EBS_freak

Let them do an inear mix for you - or invest in a split box/split snake. That way, you can take your own desk and be in complete control of you ears mix. It's documented on the first page. Funnily enough - been helping a friend build such a thing - here's the work in progress. One row of the 16 XLRs in a line for FoH and the second for monitor desk. Everything on stage is plugged into the 16 XLR inputs of the MS8000s which then split to the two rows of 16x XLRs. Being isolated splits, one of the desks can be in control of the phantom power and the other desk is than protected from receiving phantom power that would be otherwise present on an unisolated split.

Please don't. There's nothing worse than somebody copying your tattoo. I'd be straight in for a cover up.

B0llux to it. This is probably relevant somewhere.

Will be an app for the mixing desk, not the PM1.

And yet “that” bass solo is still the best received moment at a Paul Simon gig.

1964 Audio's new pieces look interesting - especially the refresh on their quad driver which is now a hybrid design. https://www.64audio.com/products/a4s 1x dynamic in the low, 1x low mid BA, 1x high mid BA and their tia Tweeter. I doubt that the pricing will come in near the UE6 (as I think it will be priced to fill the gap that their original 4 driver design sat in) - but I'm quite interested to hear it. Should be quite a bass monster.

I forgot to follow up on this. So marquee gig happened - quite some time ago as it happens! This one did take a bit of saving. The audio from the PA company was a complete nightmare... so it took a whole load of saving whatever audio we could get from the cameras and whatever we could get our hands on and codge something together. Not the best the audio - but still a whole better than some of the promos that are out there. Anyway, not bad.... it's all experience. From now on, I'm not trusting audio to anybody else. (Yet something else to worry about!)

For IEMs, I'm thinking you'd have to go for an ultranet solution. You'd probably want to run those in stereo - but you still have enough inputs for that. Outputs would have to be over an ultra net solution. Analogue splits are possible, but if you start chaining desks, you are introducing further cumulative latency into the game. The only issue that I think you may have, is a sound engineer having the drums come in all on channel. They like to be able separate the kick as an absolute minimum. But you know...

I've relooked at the XR18 - If 6 auxes is enough to send to FoH, an XR18 would do you. Theres MIDI implementation for scene change. Vocals, Bass, Stereo keyboards, Stereo Drums - Do you HAVE to be stereo? It's quite rare for a venue to mix in stereo as it can sound pants depending where you stand in the venue. I'm assuming that it's 1x vocal, 1x bass, L, R for keys, LR for drums, LR for backing track - so you are on 8 auxes, XR18 has 6. I know you're probably thinking you can use the main LR on your mixer for another pair of outs, but you'll need that mix bus on your own mixer to set the fx sends for each channel. On the auxes, you'll mix in the returns from those FX units. (So if you are sharing an fx unit between say the vocals and the keys, the keys fx return will be present on your vocal aux channel).

This should answer your questions on the interface part and the midi implementation. m32c.pdf

S32 is just the preamps. It's the M32C that is doing the mixer part (or the X32) Your inputs and output will be available in the ins and outs on your DAW. (Connected over USB) MIDI I suspect will be via MIDI only - Im not sure you can do MIDI over USB with the X32 - but I've no experience in that area.

Midas M32C - C(ore) - 1U brain Midas DL32 or Behringer S32 - 32 input 16 output on XLRs. 3U Or X32 Rack (3U) (or M32 core) with S16/SD8s (read on). All depends where you want your XLRs ins and outs to be. May be useful to have your inputs on stage... but you may want your outputs in one place... or on stage also. Have a look to see how the splits that work for you. Off the top of my head though, you can only split in banks of 8... so you can't just patch in the odd XLR input on one stage box for example, you have to patch them in in banks of 8 Comments on 1. Can use USB connection for individual audio tracks from Mac (so could patch a L/R/Click etc) to individual tracks on X32. If you want to, you could add a Dante card and replace USB with Dante - connection would be then a ethernet from your laptop. Comments on 2. No problem. Midas and Behringer software available for Mac. Note - if you use Dante, you'd need to run two ethernet adapters and configure your routing appropriately. Comments on 3. Should be able to send MIDI information to the X32 - from some quick searching (this isn't what I was sure on), you have control over fader level, pan and mute and unmute states on faders. That should give you access to the automation you need from the DAW. Looks like you can do a scene recall also - so I think you may be good. Comments on 4. Use your XLR outputs on aux busses for what you want to send. These probably want to be post DSP do it sends all your FX to the front of house, as opposed to the normal prefader, pre DSP that normally gets sent. In a dream world, every FoH would have a Dante card. Then you can give them each channel digitally over a single ethernet cable. Comments on 5. Got me beat unless you use stage boxes. Best I can do with all ports in place, or 1 u but with external stage boxes (which may cause it's own cabling nightmares... or not... depending upon what you need to do). Behringer/Midas is the only thing that is coming to mind at the moment. Mackie DL32R is close - but then you have no control over MIDI so... meh.

This is quite a difficult ask - as I suspect you want to have this running from a stage without a separate person running the desk. I think I may have an answer but let me check a few things.

There we go, one driver type for mid/bass design. And for comparison - UE6 true three way - But remember - dynamics = better at reproducing bass with higher headroom than balanced armature!

OK point taken - you're correct. But what that really means, is a driver that doesn't really excel in bass or mid... but it's easier to double them as it takes away complication from designing a more complex crossover. In fact, I've not got one to inspect, but I would wager its a double balanced armature in a single case.

Also - just to reiterate. Bass is the hardest thing for an IEM to reproduce. In order to maximise the bass response, it's essential that you have a good seal. If you don't the first thing you'll lose, is the bass. As bass is generally what you pay for when you start adding drivers, it all becomes a bit pointless if the seal is rubbish. As stated in the main posts, its why I'd advise against ambient ports if you want to keep your bass. Whilst vocalists and the like may appreciate some ambience, as a bass player/drummer or somebody that likes bass, I would never recommend making that compromise.

It's all incremental cost but for little benefit. The reason why the 215 and 535 sound so different is the move from the dynamic drivers to the balanced armatures in the 535. This immediately gives the 535 higher definitions in the high which will immediately make you think "wow, these reveal a lot more detail in the highs - and everything sounds a lot more crisp and airy and spacious in the details" - that's the balanced armatures for you. The point is, having all this quality is great when listening to prerecorded music - but live gigging isn't prerecorded music. Unless you've put everything you do live through a "faux mastering stage" with shed load of compressors and limiters, you aren't comparing like with like. And the reality is, you don't want to put your liver performance through a shed load of compressors or limiters when you play - as it will impact the dynamics of you playing. If there is any compression and the like going on, that's best left to what's coming our of front of house. Next we talk about headroom. The Shures are still a single driver in the lows (edit: oops - see following posts - I forgot it was a single case dual woofer design for mid/bass). This means that if you drive the drivers hard, it can lead to distortion - which is the worst thing to have in your ears. And here's the thing, even if you don't hear the distortion distinctively, if there is distortion going on, it will tire your ears very quickly. The whole point is that you want to deliver the lows with enough room to hear the bass as it should be heard (without distortion) - but keeping your ears fresh. This is why headroom is king. The more headroom, the less chance of distortion, the less chance of ear fatigue - and the better the reproduction of frequencies - especially in the low end. So how do you get better low end response and headroom? Either add more drivers (which is why I tend to recommend a quad balanced armature as a minimum for bass players (treble, mid, bass x2 drivers)) or change the driver type. Dynamic drivers give up the clarity of balanced armatures - but have greater headroom and a single unit can handle bass better than a single balanced armature. So in the case of the UE6 (which is a hybrid triple - dynamic drivers in the bass and mid and a single balanced armature for the treble) - you have a set of drivers that give you that low end extension and headroom but by including the balanced armature in the treble, you retain that treble response where all the sense of air, space and clarity comes from. The UE6 is unique in this respect - I'm yet to come across another unit which is similar in performance for that price point. It's also why whenever I'm at the bass and drum shows, people listen to them and invariably end up buying them. (I'd say 9/10 sales at these shows are UE6s - the other sale tends to be somebody that wants to go full in and buy towards the top of the range). If you listen to the UE6 next to a quad and compare the price difference, it's kinda hard to justify not going with the UE6 as it's a good 4 to 5 hundred quid cheaper. As I say, you can tell the UE6 is warmer in the lows, due to the dynamic drivers - but a lot of people prefer that and also, most people wouldn't be able to hear that unless they directly a/b them with balanced armatures. Interestingly enough, there are a few higher end pieces by manufacturers that market the inclusion of dynamic drivers as a selling point (especially JH Audio) as it would seem that there are people out there that appreciate the smoother/warmer mids (yes, it's all hifi nonsense speak)- and they enjoying hiking the price tag for the privilege. In reality, there's no better or worse driver, they just have different characteristics - which I've referred to. The important thing is, is that if you have a IEM with multiple drivers (which of course you are going to have), then they need to have drivers that can deliver the frequency range for which they are responsible - and work cohesively with the other drivers (whether they be dynamic or balanced armatures, or hybrid) that they are partnered with, properly crossed over and phase aligned, to actually work properly and sound great. There's lots of IEM manufacturers out there - but there's a big difference between those manufacturers who are actually building them where the crossover network is correctly designed, tubes appropriately damped and where the units are all phase aligned - and those that are just banging drivers into housings. In regard to a custom - yes the price is higher - but a lot of that cost is the case. The comfort of a custom can't be beaten - because the housing is a perfect match for your ear. Once that housing is built, the components of those inears are all hand soldered and using a scope, tuned to be perfect to your ear. This is a world apart from a universal where drivers are put in a prebuilt, usually tubeless housing. So yeah, due to the hands on nature of the builds of IEMs, it's not truly a like for like comparison - custom vs off the shelf. This all factors into the costs I guess. Also worth noting, that in off the shelf offerings, the balanced armatures are usually off the shelf offerings from Knowles or Sonion. You get what you get. For a lot of custom brands, they use the same. For the top end custom brands, they can have their own balanced armature made to spec. Infamously, JH were the first to have a quad balanced armature in a single housing - to get rid of any phase issues of combining balanced armatures. They could do this because they are large enough to absorb the cost of doing this. Large CIEM companies can engineer themselves out of corners that other smaller CIEM companies just can't afford to do... and they have to work with what they can get off the shelf. So what does this mean in reality? Well, I've just given one example... but also, consider your frequency response - something is not quite right and I can't get it sounding like I want it to. Simple, I'll have something manufactured for me to fix it - and I can do that because I'm going to put in an order for thousands. If you crack open Shure, KZ, AKG etc etc IEMs, you'll notice they'll tend to be Knowles balanced armatures... and off the shelf ones at that. It's all about box shifting and profit margins. When you consider what you can get for 40 odd quid in a KZ and a Shure when the components are pretty much comparable, you'll see that with some of the bigger named manufacturers, you are paying a lot for the name. Granted the tunings may be better in some of the more notable names... but then again, there is only so much you can do with a chambered, tubeless design that has to fit in everybody's (or most people's) ears. A lot of people are put off IEMs because "they've tried it and it's rubbish". I hear it all the time. When I press them on the issue - I'll guess that they have either used 215s or whatever came with their phone - and they've wired it up in some hooky way to their amp. This is all nonsense and "not trying" IEMs. I say to people, they have to try it properly. 215s despite what people think - are not decent, not great, not amazing or whatever you may want to call them. They are trash as an IEM for live use. They are not even a good gateway drug to IEMs. The KZs dump all over them. My first customer were ACS T1s (800 quid triple drivers). They were absolute trash too. No headroom and they sounded nasty (imho). It's only because I couldn't believe that people would put up with something like that I started delving further into IEMs as I refused to believe that people raving over IEMs were hearing the same as I was through my experience. I'll still stand by my recommendation. ZS10s to check the concept with a view to move to UE6s. PS I'm not a UE fanboy or anything like that, I don't get kickbacks from anybody - I don't actually have any UEs at the moment - but obviously having had access to the whole range of JH, 64 and UE, I have got familiar with the certain pieces that really resonate well with me. I'm just trying to act in people's best interest and not have people waste money like I have. The UE6 is actually my second favourite IEM, next to the A12t - however, the price ranges are astronomically different. I would however, be over the moon with a UE6 - they sound that good. And for the money, they are quite the extraordinary offering and sit in their own arena as there's literally nothing comparable to challenge them.

Phil is right, the learning curve of the RCF is a lot quicker than the Behringer. Just to add... Another massive key benefit of the XR18 over pretty much every similar format mixer, is the inclusion of ultranet - if you want to go down that route.

I can probably help you with that as I’ve had a fair few different models in my ears! As a rule of thumb, the UE6 is somewhat equivalent to the a quad balanced armature setup (treble, mid, bass, bass). The UE6 is probably a bit warmer sounding than most balanced armature IEMs which a lot of people prefer. Balanced armatures tend to sound a bit tighter than dynamic drivers - but again, unless you are comparing the two side by side.... you'll probably not find that immediately apparent. Each IEM manufacturers quad sound different. Some are more mid pronounced, others more smiley faced in their EQ. In reality, if you are using a digital desk, you can shape the EQ to taste anyway, but it’s nice to have IEM signatures close to what you want to hear. I always found my Roxannes sounding very different to my A12ts. The latter are much brighter sounding and have a smoother response in the top ends. I always found my Roxannes sound a bit hot on vocal “esses” and the sibilance was no way as good as my 64s. The Roxannes were also a very much darker, more mellow sounding IEM. The UE5s are very thin compared to the UE6 with a more pushed mid response, which is why vocalists tend to like them. Vocalists tend not to be particularly bothered by the bass of the UE6s that bass players, drummers and keys players crave. Any bass junkies are going to approve of the fuller bottom end response of the UE6. IEMs, especially at the lower end of the price scale, are never what you’d call flat or reference. And to be honest, flat is pretty boring anyway. Most people like to hear a mid range dip around 600Hz anyway. You will see that this is common in a lot of IEM frequency responses. This is no accident - even when you are mixing at a desk, it’s common to pull frequencies around 600 to make the band sound “right”. Custom fit does add more to the game. The better the fit, the better the bass response and of course, the better the reduction in ambient sound. If you have a leaky fit, the first thing you lose is bass. So whilst you could have like for like in terms of drivers and tuning, a custom fit means you are less likely to lose low end response. If I was to try and put a number on how much a custom fit can improve things sound wise, I’d say 10-20 percent. Of course, the big advantage is the comfort in the fit. They just fit. Perfectly. They are comfortable and don’t randomly fall out. No tips to worry about. The reason why the UE6 is soooo good though, is that it offers similar bass response and headroom to units that typically cost over a grand. Yes, ok they units are generally balanced armature based and hence perceived to be “better” - but again, for stage use you won’t tell the difference. In fact, it’s only when you do a back to back A/B you are likely to pick up on the subtle differences. Where the UE6 would suffer in the high end - if it was to use a dynamic - it doesn’t lose because a balanced armature is still used in the highs. To put it into context, if I was to compare my triple ACS customs (triple balanced armature) to the UE6s (a triple hybrid), then there’s no comparison. The ACS sound thin, can’t cope with bass and distort. I would put any quad JH, 64 and UE6 (or UE11+) against the Shures and they would all eat the Shures. Dont get me wrong, Shure have some great offerings - I have a lot of their mics, PSM900 IEM systems, wireless ULXD for example - but the IEM offerings are distinctly mediocre, especially for the money. They very much trade on their name in that department!

https://www.designacable.com/combo-cable-for-iem-systems-in-ear-monitoring-instrument-and-stereo-headphone.html (it's referenced in the links section in section 2 text btw!)

I think the message I was trying to get across is that most people end up doing something like this - Shure 215 -> Shure 535... and at some point people will invest in sleeves for those Shures. And then they get annoyed when the sleeves are a bit fiddly. It gets annoying removing your inears, especially mid song, and the sleeve stays in your ear whilst the iem is in your fingers. So already you've spent 85 + 180 + 150... so there is 415 quid. OK, you can sell the 215 and 535 but they don't really have any notable resale value - it's almost worth not selling them. Obviously the custom sleeves will have no resale value at all. So what I'm trying to say, is that you can factor and write off 415 worth of bad purchases, that's already a huge step forward towards the UE6s. The reasons that I call out the ZS10s is that for £45, you'll get the headroom and experience of something with a decent amount of headroom and see if the IEM concept works for you. If it doesn't, losing £45 is a world of difference to the £615 for the UE6s. As above, 37dB, no way, no way. That should not be considered as a selling point - because it's just plain BS.

Just reread the guys article as I couldn't quite believe the guff that I was reading - OK - I've figured out what this guy is doing. It's proper Heath Robinson. He's relying on the bleed of IEMs to hear the rest of the band and using the IEMs to boost just his bass into his ears. Gives you no control over the mix... I could go on... but I have no time for this guys approach to IEMs or his reviews of IEMs. He doesn't even implement an IEM system properly.

Also @Al Krow- in response to your 535 question, they still aren't great compared to what else is out there. Save up for UE6s. If you're serious about going IEMs, save yourself the wasted money on the journey. Meanwhile, just get yourself some ZS10s to tide yourself over - or at least get those to make sure the IEM route is for you.

Shure IEMs tend to get a good rep because they are "Shure" and "Shure" are great, right? And all these people giving them a good rep, what's their experience? What other earphones and reference points have they got - those IEMs that came with their mobile phone? Conversely, a drummer mate of mine that I pushed the way of UE6s was using Shure 846s - and his words were that his Shure's performance was way, way beneath the experience he was getting from the UE6s. I would never recommend the 215 to any bassplayer. Not even to somebody wanting to dip their toe in the water. The headroom of the ZS10s offer a much better experience for a much lesser cost. I've never said that the ZS are the end game - but a great, cheap entry drug to IEM that will give you the headroom without the distortion, the distortion which tends to be prevalent in the 215 and their lack of headroom. Don't buy on the basis of being Shure - because ultimately, they simply aren't that good, no matter where you are in the model range. I have to say though, in that link, this section is something that I really don't agree with - OK, taking each bit in turn - Err.. What? By using a bass amplifier at volume, your bass floods your stage with sub frequencies that go into the open mics and destroy the integrity of your monitor mix. "More control"? More control that a monitor mix where you can mix each instrument separately? More control where you can control the volume without impacting your front of house mix? More control than splitting out your bass signal and being able to EQ for you inears? etc... Utter BS. Blocking out frequencies all depends upon how good your fit is. If you IEMs don't fit right, they will leak. BTW Shure's 37dB cut is ridiculous. Over the ear defenders are rated at 37dB - and even then, OSHA standards mean they are truly certified at -34dB. It's a marketing gimmick - you simply couldn't argue that putting in a set of Shure IEMs would offer anywhere near the same amount of protection. It's plain BS. A good fit for a custom IEM will yield a cut of between 24-27dB - the equivalent of putting your fingers deep into your ears. Even then, there will be some ambient noise transferred to your ear via the vibrations through your skull and flesh - but this will be minimal in comparison (and not at all noticeable once you have your mix coming through you IEM. Most IEMs have better lower end response than bass cabs. All IEMs should(!) have way better high end extension than a bass cab - or PA cab for that matter! The only complications come from when you are asking too much from a single driver or when you haven't got enough drivers to give you the headroom to reproduce those frequencies at the volume you crave. In the same way, you wouldn't expect a single 8 inch driver loaded bass cab to have the full extension of a big bass rig, or a PA with just vocal tops and no subs to be able to cope with a rock band that demands a lot of low end. So, when considering your IEMs, consider you want to hear your whole band - like you would on a hifi - so you need to be able to reproduce the kick drum and bass as well as the vocals with all the bright airy top end that gives you the clarity. That means multiple drivers as there aren't IEM drivers that are good across the whole frequency range, despite what the vendors of single drivers would like you to think. And yes, things like 215s may sound great when listening to studio recordings - but those studio recordings have been mastered and have taken control of all the transients etc that would be otherwise troublesome in the live environment. This guy is on crack. Decent IEMs will not distort. You'll go deaf before they distort. If there is any distortion in an IEM at a sensible volume, there's only a number of causes. There is distortion in the signal chain - usually something clipping - or the IEMs are running out of headroom (not enough drivers). Heartfelt sounds? If you listen to bass recordings and can identify any heartfelt sounds, you can do the same over an IEM mix. And for the last thing to address - The bass frequencies will be able to reproduced no problem. The thing is, you don't actually want those frequencies on stage as that is where all the mud comes from as it leaks into the mics and over powers the PA. Yes, you can high pass the channels - but that also means high passing some details that you want to keep. Want to know why your band sounds all toppy? Maybe it's because you've HPF everything. Run a silent stage... there's no need to HPF anything - and you're band will sound a hell of a lot better (fatter, warmer) for it. As for the physical vibrations - if you really want that to get your rocks off - get a haptic device. Job done.

That's the one!