|
|
Post by michaelcleary on Jan 3, 2020 19:21:14 GMT -6
Ever use them? Testing out some Sennheiser IE500 and figured they would be good for tracking acoustic with a click to eliminate bleed. Lo and behold, no click bleed! Am i late to the party on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 3, 2020 22:48:40 GMT -6
Ever use them? Testing out some Sennheiser IE500 and figured they would be good for tracking acoustic with a click to eliminate bleed. Lo and behold, no click bleed! Am i late to the party on this? I guess, if you're a click/phones type person. Me, I play a rhythm guitar part with the pickup and do a scratch vocal, no phones, no nothin' on me, with the drummer hearing my rhythm guitar and scratch vocal through phones as he lays down the drum part. After that the rhythm guitar may or may not be retracked/doubled/whatever and after most of the other parts have been laid down I track the keeper vocal, usually three tracks which may or may not be used for main plus a double or triple (usually panned hard L&R.) No phones, monitors only. I hate phones. You can't properly hear through them and they tend to throw your pitch off. I would think that IEMs would only exacerbate the problem.
No clicks. The playing should follow the interpretation of the song by the vocalist, and a rigid click just doesn't do it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by WKG on Jan 3, 2020 23:19:41 GMT -6
I use my IEM's most of the time. I'll run them wireless when tracking others, it's nice to be untethered when adjusting mics.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 3, 2020 23:39:23 GMT -6
I used my stage IEM's tracking the new BOC record. They did double duty as earplugs standing next to the drums in the live room, much like onstage. Danny Miranda on bass did the same. Worked great, no ear pain at the end of a tracking day.
When I do vocals, I like regular cans, 'cause I typically have the right ear cup off and behind my ear so I can hear my voice in the room. Or not, if I do my own cue mix. But even with stereo cue, I'll have the right ear off a bit so I can hear my voice acoustically. I work faster that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jan 4, 2020 0:41:05 GMT -6
I've not owned IEMs, but have considered it for monitoring after a couple videos talking about it for studio use. This guy talked about custom ones he had made and said the isolation was the most he had experienced before.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 4, 2020 7:05:20 GMT -6
I used my stage IEM's tracking the new BOC record. They did double duty as earplugs standing next to the drums in the live room, much like onstage. Danny Miranda on bass did the same. Worked great, no ear pain at the end of a tracking day. When I do vocals, I like regular cans, 'cause I typically have the right ear cup off and behind my ear so I can hear my voice in the room. Or not, if I do my own cue mix. But even with stereo cue, I'll have the right ear off a bit so I can hear my voice acoustically. I work faster that way. Where did you guys track? |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jan 4, 2020 9:00:46 GMT -6
I use my IEM's most of the time. I'll run them wireless when tracking others, it's nice to be untethered when adjusting mics. I do this for tracking too. I use the Shure SE535. You can really get your face up in there when looking for the right mic placement on an amp or drum. I put on a pair of isolation muffs (for shooting) for extra isolation, when needed. I need to try the wireless thing. What wireless transmitter setup do you use? |
|
|
|
Post by WKG on Jan 4, 2020 9:54:05 GMT -6
I use my IEM's most of the time. I'll run them wireless when tracking others, it's nice to be untethered when adjusting mics. I do this for tracking too. I use the Shure SE535. You can really get your face up in there when looking for the right mic placement on an amp or drum. I put on a pair of isolation muffs (for shooting) for extra isolation, when needed. I need to try the wireless thing. What wireless transmitter setup do you use? I have a Mipro MI-808. It's really quiet and sounds great. I've got a set of Westone AM Pro 30's I use with it. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 4, 2020 11:00:03 GMT -6
I used to use my stage IEMs for tracking loud stuff. As mentioned, you can put some shooting muffs over them for extreme isolation. Great for moving mics around and listening. Haven’t done it in a long time because my workflow changed but it can work really nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelcleary on Jan 4, 2020 11:37:30 GMT -6
good stuff. My workflow with the acoustic is to lay down a guitar to click and build from there. I found with phones the beginning and end would have click bleed so I'd have to punch those without click if i wanted to keep the track. Otherwise, I would re-record after while playing along to get a clean track so having buds saves that step if i get a keeper.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelcleary on Jan 4, 2020 11:39:12 GMT -6
Ever use them? Testing out some Sennheiser IE500 and figured they would be good for tracking acoustic with a click to eliminate bleed. Lo and behold, no click bleed! Am i late to the party on this? I guess, if you're a click/phones type person. Me, I play a rhythm guitar part with the pickup and do a scratch vocal, no phones, no nothin' on me, with the drummer hearing my rhythm guitar and scratch vocal through phones as he lays down the drum part. After that the rhythm guitar may or may not be retracked/doubled/whatever and after most of the other parts have been laid down I track the keeper vocal, usually three tracks which may or may not be used for main plus a double or triple (usually panned hard L&R.) No phones, monitors only. I hate phones. You can't properly hear through them and they tend to throw your pitch off. I would think that IEMs would only exacerbate the problem.
No clicks. The playing should follow the interpretation of the song by the vocalist, and a rigid click just doesn't do it for me.
Interesting, I'm the exact opposite. Rarely use monitors even when mixing as I'm up late and dont want to disturb the wife. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 4, 2020 12:46:06 GMT -6
I guess, if you're a click/phones type person. Me, I play a rhythm guitar part with the pickup and do a scratch vocal, no phones, no nothin' on me, with the drummer hearing my rhythm guitar and scratch vocal through phones as he lays down the drum part. After that the rhythm guitar may or may not be retracked/doubled/whatever and after most of the other parts have been laid down I track the keeper vocal, usually three tracks which may or may not be used for main plus a double or triple (usually panned hard L&R.) No phones, monitors only. I hate phones. You can't properly hear through them and they tend to throw your pitch off. I would think that IEMs would only exacerbate the problem.
No clicks. The playing should follow the interpretation of the song by the vocalist, and a rigid click just doesn't do it for me.
Interesting, I'm the exact opposite. Rarely use monitors even when mixing as I'm up late and dont want to disturb the wife. HMmmm.... I don't have one of those. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 4, 2020 22:36:37 GMT -6
I used my stage IEM's tracking the new BOC record. They did double duty as earplugs standing next to the drums in the live room, much like onstage. Danny Miranda on bass did the same. Worked great, no ear pain at the end of a tracking day. When I do vocals, I like regular cans, 'cause I typically have the right ear cup off and behind my ear so I can hear my voice in the room. Or not, if I do my own cue mix. But even with stereo cue, I'll have the right ear off a bit so I can hear my voice acoustically. I work faster that way. Where did you guys track? We did the basics at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry NY. We know the people that built the rooms for their audio production classes and we were able to lock it out for days at a time and record in a low stress environment. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 3, 2020 16:14:34 GMT -6
I do this for tracking too. I use the Shure SE535. You can really get your face up in there when looking for the right mic placement on an amp or drum. I put on a pair of isolation muffs (for shooting) for extra isolation, when needed. I need to try the wireless thing. What wireless transmitter setup do you use? I have a Mipro MI-808. It's really quiet and sounds great. I've got a set of Westone AM Pro 30's I use with it. is this thing converting to and from digital? If so, how's the latency on this thing? It sounds like you haven't had any issues with induced radio noise in the rest of your signal chains. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 3, 2020 16:36:23 GMT -6
So I'm looking into this some more. I came across this for relatively cheap: www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AS950SysP2--galaxy-audio-as-950-in-ear-monitor-system-470-494-mhzBest as I can tell for this Galaxy unit, there is no digital conversion to and from for transmittal. I like the idea of all analog, to avoid adding any latency. I get that people have expressed concern about induced noise due to radio signals floating around the studio, but I primarily would just like to use something like this for being able to place mics. I'd most likely go back to a hardwired headphone connection for when things are actually being recorded. The alternative would be to use a transmitter that does do digital conversion, IF added latency was still down to am acceptable level. Either way, does anybody have any suggestions for a good wireless transmitter for use in the studio? I already have some nice Shure in ear monitors, so I just need a decent transmitter. Edit: Now I'm also looking at the Shure PSM 300. It's more expensive, but it seems like a definitely superior product to the Galaxy. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 3, 2020 17:03:37 GMT -6
Always play drums to a click with in ears..
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Nov 3, 2020 22:31:53 GMT -6
For a long time I'd put in ear plug and then put headphones on top, to protect my hearing. I bought Westone IEMs a couple summers ago because a band I was playing with has a monitor-less PA. I've been using them in the studio a lot, and they work well. I had to replace the cabling this year, and the foam a couple times.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 4, 2020 9:17:36 GMT -6
So I'm looking into this some more. I came across this for relatively cheap: www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AS950SysP2--galaxy-audio-as-950-in-ear-monitor-system-470-494-mhzBest as I can tell for this Galaxy unit, there is no digital conversion to and from for transmittal. I like the idea of all analog, to avoid adding any latency. I get that people have expressed concern about induced noise due to radio signals floating around the studio, but I primarily would just like to use something like this for being able to place mics. I'd most likely go back to a hardwired headphone connection for when things are actually being recorded. The alternative would be to use a transmitter that does do digital conversion, IF added latency was still down to am acceptable level. Either way, does anybody have any suggestions for a good wireless transmitter for use in the studio? I already have some nice Shure in ear monitors, so I just need a decent transmitter. Edit: Now I'm also looking at the Shure PSM 300. It's more expensive, but it seems like a definitely superior product to the Galaxy. I can't find any information that says that the Galaxy is *not* digitally encoded, although for something like this it doesn't seem warranted. It's probably just purely analog-to-FM modulated. Plenty of cheap chips available to do that directly. What's strange is that the Shure says "24 bit digital" but the spec sheet says FM modulation. I suppose it could be encoding digital and using FSK or BPSK (similar to FM but for digital signals) to transmit but then it gives deviation specs at 1KHz which wouldn't be a valid spec if it were FSK/BPSK modulation, so I'm guessing they're doing digital upconversion to RF and transmitting as FM. Seems convoluted, but you can't transmit a "digital" signal anyway. Nature abhors a squarewave so all transmission must be in analog format. Either way, I doubt any of these "digital" systems use operating systems internally, so true processing latency shouldn't be a big deal. A lot of these silicon transmitter/receiver chips are just hardware state-machines and have no real processing overhead and thus low inherent latencies. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 4, 2020 11:45:57 GMT -6
So I'm looking into this some more. I came across this for relatively cheap: www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AS950SysP2--galaxy-audio-as-950-in-ear-monitor-system-470-494-mhzBest as I can tell for this Galaxy unit, there is no digital conversion to and from for transmittal. I like the idea of all analog, to avoid adding any latency. I get that people have expressed concern about induced noise due to radio signals floating around the studio, but I primarily would just like to use something like this for being able to place mics. I'd most likely go back to a hardwired headphone connection for when things are actually being recorded. The alternative would be to use a transmitter that does do digital conversion, IF added latency was still down to am acceptable level. Either way, does anybody have any suggestions for a good wireless transmitter for use in the studio? I already have some nice Shure in ear monitors, so I just need a decent transmitter. Edit: Now I'm also looking at the Shure PSM 300. It's more expensive, but it seems like a definitely superior product to the Galaxy. I can't find any information that says that the Galaxy is *not* digitally encoded, although for something like this it doesn't seem warranted. It's probably just purely analog-to-FM modulated. Plenty of cheap chips available to do that directly. What's strange is that the Shure says "24 bit digital" but the spec sheet says FM modulation. I suppose it could be encoding digital and using FSK or BPSK (similar to FM but for digital signals) to transmit but then it gives deviation specs at 1KHz which wouldn't be a valid spec if it were FSK/BPSK modulation, so I'm guessing they're doing digital upconversion to RF and transmitting as FM. Seems convoluted, but you can't transmit a "digital" signal anyway. Nature abhors a squarewave so all transmission must be in analog format. Either way, I doubt any of these "digital" systems use operating systems internally, so true processing latency shouldn't be a big deal. A lot of these silicon transmitter/receiver chips are just hardware state-machines and have no real processing overhead and thus low inherent latencies. So I'm not sure about the Galaxy being digital or analog, but I got the impression that it was all analog. I may have seen that in a review somewhere. As for the Shure, I came across a post on the purple site that referenced a facebook post from Shure: "PSM300 is a hybrid digital system that employs digital technology for all audio functions. The RF technology employs analog circuitry. Total latency is less than .5ms which is undetectable to the human hear." So the Shure IS sort of digital, but in a very low latency kind of way. I'd like to use this for getting up close to amps and drums for mic placement, so I wonder how much perceptible phasiness I might notice between the direct signal and the ear buds at 0.5 ms? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 4, 2020 11:55:22 GMT -6
I can't find any information that says that the Galaxy is *not* digitally encoded, although for something like this it doesn't seem warranted. It's probably just purely analog-to-FM modulated. Plenty of cheap chips available to do that directly. What's strange is that the Shure says "24 bit digital" but the spec sheet says FM modulation. I suppose it could be encoding digital and using FSK or BPSK (similar to FM but for digital signals) to transmit but then it gives deviation specs at 1KHz which wouldn't be a valid spec if it were FSK/BPSK modulation, so I'm guessing they're doing digital upconversion to RF and transmitting as FM. Seems convoluted, but you can't transmit a "digital" signal anyway. Nature abhors a squarewave so all transmission must be in analog format. Either way, I doubt any of these "digital" systems use operating systems internally, so true processing latency shouldn't be a big deal. A lot of these silicon transmitter/receiver chips are just hardware state-machines and have no real processing overhead and thus low inherent latencies. So I'm not sure about the Galaxy being digital or analog, but I got the impression that it was all analog. I may have seen that in a review somewhere. As for the Shure, I came across a post on the purple site that referenced a facebook post from Shure: "PSM300 is a hybrid digital system that employs digital technology for all audio functions. The RF technology employs analog circuitry. Total latency is less than .5ms which is undetectable to the human hear." So the Shure IS sort of digital, but in a very low latency kind of way. I'd like to use this for getting up close to amps and drums for mic placement, so I wonder how much perceptible phasiness I might notice between the direct signal and the ear buds at 0.5 ms? 0.5ms in time is analogous to 2000Hz in period. I would think that could cause phasing issues, but if you use in-ears with some kind of noise reducing outer earmuffs you should not hear enough of the live signal to matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 4, 2020 12:27:29 GMT -6
So I'm not sure about the Galaxy being digital or analog, but I got the impression that it was all analog. I may have seen that in a review somewhere. As for the Shure, I came across a post on the purple site that referenced a facebook post from Shure: "PSM300 is a hybrid digital system that employs digital technology for all audio functions. The RF technology employs analog circuitry. Total latency is less than .5ms which is undetectable to the human hear." So the Shure IS sort of digital, but in a very low latency kind of way. I'd like to use this for getting up close to amps and drums for mic placement, so I wonder how much perceptible phasiness I might notice between the direct signal and the ear buds at 0.5 ms? 0.5ms in time is analogous to 2000Hz in period. I would think that could cause phasing issues, but if you use in-ears with some kind of noise reducing outer earmuffs you should not hear enough of the live signal to matter. That's been my hope. With 100% analog signals, I've had no problems in the past with the "gun range muffs over IEMs" thing. I may pull the trigger on this Shure unit. It's more expensive than the Galaxy, but it seems to be a fairly superior product to the Galaxy. Unless anybody has any other good suggestions for a good bang for the buck transmitter? |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 4, 2020 16:56:53 GMT -6
It's the only way to go!! Especially with drums and acoustic guitars
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,976 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Nov 4, 2020 21:49:38 GMT -6
0.5ms in time is analogous to 2000Hz in period. I would think that could cause phasing issues, but if you use in-ears with some kind of noise reducing outer earmuffs you should not hear enough of the live signal to matter. That's been my hope. With 100% analog signals, I've had no problems in the past with the "gun range muffs over IEMs" thing. I may pull the trigger on this Shure unit. It's more expensive than the Galaxy, but it seems to be a fairly superior product to the Galaxy. Unless anybody has any other good suggestions for a good bang for the buck transmitter? Shure and Sennhiser are pretty much the standard, RF performance is pretty similar. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Nov 6, 2020 9:08:36 GMT -6
Sennheiser traditionally is the best sounding analog IEM value. The new Shure is good, the older ones inferior. The Mercedes is the Lectrosonic digital IEM. That's another level up, but about 4k for transmitter/receiver. For talent cue monitoring, any of them would be good. For engineering while you perform, well, the better the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by forgotteng on Nov 7, 2020 21:17:11 GMT -6
I love it when drummers come in with there own ear buds. It's not real feasible for a studio owner in my market to provide them. It is a luxury. I hate click bleed. The more a drummer needs a click, the more he makes me turn it up because he can't "hear it", the more it bleeds. Drives me nuts.
|
|
