IEM systems

[mathsjunky]

Hi @Majik / @Boris1565

Thought I’d start a separate thread as it might go on for a bit!

Keith - If I go the P16 route, then am I buying into the Behringer proprietary Ultranet system? I like the idea of daisy-chaining with personal monitor mixers with cat5, but I am always a bit wary of proprietary stuff (maybe I shouldn’t be!?) Obviously I can just use simple wired monitor feeds directly from a digital mixer, but I lose the ability for each band member to mix their own monitor feed easily. What’s the non-Ultranet solution for this?

[Majik]

If you go non-proprietary then you the options tend to be either expensive, complicated, and/or limited in capability.

I’ll do a follow up post with some more detail.

By the way, although it is is, largely, proprietary, Ultranet is actually heavily based on the AES/EBU standard (the big brother of SPD/IF used on consumer hifi systems), and has been reverse engineered:

Cheers,

Keith

[mathsjunky]

Thanks Keith - if we do this, then I want to do it right. Avoiding proprietary gives me more options and more ‘modular-ness’ I would hope, but I’m very out of my depth here

[Majik]

So, we can start with the one that was raised with @mathsjunky in private messages: individual analogue outputs from the desk.

This is, naturally, limited to the number of outputs (specifically, busses) on the desk. A lot of older analogue mixers only have 2 or 3 busses that can be used for monitoring or “foldback”. Some of the newer digital mixers, like the XR18, have more. The XR18 has 6.

You can either use these with traditional wedge monitors (which is how we started out using the XR18 when I was doing the band sound) or into individual IEM feeds. This could be, for example, into a central IEM transmitter unit.

Note that these outputs are line-level balanced output. They won’t drive speakers or headphones directly. They are also mono.

If you use them to feed wedge monitors, these need to be powered monitors.

For individual wired IEMs, you will normally require a small analogue amplifier/headphone amp on each of the outputs to connect the IEMs into. Something like the Behringer P2 should do the trick.

Now, for each of the outputs, you’ll need to create a monitor sub-mix. For wedge monitors, you would normally do this the traditional way, by the sound-guy creating the monitor mix.

For IEMs, you could have this centrally controlled or, with modern digital mixers, there’s often app control. So it is possible for individual IEM users to run an app on their phone or tablet and control the mix on specific outputs.

When I was doing this stuff, I used to use the official Behringer X-Air app on my tablet and this could be configured with custom screens for individual channels. But that app seems to be deprecated now.

Now, for the XR18 (on Android) there’s MX-Mix, which is the official Behringer app, and Mixing Station, which is a third-party app. There may be others. I should point out I’m not personally used either of these.

With one of these apps and some customisation it should be possible to present each channel user with a phone-based interface which they can use to control the mix. They could then have the phone on a nearby mic stand or similar. To make it useful they would need to disable screen lock and, possibly, the screen timeout.

The main limitation of this approach is that you will be limited to the number of busses on the mixer. If your band has more band members than you have busses, they you either cannot give them all IEMs, or you’ll need to split one of the bus outputs and some people will need to share a mix.

The XR18 has 6 bus outputs which is probably enough for a lot of bands.

The other drawback of this, compared to the Ultranet/P16 approach, is the lack of physical controls: it may be fiddly for some performers to make adjustments on a small touch screen mid-performance. The P16s have physical controls which are probably easier to reach up and quickly tweak during a performance.

Cheers,

Keith

[mathsjunky]

Thanks Keith - I like this a lot. The XR18 is pretty inexpensive (compared to other 18 channel digital mixers, it’s a steal!). I like the idea of using wired IEMs from the Aux outs to P2s as the investment is small and there’s nothing to tie me to the Behringer brand (don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Behringer, I use a PM1 (at home) and a Xenyx analog mixer already - I just would like to be able to mix and match later down the line if necessary).
I think we could kit out a 5 piece band for less than £500 plus the cost of the actual monitors themselves - which are a personal thing anyhow. That is a whole other can of worms as I’m yet to find a set that feels comfortable
If we later decide that Ultranet would be better then the only redundant kit would be the P2s - I assume the p16 mixers would power IEMs without the P2s - and they are <£25 (plus some XLR cables).

[Majik]

@mathsjunky

I assume the p16 mixers would power IEMs without the P2s

Correct!

@mathsjunky

I’m yet to find a set that feels comfortable

Yes, that really is a personal thing. I would advise against the cheaper Shure ones. I have a pair of SE215s and they aren’t that comfortable, don’t sound terrible, but don’t sound that great, and they have a reputation of failing with regular use.

I picked up a set of Mee Audio ones on Adam Neeley’s recommendation, and I much prefer them. They may be worth investigating.

By the way, his whole video on this might be worth posting here:

Cheers,

Keith

[Boris1565]

Hi Keith, thank you so much for this, really useful. I watched number of YT videos and predominantly I saw bands use x32 instead of xr18. Taking into account xr18 needs router and x32 rack is significantly discounted now, the difference comes to <£200. 350+router vs 600. Would you know if the difference is mostly inputs/ outputs or overall quality is better with x32?

[Kasper]

Maybe I’m old-school, but I like the full-sized X32. Use that one with the band.
In theory, having individual control over monitor mix via a phone sounds nice - but when I’m playing I don’t really have the time or mental capacity to open apps, look at a tiny screen etc. My eyes are getting worse, so I would definitely need my glasses… and I prefer to play without them, since I also have IEMs and wires going around my ears etc etc. If I need something changed I’ll have to tell the sound guy what I want, or do it myself on the board… with actual physical buttons and sliders

[Boris1565]

That makes sense Kasper, but is there a need to mix anything on phone during the performance?

I thought the workflow would be:

1. set individual mixes in rehersal and save presets for each song
2. since band equipment (digital mixer, splitter, IEM system) goes on stage, no difference whatsoever in IEM settings
3. each individual selects their presets saved from rehersal and all are good to go - no further adjustments.

Full size mixer with physical sliders is always better, I agree, but the cost is significantly higher.

[Kasper]

I wouldn’t do per-song mixes, that’s way too complicated… and set lists might change for whatever reason.
Even with IEM and a digital setup, each room and setup will be somewhat different… so while dialing something in at rehearsals is of course key, I’ve never tried not needing adjustments at the gig. Whatever you do, make sure there is a quick and easy workflow for simple things like “can I have a bit more vocals in my ears” or “I can’t hear myself, can I get a little more guitar”.

[mathsjunky]

@Kasper

In theory, having individual control over monitor mix via a phone sounds nice - but when I’m playing I don’t really have the time or mental capacity to open apps, look at a tiny screen etc.

Makes sense. I guess there will always be a laptop connected during the performance so a quick adjustment by us (or more likely the sound guy - who in our case is most often our vocalist - he does all the sound at primary venue we play ) should be easy enough.
I was thinking that allowing each band member to access their monitor mix would speed up soundcheck.
The full size x32 looks great, but we’re now at 4x the original cost … it’s a slippery slope

[mathsjunky]

@Majik

I picked up a set of Mee Audio ones

I do have some inexpensive MEE in ears but I rarely use them as I can’t get comfy with them - used on a couple of JG OMs and a recording or two. Often I just use generic Apple clone ‘ear buds’ as they are supremely comfy, but they offer no seal or security. They are fine playing on my own when I need to keep the noise down, but will be useless on stage.

Any tips on tips? Foam v Silicon etc? I struggle with both comfort and with seal.

[Kasper]

@Majik Something further up in this thread made me wonder… with the P16s, can you do stereo IEM mixes? I might be confused about the relationship between mix busses and mapped outputs on the X32 (and similar products). When mapping a mix bus to an XLR output for traditional monitoring, it is indeed mono. But if I map it via Ultranet to a P16, would it be stereo?

[Kasper]

@mathsjunky

Any tips on tips? Foam v Silicon etc? I struggle with both comfort and with seal.

I struggle with IEM as well, in general. I think it’s very difficult for guitarists to be comfortable with them, simply because we’re so used to our sound coming from a cab behind us. That does a lot to the sound - we’re always hearing it way “off axis” (it’s many times blasting our back or knees), the cab is limiting the frequencies to a range like 100Hz to 6500Hz or so, the cab causes a natural reverberation of the sound in the room that makes it more “3D” and even our guitar pickups directly interacts with the speaker to create a feedback loop which greatly impacts the feel, sustain and overall tone. Listening through IEM is like placing our ears right where the mic is placed on the cab - trebly, thin, direct…

The comfort, quality and seal are in a way secondary problems!

IEMs can be necessary though, so we have to find a way. Me, personally, I’ve made sure that the signal I’m receiving in my IEM has a bit of a “hero guitar” mix applied to it, that only I hear… not the FoH or even stage cab. I have a bit of stereo widening (so I think it’s important to have a stereo mix, which despite my question to Keith above I actually have found a way to have!), extra reverb, a bit of room simulation, special EQ etc etc.

As for the IEM themselves, I have a fairly expensive pair that comes with some very cool features. For one, there is a little microphone on each earpiece, which can mix in an amount of the room sound to the IEM signal. I use this a lot - so when I have my ears in, I can still clearly hear my band mates talking or the acoustic drums (if we use that). I can also hear the little cabs I have on stage… all mixed with the IEM signal.

But even these I’m not really happy with, to be honest… for reasons mentioned above. I’m thinking of getting custom molded tips for them, which should improve the seal and greatly improve the low frequencies I’m hearing. Alternatively, if you don’t want to go the way of the microphone equipped set (which has it’s own little problems wrt signal routing) I would suggest you try to save up until you have at least a reasonable budget. I play with some band mates who have bought very cheap IEMs, and gotta be honest with you… they tend to really hate playing with them. I’m not sure there exist a really good budget/cheap option…

[mathsjunky]

@Kasper

Listening through IEM is like placing our ears right where the mic is placed on the cab - trebly, thin, direct…

Indeed - I certainly find that but assumed it was just ‘part of the deal’. You make some interesting points regarding the sound/stereo that might be worth exploring - thanks for those ideas.

@Kasper

I’m thinking of getting custom molded tips for them

Years ago I had custom ear plugs made as I put in a lot of hours on the motorbike (commuting, teaching and for fun). I have thought about doing the same for IEMs.

The mics are an interesting idea as being isolated from band mates in particular just feels wrong.

[Majik]

@mathsjunky

Any tips on tips? Foam v Silicon etc? I struggle with both comfort and with seal.

Not from me, I’m afraid. I get on fine with either.

Cheers,

Keith

[Boris1565]

Thank you Kasper, this is very useful!
What is the model that you use, if you don’t mind me asking?

[Majik]

@Boris1565

I saw bands use x32 instead of xr18. Taking into account xr18 needs router and x32 rack is significantly discounted now, the difference comes to <£200. 350+router vs 600. Would you know if the difference is mostly inputs/ outputs or overall quality is better with x32?

Yes, the X32 is very popular, especially in worship bands and venues where they tend to have the X32 as part of their in-house setup.I haven’t had much hands-on time with the X32.

As far as I know, there are negligible differences in quality between the X32 and XR18 which are entirely due to the pre-amps used (Midas on the X32 vs Xenyx on the XR18).

Personally, I think the difference between these is wildly overstated. Mainly, the Midas preamps are lower noise. But the Xenyx preamps are not particularly noisy and, whilst it might be important in a recording studio, IMO in a live band environment, you will not hear a difference.

If you really care about this, there is the Behringer MR18 which is the same unit as the XR18 with the Midas preamps.

Other than that, the X32 has more channels but, also, more flexibility because it’s more of a modular platform with support for Dante, a plugin-in card for live recording/playback, support for ADAT, and AES50, etc.

It’s also a lot more complex a product and, believe me, the XR18 can be hard enough to learn!

The other thing is the X32 range doesn’t come in the same “stage box” format as the XR18.

This may or may not be important to you, but I found for most gigs a stage box setup was far more useful and convenient than running an analogue snake.

You can get an additional “digital stage box” the SD16, which connects back to the X32 via Ultranet on Cat 5 cable, but this is, itself, as expensive as the XR18.

There is, also, the XR32 rack version. But, unlike the XR18 which is really a rack-mountable stage box, the XR32 really needs a rack. If you have space and budget for a rack (or already have a rack on stage with spare space) then the XR32 is a good solution and could be worth the additional cost.

Cheers,

Keith

[Boris1565]

Thank you so much, Keith!

[Kasper]

@Boris1565

the difference comes to <£200. 350+router vs 600. Would you know if the difference is mostly inputs/ outputs or overall quality is better with x32?

I would assume a large part of the difference in cost comes down to the physical knobs and sliders. The X32 has motorized faders, and a lot of them, which I assume has some cost. This is all entirely useless, if you plan on doing mixes and controlling the gear from a laptop of course. So at the end of the day, I would say the choice is between how you want to work - if you’re ok with (or prefer) using a laptop, then go for a rack/stagebox mixer. If you need hands-on mixing directly on the console, you’ll of course need the full-sized products (I would mention the X32 compact as well, I don’t think it has been talked about yet and it sits somewhere between the rack versions and the full x32 in price).