In Ear Monitors - help needed...

[Osiris]

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

The Rolls device is great as it lets you tweak your mix locally without going over to your desk. If you are in the world of digital desks, then the preferable option would be to remote control from a tablet... for @Osiris and their Line6 desk, I wouldn't bother with an external desk to power my headphones. I would just get a decent headphone amp and make sure I have a tablet as the "Monitors view" on the Line 6 desk gives you a Hi Pass, Limiter and EQ for the aux - which is going to be a lot more powerful than just the 2 band EQ on the Yamaha.

I would agree that the PM351 is a pretty cool solution for analogue desks (although it hasn't got the EQ functionality of the Yamaha). A bit different to the Yamaha desk as it gives you the "through" functionality so you can tap off "more me" feeds before it gets to the desk. I think that this is what @Osiris is trying to achieve... but you won't be able to do that natively with the Yamaha as it has no throughs or monitor sends to do this.

That Yamaha is a great little mixer - my O/H uses one for her Spin classes. 

Thanks for this. I'm still very much learning as I go with this stuff so there's certainly some food for thought above.

As for running a tablet as a personal monitor mixer, that sounds like the ideal option but I think we'd need an external router, our keys player mentioned something about it the other night but being a bit of a Luddite I didn't fully understand what he was on about . I'll do some further investigation to see what's what. 

As far as I do understand it, I should be able to set up my own individual monitor mix from the desk, tailored to my needs in regards of levels, EQ, limiter, HPF etc. The idea of having my own desk (which as you say isn't actually essential) was so that I'd have the option of an additional level of control. I should be able to run a signal direct from my Zoom B3 into the Yamaha so although I'd have the bass a touch higher in the feed from the main desk, I'd also have the option to boost myself even higher from the little Yamaha should I need to (band mix from the desk in one channel and bass from the B3 in the other). Or does that sound a bit daft??? 

[EBS_freak]

3 minutes ago, Osiris said:

Thanks for this. I'm still very much learning as I go with this stuff so there's certainly some food for thought above.

As for running a tablet as a personal monitor mixer, that sounds like the ideal option but I think we'd need an external router, our keys player mentioned something about it the other night but being a bit of a Luddite I didn't fully understand what he was on about . I'll do some further investigation to see what's what. 

As far as I do understand it, I should be able to set up my own individual monitor mix from the desk, tailored to my needs in regards of levels, EQ, limiter, HPF etc. The idea of having my own desk (which as you say isn't actually essential) was so that I'd have the option of an additional level of control. I should be able to run a signal direct from my Zoom B3 into the Yamaha so although I'd have the bass a touch higher in the feed from the main desk, I'd also have the option to boost myself even higher from the little Yamaha should I need to (band mix from the desk in one channel and bass from the B3 in the other). Or does that sound a bit daft??? 

Yes - you would need an external router... but you can literally get them for next to nothing. Basically, you'll have control of your mix via the tablet, so instead of walking over to the mixer, you'll see the mixer screen represented on your tablet for you to tailor remotely. It's the best solution - and if you haven't already got an iPad, a cheapo one from down CeX or similar will see you OK. Its the best investment you could make in regards of being in control of your mix.

You are right - your mixer will give you an individual monitor mix from the desk - tailored as you say. As your B3 has two outputs, one balanced XLR and one (unbalanced? - I haven't looked) jack, you can split the signal to the front of house desk and to your Yamaha. The question would be though - why? If you want to hear more bass in your own monitor mix, just reach for the iPad and turn your bass up in your monitor mix. The other thing to watch, is because the Line6 is digital (incurs latency) and the Yamaha isn't (no latency), the two signals will be out of phase with each other. How noticeable this is depends upon how out of phase the resulting signal is... and how much you perceive it.

Maybe I am missing a trick here - are you planning on sending your B3 signal to the FoH desk? Because if you aren't - you should be... even if you aren't sending your bass through the PA out front. Assume that you can't hear anything in your IEMs unless it comes from the FoH desk... and for anything to come from the FoH desk, it needs to be plugged into the FoH desk (irrespective of whether its coming out the FoH speaker or not - for example, you bass amp may be doing all the bass amplification for the venue you are in).

[Osiris]

I've got an old iPad laying around so that's not a problem. Presumably there's just an app to download that will allow it to talk to the desk? It certainly sounds the more logical option compared to a small mixing desk. I guess I was just thinking aloud  Good point about potential latency between an analogue and digital desks, I hadn't considered that, thank you. 

Just to clarify what I'm hoping to do; use the Zoom as an EQ/compressor/DI, run an XLR from the Zoom to the Line 6 desk, another XLR from one of the monitor outputs on the Line 6 to a headphone amp (now that it sounds as though as small mixer is not the wisest choice) to power the IEM's themselves. So yes, the B3 signal will be going to the desk and out through the FoH speakers. Ideally I want to ditch my amp and cab on stage and just use the Zoom and the in ears - via the Line 6 desk of course. Does that sound doable? 

[EBS_freak]

15 minutes ago, Osiris said:

Just to clarify what I'm hoping to do; use the Zoom as an EQ/compressor/DI, run an XLR from the Zoom to the Line 6 desk, another XLR from one of the monitor outputs on the Line 6 to a headphone amp (now that it sounds as though as small mixer is not the wisest choice) to power the IEM's themselves. So yes, the B3 signal will be going to the desk and out through the FoH speakers. Ideally I want to ditch my amp and cab on stage and just use the Zoom and the in ears - via the Line 6 desk of course. Does that sound doable? 

^^ Perfect. Although you may find the EQ and compressor processing on the desk better than the Zoom. I don't know explicitly though - I'm not overly familiar with either device.

The app for your iPad is available here : https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/stagescape-remote/id529370822?mt=8

Edited February 20, 2018 by EBS_freak

[Osiris]

Just now, EBS_freak said:

^^ Perfect.

The app for your iPad is available here : https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/stagescape-remote/id529370822?mt=8

Good man, I really appreciate your help and insight 

[EBS_freak]

2 minutes ago, Osiris said:

Good man, I really appreciate your help and insight 

No problem - check out my comment on the processing on the desk vs the Zoom.... I think you had already replied before I added the edit.

[Osiris]

Yes, I would imagine the processing on the desk may well be a step up from the Zoom but as it's a steep learning curve for me at the moment I'll start off with the Zoom as it's something I'm familiar with. One step at a time. Once I've got to grips with the IEM's I can start to investigate what options are available from the desk and may eventually use those instead of the Zoom. Presumably I'd still need a DI box of sorts? 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Osiris

[EBS_freak]

3 hours ago, Osiris said:

Yes, I would imagine the processing on the desk may well be a step up from the Zoom but as it's a steep learning curve for me at the moment I'll start off with the Zoom as it's something I'm familiar with. One step at a time.  I've got to grips with the IEM's I can start to investigate what options are available from the desk and may eventually use those instead of the Zoom. Presumably I'd still need a DI box of sorts? 

It depends what you are looking for - the simplest approach is a DI. If you get more complex you can move up to a pre/modeller etc. But if you just want a bass sound with no cab emulation, your rig could be a 25 quid DI box and a set of IEMs.

[Osiris]

6 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

It depends what you are looking for - the simplest approach is a DI. If you get more complex you can move up to a pre/modeller etc. But if you just want a bass sound with no cab emulation, your rig could be a 25 quid DI box and a set of IEMs.

Agreed, I'd probably go for a dedicated analogue pre-amp pedal if the Zoom doesn't work out in the long term, something that offers some form of EQ and tone shaping. But considering how relatively inexpensive the Zoom stuff is it does actually sound great, IMO. Admittedly, I've never had any experience of the likes of the Helix or Kempler to compare it to, so this is just based on  limited experience. Part of me is quite happy to remain ignorant of the more expensive offerings in case I decide that I can't live without something of that calibre . But I always manage to get a good, usable sound that works for me in a band context with the Zoom, I only really use the compression and tone shaping options on it as I'm not a massive fan of effects as such. I've no doubt that there are 'better' options out there (depending on how you wish to quantify 'better') but as a weekend warrior playing to crowds who - let's be honest, are at times not that discerning - I suspect that the Zoom will be good enough for my needs.

The only potential issue that I have at the back of my mind at this early stage is the cumulative latency between the Zoom and the Line 6 desk. I've no idea what the figures are for each item or even if they are widely available, so I'll try it and see. If it works, then great, if not then I'll probably start looking into an analogue pre-amp of some sorts. 

[jrixn1]

1 hour ago, Osiris said:

The only potential issue that I have at the back of my mind at this early stage is the cumulative latency between the Zoom and the Line 6 desk. I've no idea what the figures are for each item or even if they are widely available, so I'll try it and see. If it works, then great, if not then I'll probably start looking into an analogue pre-amp of some sorts. 

I am using: Zoom MS-60B -> DI box -> Mackie DL32R digital mixer -> Behringer PM1 -> Shure SE215.

I have not noticed any latency, and I'm happy with the sound quality of the Zoom.

Btw I'm equally wary of trying a Helix etc in case I prefer it!  But it would be a luxury upgrade rather than being out of necessity, as current setup is working well for me.
 

[Osiris]

14 minutes ago, jrixn1 said:

I am using: Zoom MS-60B -> DI box -> Mackie DL32R digital mixer -> Behringer PM1 -> Shure SE215.

I have not noticed any latency, and I'm happy with the sound quality of the Zoom.

Btw I'm equally wary of trying a Helix etc in case I prefer it!  But it would be a luxury upgrade rather than being out of necessity, as current setup is working well for me.
 

That's good to know, thank you 

How do you get on with the Shure SE215's? Do they deliver enough low end in you opinion (there's mixed reviews online in that regard)? I'm not looking for massive subby lows, but I do like the give my bass a little push in the low mids when playing through an amp and would like to know if the 215's are happy delivering a similar tone? 

[EBS_freak]

42 minutes ago, Osiris said:

Agreed, I'd probably go for a dedicated analogue pre-amp pedal if the Zoom doesn't work out in the long term, something that offers some form of EQ and tone shaping. But considering how relatively inexpensive the Zoom stuff is it does actually sound great, IMO. Admittedly, I've never had any experience of the likes of the Helix or Kempler to compare it to, so this is just based on  limited experience. Part of me is quite happy to remain ignorant of the more expensive offerings in case I decide that I can't live without something of that calibre . But I always manage to get a good, usable sound that works for me in a band context with the Zoom, I only really use the compression and tone shaping options on it as I'm not a massive fan of effects as such. I've no doubt that there are 'better' options out there (depending on how you wish to quantify 'better') but as a weekend warrior playing to crowds who - let's be honest, are at times not that discerning - I suspect that the Zoom will be good enough for my needs.

The only potential issue that I have at the back of my mind at this early stage is the cumulative latency between the Zoom and the Line 6 desk. I've no idea what the figures are for each item or even if they are widely available, so I'll try it and see. If it works, then great, if not then I'll probably start looking into an analogue pre-amp of some sorts. 

The cumulative latency is unlikely to (read won't) be an issue. Basically, as a quick rule of thumb, for most people, the absolute highest level latency of allowed in your inears before it gets off putting/unusable is 10ms. Don't let people quote the BS that it's only 3.5m from a wedge. The difference is that your IEM is pumped directly into you ear and as a consequence the effect of latency is alot more apparent... not only in playing... but especially when singing.

The B3 I believe is under 2ms - however, if you start using pitch shift, that latency increases - but that's the same for most modelling devices. Assume that your B3 is 2ms or under as a nominal value.

I would imagine the latency on the desk (using it as a desk, not as an audio interface - the M20d has dire latency when being used as an audio interface) is low anyway, certainly 3ms or lower. As an idea of what low, looks like, the X32 runs at under 1ms and most digital desks are under 3ms so assume that as the worst)... I can't find any specific input->DSP->Output figures for the M20d... but I would imagine it would be all over the net if the latency was high (like people are complaining about the laency for the audio interface aspect of that particular desk)

So the only other thing that could start messing anything up (assuming you aren't using a chain of digital pedals that are all engaged at the same time) is if you use a wireless with your bass. For example, if you use a Smooth Hound, you are going to be on the road to a beating because that thing comes at a woeful 8ms alone and that's going to eat up a whole lot of that 10ms. You can actually run a hell of a lot and keep that latency well down. Even with entry level gear, most latency figures will be coming comfortably under 6 or 7ms (this is allowing for desk processing, digital audio dsp in the chain and wireless).

The 215s are the common entry level IEM - they will certainly give you a sound but for a lot of people, will not deliver enough bass with enough headroom to use as a ampless solution. They tend to leak a lot - so they allow alot of ambient sound in from your backline, so with a bit of tweaking, guys using the 215s get an acceptable route. With my experience of multi driver IEMs, as echoed many times in this thread, quad is going to be what the majority of bass players will crave to get the bass response they need. The reason that 215s generally do OK compared to a single driver "custom IEM" - is because the custom will be utilising a balanced armature instead of dynamic driver - that is found in the 215. The 215 therefore, in comparison with a single balanced armature IEM, is likely to develop more bass.

 

[jrixn1]

1 hour ago, Osiris said:

How do you get on with the Shure SE215's? Do they deliver enough low end in you opinion (there's mixed reviews online in that regard)? I'm not looking for massive subby lows, but I do like the give my bass a little push in the low mids when playing through an amp and would like to know if the 215's are happy delivering a similar tone? 

I've never used any other in-ears, so I'm unable to offer a comparison.  

I do care about my tone and quality, but I'm only playing Motown etc on a P bass, so it's not something which requires a super bassy tone.

So the 215 sound good to me and I'm happy, but noting that I don't know what I'm missing out on.  Perhaps it's a bit like the Zoom vs Helix!
 

[EBS_freak]

41 minutes ago, jrixn1 said:

I've never used any other in-ears, so I'm unable to offer a comparison.  

I do care about my tone and quality, but I'm only playing Motown etc on a P bass, so it's not something which requires a super bassy tone.

So the 215 sound good to me and I'm happy, but noting that I don't know what I'm missing out on.  Perhaps it's a bit like the Zoom vs Helix!
 

Zoom vs Helix - unless you are looking at expanding into using the features of the Helix to super charge your motown... then probably not a lot!  A lot of these modellers, irrespective of their pricetag, will give you a functional tone.
 

The 215s are preferable to say, some freebie phone headphones... but you are missing out my man!

[Osiris]

One again @EBS_freak I appreciate your wisdom 

I'm not looking to run any other pedals with the B3, digital or otherwise. I like to keep things as simple as possible - and yes I did see the diagram of your set up and it scared me to death ). I do have a Line 6 G55 digital wireless system, but as most of the venues we play are small to the point that's it's often standing room only with no room to swing a cat, it rarely gets used. So I think that even on the off chance that there is a latency issue if I were to use it (which sounds unlikely) those occasions would be rare. 

1 hour ago, EBS_freak said:

The 215s are the common entry level IEM - they will certainly give you a sound but for a lot of people, will not deliver enough bass with enough headroom to use as a ampless solution. They tend to leak a lot - so they allow alot of ambient sound in from your backline, so with a bit of tweaking, guys using the 215s get an acceptable route. With my experience of multi driver IEMs, as echoed many times in this thread, quad is going to be what the majority of bass players will crave to get the bass response they need. The reason that 215s generally do OK compared to a single driver "custom IEM" - is because the custom will be utilising a balanced armature instead of dynamic driver - that is found in the 215. The 215 therefore, in comparison with a single balanced armature IEM, is likely to develop more bass.

 

41 minutes ago, jrixn1 said:

I've never used any other in-ears, so I'm unable to offer a comparison.  

I do care about my tone and quality, but I'm only playing Motown etc on a P bass, so it's not something which requires a super bassy tone.

So the 215 sound good to me and I'm happy, but noting that I don't know what I'm missing out on.  Perhaps it's a bit like the Zoom vs Helix!
 

@EBS_freak I have taken on board your point of looking at quad drivers for additional bass response. The UE 900s seem to be universally well regarded and are within my budget and could well be what I ultimately (pun optional) end up going with. I was just curious about the 215's as some people seem to be happy with them as @jrixn1 is, whereas some people are not so impressed with the bass response from them. I'm just doing my homework so that as and when I commit to buying something I get what's right for me . At the minute I'm keeping all options open as this is all new to me. 

[EBS_freak]

@Osiris - The G55 comes in at under 3ms latency. I seem to recall that the specs are <2.9ms. So certainly up there with pro level wireless analogue to analogue. (ULXD for example, is 2.9ms) - so you have nothing to worry about on that front. Funnily enough, even on small stages I tend to use wireless just so that I have no cables under my feet. Use it - there's certainly no reason in your setup why you shouldn't. If you were telling me you were running a Smooth Hound, I certainly would be urging your edge on the side of caution as you would be within the realms of trouble with that (in fact, it annoys me that people keep banding around that it has no audible latency and is much better than the line 6 equivalents - when in reality, when using it in an IEM setup, it is useless.)

Ha - my setup - yeah, overkill for most - but for me it's the result of somebody who probably cares about IEM monitoring for all gigs a little too much. I've used this setup in front of a few thousand... and a few tens down the local  I think as soon as you have experienced a great monitor mix - which no doubt you will with your planned setup - you are reluctant to give it up. For me, the more I have pushed the dual desks and external plugins, the less I want to give it up. It all comes down to the final point - I just want the best monitor mix I can have within reason. My setup is actually pretty quick to set up - it's all racked and ready to go... so no real difference to plugging in just one desk! But yeah, people are probably going to be satisfied with far less!

@jrixn1 is right - the 215s will enable you to do a job - but I would urge both of you to try and get into the world of quad drivers. It's the difference between running a single 10 behind you and a four ten. Just far more headroom, control, authority... and bass! I had a brief exchange with @thommydonutsabout driver count. He's just bought some high driver count IEMs - I think he concludes with me, there's a big jump from a single to a quad... and then as you go up in driver count, the returns do diminish... however, some of these 6, 8, 12+ driver count earpieces really are nirvana. Defo worth checking out if you can stomach the cost - but as I say to people, you need to stop seeing your IEMs as headphones but as a replacement for speaker cabs. If you have the FoH doing all your amplification FoH, then see your IEM as Bergantinos (or whatever) for your ears - afterall, they are doing the same job - your personal monitor on stage. Then, the cost makes more sense. Put it like this, I'm yet to see anybody who has invested in the higher end IEMs regret doing so. I think @dood and @tonyf would agree wholeheartedly with me. And both of them have been through some serious rigs. Ask them which rig has been their fave - their 64 V8s... or their cabs.

I don't know if you are about to come to LBGS or Bingley Hall at the weekend but hunt me down and I'll get some top end stuff in your ears if you want to hear the difference.

Edited February 22, 2018 by EBS_freak

[thommydonuts]

Thanks for the mention @EBS_freak.

Definitely second that. Next level! I listened to 6 driver and upwards. Go and check them out I went to Custom IEM company HQ. They totally floored my Shure SE535s! 

[Osiris]

I'll give the G55 wireless a go once I have my IEM set up, although as I'm planning to go hard wired for the IEM's, I'm still going to be tethered by at least one cable . One of the OBBM custom IEM/guitar cable could be an option and I think someone has also suggested simply velcroing (is that a word???) the cables together. Either way I don't think it's going to be a significant problem for me in real world use. 

If your set up works and gives you what you want then that's great, part of me is jealous . Looking at some of the pictures you'd posted earlier in the thread you are doing gigs of a higher calibre than me so a set up like that is likely to be way over the top for my needs, but if I ever decide to follow you down the rabbit hole I might just have to tap you up for more of your wisdom 

Unfortunately I cannot make the London bass show this year. Apologies if I've missed something but what's happening at Bingley Hall, and when? 

[EBS_freak]

8 minutes ago, Osiris said:

I'll give the G55 wireless a go once I have my IEM set up, although as I'm planning to go hard wired for the IEM's, I'm still going to be tethered by at least one cable . One of the OBBM custom IEM/guitar cable could be an option and I think someone has also suggested simply velcroing (is that a word???) the cables together. Either way I don't think it's going to be a significant problem for me in real world use. 

If your set up works and gives you what you want then that's great, part of me is jealous . Looking at some of the pictures you'd posted earlier in the thread you are doing gigs of a higher calibre than me so a set up like that is likely to be way over the top for my needs, but if I ever decide to follow you down the rabbit hole I might just have to tap you up for more of your wisdom 

Unfortunately I cannot make the London bass show this year. Apologies if I've missed something but what's happening at Bingley Hall, and when? 

The velcro solution will work just fine.

the guitar show is at Bingley hall - http://www.theguitarshow.co.uk/

On Birmingham, mainly guitar stuff but good for a few hours browsing - there's usually a few bass bits around.

[Osiris]

Thanks for the info on the guitar show, unfortunately I can't make it this weekend either. 

[DaytonaRik]

21 hours ago, jrixn1 said:

I've never used any other in-ears, so I'm unable to offer a comparison.  

I do care about my tone and quality, but I'm only playing Motown etc on a P bass, so it's not something which requires a super bassy tone.

So the 215 sound good to me and I'm happy, but noting that I don't know what I'm missing out on.  Perhaps it's a bit like the Zoom vs Helix!
 

I went from SE215's to 64 Audio A3 - this was my opinion and it still is...

"Well - the A3s arrived and it was straight upstairs to try them with some audio - my word! It's like seeing an Imax cinema screen after watching a black and white TV. I can hear things in a mix that were just background noise before - bass lines pop out and become easy to distinguish, vocals sit pretty much in the front of the mix too. I really can't wait to try these at a rehearsal soon. Worth every single penny. I never had a problem with the fit of the 215s and the generic olives but these are something else."

I like a neutral 'engineer' style mix where I can hear everything so the A3's suited my needs perfectly

Edited February 22, 2018 by DaytonaRik

[EBS_freak]

Well, there you go!

[bigjohnson]

Wow- reading this thread is a full time job!!

just a quick answer on this one hopefully...

my Aux send from my desk, split into stereo, into headphone amp, into PM1

but only get mono (one headphone working) 

the output from the headphone amp is a jack, so I have a jack/XLR converter which is MONO. If I change this to Stereo will this resolve my one ear issue? Or is the XLR destined to send mono regardless of the input?

Is it easier to get a mono/Stereo adapter the headphone side of the PM1?

 

 

[EBS_freak]

22 hours ago, bigjohnson said:

Wow- reading this thread is a full time job!!

just a quick answer on this one hopefully...

my Aux send from my desk, split into stereo, into headphone amp, into PM1

but only get mono (one headphone working) 

the output from the headphone amp is a jack, so I have a jack/XLR converter which is MONO. If I change this to Stereo will this resolve my one ear issue? Or is the XLR destined to send mono regardless of the input?

Is it easier to get a mono/Stereo adapter the headphone side of the PM1?

 

 

"so I have a jack/XLR converter which is MONO" - this is your issue. If you use a TRS (e.g. a stereo) to XLR jack from your headphone amp, you'll end up with a stereo feed (of two identical mono signals), that will be unbalanced. Behringer have gone the unbalanced XLR route to avoid having two unwieldily XLR/TRS inputs on the belt pack.

As you say, you could also get a mono adapter for the headphone side too.

[EBS_freak]

https://www.jhaudio.com/p/iem-display

For when life is telling you that you really have nothing better to spend your money on!