• 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.

Some Questions Regarding IEMs

monkeyfinger

monkeyfinger

Moderator
Staff member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 29, 2001
5,798
5,906
62
Warwick, Rhode Island, USA
#1
I have been researching the pro's and con's of switching to IEMs. I have a few concerns I am hoping those with more experience can shed some light on. First, this would be for a four piece rock band; drums, bass, guitar, vocalist. Drummer, bassist and guitar do background vocals too. Here are some of the major points I've picked up. I would like to get your response to these points.

  1. By all accounts stereo seems to be far superior to mono mixes. Stereo provides a 3-d image that can be very close to what we would hear with stage volume and wedges. Our brains are very accustomed to receiving sounds from multiple locations. The mono image removes this natural imaging causing fatigue and difficulty separating sounds.
  2. Assuming some instruments such as drums and guitars still produce stage volume, it is hard to get a good FOH mix from the stage. Some authors say you must have a FOH engineer with IEMs. Also, you need to do sound check without IEMs.
  3. You need to mix some stage sound into the IEM mix via ambiance mics. This not only removes the boxed in feeling, but helps with 3-d imaging. Drum overheads can provide some ambiance, but it is often not sufficient. The ambiance mics should be located far stage right and far stage left towards the front of the stage. Of course they are not sent to the mains. I am considering using ducking keyed off the mains so the levels go down when we are playing.
  4. No wedges at the front of the stage means you need some type of small monitors on the stage to provide vocals, (at a minimum), to those standing in front of the stage.
  5. Everyone should have an individual mix. Often a good personal mix is as much about what is not there as it is about what is. Performers who are not accustomed to IEM mixes will tend to put everything in. As they get more experience with the system, the mix will become more tailored to the individual.
  6. The high levels of isolation provided by custom IEMs is the single most important factor in getting the most benefit out of IEMs. Some articles suggest that even using decent off-the-shelf buds with custom molded seals will often be satisfactory provided the seal is tight.
  7. Having a good hard limiter is essential to hearing safety
  8. There seems to be very few choices in hardwired systems that can take a pair of balanced inputs and have a built-in adjustable limiter.
  9. IEMs require more mics for the drums. In situations where kick and maybe a couple of overheads are sufficient for a small club, you will be more likely to mic all the drums in the kit just to get the right IEM mix.
  10. Getting to use IEM mix in a club where the venue provides the FOH usually requires a splitter snake.

I recently purchased a Behringer X32 rack system for IEM and FOH when we need it. I've set up four stereo IEM outs and stereo FOH with aux-fed subs. The X32 seems to fit the bill well for this purpose. I currently set up for 8 channels of drums, two for bass, (DI to sub bus, and wet to mains), two guitars and four vocals. I have two guitars because we are looking to add another guitar player. I also have aux ins for external two track, electronic drums, and PC input via USB. This is to support rehearsal where we go direct on everything and use an electronic kit. This allows us to record and playback with ease. (I hope). I think by the time we add another guitar player, we will be close to 30 channels. The X32 rack has 16 XLR mic/line level inputs and 6 line level TRS inputs. I am pretty sure I will need more XLR inputs so I am looking to purchase the SD8 or SD16 digital stage boxes when they available.

Behringer also offers a personal monitor mixer, the P16M, that connects to the X32 over cat5e cable. Multiple units can be connected to one X32. It provides a stereo mix that is completely independent of the mix busses on the X32. I may need to add one or two of these. I have already used up the 16 mix busses: 4 stereo monitor mixes, 3 stereo subgroups, and 2 mono FX sends. For those who do not want the P16M, they can manage their mix via apps on ios or android devices provided they connect to network the X32 is on. (I have a wireless router setup.)

One concern my guitar player has is that the clubs won't let us use this as a monitor. We are an original act. Typically there are multiple bands on the schedule for the night. We will play one set. He thinks the house sound guys won't go for the change-out even if we bring a split snake. I think if we attempt to work with the house sound guy in advance, we stand a very good chance. (Most house monitor systems are terrible.)

Thanks for reading this. I am looking forward to your feedback.
 
#2
monkeyfinger said:
One concern my guitar player has is that the clubs won't let us use this as a monitor. We are an original act. Typically there are multiple bands on the schedule for the night. We will play one set. He thinks the house sound guys won't go for the change-out even if we bring a split snake.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you're the headliner, but your guitard is mostly right about that.
 
#3
monkeyfinger said:
One concern my guitar player has is that the clubs won't let us use this as a monitor. We are an original act. Typically there are multiple bands on the schedule for the night. We will play one set. He thinks the house sound guys won't go for the change-out even if we bring a split snake. I think if we attempt to work with the house sound guy in advance, we stand a very good chance. (Most house monitor systems are terrible.)

Unless your sharing instruments/setups between bands, I'm not sure I see the difference between your band plugging into the house FOH snake vs. the band plugging into your onstage IEM mixer and you splitting off to the FOH snake, especially if you get the change up done quickly. The only caveat to this is the FOH guys I've worked with want to make sure you're giving them a pre-EQ signal for each channel; we use ART S8 1x2 balanced splitters to accomplish this.
Click to expand...
 
#4
dheafey said:
Unless your sharing instruments/setups between bands, I'm not sure I see the difference between your band plugging into the house FOH snake vs. the band plugging into your onstage IEM mixer and you splitting off to the FOH snake, especially if you get the change up done quickly. The only caveat to this is the FOH guys I've worked with want to make sure you're giving them a pre-EQ signal for each channel; we use ART S8 1x2 balanced splitters to accomplish this.
Click to expand...

If the band plugs into the provider's split, then the provider will have to provide an XLR fanout and whip from their snake to the band's monitor console.

By the band providing the split, they already have one side patched to the band's monitor console and they can just hand the provider their band inputs on an XLR fan-out. Makes the provider's job a little easier.

Of course, in a festival, the provider may have a set of subsnakes already run out on the stage and patched to the main snake head. They may not want to pull the subsnakes' XLRs from the main snake head (They shouldn't mind, but...). This is where some advancing the band info and making a festival day plan for the bands lineup comes in handy. My former employers have 2 snake heads so that one can be in use with one band while the other one is being patched for the next band.

One monkey wrench in that plan is when all bands use the same backline (usually drum kit, bass rig, sometimes guitar amps). In that case, it would be handy for the PA provider to supply a whip and fan-out for your monitor desk as described above so the backline inputs don't have to be re-patched when a self-contained band comes along. Some adjustments to the band's monitor mix will be necessary, but it's quicker to get up and running under these circumstances.

They is why they/we scream about advancing shows. At the same time, everyone, it seems....bands, providers, promoters, the whole lot....is negligent about advancing shows at some point. Hey, somehow, we make it through...:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: s0c9
#5
Someday, companies that run sound will provide the iem packs and the band's bring ear buds. Soundchecck is run the same as always and the exception will be when a band wants one or more mixes in a wedge.

It a less gear for everyone. That's my dream anyway.
 
#7
Geri O said:
If the band plugs into the provider's split, then the provider will have to provide an XLR fanout and whip from their snake to the band's monitor console.

By the band providing the split, they already have one side patched to the band's monitor console and they can just hand the provider their band inputs on an XLR fan-out. Makes the provider's job a little easier.
Click to expand...

I was actually referring to sound engineers worrying about it taking too long when bands use their own onstage monitor setup. In essence, we're in agreement.
 
#8
We use the X32 at our church, and we use the personal monitor mixers by Behringer as well. They are just so simple and easy to use it's crazy. Our singers use their wireless packs; our bassist and drummer use Shure ear buds as well. Guitarists the same. Everybody does. That handles the monitors part.
Mixing wise, from the X32, we run everything direct. I go stereo with my electric guitar thru a Line 6 Pod HD500 and my daughter goes thru her pedalboard and Tone Hammer Preamp Pedal. Everything else is straight thru.
We can pretty much take this wherever we go. BUT, we are never in situations where we have a lot of bands playing and things like that. e do go to other churches and play, and we do play some decent size events at times, but we usually allow the other bands to use our gear (at least the PA). We keep extra ear bus and things like that on hand so that we have anything we need when we go out or if something happens at church. My motto tends to be have 10 extra of everything instead of just one extra of everything. I just like to be prepared or it messes with me if I think we aren't.
 
#10
  • By all accounts stereo seems to be far superior to mono mixes. Stereo provides a 3-d image that can be very close to what we would hear with stage volume and wedges. Our brains are very accustomed to receiving sounds from multiple locations. The mono image removes this natural imaging causing fatigue and difficulty separating sounds.
  • I couldn't agree more. We do upwards of 60 gigs a year and for most of those we use our own PA. On the few occasions when we have third parties provide sound we specify that we use IEMs for most of the band members. Invariably we get a mono mix, even when we ask for stereo. Most sound engineers do not get it and they think that you are just being a Diva by asking for stereo mixes. I have been on many live sound forums and keep coming across engineers commenting that Mono is fine and that stereo IEM mixes are silly. The benefits of using stereo properly are huge and include being able to monitor at lower volumes. For real 3 D imaging you should look at this: Invalid Link Removed I have never tried the system but it looks awesome.
  • Assuming some instruments such as drums and guitars still produce stage volume, it is hard to get a good FOH mix from the stage. Some authors say you must have a FOH engineer with IEMs. Also, you need to do sound check without IEMs.
  • This is also true to an extent and it depends very much on the size of the venue. A large portion of our gigs are in big open air venues where everything goes through the PA, including the drums and the brass instruments. For monitoring (I run sound from the stage) I connect to the headphone out of the board and can route to it either the FOH mix or the AUX mix. That way I get a close representation of what is being heard at FOH. It is not hugely precise as it doesn't take account of the 'room' but it gets pretty close. In small rooms or halls where the drums need almost no reinforcement, that no longer works. The singer must periodically pop out to front of stage (during an instrumental part or song) to check the balance.
  • You need to mix some stage sound into the IEM mix via ambiance mics. This not only removes the boxed in feeling, but helps with 3-d imaging. Drum overheads can provide some ambiance, but it is often not sufficient. The ambiance mics should be located far stage right and far stage left towards the front of the stage. Of course they are not sent to the mains. I am considering using ducking keyed off the mains so the levels go down when we are playing.
  • I have never tried using ambient mikes but have no desire to do so. The same effect can be achieved with judicious use of reverb and panning. Panning different instruments closer or further from centre and sending some reverb to the in ear mix makes things 3D. I am very much inclined to keep the IEM mix as clean as possible and don't want all the spill associated with ambient mikes.
  • No wedges at the front of the stage means you need some type of small monitors on the stage to provide vocals, (at a minimum), to those standing in front of the stage.
  • I've never felt the need to do this if the PA is properly set up
  • Everyone should have an individual mix. Often a good personal mix is as much about what is not there as it is about what is. Performers who are not accustomed to IEM mixes will tend to put everything in. As they get more experience with the system, the mix will become more tailored to the individual.
  • I agree that this is preferable. In our case, I find myself in the situation of having to share a mix with my drummer because we have run out of AUX output on our board (all 10 of them). In fact we'd rather share a mix rather than have individual mono mixes.
  • The high levels of isolation provided by custom IEMs is the single most important factor in getting the most benefit out of IEMs. Some articles suggest that even using decent off-the-shelf buds with custom molded seals will often be satisfactory provided the seal is tight.
  • Don't necessarily agree. I think the most important factor in getting the most benefit of of IEMs is the skill of whoever is running the monitoring board and the quality of the mix. A good seal on your in ear buds, particularly that provided by custom molded buds is a very very close second.
  • Having a good hard limiter is essential to hearing safety
  • Agree. Currently, I am using the board's own limiter on each of the Aux mixes but I can't help thinking that a limiter in the hard wired pack would be safer.
  • There seems to be very few choices in hardwired systems that can take a pair of balanced inputs and have a built-in adjustable limiter.
  • The only product which seems to fit the bill is the Tasty Blender by Rock on Audio. But I've seen some disparaging comments about the unit. I wish the Rolls Personal monitors would have a built in limiter.
  • IEMs require more mics for the drums. In situations where kick and maybe a couple of overheads are sufficient for a small club, you will be more likely to mic all the drums in the kit just to get the right IEM mix.
  • We usually get by with kick, snare and 2 overheads, these panned hard left and right. And in truth I have found that I don't miss any more mikes on the kit. Recently, we've been micing up the two toms and it sure is nice to have them added to the mix.
  • Getting to use IEM mix in a club where the venue provides the FOH usually requires a splitter snake.
  • We don't do many club dates but I have been seriously considering having our own splitter snake for the times when we play bigger festivals. The expense vis-a-vis the number of times we'd actually use the splitter tends to put me off but mostly I am pretty sure that I am going to get groans from sound engineers when I present them with a snake. I am not sure it is worth the hassle (as much as I would like to use our own system for monitoring).

I'll add a couple things which I feel are vital for taking IEM mixes to the next level:

Firstly, I find that it is important that IEMs are sent a post EQ and dynamics but pre fader mix. At the very least, the mix should be post each channels high pass filter. The high pass filter control is possible the most important control on any channel. It removes a ton of mud from all the mics where it is needed. I high pass snare, hi toms, overheads, brass, saxes and vocal mics and guitar amp microphones. I might take out the really low frequencies also on the kick and floor tom mics. Removing the spill from subs bleeding into these mics is probably the best thing you can do for clearing up a mix both in FOH and in IEMs. The same applies for EQ and compression. Proper use of gating on individual microphones also means that you can remove a boat load of unwanted noise from both FOH and in ear mixes. With regards to EQ, sometimes thisis used to adjust to the idiosyncrasies of the room but for the most part it is used to remove offending frequencies from a particular instrument. If EQ is applied to correct the sound of mic in front of a kick drum, that improved sound might as well be the one heard in IEM mixes. With wedges, I tend to send a post hi pass but pre dynamics mix because changes to gain when making compression changes can lead to feedback.

Secondly, a high pass filter applied to the whole IEM mix can take out some of the very low end information which is useless to the listener and helps for a clearer mix.

Thirdly, IEM should be at as low a volume as is comfortable. A loud mix sounds great for a while but, besides being dangerous to the ears, will cause listening fatigue sooner and the pristine mix will be lost on the listener.

Finally, in ear monitoring is great and we use it on 95% of our gigs. The benefits can be substantial. To name a few a) it helps keep stage volume low thereby protecting hearing b) brass players who are on wedges are not blasted by a booming bass amp keeping up with the drums and they can keep their wedges at a lower volume c) singers never get hoarse trying to compete with the bank. BUT using in ear monitoring is inherently complicated. There are situations, such as when playing soft music such as jazz in a small club, where it is far more practicable to simply place a small combo on stage and get on with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomogram and bass10bfb
#14
monkeyfinger said:
By all accounts stereo seems to be far superior to mono mixes. Stereo provides a 3-d image that can be very close to what we would hear with stage volume and wedges. Our brains are very accustomed to receiving sounds from multiple locations. The mono image removes this natural imaging causing fatigue and difficulty separating sounds.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree here.. it depends on what you are used to. Given that for the average "live" act, the only stereo feed is keys, what you are really talking about is the ability to pan an instrument left or right in your ears. Think about it... vox, guitar, bass, ALL drums are single (MONO) mics going into a single console channel that you can pan left or right. I have been using mono IEM mixes for years (I do have good, multiple-driver buds tho') and have no problems with volume or being able to pick something out. With single driver buds.. I would agree on the "stereo" mix.
monkeyfinger said:
Assuming some instruments such as drums and guitars still produce stage volume, it is hard to get a good FOH mix from the stage. Some authors say you must have a FOH engineer with IEMs. Also, you need to do sound check without IEMs.
Click to expand...
I would agree with the FOH part.. hard to monitor when you have an IEM mix.. however, we generally do sound check with IEM's in, so we can adjust our own mixes while FOH does their thing.
monkeyfinger said:
You need to mix some stage sound into the IEM mix via ambiance mics. This not only removes the boxed in feeling, but helps with 3-d imaging. Drum overheads can provide some ambiance, but it is often not sufficient. The ambiance mics should be located far stage right and far stage left towards the front of the stage. Of course they are not sent to the mains. I am considering using ducking keyed off the mains so the levels go down when we are playing.
Click to expand...
Another disagreement. We did the same as you .. all the research etc.. we put ambient mics up, fed only to the IEM mix.. We dumped them not long after, since we only needed them between songs and the "ambience" they added caused more confusion in the mix during songs than they helped.
monkeyfinger said:
No wedges at the front of the stage means you need some type of small monitors on the stage to provide vocals, (at a minimum), to those standing in front of the stage.
Click to expand...
Never done that, never had anyone complain about it - not in 2yrs anyway, and we do about 80+ gigs a year.
monkeyfinger said:
Everyone should have an individual mix. Often a good personal mix is as much about what is not there as it is about what is. Performers who are not accustomed to IEM mixes will tend to put everything in. As they get more experience with the system, the mix will become more tailored to the individual.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.. for example, I only put kick/snare in my IEM. I could care less about the toms, etc. I also keep the other backing vocalists level way down (barely on) in my mix with lead vox prevalent, so I can get my harmonies dead on, and not worry about his. I need to hear what I need to do my job on bass.. I'm not listening to a CD. . I'm playing to an audience, with folks on a stage.. live!
monkeyfinger said:
The high levels of isolation provided by custom IEMs is the single most important factor in getting the most benefit out of IEMs. Some articles suggest that even using decent off-the-shelf buds with custom molded seals will often be satisfactory provided the seal is tight.
Click to expand...
Yes, along with multiple drivers.. too many folks go cheap (single drivers), have all kinds of issues with separation, no bass, etc. then blame the IEM system and go back to wedges. Seen it many times. You can't "cheap" on an IEM system and be happy with it. I know.. been there done that with everything from wired cans, to single buds to my current 1964 Quads and Senn G3 system
monkeyfinger said:
Having a good hard limiter is essential to hearing safety
Click to expand...
Absolutely.. either on the IEM feed or on the receiver. Most IEM systems have built-in limiters, with the up-market models (Senn G3, Shure PSM900/1000) having adjustable limiters.
monkeyfinger said:
There seems to be very few choices in hardwired systems that can take a pair of balanced inputs and have a built-in adjustable limiter.
Click to expand...
Behringer and Aviom sending units do... never used Hearback, so not sure if they do or not.
monkeyfinger said:
IEMs require more mics for the drums. In situations where kick and maybe a couple of overheads are sufficient for a small club, you will be more likely to mic all the drums in the kit just to get the right IEM mix.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you want in your mix. For bass, I need kick and snare.. don't need toms.. they're just filler noise.
monkeyfinger said:
Getting to use IEM mix in a club where the venue provides the FOH usually requires a splitter snake.
Click to expand...
Unless the venue already has a splitter snake on stage and you hook the split into your console. ALL the house provided FOH venues we play have that.
monkeyfinger said:
I recently purchased a Behringer X32 rack system for IEM and FOH when we need it. I've set up four stereo IEM outs and stereo FOH with aux-fed subs. The X32 seems to fit the bill well for this purpose. I currently set up for 8 channels of drums, two for bass, (DI to sub bus, and wet to mains), two guitars and four vocals. I have two guitars because we are looking to add another guitar player. I also have aux ins for external two track, electronic drums, and PC input via USB. This is to support rehearsal where we go direct on everything and use an electronic kit. This allows us to record and playback with ease. (I hope). I think by the time we add another guitar player, we will be close to 30 channels. The X32 rack has 16 XLR mic/line level inputs and 6 line level TRS inputs. I am pretty sure I will need more XLR inputs so I am looking to purchase the SD8 or SD16 digital stage boxes when they available.
Click to expand...
We are a 5-piece, non-originals cover band (we DO have about 6 originals we play) with 2 electric, 1 acoustic guitar, 3 vocals, drums and bass. One guitar player also plays mandolin and banjo, on same console channel. We mic or DI everything into our X32. XLR busses 1-5 are used for MONO IEM mixes with 7/8 going to mains (when we use our PA). For house provided gigs we still use our own mics/cables and take their snake split and map to our X32 in. Same IEM mix every time. We also have a "split" rack: amps, DSP in one, with back panel that accepts XLR ins and has 4 Speakon's on the back for easy speaker connections; and the mixer/IEM rack. Plug in, power up and go. We leave the amp rack at home for house PA gigs.

Since we run the same X32 console, we have been considering mapping ch1 in to 1 and 17, ch 2 to 2 and 18 and so on... then using 17-32 for IEM mix only so the mix never changes.. Today we monitor what's going to FOH and that changes based on venue.
monkeyfinger said:
One concern my guitar player has is that the clubs won't let us use this as a monitor. We are an original act. Typically there are multiple bands on the schedule for the night. We will play one set. He thinks the house sound guys won't go for the change-out even if we bring a split snake. I think if we attempt to work with the house sound guy in advance, we stand a very good chance. (Most house monitor systems are terrible.)
Click to expand...
I would agree with his concerns here, but if you have a splitter snake ???

With all of the above, YMMV.
My feedback is based on about 5 yrs of IEM use from wired headphones, to buds to separate mixers, to inline compressors, to Avioms system, to Behringer P16M, to various wireless system ( with various consoles) from Carvin EM900, PSM200 to Senn G3.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nomogram
#15
Wadge said:
  • By all accounts stereo seems to be far superior to mono mixes. Stereo provides a 3-d image that can be very close to what we would hear with stage volume and wedges. Our brains are very accustomed to receiving sounds from multiple locations. The mono image removes this natural imaging causing fatigue and difficulty separating sounds.
  • I couldn't agree more. We do upwards of 60 gigs a year and for most of those we use our own PA. On the few occasions when we have third parties provide sound we specify that we use IEMs for most of the band members. Invariably we get a mono mix, even when we ask for stereo. Most sound engineers do not get it and they think that you are just being a Diva by asking for stereo mixes. I have been on many live sound forums and keep coming across engineers commenting that Mono is fine and that stereo IEM mixes are silly. The benefits of using stereo properly are huge and include being able to monitor at lower volumes. For real 3 D imaging you should look at this: Invalid Link Removed I have never tried the system but it looks awesome.
  • Assuming some instruments such as drums and guitars still produce stage volume, it is hard to get a good FOH mix from the stage. Some authors say you must have a FOH engineer with IEMs. Also, you need to do sound check without IEMs.
  • This is also true to an extent and it depends very much on the size of the venue. A large portion of our gigs are in big open air venues where everything goes through the PA, including the drums and the brass instruments. For monitoring (I run sound from the stage) I connect to the headphone out of the board and can route to it either the FOH mix or the AUX mix. That way I get a close representation of what is being heard at FOH. It is not hugely precise as it doesn't take account of the 'room' but it gets pretty close. In small rooms or halls where the drums need almost no reinforcement, that no longer works. The singer must periodically pop out to front of stage (during an instrumental part or song) to check the balance.
  • You need to mix some stage sound into the IEM mix via ambiance mics. This not only removes the boxed in feeling, but helps with 3-d imaging. Drum overheads can provide some ambiance, but it is often not sufficient. The ambiance mics should be located far stage right and far stage left towards the front of the stage. Of course they are not sent to the mains. I am considering using ducking keyed off the mains so the levels go down when we are playing.
  • I have never tried using ambient mikes but have no desire to do so. The same effect can be achieved with judicious use of reverb and panning. Panning different instruments closer or further from centre and sending some reverb to the in ear mix makes things 3D. I am very much inclined to keep the IEM mix as clean as possible and don't want all the spill associated with ambient mikes.
  • No wedges at the front of the stage means you need some type of small monitors on the stage to provide vocals, (at a minimum), to those standing in front of the stage.
  • I've never felt the need to do this if the PA is properly set up
  • Everyone should have an individual mix. Often a good personal mix is as much about what is not there as it is about what is. Performers who are not accustomed to IEM mixes will tend to put everything in. As they get more experience with the system, the mix will become more tailored to the individual.
  • I agree that this is preferable. In our case, I find myself in the situation of having to share a mix with my drummer because we have run out of AUX output on our board (all 10 of them). In fact we'd rather share a mix rather than have individual mono mixes.
  • The high levels of isolation provided by custom IEMs is the single most important factor in getting the most benefit out of IEMs. Some articles suggest that even using decent off-the-shelf buds with custom molded seals will often be satisfactory provided the seal is tight.
  • Don't necessarily agree. I think the most important factor in getting the most benefit of of IEMs is the skill of whoever is running the monitoring board and the quality of the mix. A good seal on your in ear buds, particularly that provided by custom molded buds is a very very close second.
  • Having a good hard limiter is essential to hearing safety
  • Agree. Currently, I am using the board's own limiter on each of the Aux mixes but I can't help thinking that a limiter in the hard wired pack would be safer.
  • There seems to be very few choices in hardwired systems that can take a pair of balanced inputs and have a built-in adjustable limiter.
  • The only product which seems to fit the bill is the Tasty Blender by Rock on Audio. But I've seen some disparaging comments about the unit. I wish the Rolls Personal monitors would have a built in limiter.
  • IEMs require more mics for the drums. In situations where kick and maybe a couple of overheads are sufficient for a small club, you will be more likely to mic all the drums in the kit just to get the right IEM mix.
  • We usually get by with kick, snare and 2 overheads, these panned hard left and right. And in truth I have found that I don't miss any more mikes on the kit. Recently, we've been micing up the two toms and it sure is nice to have them added to the mix.
  • Getting to use IEM mix in a club where the venue provides the FOH usually requires a splitter snake.
  • We don't do many club dates but I have been seriously considering having our own splitter snake for the times when we play bigger festivals. The expense vis-a-vis the number of times we'd actually use the splitter tends to put me off but mostly I am pretty sure that I am going to get groans from sound engineers when I present them with a snake. I am not sure it is worth the hassle (as much as I would like to use our own system for monitoring).
I'll add a couple things which I feel are vital for taking IEM mixes to the next level:

Firstly, I find that it is important that IEMs are sent a post EQ and dynamics but pre fader mix. At the very least, the mix should be post each channels high pass filter. The high pass filter control is possible the most important control on any channel. It removes a ton of mud from all the mics where it is needed. I high pass snare, hi toms, overheads, brass, saxes and vocal mics and guitar amp microphones. I might take out the really low frequencies also on the kick and floor tom mics. Removing the spill from subs bleeding into these mics is probably the best thing you can do for clearing up a mix both in FOH and in IEMs. The same applies for EQ and compression. Proper use of gating on individual microphones also means that you can remove a boat load of unwanted noise from both FOH and in ear mixes. With regards to EQ, sometimes thisis used to adjust to the idiosyncrasies of the room but for the most part it is used to remove offending frequencies from a particular instrument. If EQ is applied to correct the sound of mic in front of a kick drum, that improved sound might as well be the one heard in IEM mixes. With wedges, I tend to send a post hi pass but pre dynamics mix because changes to gain when making compression changes can lead to feedback.

Secondly, a high pass filter applied to the whole IEM mix can take out some of the very low end information which is useless to the listener and helps for a clearer mix.

Thirdly, IEM should be at as low a volume as is comfortable. A loud mix sounds great for a while but, besides being dangerous to the ears, will cause listening fatigue sooner and the pristine mix will be lost on the listener.

Finally, in ear monitoring is great and we use it on 95% of our gigs. The benefits can be substantial. To name a few a) it helps keep stage volume low thereby protecting hearing b) brass players who are on wedges are not blasted by a booming bass amp keeping up with the drums and they can keep their wedges at a lower volume c) singers never get hoarse trying to compete with the bank. BUT using in ear monitoring is inherently complicated. There are situations, such as when playing soft music such as jazz in a small club, where it is far more practicable to simply place a small combo on stage and get on with it.
Click to expand...

Lot of great information right here... thanks to Wadge for taking time to make such a detailed response for you; awesome thing to do from someone who obviously has some good experience doing it!!!
 
#16
Thanks for the great responses guys. Here are my thoughts based on what I read so far:

  1. Take the IEM signal off the input channel after LPF and gate. (I can set each these on each channel individually with the X32).
  2. Mixing FOH from stage can be done, but not easily
  3. Drums should have kick, snare, OHL, OHR at a minimum
  4. Stereo or mono seems to be a personal choice
  5. Quality individual mixes are very important
  6. Having a limiter on each mix is very important
  7. High quality multi-driver buds are important
  8. Front fills and ambient mics are not needed.
  9. It should be fairly easy to patch in a splitter snake.
The best solution I found for wired IEM is this: Rolls Corporation - Real Sound - Products PM55P I can take a mono balanced or stereo unbalanced input and has a built-in fixed limiter. My drummer already tried it using a mono signal and liked it. The leaves the stereo input for a click track via iphone or whatever. I also set it up using a insert cable and a pair of aux outs from the mixer. That works pretty well too. But the drummer can't use the balanced cable for the click. I think we will go with the mono setup for him.
 
#17
BFunk -
I am also looking at transitioning from a wedge monitor to IEMs. I'm going wired initially because of budget reasons. I notice you listed the Rolls PM55P as a good choice. It seems to me that would be a good way to go unless the person using it also needs to sing. I'll be playing bass and singing and will also need a send from the board of the full band mix. For those individuals that need to monitor all three things, this:Rolls Corporation - Real Sound - Products PM351 Personal Monitor System seems like the way to go. I've had mine now for about three months or so and have been using it to practice at home. I am very satisfied with it's performance and the level of control it gives me to balance the three things I need to monitor. As an added bonus, it can be daisy chained with the other pedals on my board, so one less wall wart to worry about. If your drummer is not singing, then the PM55P is probably a good choice, but anyone who is singing, playing an instrument, AND needs to hear the band mix would be better off with the PM351 in my opinion.

Just my $0.02.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back