db techologies in-ear monitoring

1

11miles

New member
As i mentioned in my previous post.
I am looking for resloving hte montiorng question for my band!

So i would invest in a mixer that would be our personal monitoring desk for practice and for live show!

what i am interested in if 2 or maybe 3 guys use its own UHF system. The iem 1100 for example.
Each has its own and they are UHF, but do i risk getting interruption, knowing that they woudl be hosued together in a rack, for easier tranportation?
I would not want that you knwo!

But is seems, that our own mixer for monitoring is a great idea! BEcause if we get to a place that dot have it, only a PA desk, we could be screwed!
In that case i would use the main desk's 4sub group/bus and take it to our mixer. Or even direct to our headphone pre-amp or in-ear systems!

What do you think!

What i am also thinking is db a good buy? It seem sto have good reviews. Anyone had any bad experience with it?
 
Crest audio makes a slick little rackmountable mixer with 6 stereo aux sends and XLR pass throughs so you don't have to have a monitor split already on the main snake. It's basically designed for exactly what you are looking for, running in ear monitors (or actual wedges).
 
If you want to run your own monitors off of your board, but also have the FOH console run the same channels (different mix) in the PA, you ned a split snake. This takes every mic and sends it to your monitor console and the FOH console simultaneously. The Crest console has XLR pass throughs. All mics would plug into the Crest monitor mixer. Now, you still need to get the signal to the FOH console. The crest has a female xlr output on every channel so that you can run a cable from that output to the main snake or main console. In effect, it has a built in signal split.
 
oh now i get it!
Thanks for the elaborate and detailed explanation!

But i really dont think i would need it.
I think it is a good piece but i really jsut need a monitoring desk. Not the one that woudl go to the FOH.

Because i woudl use the mix desk for rehearseal. THer i woudl use 8 or 10 ins.

1 vocal, 2 stereo for synths, then 2 guitars direct output and bass, and click!
10 tops!
I woudl not even lift the master level, you know!

I woudl assign 4 buss to the in-ear monitoring, whateer that may be. Or the HA9000 phones pre-amp or an in-ear system!
And i woudl do a mix for the aux on the board!

When i woudl go to a gig. I would either use the FOH consoles out. And iw it would be 4 separate mixes i woudl use it and pluged them directly to either phones pre-amp or in-ear siystem
Or i could just plug it in to the ''monitoring'' desk and make a rough new monitoring mix, and fromt there through aux to the in-ear....
 
Sorry, but what you are talking about absolutely does not make sense to me. Using the busses on a FOH desk will not help any problems, but will create many worse. The solution I offered you is the most common and widely used solution and is for a reason based on what you asked. You need to figure out what it is that you really need and then ask a question because your last post contradicts your first post.
 
Ok, it's looking like you're not totally sure about the whole "monitor console" situation, and, from what you're discribing, you're not going to get the full advantages of an in-ear system.

The purpose of the monitor desk is to seperate the FOH mix from the monitor mix(es). This allows the FOH engineer to concenrtate only on what comes out of the PA, whilst hte monitor engineer deals with the individual mixes for the performers.

However, to do this, you need to split the signal, just as xstatic has mentioned. This allows the two seperate engineers to do thier own mixes without interfering with each others mix.

As for the actualy monitor desk, your best bet is a dual-purpoe desk, something like an A&H GL2200, or anything else that allows you to assign Aux outs to faders. This allows you to make up an aux mix for each individual performer, then control thier overall level. Of course, none of this goes to the PA- that's all controlled by the FOH engineer.

I think that, before spending money on this venture, that you do a lot more research into in-ear monitoring. I beileve shure put out a "quick guide to in-ears" which covers the process in more detail... (unfortunatly, I can't seem to find an online copy right now, sorry)

Personally, I think this crest mixer xstatic mentioned is exactly what you want. I don't know about the details of it myself, but the direct outs on each channel will make your life much, much easier, as you can send them to the FOH engineer to make up you PA mix.
 
We maybe got on the worng foot here!
I understand you guys completely!

I am not looking for a console that i would use for FOH system.
Only for monitoring.

For practicing i have this covered.
Do you think it is a good idea, to first plug all the instruments to the monitoring console which is normaly by the stage and then thrgouh the splitter to the FOH desk? I had the feeling that the signal always gets the FOH first, like you mentioned run them back again to the monitoring desk.
Or if a system, the hall, that you play in, does not have a monitoring desk of its own, u woudl normally use jsut the aux send from the FOH desk in feed the monitor line .

In my case you would feed our own private mixing desk, from where the signal would go into 4 separate aux send to the in-ear monitoring systems?
Which maybe s useless but you coudl do some more mixing with only 4 channels from the FOH console.
BUt that is very stupid, i know!

I have read a lot about in-ear monitorign but i dotn think we really got to it yet?
We are still discussing on how to get the signal from the FOh to the monitoring console, or the other way around? Nad what kind of a desk should it be?

I dont see how a noraml monitorign lien you would use for a wedge or the speaker monitor on the floor can be very different that the line you have in your ear?
It's the differnece in the sound, and all problems that in-ear monitoring turns ayaw.
Feedback issues, no leakege of the sound....

And i love that idea!
 
Monitoring is actually very different. If you do it from the FOH desk you won't get to have your choice as far as EQ'ing goes without affecting the mains as well. This means you can't fine tune your vocals etc... to fit your desires without affecting the PA as well. Hardly ever would you want to hear exactly what is coming out of the mains, especially with in ear monitoring. Mixing in ear monitors is actually very different from mixing mains. With in ears people tend to like to hear a lot of things that don't usually go to wedges. People tend to like hi hat and overheads, more reverb, audience mic etc... In ears can certainly be mixed form the FOH console, but at a sacrifice and compromise between the in ear system and the main system unless you can split the channels at the FOH desk.

In a typical setup, signal never hits the FOH console first. It hits all consoles at the same time. The advantage of the Crest mixer is that it removes the need to have a mian snake that also has a monitor fan (split). The Crest mixer that I referred to becomes the split. Technically the monitor desk would receive the signal first since the mics would be plugged straight into it and because the FOH console gets its signals after they have traveled through anywhere between 50 and 200 or so feet. However, realistically, that difference is negligable. Mic cables carry signal much faster than we can notice. I guess you will just have to trust the fact that I have done over 1000 shows in my career with bands ranging from Blues Traveler to Cannibal Corpse, to Emmy Lou Harris to James Brown. This is how they all do it. There is always a snake split, a FOH console, and a Monitor console. The Crest is a nice slick little monitor console that has been designed to exactly suit what it sounds like you need it for.
 
i am looking for all the option here!

the crest really looks like a great piece!

thank you for your advice and opinion!

thanks again!
 
The Crest is really the only mixer that I know of in a fairly low price range that offers the correct features that it sounds like you need. If however you buy a snake split, you could use just about any console you want. I really am not some big Crest junkie, that little mixer just really fits the bill and has a very unique feature set in its price bracket:) What kind of budget are you looking at?
 
Well being from Europe crest does not have so many dealers, at least when i checked them out a few days ago!

Budget
700$?
 
$700 isn't going to go far for what you are after:( Your best option may be to get the cheapest snake split you can find (it doesn't have to be too long if you are going to mix your own monitors from stage) and then start saving for something like an Allen Heath Mix Wiz. On the cheap you could go the poor mans route and buy a couple of dozen XLR - Y adapters.
 
I know!
The thign is theat i woudl buy it for band's practice.
And for live i would use a professional to hire!

But i wanted to know is wouls a behringer with 24 in and 4 buss, do the trick!
I think so!

HEre is the plan.
In the wors case scenario if a FOH desk has only 4 aux sends, and 2 of them the mixer uses for fx or whatever...
THe 2 others i woudl get as my monitoring lines. And from there i coudl not make anythign very useful to use as a monitoirng line, but i coudl set the ratio bewteen the 2 channels if e.g. the FOH's aux sends are set pretty ok.
In the really most worst case i would use 1 monitoring line for the signer and the other one for the rest of the band.
I woudl get the AUx sned to my monitorign desk's in. ANd fromt here i would do the mix especially for monitoring for the band.
the behringer having 4 sends, i woudl then assign each aux to a bandmate.
Because we use clcik, every one woudl have to get it. And because of that we are unable to use teh wedge's and other monitor speakers..

LEt's say that there is no possibility that it happens that i dont have any monitoring liens, the next way is that i have 4.
Which is great because i would use all 4 as independant.
1 for voice, 1 for synths, 1 for guitar, 1 for drums or even 2 for the guitars+bass, and for the drums nothing! :rolleyes:

I woudl hten take the line to my behringer and i woudl do the montioring mix agian for eeveryoe in the band. Because it woudl have 4 aux i would set each band member exactly how he woudl want it. Wel li coudl not do the guitar and bass ratio, but all the others i can!

Offcourse if i can get all the ins liek the only proper thing would be, this is all very easy!

So to continue my plan form the behringer to our ears.
The drummer being still, and one guitarist has a lot of sfx infornt, hardly ever moves, the keboardist also...
They woudl get the feed from the behringer aux send to a phoen pre-amp! And from tehir through cabel into their ears!

The singer and the bassist are moving, so they definately need wireless in-ear!
I am looking at the db Tecnologies IEM 2200.
maybe they can share it?
If they woudl have 2 receivers, and they would run everything on their own mono?
Is that an option?
I am also interested if anyone has soem opinions on a good in-ear monitoring?
 
Any mixer would work. In fact, without a snake split, even an 8 channel mixer would work just fine. The FOH engineer will HAVE to give you prefade aux sends for your ears or else every time he makes a change during the show, it will affect your ears. Due to this, you could probably buy an 8 channel console that will work. It will be very rare that you find an FOH console where they can send you more than 8 prefade aux mixes and won't have a monitor desk.

As far the in-ears themselves go, I would strongly consider Shure, at least as far as the transmitters and receivers go. 85% or more of the touring bands that I have worked with that are using in ears are using Shure's. Many of them may be using a different brand earpeice itself, but the common factor is the Shure Transmitter and Receiver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top