run) powering more than the 1st PM16 in the chain. ALL the rest have to have their own power supply, but yes, on CAN daisy chain mant via simple CAT5/CAT6 cable. and use hard wired phones/buds out the back of each!
I'll try and remember to take pics of the setup the next time I'm in the rehearsal space.
I'm not sure I can follow you. Two P-16M's are more expensive than a t.bone 200 transmitter with two receivers.
And the personal mix can easily be controlled via iOS or Android device.
What is the gain in that situation - apart from having to run network wires all over stage and set up these boxes for everyone?
For some reason, none of the instrumentalists ever expressed the urge to go wireless. We all play through pedalboards and our stages are not that large. But I agree that IEM senders and instrument receivers should not be in the same place.
You can't see the gain of each member of the band having control of their own personal monitor mix with 16 individual channels right in front of them that could be adjusted on the fly with no communication and no disturbance to the rest of the crew or audience? No show stoppage. No "Hey sound guy could you turn up the bass in my monitor mix?" Just pressing a button and turning a knob until you're happy? And being able to get away with a $100-$200 pair of cans vs a set of custom wireless IEM's? There are already cables and stuff all over the stage.. 3-4 cat5e cables aren't going to hurt anything. They're also easier to use and the job of setting up monitor mixes doesn't fall on the one guy who knows how to operate the software that comes packed into the feature rich mixers that Midas/Behringer have pretty much set a new standard with.
It's a pretty amazing experience compared to one person controlling everyone elses monitor mix. Which.. personally I was beyond happy to remove that part of the equation from my band. Huge value and time saver. And hey, you might not be willing to throw down some cash for any reason whatsoever.
But.. I'm absolutely glad I have the setup I have for any musical endeavors in my future.
*edit* < -- I was totally neglecting the capability to control monitor mixes with a smartphone app and stand corrected.
Actually at this point I think I am steering you a bit off course.. I was a little confused and I don't think I am any longer.
These guys are right to advise the snake splitter for what you're trying to do..the P-16I actually sounds pretty impractical now that I'm actually thinking about it.
THe P-16M could be an option over going for a wireless setup since it doubles as a headphone amp, but, it's still going to have wires so ima just shush after this edit.
Last edited:
That's my point. I can't see the gain in spending money and resources on a feature that is pretty much redundant because the free to download X AIR Q app will give your smartphone control over your monitor mix.
That app is quite simple and will not give you access to the whole mixer, only to the monitor feeds - where all you can adjust is the volume.
Yeah excuse me I had just started thinking for the day the first time I read this thread and apparently the thought of a smartphone app hadn't occurred. the drummer in my last band didn't have his M32 setup for wifi and I haven't really even started using my XR18 much.
And as I was editing that post above... I realized the P-16I isn't really a practical solution as he'd need a splitter for that just as well and then he'd lose out on the functionality of his XR18.
el murdoque is right.
I still appreciate having my P-16M's for the physical knobs and buttons and the benefit of no screen to turn off or phone to unlock as well acting as a personal headphone amp with EQ options. Perhaps an alternative to wireless setups maybe but not as a solution to the OP's question about signal path routing. I was wrong to suggest the p-16I at all in hindsight.
My apologies for my confusion and also if I happened to cause any.
Last edited:
Not really, it depends on what you want and how much you want to spend.
Off the top of my head:
P16M is potentially nicer/easier to adjust (IMHO) because you have the physical controls. Also AFAIK it gives you the ability to set pan, volume, and EQ. Also I believe the P16M can be mounted on a stand so you don't have to go fishing around in your pocket. Disadvantage is more bulk to carry and more stuff to plug in. Also as you said, it does not eliminate the need for the split snake in this specific circumstance.
AFAIK the smart phone apps let you set volume but not EQ. The other downside is you need a compatible phone. Of course it's wireless which is a potential benefit.
You make good points. I personally wouldn't even consider a P-16I though given what he already has after thinking about it. Even if he did want the option of the P-16M, his XR18 offers that AND wireless where the P-16I demands everyone in the band have a P-16M and I'm glad el murdoque pointed out to me what I was missing there.
I've enjoyed using the P-16M. Initial setup was a little rough with the M32 before we found the desktop app. The XR18 uses a similar app and it makes it a bit easier. once it's setup.. it's as simple as pushing a button and turning a knob though.
As it stands right now I would choose my P-16M over a smartphone app but it could also be because I've already spent the money. Caveat being, sticking with wired cans or IEM's gives you a cable running from the floor up your body to potentially get tangled up in. The p-16 does offer some other perks, stereo output, the ability to pan any given channel left or right and some basic EQ as previously mentioned.
But, running two stereo transmitters for four mono signals to get rid of the cable running up your back doesn't sound like a horrible trade off at all, honestly and I think you guys had him pretty well sorted out before I chimed in.
You make good points. I personally wouldn't even consider a P-16I though given what he already has after thinking about it. Even if he did want the option of the P-16M, his XR18 offers that AND wireless where the P-16I demands everyone in the band have a P-16M and I'm glad el murdoque pointed out to me what I was missing there.
I've enjoyed using the P-16M. Initial setup was a little rough with the M32 before we found the desktop app. The XR18 uses a similar app and it makes it a bit easier. once it's setup.. it's as simple as pushing a button and turning a knob though.
As it stands right now I would choose my P-16M over a smartphone app but it could also be because I've already spent the money. Caveat being, sticking with wired cans or IEM's gives you a cable running from the floor up your body to potentially get tangled up in. The p-16 does offer some other perks, stereo output, the ability to pan any given channel left or right and some basic EQ as previously mentioned.
But, running two stereo transmitters for four mono signals to get rid of the cable running up your back doesn't sound like a horrible trade off at all, honestly and I think you guys had him pretty well sorted out before I chimed in.
Agreed, I don't really see the need for the P16I here, because you are supposed to be able to daisy chain six P16Ms straight off the XR18 via Ultranet. My understanding is walwarts are required to power the P16Ms when they are daisy chained.
However, if you can spend a few extra dollars, add a P16D and you can run up to eight P16Ms...the P16D provides power to the P16Ms, so no walwarts are required.
I believe the P16M should be able to drive an IEM transmitter. The manual lists two 1/4" unbalanced TS line outputs that are supposedly able to drive powered monitors. No max output level is specified and unbalanced is far from ideal IMHO. So it might be necessary to use some sort of isolation transformer like an Ebtech HE-2 XLR to convert unbalanced to balanced.
Of course costs are adding...P16D ($149), P16M ($279), HE-2 XLR ($93), Cables ($??), etc.
s0c9
Supporting Member
For everyone’s reading pleasure…
You don’t need either the P16D nor a P16I if running the P16M’s off the XR18’s Ultranet port.
Each P16M will daisy-chain via CAT5/6 but need to be powered (beyond the first) and yes, the outputs will drive an IEM transmitter.
With P16M, smartphone apps are NOT required as all mix controls are on each unit and that applies whether being wired or wireless off the P16M.
Wireless IEM mixes off the X series is/are a very different animal from using the Ultranet port!
The p-16 has a headphone jack as well as a l/r mono outs to combine for a stereo signal, which is likely for the purpose of sending a signal to a transmitter.
The fact that there is a smartphone app for controlling personal mixes marginalized the need for a p-16M a bit is all. I still think having physical knobs and buttons is more convenient than using a smartphone.. but when you're talking $235 used or $300 new and conisder that people probably already have smartphones it's pretty far from necessity, even if it's a bit more convenient. My original reply to this thread completely ignored that there was a smartphone app >.<
s0c9
Supporting Member
Totally agree.. there’s also a price point difference..
There’s not much in the way of a decent IEM transmitter system in the same range as the P16M + 25ft of CAT5/6 cable. Those START about twice the P16 price…and either way, you still need buds!
If one wants to use the app to controls one’s IEM mix, then one needs the auxiliary gear to support it.. which comes with/at a price.
It’s a decision that the group would need to buy into
Been doing more research and I think I am gonna try out the Phenyx Pro PTM 10 IEM system.
It is a stereo wireless system at about $220 for receiver, transmitter, and crappy buds. Reviews claim decent low frequency performance and decent stereo separation, for the money.
I still was hoping to get some feedback from yall about stereo IEM vs mono. For example, on some fixed budget, would you prioritize mono if that meant each band member could have their own mix, or stereo except everyone got the same mix or perhaps there were only two different mixes?
Would you go with mono from a more reputable brand, or stereo from a Chinese brand, but at the same cost?
It is a stereo wireless system at about $220 for receiver, transmitter, and crappy buds. Reviews claim decent low frequency performance and decent stereo separation, for the money.
I still was hoping to get some feedback from yall about stereo IEM vs mono. For example, on some fixed budget, would you prioritize mono if that meant each band member could have their own mix, or stereo except everyone got the same mix or perhaps there were only two different mixes?
Would you go with mono from a more reputable brand, or stereo from a Chinese brand, but at the same cost?
Now that you mention it again, I think that was the one that had a very good video review. I hope you'll post a follow up on what you think of it.
No real comment to make on stereo vs mono. I know that some people use stereo balance in their ears, so they probably find it important. I don't adjust the balance of anything, and with everything that's going on at once with live performance/sound, I have a hard time imagining that I would personally be able to appreciate any significant benefit, but it certainly be one of those things I'd have to try (just not interested enough at the moment to find out).
Quality splitters have never been cheap.And that will double/triple the price of the split snake! Sadly..
I personally prefer having my own mix to a stereo signal. Less room for bickering about who's too loud and who isn't. With the smartphone app people can figure out on their own what they want to hear more of and how loud. Time saver.
As long as the receiver is capable of splitting a mono signal into both ears I'd probably be okay.
The only real benefit (that I can think of) to stereo monitoring is if I wanted to pan instruments to one side or the other just for some separation to help identify who is doing what.
Last edited:
Stereo is a huge improvement IMHO, but it's far more important for everyone to have the ability to dial in "more me."
There are different ways to go about this. The first IEM based system I put together put everyone on a single stereo mix. It worked exactly as I expected, which is to say no one was really very happy with it. But it did exactly what it was designed to do, which is put a 5-piece rock band on this plane for less than $30K invested in new gear.
All of the other IEM systems I have had a hand in designing since gave everyone a stereo mix.
What stereo does is spread the audio sources out from left to right so you get more of a 3-dimensional sound stage. It's much easier to pick out instruments panned left to right than when everything is panned center. This makes it easier to distinguish between and pick out each sound source so you can run at a lower SPL and still hear all of the sound sources clearly.
The problem with everyone one sharing a stereo mix is most people prefer to hear themselvess about 6-10dB louder than all other mix elements. Also your instrument and voice should be panned either dead center or close to the center due to something called binaural summing. Binaural summing basically means that when you hear a sound equally in both ears, it is perceived as 6dB louder than if you only hear it in one hear. By putting the loudest sound source (you) near the center, you get the desired (perceived) +6-10dB at a lower SPL. Also IMHO it tends to be most natural to hear yourself in the middle.
So the ideal situation is for your channels to be panned near the center and for everyone else to be panned left and right in 3-5dB increments. I suggest panning no more than about L/R 15dB. You may pan slightly harder, but IMHO absolute max with most sound sources is about 20dB. The only type of sound source I would consider panning harder is stereo reverb. Keep in mind a good stereo reverb will distribute the energy across the sound stage, so you will hear it equally in both ears. In my experience 20dB LR is plenty for reverb, but it can vary somewhat depending upon the effect and your tone goals. I suggest experimenting.
So how do you get both stereo and 6-10dB of more me when you don't have enough channels. Although I have not implemented it, I do have an idea. I think it would work relatively well to build a composite stereo mix that everyone can agree on and share. Then everyone will need a small mixer like a Rolls PM351. The PM351 accepts a stereo/mono mix from front of house, and has a through for a vocal mic and also a stereo/mono through for an instrument. The PM351 has volume controls for the mix input, vocal mic, and instrument input. The mic and instrument channels also pass through the PM351 and go to front of house.
One problem with this idea is how to get the stereo mix to several PM351s. Two ideas: 1. Simply build a daisy chain that connects the PM351s in parallel. Most modern equipment uses impedance bridging instead of impedance matching. The impedance is considered bridged when the input impedance is at least 10X the output input of the device feeding it. The idea is the driving devices sees an impedance that is so high that it appears as open circuit. In other words the driven device does not load down the driving device. Because of this, a low impedance source can drive several devices if the input impedance of the driven device is high enough. Unfortunately the PM351 manual does not appear to list input impedance for the mix input...so this may not work. I suggest contacting Rolls to find out the input impedance before going through the effort of building a breakout cable.
A better solution would be to use some sort of active splitter. Not 100% certain but I believe the Behringer MX881 can be set up for 2 in/8 out and runs about $100.
Because everyone has different tastes, it may still be somewhat difficult to share one stereo mix across the entire band. But if you have two stereo mixes it would probably work okay unless one person has really extreme demands. Obviously it will work better if everyone is willing to accept reasonable compromise.
Some additional ideas on IEM mixes:
IMHO low frequency instruments should generally be near the center of everyone's mix. For example bass and bass drum should be centered IMHO. There are two reasons I believe this: 1. one low frequencies are very hard to localize, so it will sound most natural if the extreme low frequencies are centered. IMHO panning low frequency instrument sounds extremely unnatural to me but YMMV especially with light panning. 2. Binaural summation is also an relevant factor. Setting low frequency instruments to the center means you can run them at lower levels which is less taxing on the IEM drivers.
If possible, I would also suggest you try to create an ambient space in the stereo IEM mix with an effect like reverb. Select a reverb that gives you a sensation similar to singing in the shower. Try a medium to short decay time with relatively strong early reflections. Creating a sense of ambiance can really help it feel more natural and also tends to improve vocal intonation.
That's exactly why panning is useful. It really helps your brain separate what's going on. The difference between two guitars right down the midde versus panned slightly left and slightly right is huge.
Using the P-16M's I very much make use of the stereo functions myself. And panning IS awesome.
But if it boiled down to I have x amount of money and need to make the best of it.. which has more value to you, panning, or individual mixes?
If it were one or the other.. I'd choose individual mixes personally.. never again will you have to say "could you turn down the guitar a bit I can't hear anything else."
Even with panning there was always that moment where the lead guitarist kicked on his overdrive that was set way too loud and at least for me, just turning him down rather than giving him the stinkeye was a much more efficient work load.
