In-ear monitor vs headphones vs stage monitor

  • Thread starter Thread starter dbsoccer
  • Start date Start date
D

dbsoccer

Member
I know some people can sing wonderfully without, seemingly, any feedback as to the sound being produced prior to it being heard by everyone in the audience. I am not one of those people. My current 'studio' set-up uses a small studio wedge for feedback. Today, again and because of a question asked in another thread, I tried headphones. I've done this before and I really like the immediate and detailed feedback I get - not only about my voice but also the backing tracks I'm singing to. And it's easy to adjust the mix/balance between the mic and the back music.

But on occasion I like to go to an Open Mic night and perform (when I'm assured no one will throw food or beer). The venues generally has some sort of stage monitor so I figure I probably don't sound terrible but I know it would be better if I had headphones. Enter in-ear monitors.

I tried these once - no experience with them at all - for the first time at a recital. Needless to say, it was a disaster. Fortunately, I remained calm and after starting my song and realizing it was not going to work, I pulled the monitors out and relied on the stage monitor and never missed a beat. But today's use of headphones has me thinking about in-ears again. But with more practiced using them.

The way it works with the Open Mic nights is I take an appropriate cable and plug my mp3 player loaded with back music into the mixer that is on stage. I can then control my music tracks and sing which song I want to sing. The wireless in-ears had a transmitter that plugged into the board. I heard in the monitors what the sound guy put into the channel the transmitter was attached to.

So my questions is: Are in-ears for my simple need a complete over-kill? And, if not, how complicated would it be to have the typical sound guy at a typical Open Mic night (I know, what is typical) accommodate both my in-ear transmitter and my mp3 player? The mp3 player is easy but I'm not sure about the transmitter.
 
As someone who runs open mics regularly, I would not want anyone asking for an in-ear system to be plugged in when they play - for one thing, the mixing board they use may not have another output that could be used for this, there is the extra set up time involved (checking levels and balance), there needs to be a power outlet for the transmitter - and you may need to adjust the transmitter's frequency, too. Of course you should be asking the OM host ahead of time - and note that not all open mics even have a monitor speaker for the performers! For an open mic, in-ears are definitely overkill!
With the advent of Zoom open mics 3 years ago, I found out that there are singers who do not stay in tune when using headphones (or in some cases in-ears)- they are used to 'hearing' themselves as a combination of the sound and bone transmission, and headphones tend to drown out the bone transmission. They aren't terribly off-key, but just enough off of true pitch that its noticeable compared to when they sing with no headphones.
 
A couple of things about IEMs (in-ear monitors) to think about. They tend to block out most of the natural ambient sound, which means you are completely dependent on them to hear. You need a properly balanced mix and a good level or you'll have trouble hearing what you're doing. The second thing that does is take away any room reflections of your voice, which I think singers are used to hearing. I suspect it helps to add a slight slapback delay or early reflection effect to a singer's voice in their IEMs. To do any of this properly at an open mic is just asking too much, and that's before you add the wireless.

I'm about 90% in agreement with mjbphotos. I have a different take on bone conduction. I think that people normally hear the bone conduction combined with the reflections of the room plus a limited amount of sound direct from mouth to ear. For monitors (wedges or IEMs) to work they need to be loud enough to dominate over the bone conduction or they'll conflict. But that's getting into some esoteric sound guy stuff.
 
Thank you both! Just what I wanted/needed to hear (no pun intended).
 
On the big stage in pro land just as an observation of what the big boys and girls use, IEM's are the gold standard.
That said, for we the common folk they add an extra level of cost, time and fiddling around for something that is not THAT big of a difference than just having good old fashioned monitors on stage. Also reduces the technical issues you will incur using the IEM's ..You got the money to have a full on support staff heck yeah...if not just do it like all performers did before IEM's.
 
Thanks TAE. From personal experience that was not on the big stage in pro land I created a mess for myself. Thankfully I just jerked them out of my ears right after the song started (and I realized I was in trouble) and continued with the 'show' such as it was. No one threw any food so it must have sounded acceptable in the end. I borrowed the transmitter from a 'pro' but had to buy my own ear buds, which I still have. They weren't cheap and they are designed such that even though they have an 1/8" phone jack interconnect, I won't ever use them at the gym while on a treadmill.
 
With regard to bone conduction and using stage monitors versus IEM, while I've never attended a recording session the videos and pictures I see of them typically show the vocalist using head phones. I would think this is for the same reason I was interested in using IEM is for purposes of accurate, uncluttered feedback. These professionals should have bone conduction mastered and shouldn't need any assistance to 'hear themselves' yet they consistently use head phones in recording sessions. What am I missing?
 
They have to hear the tracks that were recorded earlier (or are being played in another room) without that sound getting into their vocal mic. Headphones are more convenient than IEMs, though I have used IEMs in recording sessions.

By the way, the word feedback is usually used to refer to the annoying shrieking or howling sound that happens when stage monitors are too loud, or when a guitarist turns his volume up and the sound sustains indefinitely. "Monitor mix" is probably a better term for what you mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAE
So I'm going to be contrarian and go full pro-IEM here.

IEMs are great, but the key thing with them is you have to figure out how to be in total control of your monitor mix without over-complicating things.
And for an open-mic setup, you have about 2 minutes to get your gear setup; and it's pivotal that you don't massively inconvenience the person running it.

So that means for your tracks and voice setup you need a fully self-contained setup that you can throw quickly on stage, plug into one wall outlet, splice into the house mic line, and plug in a single DI.

For example, you could use a TV-table, a power strip with extension chord, and a 2 channel mixer. Arrange your mixer, playback device, power strip, and transmitter on the TV-table. Zip tie, velcro, or whatever them in place. Send the mains from the mixer to your transmitter and dial in your mix the way you like. Then at show time send the aux from the channel with your tracks to the house DI, plug the house mic directly into your mixer (with your own XLR), and send the aux of that channel back into the house's XLR (probably requires an adapter)
That way, you have your IEMs configured exactly how you want, and the FoH engineer has your two channels to mix how they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAE
VomitHatSteve said:
So I'm going to be contrarian and go full pro-IEM here.

IEMs are great, but the key thing with them is you have to figure out how to be in total control of your monitor mix without over-complicating things.
And for an open-mic setup, you have about 2 minutes to get your gear setup; and it's pivotal that you don't massively inconvenience the person running it.

So that means for your tracks and voice setup you need a fully self-contained setup that you can throw quickly on stage, plug into one wall outlet, splice into the house mic line, and plug in a single DI.

For example, you could use a TV-table, a power strip with extension chord, and a 2 channel mixer. Arrange your mixer, playback device, power strip, and transmitter on the TV-table. Zip tie, velcro, or whatever them in place. Send the mains from the mixer to your transmitter and dial in your mix the way you like. Then at show time send the aux from the channel with your tracks to the house DI, plug the house mic directly into your mixer (with your own XLR), and send the aux of that channel back into the house's XLR (probably requires an adapter)
That way, you have your IEMs configured exactly how you want, and the FoH engineer has your two channels to mix how they want.
Click to expand...
And then a battery dies or a wall wart fails... :eek:

Actually really clever approach and puts you in total control of your mix. Just a bit of extra work that most cats aren't willing to invest in learning how to do.
 
Better yet, have your own mic and a stereo DI for the player. Split the three XLRs, one side going to your own mixer for IEMs and the other going to the house mixer for the audience mix. Have your IEM mix preset so the house guy just has to plug in and balance the voice and playback. Label the XLRs: vocal, left, right.

Maybe have some "intro" music already playing so the house guy can rough in the playback level.

Alternatively, you could feed the house a pre-mixed signal, but it has to be pretty spot on.

Have your rig powered on with the intro music going before your set with the three XLRs ready to hand to the house guy.

If you use a small digital "shoebox" mixer, you could could tweak your mix with a phone or tablet.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
By the way, the word feedback is usually used to refer to the annoying shrieking or howling sound that happens when stage monitors are too loud, or when a guitarist turns his volume up and the sound sustains indefinitely. "Monitor mix" is probably a better term for what you mean.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I didn't think feedback was the right word but then 'mix' didn't jump at me either. Makes sense, however. I do want to hear both my voice and the backing track. Would be lost otherwise.
 
Feedback and foldback one is to avoid and the other essential.

the thing I have noticed over the years is that some people are able to perform perfectly with little or no requirement for monitoring of any kind. Others cannot perform at all without it. Me, I like IEMs to give me detail and less volume. Playing with wedges is ok, but if the content of the mix is wrong, it can be horrible. If you are a solo singer with tracks, then at its simplest, you want to hear yourself and the track. That’s all you need. Reverb on your voice, but not on the track is often nice too. Separate of course from an6 reverb the audience hear. The simplest PA should be able to give you two sources in the mix, two sends is hardly difficult. Problems happen when idiots are in charge of sound. Common things that kill you are when they change the channel gain. Maybe they run out of fader travel, so they turn the gain up, but that increases your monitor level too. If they do it while you are on, let’s say they don’t slowly push the fader while reducing the channel gain so they get fader travel back, your track volume might fade away. our band were so free up with this kind of thing at festivals we used a system that allowed us to use our own monitoring because we could not perform without it. With a band, it’s not uncommon for the volume of stage wedges to be so loud there’s no need for a PA.

in ears are, once you adapt to them brilliant and repeatable. The sealing means your ears get less volume, but you do feel isolated. You can feed a mic pointed at the audience back in, I don’t find it too useful but my friends really do. One thing th5 annoys me is that people talk to you with ears in, and you can’t hear them. The guitarist would wander up to me and shout in my ear “skip the next song” but I couldn’t hear him!
personal mixes are important once you have a band. To sing harmonies, I needed the keys player and his keyboard. I didn’t need drums or guitar, just my bass and I did not want the drummers vocals or the guitarist’s. With personal mixers it’s simple.

one thing. Tracks, which many people use now, with count ins and clicks, can’t go to wedges. You don’t want the audience to hear the count in and the clicks. For simplicity with a singer and tracks, a wedge is perfectly fine. I’ve even seen some simply get the PA angled in so they can hear that. Whatever works for a solo singer is fine. Once you move to two singers or players then it starts to get complex.

worst is when they send you rubbish through your wedge. Like your voice mega loud and hardly any track, or vice versa. Maybe you need to hear the little guide in the track to help you pitch. Miss it and you’re buggered.
 
A soundman can make or break a show. We have this relatively new venue out here and the sound people are IDIOTS.....Went and saw the former members of Oingo Boingo (sans Danny) last year...The performance and playing was impeccable / kick ass. The sound was so freeking bad we had to leave WAY to loud and horribly mixed. Went and saw a Bruno Mars cover band there..same sound team...equally horrible and maybe it was IEM's and a poor mix but the lead singer was so off key we made it through 2 songs and left...in utter disgust that we had foolishly paid good $$$ for shit.
 
1674323676528.webp


Reading and doing more research, it seems the mixer pictured will help me achieve at least one of my equipment upgrade goals - it has USB out so I can record and play-back via a computer. This is without consideration for IEMs - but that may be a next step. I'd really like to get good enough vocally to not need the direct awareness of my mix but I do know singing with head phones works better than my wedge. One piece of this is the wedge is mono and the head phones are stereo. Stereo is preferred in my case. And even though I already have the In-ear monitors from my previous failed attempt at using IEM, I'd need to buy a transmitter-receiver and I haven't seen any of those advertised for free ones lately. I've also learned that all IEM systems are not stereo only the more expensive ones. :)

But having said that and before I submit a P.O. for this new mixer, I was hoping someone, maybe VomitHatSteve, could walk through the cabling he described above and how it may apply to this mixer. The mechanical parts of attaching pieces to a fold-up table, Velcro, etc. I got that. I did followed most of what Steve described but didn't fully understand how the acronyms like AI and Aux would apply to this particular mixer. Meaning maybe this mixer is not a good choice if IEM are in the future. Thanks for any input.
 
Do NOT buy that mixer if you wish to use either wedge monitors or IEMs - it lacks the one absolutely essential feature - an auxiliary bus, This is basically an extra separate output from each input - so what the audience hear can be different from what you hear as a performer. The other absolute essential is that what you hear when you playing stays exactly the same. Turn the masters down because it's too loud in the audience and your monitors stay exactly the same. If you have set the track a bit loud, so it encourage you to sing loud, the audience can have the right balance and not your quiet voice and loud track. That mixer is a simple, two mic plus line device with some effects, but monitoring is not part of the design.
 
My learning continues. I'm beginning to understand more about the auxiliary bus/outs, etc. Some great on-line tutorials.
I am thinking the mixer below may work having a USB interconnect plus the auxiliary bus. Comments? It is about the same price as the one above. It has better EQ but no effects built-in.

1674361154534.webp
 
You could use the small ProFX mixer if you split the signals. One side of the split would go to your board for your monitor mix, and the other side would go to the house system. A simple XLR Y- cable would work for the mic. A stereo DI with a "through" connection would work for the player.

But it doesn't have the features to do a monitor mix and a main mix at the same time.
 
Be aware that USB monitoring of pre-recorded tracks with a mixer is very limited - the ability to control the volume of the prerecorded track and your live (mic) singing can be limited or non-existent. If you are only using it to playback tracks and get signals out to a PA or monitor system, fine, but not for multi-track recording.

Again, before bringing anything like this to an open mic, talk to the host first about it.
 
With open mics - if you make the only thing they have to do is squirt what you give them into their system, you have control. That mixer does what mixers used to do - you can hang a small powered monitor onto the aux out and that's monitors fixed. Sure you don't have reverb, but a small, even second hand behringer would hang off the aux 2 output and be Brough back on the aux returns - old school and totally fine - your stereo out has you and the tracks, which if you balance nicely - will do the job. Of course, the compromise is if they have a great sound man and decent mixer, they'll not be able to turn up your track or mic individually - they have a pre-mixed source. If they have a fine sound system and a decent operator, then they'll be able to give you a monitor mix anyway. the old school approach makes you totally in control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top