# In ear monitors for band?



## noUser01 (Dec 26, 2014)

Anyone run the whole band on in-ears? I'm starting to do research on IEM solutions for relatively cheap, so that we can all play to a click and not just our drummer. 

Is there a unit I can buy that we could feed the iPod into and that would allow us to buy whatever wireless packs we wanted to tie into that? Any IEM solutions that are relatively cheap? Not just talking about the headphones themselves but the whole system as well. Any good wireless packs out there?


----------



## Aion (Dec 26, 2014)

Usually in-ear monitors get treated the same way as live monitors. You run everything into the sound board and then out through the aux's to the wireless units. In Ears are great for getting an isolated stage sound that can also be relatively quiet, but there are a few things to be aware of with them.

1) There are only certain frequencies that you are allowed to use, and these vary from area to area. Make sure whatever frequency you're on is legal.

2) What you are going to hear is vastly different from the audience, moreso than if you used stage monitors. It's not actually a problem, but it is the basis for a bunch of other problems.

3) Lack of bass response. You're basically wearing really great ear-buds. This is often solved by using stage monitors for kick drum and maybe a little bit of bass just to make sure you still get the real thump.

4) The engineer will definitely not be hearing the same thing you are. This is almost always the case, but unless the engineer has a pair that matches yours, they will be further from hearing things the same way you do. Monitoring on headphones helps this, but it won't totally fix it. Fortunately this is relatively easy to adjust to as you just need to be proactive in making sure you are hearing what you want to hear.

5) If there is a set for the engineer, you're going to want separate FOH and monitoring engineers. Most clubs don't do that. But in an ideal world you have someone who is just there for monitors, using the same monitors that you are for their work. That way the FOH can have their ears totally free to hear how it sounds in the room, and the Mon Engineer can be totally focused on how it sounds to you.


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 26, 2014)

6 ) Get to know the equipment before taking it out into the field. I had a pair of friends that are both now effectively deaf at the feedback frequency because they were struggling with getting sound then all of a sudden got sound, and couldn't get the IEMs out of their ears fast enough, and the engineer couldn't mute the feedback fast enough neither.


----------



## noUser01 (Dec 27, 2014)

That's extremely helpful, thank you both.

Just to clarify, I don't want in-ear monitors for the sake of having accurate monitoring of our live sound. In order of priority, we want IEM's for hearing the click, hearing our own playing, and hearing an accurate representation of the band mix comes last. 

I have used in-ears before, just not in this kind of scenario, so I'm aware of the lack of low end and such. This is really more so we can put on a better live show by being tighter as a band more than anything. 

Here's what I would like to do. I'd like to have some sort of rackmount mixer on stage that allows each of us to run our own monitor mixes that we could output separately to each person's wireless unit. That way not only can we run our click tracks into it, but we can also run our guitars and bass into the monitor mixer using secondary outputs in our rigs. Then the FOH can just mic our cabs like they would for any other band. If we're playing a bad venue where nothing is mic'd or they don't have monitors etc. then at the VERY LEAST we will ALWAYS be able to hear our click tracks and our guitars/bass. If we are at good venues then we can ask them to send us drums and vocals and each of us can mix those to taste in our monitor mixes.

Is this possible? What would I need to do so?


----------



## Aion (Dec 27, 2014)

There are a few different solutions to this.

1, if the FOH board has enough outputs you can use them to go into the line in of the monitoring board. I suggest doing it this way in your case because it sounds like the monitor board will be handling less inputs. The problem with this is that it involves running a lot more cable. It can be very messy and there's a lot of room for error.

2, if the FOH board has an ethernet digital out and the monitor board has an ethernet digitial in, then you can do everything from suggestion 1, but with one cable. Ethernet is fairly reliable, but you're still going to have a long cable run with potential for error. Especially if in certain clubs there isn't a great way to run the cable so the audience doesn't crush it.

3, transformer splitter of some kind. This is probably your best best. There are two types, both of which can get used the same. The first is a separate unit like this on ART S8 | Sweetwater.com Basically you have two outputs for every input. One output is the "normal" signal, the other just goes through a transformer. This makes sure that the impedance on both stays the same and if there is a problem with one of the ends, the other one doesn't get messed up (which is the case on passive splitters, which have no transformers). I would suggest running everything you want going to the monitors into the splitter and then into the FOH snake/sound board and the monitor snake/sound board. That will give you the shortest cable runs and you won't need wires going from the FOH board to your monitor board. The other method that is basically the same is getting a snake that already has a transformer for two separate outputs. Each one has their advantages and disadvantages. The first one has more parts which makes it easier to work around if one piece goes dead. The second one has less parts so it looks cleaner, there's less to go wrong, but when it does you have less options for working around it.

You can also use passive splitters, either in the form of passive splitter boxes or Y cables, but this can cause impedance issues, higher potential for ground hum in the system, and will negatively impact the sound (though this last one may be negligible in some cases).

I put on a one off concert that had a lot of really weird time signatures, so I actually did make two separate click tracks I had to give to different members of the band. Because of venue limitations the way it worked was we used one ear of headphones and the other ear was open. We then used monitors for a general stage sound. It worked alright even though it was definitely not ideal. One of the obstacles with a setup like that is your ears are hearing slightly different things, but it's something that can be adjusted for.


----------



## noUser01 (Dec 27, 2014)

That splitter idea is genius! Much shorter cable runs that way. Unfortunately that does mean a messier rack for me to deal with, but I think it would be worth it. If I make my own custom length XLR's for the rack things will be much tidier as well.

So the real question now is what mixer to get. What features would I need in a mixer in order to be able to send 5 different mixes to the wireless units? Obviously at least 5 different outputs, but I'm not sure how I would make the actual mixes on a board.


----------



## Aion (Dec 27, 2014)

If everyone wants different mono mixes you can use the main out as one (ideally with a mono main out, but you can use either just the L or R out still be fine if everything is center panned) and then you'll at least four different aux outs. If you're going analogue (which I would suggest due to cost) make sure that they are actual separate aux outs. Sometimes auxes get paired together so you can't actually control them separately. Basically, if the physical knobs exist, you'll be good.

If everyone is getting the same mix, but might want different volumes, you can just use the output of the subgroups. That way everyone has volume adjustment, but there's only one mix. If the main out has separate faders for L and R, you can have one person in L and one in R and treat them the same way. Otherwise, one person just plugs into either L or R and treats it the same way the other sub groups get treated.

No matter what if you're going analogue make sure to write all your settings down and take pictures of the board. This way when you get to the venue, you will be able to put it to your personal "default," setting. Even if the volume ends up changing.

If you get a digital board there is one advantage, which is that you can save the settings of the board and make everything go to those setting with pretty much the touch of a button. But that would be way more expensive, just pointing out that it is also a thing, even if it is prohibitively expensive.

For a cheap but sturdy non-rack unit analogue board, buy a mackie. Behringer will be cheaper, but the less expensive Behringer stuff is trash. They're more expensive stuff is starting to sound okay now since they bought out Midas and can use those preamps, but mackie is cheaper, sturdier, and sounds best for the cheaper mixer category.

For rack unit boards I can't help you because that's really not my area of expertise, but they do exist and are probably worth mentioning.


----------



## noUser01 (Dec 27, 2014)

Thanks. I'm still not sure how I would make separate mixes though, I only understand how I could use the different aux's to send the same mix to 5 different people at 5 different volumes. How would I create 5 entirely different mixes?


----------



## Ikiharmaa (Dec 28, 2014)

ConnorGilks said:


> Thanks. I'm still not sure how I would make separate mixes though, I only understand how I could use the different aux's to send the same mix to 5 different people at 5 different volumes. How would I create 5 entirely different mixes?




Aux in mixers work like so that each input channel has as many knobs for aux sends as there are aux channels:


----------



## Aion (Dec 28, 2014)

Just make sure that your auxes are "pre-fader" meaning that any adjustments you make on the fader don't effect the aux outs. A lot of boards you can set the auxes to be either pre or post fader. If they're on pre-fader, each knob acts like an independent fader, only they move in a circle instead of up and down. You should also probably make sure that each aux out has an aux master, that way you can adjust the volume on a mix without adjusting every single channel individually, which is a pain if you want to do a quick volume adjustment.


----------



## WhiteWalls (Dec 28, 2014)

I once did it without the need of a mixer, and I'll try to explain the pros and cons later.

Aside from the obvious laptop and IEM systems, you only need a good audio interface with enough inputs and outputs.
If we use as an example a band with drums, 2 guitars, bass, vocals and backing tracks, you are going to need:

6 INPUTS (vocals, guitar 1, guitar 2, bass, kick and snare). keep in mind you need splitters or di boxes to get the signal to your interface as well as the front of house. if you have multiple outputs on modelers and such it's the best option, but for drums you have to split the signal after it's miced.
6-7 OUTPUTS (1-2 for front of house (mono or stereo, your choice), drummer, guitarist 1, guitarist 2, bassist, vocalist)

In your DAW you create a track with the backing tracks, a track with the click, and a track for every instrument that is coming into the interface. Assign the different inputs and enable live monitoring.

Now create a track for each band member, disable the master track and use whatever routing options your daw offers to send the tracks you want to each band member.
Then assign each band member track to a specific output of your interface, which then goes to the IEM. If you have more outputs than the bare minimum, you can make stereo mixes by playing with the pan controls of the track sends

The big upside of having a real interface over an iPod and an analog mixer is that you can even create different backing tracks for each member, and you have basically unlimited routing options.
The downside is that the audio signal takes a trip through your interface, but the latency shouldn't be noticeable because you are not using any real time plugins.

One thing I strongly advise, whether you choose a mixer or the laptop solution, is to keep the venue's soundman out of this as much as possible. The best part of this is that it gives the band complete control and also great consistency from gig to gig, once it's dialed in well.


----------



## Ataraxia2320 (Dec 29, 2014)

Dusty Chalk said:


> 6 ) Get to know the equipment before taking it out into the field. I had a pair of friends that are both now effectively deaf at the feedback frequency because they were struggling with getting sound then all of a sudden got sound, and couldn't get the IEMs out of their ears fast enough, and the engineer couldn't mute the feedback fast enough neither.



Jesus, that sounds terrifying. Never even considered this.


----------



## Aion (Dec 29, 2014)

WhiteWalls said:


> I once did it without the need of a mixer, and I'll try to explain the pros and cons later.
> 
> Aside from the obvious laptop and IEM systems, you only need a good audio interface with enough inputs and outputs.
> If we use as an example a band with drums, 2 guitars, bass, vocals and backing tracks, you are going to need:
> ...



There's one thing that would make me concerned in using a laptop/DAW over a mixer and that's just that I personally don't trust a DAW to remain stable in a live situation. I totally admit that it's rare, but if you're doing that you need to worry about crashing, about some minor setting having been switched and forcing you to spend an inordinate amount of time troubleshooting, and all the other little things that go wrong with computers are involved. To avoid (or at least minimize) this, I would suggest getting a super cheap laptop that would get used just for this purpose. That way you never need to worry about anything getting changed, it would just exist like that. However, at that point (depending on what you're looking to buy) it might still be worth it to go physical mixer, just because there won't be a large enough price difference. But it's a good way to do it on the cheap, there are just some potential difficulties that come with it.


----------



## WhiteWalls (Dec 29, 2014)

Aion said:


> There's one thing that would make me concerned in using a laptop/DAW over a mixer and that's just that I personally don't trust a DAW to remain stable in a live situation.


Yeah I admit I may have a slight bias towards computers, but most bands already use a computer to play their click and backing tracks, and playing from your computer into an external mixer doesn't improve the situation as you're screwed anyway if it crashes.
If you are currently using an ipod or other similar device however, it's probably more reliable to have a hardware mixer, unless you have specific requirements in the click and backing tracks.


----------



## noUser01 (Dec 29, 2014)

Thanks everyone!

I just need a little clarification on how I would set this up so that I know exactly what to look for in a mixer. Can someone walk me through the routing for everything? Not sure if I use the mixer outputs or the auxiliary sends to go to each person's in-ears, or how to hook up each instrument to it's own aux etc.


----------



## eyeswide (Dec 29, 2014)

If you look through my comment history, I've done a number of threads on this. I just made a Facebook post detailing my band's IEM rundown that you'll likely find helpful.

Check the photos/descriptions of our rig here.

The best board - the A+H Mix Wizard 12M, has stereo mixes for up to six people, and has an on board splitter. Unfortunately it isn't made any more, but can still be found used.

Here's an except from a message I sent a guy talking about our rig:

-Each person does have their own transmitter/receiver and this allows everyone to have their own personal mix. You could have two (or more) people with receivers set to the same channel to cut down on channels, but then you'd have to be sharing mixes with someone. This could work, but it's up to the users (I personally think having my own exact mix is the best shit in the world).

-The instruments plug directly into the mixer using direct outs, which won't be a problem with the gear you're using. Our guitarist originally had an Axe ultra that he was borrowing, and last year bought a Pod HD 500x, so both of those will have no problems working for you!

-I don't think you're going to find another mixer quit like the Allen and Heath, but there are other ways around getting that one. You could get a splitter like this one ART S8 | Sweetwater.com. After that, you're right about the mixer - you just need to have enough AUX outs. 

This can be a bit of a problem though, because you 100% are going to want your mix to be in stereo. So, for every member of your band, you're going to need two AUX outs. The reason for this is you mix your left and right ear separately, and you require an AUX for each ear. Now, you can do mono mixes, but having a stereo mix is so much better. For example, in my mix, I have a "me" ear, where it's pretty much just my bass, the click and a little bit of drums, then in the other ear, it's a bit more of a balanced mix. I found this is such a great way of doing it, as I can very easily dial in on what I'm playing. For "standard" mixers though, I think you'll have a hard time getting enough AUXs without having a 5 foot long mixing board.

I'll be honest and say I have no experience with other mixers for IEMs, but this one looks like it would work and is specifically for IEMs Hear Technologies Mix Back | Sweetwater.com. With that and that splitter I linked, you'd still be cheaper than the A+H we paid for new. The nice thing about the A+H is that it has everything we need in one package (but I think they stopped making them anyway, so this MixBack mixer might be your best bet).


I hope that helps!


----------



## eyeswide (Dec 29, 2014)

-Duplicate message, content removed-


----------



## iron blast (Dec 29, 2014)

I have been doing a lot of research and so far the carvin in ear monitors seem the best option solid build quality low noise lots of features and 960 channels at $300 the ear buds are crap but shure has a pretty good pair for $99


----------



## noUser01 (Dec 30, 2014)

Thank you everyone!

I think I figured it out. We would run everything into the ART S8 | Sweetwater.com, and then run all of that into the MOTU Monitor 8 | Sweetwater.com, which is a digital mixer with 6 outputs (each output is stereo) that can be adjusted on the interface, through computer software, or on an iPad. Then we just mark where we run our master volumes on our rigs (AxeFX II, POD, etc.) and just make sure to set it to that every time, then the monitor mixes will always be the same for the guitars and bass, then we just need to tweak the levels of the kick, snare and vocals at each show quickly and we'll be good to go! FOH can then take the mic'd signals from the S8.

Would this work? Does this make sense to you guys?


----------



## eyeswide (Dec 30, 2014)

ConnorGilks said:


> Thank you everyone!
> 
> 
> Would this work? Does this make sense to you guys?



Yes indeed! I don't have experience with the Motu, but this looks like it has everything you'd require. The digital aspect scares me for live, but beyond that, your setup would be superior to ours as far as weight and space goes.


----------



## noUser01 (Dec 30, 2014)

eyeswide said:


> Yes indeed! I don't have experience with the Motu, but this looks like it has everything you'd require. The digital aspect scares me for live, but beyond that, your setup would be superior to ours as far as weight and space goes.



Awesome!

Yeah I took a shot in the dark and asked my friend who plays in Archspire since I knew they had a sick in-ear setup and it turns out they had EXACTLY what I needed (the MOTU), and it's only 1U, has remote control, crazy number of outputs, presets, and under $1k. Got real lucky on that one! Thanks for your help everyone!


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Jan 1, 2015)

ConnorGilks said:


> Thank you everyone!
> 
> I think I figured it out. We would run everything into the ART S8 | Sweetwater.com, and then run all of that into the MOTU Monitor 8 | Sweetwater.com, which is a digital mixer with 6 outputs (each output is stereo) that can be adjusted on the interface, through computer software, or on an iPad. Then we just mark where we run our master volumes on our rigs (AxeFX II, POD, etc.) and just make sure to set it to that every time, then the monitor mixes will always be the same for the guitars and bass, then we just need to tweak the levels of the kick, snare and vocals at each show quickly and we'll be good to go! FOH can then take the mic'd signals from the S8.
> 
> Would this work? Does this make sense to you guys?


Sounds perfect!

_(makes note of setup for self for future reference)_


----------



## Genome (Jan 5, 2015)

That MOTU Monitor 8 looks awesome, I'm definitely going to consider that for FOE. We'll run a Macbook rig so I can use it as an audio interface to play and send out the backing track as well as send out different monitor mixes!

Shame there's no XLR in, but oh well. Loving the self contained nature of that kind of rig, especially monitoring the vocals with effects from the DSP. Thanks for turning me onto it!


----------



## noUser01 (Jan 8, 2015)

Genome said:


> That MOTU Monitor 8 looks awesome, I'm definitely going to consider that for FOE. We'll run a Macbook rig so I can use it as an audio interface to play and send out the backing track as well as send out different monitor mixes!
> 
> Shame there's no XLR in, but oh well. Loving the self contained nature of that kind of rig, especially monitoring the vocals with effects from the DSP. Thanks for turning me onto it!



Yeah, that's the downside to having such a cheap, compact unit is the lack of XLR ins. But depending on how you run the MOTU it could just mean the difference between spending $80 on XLR to 1/4'' cables instead of XLR cables.


----------



## ACE IT UP (Jan 10, 2015)

Why can't we just run Bluetooth audio from our MacBooks to our iPhones...


----------



## col (Jan 10, 2015)

ConnorGilks said:


> Yeah, that's the downside to having such a cheap, compact unit is the lack of XLR ins. But depending on how you run the MOTU it could just mean the difference between spending $80 on XLR to 1/4'' cables instead of XLR cables.



Better find out if the MOTU takes instrument level signal or if those inputs are meant only for line level (ie. fed from a mixer) before doing that.

E: Yes it only has line inputs, meaning you can't connect an instrument or a mic directly to it, you'd need an 8-channel mic preamp between them. Most hassle free would be something with ADAT like the Behringer ADA8200, since the MOTU takes 16 channels of it.


----------



## noUser01 (Jan 10, 2015)

col said:


> Better find out if the MOTU takes instrument level signal or if those inputs are meant only for line level (ie. fed from a mixer) before doing that.
> 
> E: Yes it only has line inputs, meaning you can't connect an instrument or a mic directly to it, you'd need an 8-channel mic preamp between them. Most hassle free would be something with ADAT like the Behringer ADA8200, since the MOTU takes 16 channels of it.



Not necessarily. For the guitars and bass we can just run a direct out signal from our rigs (AxeFX II, POD HD500 and bass amp with XLR out) and use a DI, right?


----------



## bassofthe (Feb 12, 2015)

ConnorGilks said:


> Not necessarily. For the guitars and bass we can just run a direct out signal from our rigs (AxeFX II, POD HD500 and bass amp with XLR out) and use a DI, right?


DIs are usually mic level, so you'd still need a preamp to get it up to line level.


----------



## concertjunkie (Feb 16, 2015)

Just an FYI, if you are planning on using a laptop live, make sure you invest in a SSD (solid state drive) and use that as your "live drive." SSD's have no moving parts, so shock and vibrations will not affect it, whereas traditional hard drives have a small needle reader and platter, which can get damaged/crash/shit out on your with shock/vibrations. You can get 120GB SSD drives from newegg.com or microcenter.com for about $60-70, and that size is more than enough to install your OS (windows or OSX), your DAW, and have your backing tracks.

Not to mention the speed on SSD's are nice too.


----------



## illimmigrant (Feb 17, 2015)

Have you decided which in-ears you'll be using? Galaxy Audio makes a system that's $200 per unit (including receiver, transmitter, and earphones). You will need one unit per band member if you plan on everyone having their own mix. They have a $400 unit that looks a little better, but actually has worse reviews. From there you start getting into the Shure/Sennheiser range of like $800+ per unit. This is a huge percentage of the cost of setting up a wireless in-ear system. I've been doing research on this since a local church is interested in going this route. There are usually 7 people on stage though and they need a new mixer to be able to do this. Definitely not cheap.


----------



## noUser01 (Feb 17, 2015)

For a setup like that, I've seen and used the Rolan M48 systems. They aren't cheap, but they are awesome for the price because you can actually mess with your monitor mix on the fly, on stage. $995 per unit I believe, and yes you would probably still need a new mixer like the Roland M400. But I've used them a lot and they are pretty nice for a more permanent stage setup like a church.

I'm probably going to buy the Sennheiser EW300. It's all metal, really well built, only a half-rack size, it seems rad and it'll definitely last me a long time.


----------



## eyeswide (Mar 13, 2015)

Hey man, did you end up going with the MOTU Monitor 8? How is it?


----------



## noUser01 (Mar 14, 2015)

Nope, that's on the backburner for my band unfortunately. I'll be getting my own IEM system soon but this was more just research for the future.


----------



## BlueGrot (May 4, 2015)

Dusty Chalk said:


> 6 ) Get to know the equipment before taking it out into the field. I had a pair of friends that are both now effectively deaf at the feedback frequency because they were struggling with getting sound then all of a sudden got sound, and couldn't get the IEMs out of their ears fast enough, and the engineer couldn't mute the feedback fast enough neither.



I work as a FOH tech as a day job and this is the reason why I tell bands that if they want to use in-ears, they need to bring a competent technician who knows their setup and not expect me to wing some solution between the cheap stuff they're bringing and my desk. This also sounds like the engineer had tunnel vision and kept gaining beyond safe levels. At my venue, if I'm gained at 20 dB on an SM58 and it's not coming through at -5 dB on stage/in ear, I reset sends and find the error instead of un-muting an aux only to ruin the gig and hearing of the artists.

My knee jerk reaction to wanting a cheap in ear solution for playing to a click? Don't.


----------



## noUser01 (May 8, 2015)

BlueGrot said:


> I work as a FOH tech as a day job and this is the reason why I tell bands that if they want to use in-ears, they need to bring a competent technician who knows their setup and not expect me to wing some solution between the cheap stuff they're bringing and my desk. This also sounds like the engineer had tunnel vision and kept gaining beyond safe levels. At my venue, if I'm gained at 20 dB on an SM58 and it's not coming through at -5 dB on stage/in ear, I reset sends and find the error instead of un-muting an aux only to ruin the gig and hearing of the artists.
> 
> My knee jerk reaction to wanting a cheap in ear solution for playing to a click? Don't.



I wouldn't call the setup I'm looking at cheap, when we're looking at LEAST $3-4k of stuff. Plus it's not just about "cheap" gear. You can have expensive gear and still not know how to use it. If you can make sure your rig is self-contained and doesn't rely on an FOH guy to do all the work for you, and is easy to remove if it doesn't work so you can continue on with the show quickly, you can get away with it. It's just about being smart.


----------



## Lax (May 9, 2015)

If you're playing big venues my comment may fall like pure stupidity, but wanted to say that systems like jamhub (or the roland one) are really great for monitoring.
You may need splitters and preamps, but I like that a lot.
I must find a multi-channel preamp for mics by the way.
Cheers and take care of your ears


----------



## noUser01 (May 11, 2015)

Lax said:


> If you're playing big venues my comment may fall like pure stupidity, but wanted to say that systems like jamhub (or the roland one) are really great for monitoring.
> You may need splitters and preamps, but I like that a lot.
> I must find a multi-channel preamp for mics by the way.
> Cheers and take care of your ears



Thanks man. It's not really what I'm looking for as it doesn't offer the portable, modular, and professional aspects I'm looking for. Thanks for the suggestion though!


----------

