Creating a better money channel in IEM land

[Emil Gawaziuk]

Just started with a new artist recently and am brainstorming a way to improve the money channel mix. Currently driving an LS9-32 for all mixes (6 mixes of stereo in ears). Money channel is Shure UHF-R with either Beta 58 or KSM9 capsule, then in to some Digitech tube preamp thing (don't ask.......I just took the gig a couple few weeks ago and inherited a lot of interesting stuff mix wise as well), then into the LS9. I am wanting to change the signal path on his mic to be strictly analog (because we fly a lot and flying an LS9 or a memory stick is easier then a Heritage). Basically what I am thinking is all other 27 channels are mixed in the LS9, split the output of the UHF-R, one channel back into the LS9 for the band mixes, other side heads to an XL42 as the pre and EQ. Same instrument mix and such from within the LS9, his console mix comes out into the APB single space rack mount mixer as a stereo pair, output of the XL42 into another channel on the APB, APB takes care of the analog summing duties on his mix and eliminates the occasional bit of digital headroom issues I am having (did I mention this mix has the vocal a tad hot in it?). I think it should work. Cue wise, I just run a backup pack on his channel and am generally on his mix for most of the 90 min anyways, not that hard to move headphone plugs over.

FWIW (cause someone will probably ask). PSM900, UE16, hearing is good, yadda yadda. Just likes his vocal to be waaaaaaaaayyy present. Am I barking up a strange tree or am I on to a viable solution to something here.

And yes, in a perfect world I would much rather be driving anything other than a Yamaha, but it is common, easy to get at some locations when we fly, and it does work for the task at hand in a convenient package.

 

[Adam Robinson]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Is the artist unhappy with his mix?

 

[Emil Gawaziuk]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Not unhappy, but is very specific about how it sounds and I do agree with him that the LS9 isn't the best sounding console out there. Much happier when there has been opportunity for an analog mix that is certain.

 

[Bennett Prescott]

Is the problem latency related?

 

[Adam Robinson]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

For the artists I mix ears for the vocal is only one part of many in creating the right environment for them. I can imagine that putting the vocal through a fully analog signal path will make the vocal sound better than the LS9, but what about the rest of the mix?

 

[Emil Gawaziuk]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Rest of the mix isn't the problem, it sits pretty solidly tonality-wise. However on his vocal, he just isn't getting a desired warmth and response. It may be a latency issue (wireless-LS9-wireless again. It is slight, I can hear it if I really really concentrate on it, but stranger things have happened) as Bennett suggests, but in the long run it is a tonal issue. I am trying to eliminate the inherent sound of an LS9 (not my console choice on the gig. If I had my way it would be a DigiCo, Midas, or Avid. But that is besides the point. My aim is to have a solid analog vocal chain that is the same no matter what the rest of the mix is going through.).

The nice thing is I can set up one channel for the Beta capsule and the other for the KSM. The Beta is not the preferred, but on some of the smaller decks and lower roof shows the KSM is not your friend when one is 6 feet from a hard hitting drummer. Just looking for a good workable solution with 4 sweepable bands, a solid sounding preamp, and a way to combine a stereo mix with an analog signal in the analog domain before it heads to the PSM900 tx (once again I would prefer Sennheiser as they sound way way better but the packs will not drive to the level he desires without shitting the bed. The Shures do.)

 

[Jason Raboin]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

It seems odd to me that latency would be the issue. I would think that the latency of an LS9 is less than the amount of time it takes for the audio to travel from wedges to your ears, and that was fine for decades. That said, they do some pretty interesting routing with Bono's vocal to keep it in the analog domain for just that reason. They have a budget.

The problem I see is that somewhere you have to go through the LS9, so unless you get a mic pre / eq / AD converter and use a digital input (does the LS9 have a digital input?), and then a DA converter for his mix, you are likely to have the same issue.

I use an SC48, and like the converters on it just fine. I do use nice mic pres for money channels, and leave them on stage so that they travel down the snake at line level. I can't remember the last time I chased down a hum or buzz. You could start there.

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Rest of the mix isn't the problem, it sits pretty solidly tonality-wise. However on his vocal, he just isn't getting a desired warmth and response. It may be a latency issue (wireless-LS9-wireless again. It is slight, I can hear it if I really really concentrate on it, but stranger things have happened) as Bennett suggests, but in the long run it is a tonal issue. I am trying to eliminate the inherent sound of an LS9 (not my console choice on the gig. If I had my way it would be a DigiCo, Midas, or Avid. But that is besides the point. My aim is to have a solid analog vocal chain that is the same no matter what the rest of the mix is going through.).

The nice thing is I can set up one channel for the Beta capsule and the other for the KSM. The Beta is not the preferred, but on some of the smaller decks and lower roof shows the KSM is not your friend when one is 6 feet from a hard hitting drummer. Just looking for a good workable solution with 4 sweepable bands, a solid sounding preamp, and a way to combine a stereo mix with an analog signal in the analog domain before it heads to the PSM900 tx (once again I would prefer Sennheiser as they sound way way better but the packs will not drive to the level he desires without shitting the bed. The Shures do.)

I think of each monitor program as a separate mini-PA system. If it in fact was a PA system, would you start with the speakers or the mic preamp? IOW, have him try out different ear buds.

 

[Jeff Babcock]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

I would prefer Sennheiser ..... but the packs will not drive to the level he desires

The Shures do

This seems quite telling. The efficiency of the IEM buds themselves plays a pretty big role, and that seems like what is happening here. I have no problem driving my G2 Sennheiser packs to downright painful levels with Westone IEM's, but previously had a bunch of budget level Shure IEM buds that had nowhere near the same output, due to lower sensitivity and higher impedance.

Switching to buds with greater sensitivity should give you all the output you need.

 

[Andrew Broughton]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

(once again I would prefer Sennheiser as they sound way way better but the packs will not drive to the level he desires without shitting the bed. The Shures do.)

That's more than a little concerning that this musician needs such high levels (i.e. has significant hearing loss) and yet still claims to hear problems in the signal chain. FWIW, the Sennheiser 300 g3 and 2000 series put out the same output level as the PSM900 (100mW/ch into 32ohms).

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

That's more than a little concerning that this musician needs such high levels (i.e. has significant hearing loss) and yet still claims to hear problems in the signal chain. FWIW, the Sennheiser 300 g3 and 2000 series put out the same output level as the PSM900 (100mW/ch into 32ohms).

Around here it's kinda considered a "street fact" that the Sennheiser G3 beltpack is unable to make many popular ear buds "loud enough" before running out of headroom on the transmitter/transmission, when other belt packs will work just fine.

I don't know what the technical explanation would be, but I've heard it enough times from knowledgeable techs that I think it's a "no smoke without fire" situation.

Apparantly, the 2000-series don't have this reputation , even if you claim the specs to be the same. Don't know about the G2.

 

[Andrew Broughton]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Around here it's kinda considered a "street fact" that the Sennheiser G3 beltpack is unable to make many popular ear buds "loud enough" before running out of headroom on the transmitter/transmission, when other belt packs will work just fine.

Don't limit yourself by believing "street facts". Believe measurements, nulling and double-blind tests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

 

[Emil Gawaziuk]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Yep, the possible hearing issue has been discussed between FOH and I. Apparently a couple previous mixers have lost the gig for finally having enough and telling the money to go get his hearing checked. This is a path I am trying to avoid. The path I am trying to come up with is keeping his vocal in the analog domain as much as possible and avoiding the LS9. I do want to get him to try a set of different buds (which are on their way. I have a new set of the Shure triple drivers coming to keep in the rack drawer as a set of spares in case someone's go down on the road), and right now am also trying to come up with a solution for the other end of the signal chain.

Believe me, in many years of mixing IEM, this is a new one for me.

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Emil-

We just did a show with an analog/digital hybrid... Michael McDonald's IEM mix is all-analog from his mic to his transmitter; the band mix and a couple of stems (his piano +?) come from a Venue, and all are mixed on a 1 RU API mixer that feeds his IEM xmit. My understanding is that Mr. McDonald is very critical of the tonal issues created by latency and this enables him to perform without undue vocal fatigue.

He and Boz Scaggs have been playing out together, and it's a pretty damn good show. Great backing players and vocalists, all very tasty.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

I have been wondering about the different perception of IEMS for singers versus instrumentalists.

Is the latency factor more or less of a concern because of the occlusion, and is there a frequency dependency?

Is there a possibly a reverse latency effect where even with digital latency, something is arriving earlier than the performer is used to, compared to wedges.?

And since many of my performers are using IEM in conjunction with a single large LDC mic, does changing distance to the mic create a noticable timing difference?

I have several different acts happy with IEM mixs, but I find it really hard to listen to any of the vocalists channels when the relative levels are set the way they want, so I have concluded I really can't know what they are hearing in their head (occlusion effect plus buds).

 

[kristianjohnsen]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Don't limit yourself by believing "street facts". Believe measurements, nulling and double-blind tests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Good link, remember I enjoyed that one a lot last time I watched the video

If enough well respected people within my community tell me "the heater in that truck isn't all that great" I'm going to take it there's a chance other trucks get a more comfy cab in the winter, even without taking a bunch of measurements.

Seriously, several techs I know to be knowledgeable and who work high up in the food chain here in Norway have mentioned having issues with the G3 transmitter running out of headroom while the artists are still wanting more volume. Hence the reason for them changing to another system.

Perhaps I should send them your link so they can change their mind

 

[Dave Stevens]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Concentrate on the mix and keep the technology to a minimum. You've got a guy that is particular and getting in his head and on his good side will inspire much more confidence than trying to solve the issue with a bunch of gadgets. His hearing is what it it is. Learn what he likes and learn how to duplicate it for him. He might be one of those guys that isn't secure with his art and will use his monitors as an excuse/crutch when he isn't feeling confident. Half the time 90% of monitor mixing is confidence and trust rather than what particular knobs you use.

 

[Dick Rees]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Concentrate on the mix and keep the technology to a minimum. You've got a guy that is particular and getting in his head and on his good side will inspire much more confidence than trying to solve the issue with a bunch of gadgets. His hearing is what it it is. Learn what he likes and learn how to duplicate it for him. He might be one of those guys that isn't secure with his art and will use his monitors as an excuse/crutch when he isn't feeling confident. Half the time 90% of monitor mixing is confidence and trust rather than what particular knobs you use.

I tend to agree with this.

 

[Art Welter]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

I have been wondering about the different perception of IEMS for singers versus instrumentalists.

Is the latency factor more or less of a concern because of the occlusion, and is there a frequency dependency?

Is there a possibly a reverse latency effect where even with digital latency, something is arriving earlier than the performer is used to, compared to wedges.?

And since many of my performers are using IEM in conjunction with a single large LDC mic, does changing distance to the mic create a noticable timing difference?

I have several different acts happy with IEM mixs, but I find it really hard to listen to any of the vocalists channels when the relative levels are set the way they want, so I have concluded I really can't know what they are hearing in their head (occlusion effect plus buds).

Latency is generally not a problem for instrumentalists, as has been pointed out it is generally less than the latency from a wedge to a performer, so no timing problems.

The problem with latency for a singer is the short delay in ear mixed with their natural voice causes a phase difference that only they will hear, though as a monitor engineer you will hear it if you try singing along through the same gear.
Short delays of around 2ms associated with most "decent" digital gear can cause worse "hollow" sounds for the vocalist than longer delays which move the coloration out of the vocal fundamental range. The actual delay will determine the frequency the problem is worst at, so some songs in a different key may sound "OK" to the singer, while others sound like crap to him. The singer is hearing something that sounds (to him) like a phase shifter effect stuck somewhere in the middle of a sweep. No way to EQ that right, but cranking the level makes it sound less annoying.

The OP, if not able to find an analog alternative (interesting to see Bono using a Midas Venice for his in ears :^) may find that adding a slight bit of delay to his channel may eliminate the tonal problem associated with the short latency inherent in the digital gear.

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Creating a better money channel in IEM land

Latency is generally not a problem for instrumentalists, as has been pointed out it is generally less than the latency from a wedge to a performer, so no timing problems.

The problem with latency for a singer is the short delay in ear mixed with their natural voice causes a phase difference that only they will hear, though as a monitor engineer you will hear it if you try singing along through the same gear.
Short delays of around 2ms associated with most "decent" digital gear can cause worse "hollow" sounds for the vocalist than longer delays which move the coloration out of the vocal fundamental range. The actual delay will determine the frequency the problem is worst at, so some songs in a different key may sound "OK" to the singer, while others sound like crap to him. The singer is hearing something that sounds (to him) like a phase shifter effect stuck somewhere in the middle of a sweep. No way to EQ that right, but cranking the level makes it sound less annoying.

The OP, if not able to find an analog alternative (interesting to see Bono using a Midas Venice for his in ears :^) may find that adding a slight bit of delay to his channel may eliminate the tonal problem associated with the short latency inherent in the digital gear.

Art,

You seem to be confirming what I have been thinking.

Singers may be requesting the "more me" to create enough of a level difference between their natural voice and the monitors to cover the phase difference.

And while short as possible seems to be the password for latency, it may be more effective to try and hit the 5-6 ms that wedges would have due to their placement.