How the strategy of using In-Ear-Monitoring (IEM) combined with Personal Monitor Mixers (PMMs) have contributed to the body of recorded music

In-Ear-Monitoring combined with Personal Monitor Mixers is a strategy designed to contribute towards recorded music mainly during the production stage. The extent to which it is beneficial depends on the size, technological experience, placement of the users, and their familiarity with one another; in addition to the budget and space available for the recording. To not be too broad in scope, the Livemix CS-Duo from Audio Digital Labs (LCSD) will be the example in focus, but other personal mixers will be mentioned for the purpose of comparison and a more accurate assessment of the LCSD’s actual contribution. 

Figure 1.  Digital Audio Labs Livemix CS-Duo (sxpro , n.d.)

Most audio engineers made the switch from having foldback loudspeakers on stage to IEM, for the purpose of “lower[ing] stage volume” (Herring, 2009) and making more space available on stages/ small studios. These being especially desirable conditions when recording live events, because the Front-Of-House (FOH) engineer will be able to achieve a higher gain in the master mix before feedback occurs; and stage designers will gain more control over the stage’s aesthetics.
IEM also gave engineers a direct path to speak into the performers’ ears, benefitting engineers and performers alike.Personal Monitor Mixing is a method of IEM, as opposed to having the FOH engineer customise a performer’s in-ear mix. The first PMM, Aviom’s A16, was released in 2001 and revolutionized the recording industry, by putting the users/ performers in control of their own mix (Key, 2002). The LCSD, a PMM in the Visconti Studio at Kingston University, demonstrates this benefit; requiring the same time to record any group regardless of its size. Contrary to recording in the close-by Coomberhurst Lodge studios, where only the engineer is able to feed a customised In-Ear-Mix to performers’ headphones. The larger the group in the former studio, the longer it takes to discuss and achieve each individual’s desired mix. Another contribution from the LCSD is its built-in intercom for easy communication, not only between the user and FOH engineer, but also with other LCSD users linked to the system; helping to speed up the soundcheck process even more.

All of the personal mixers that came after Aviom’s A16 were fundamentally the same, enabling the user to control their personal mix settings; only progressing the design of all PMMs’ other features (e.g. number of channels, compatibility with other consoles and equipment, effects available, etc.). I have created a timeline summarising all the PMMs I researched as shown below in Figures 2 and 3. The latter highlights how truly modern PMMs really are, and how fast their progression has been within the music industry in the past 8 years.

Figure 2.  Timeline of PMMs released between 2001-2010

Figure 3.Timeline of PMMs released between 2010-present

As well as PMMs that require a mixing console, there are units, such as Movek’s MyMix, whose system is solely comprised of individual PMM units - all feeding live updates to each other and putting only the performers in complete control of their headphone mixes. This option allows up to 250 units to be connected to each other, contributing a budget-saving option for even the largest types of performing groups (Savage, 2016). This PMM differs greatly from most of the others with its option to record directly into an insertable SD card storage. This feature makes it extremely easy to record rehearsal; which proves useful, for example, when creating material for a demo. (i.e. record a live take of multiple selected channels, that are all feeding in at levels sufficiently mixed for a demo presentation.)

Nevertheless, the options that most impressed me were the ones that contributed the most efficient change in use of stage space: the software-based PMMs, such as Allen&Heath’s SQ4You; or Audiofusion ^TM. These enable performers to personally mix levels and alter a few basic signal settings, at no extra costs other than the smart phones they potentially already own (Harvey, 2018). This means performers have much more freedom to move and carry their personal mixer on their person, without being entangled by cables. 

As well as positive contributions, PMMs like the LCSD have given rise to new issues when used to record music. If an LCSD belongs and is used by one user over its lifetime, the issue of re-teaching new users how to use the technology is less of a problem, than if someone new hopped onto it regularly – any mix settings are able to be saved for later recording sessions. However, Avid’s Personal Q mixer reduces these complications, since it is a console-based system, and the FOH engineer has access to all the users’ monitor mixes from their desk (Avid 2013). This leads on to an issue concerning many PMM users, who say audio engineers think that the PMMs give them a licence to do their master mix and then walk away. In reality, having a PMM only speeds up the process of communication in soundchecks and throughout the recording stages, but the audio engineer must stay present to communicate with the less experienced PMM users, for a swifter execution.

Another minor issue involves previous tech users being familiar with having a ‘fader’ for every channel. This was illustrated by some of Aviom’s A-16II users who claim that it slowed them down “having to select a channel before adjusting [the channel’s] volume” (Poole and Gallagher, 2005). This seemingly small hindrance is partially resolved with the LCSD, where two easily accessible dials labelled ‘ME’ (as shown in Figure 1), are dedicated solely to the channels of its two users.  A few PMMs also raise issues of sonic isolation. This is common in performers who are still transitioning from the normality of hearing stage ambience and audience feedback. I found this to be true when playing the drum-kit in a Church service. Due to my unfamiliarity and lack of training with the PMM there, I struggled to even hear the other performers and realise how quiet I was playing in comparison to them.  In hindsight, this could have been an easier first experience, had I brought open-back headphones to let some ambience reach my ears. The LCSD, being a fairly newer addition to the PMM market, has solved this issue by adding an internal XY ambient mic, to give you the option to include your room’s ambience in your headphone mix.

The final issue I will mention is “stationary ambience”, raised by the IEM’s ability to stereo pan (Margraves, 2017, p.5). This is when a performer, with an IEM headphone mix, twists on stage and their panning settings then mismatch with the positions of live sound sources around them. Coincidentally, in my friend’s situation, who is a pianist and deaf in his left ear; this option is not an issue, but actually saves him from always having to ask musicians to physically move to his right side. With his own personal mixer, he easily pans all the signals Hard-Right, that he wishes to hear.

In conclusion, though the PMM method of IEM has made both positive and negative contributions to the body of recorded music, the benefits seem to outweigh the problems. One example being, the issue of having to teach new users to use any PMM unit in the beginning of a recording session still takes less time than having to shout instructions across a loud large room. Another example being, the issue of having to click on a channel before changing its volume, is significantly still faster than a performer having to communicate messages to the FOH engineer. In other words, we must merely compare the speed of a brain sending messages to an arm, as opposed to team members speed of communication. Ultimately, there are many more benefits which I have not mentioned; yet in combination with the ones I have, they all affirm why Personal Monitor Mixers are being increasingly seen as the way forward in the recording industry, by many group performers.

BibliographyAvid. (2013). AVID Personal Q System. [online] Available at: https://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/datasheets/personalmonitoring_ds_A4_2013_03_27.pdf [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].

Aviom. (2011). Aviom Press Release: AVIOM HITS 10-YEAR, 100,000 MIXERS SOLD MILESTONE. [online] Available at: http://www.aviom.com/Aviom-Press-Room/Press-Releases-160/Aviom-Hits-10-Year-100000-Mixers-Sold-Milestone.cfm [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].

Aviom. (2014). Aviom Press Release: AVIOM ANNOUNCES NEW A320 PERSONAL MIXER. [online] Available at: http://www.aviom.com/Aviom-Press-Room/Press-Releases-219/Aviom-Announces-New-A320-Personal-Mixer [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].

Gumble, D. (2018). Peex co-founder: Live audio mixing app ‘absolutely does not’ undermine role of pro engineers. [online] psneurope. Available at: https://www.psneurope.com/live/peex-founder-on-new-audio-mixing-technology [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].

Harvey, S. (2018). IEM Mixing Matures for Houses of Worship. [online] Pro Sound Network.
Available at: https://www.prosoundnetwork.com/live/iem-mixing-matures-for-houses-of-worship [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].

Herring, B. (2009). Sound, lighting, and video. Boston: Amsterdam, p.86.Katz, M. (2010) Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Key, P. (2002). Aviom rocks with gizmos for music. Philadelphia Business Journal. [online] Available at: https://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2002/10/21/story6.html [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].

Margraves, K. (2017). Church Sound: IEM Mixing For Worship. [online] Pro Sound Web. Available at: https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/church/church_sound_iem_mixing_for_worship/ [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].

Poole, R. and Gallagher, M. (2005). Aviom Personal Monitoring System -- Can you hear me now? What about now?. EQ; San Mateo, [online] 16(2), p.70. Available at: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/docview/199501761?accountid=14557 [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].

ProSoundWeb. (2018). Allen & Heath Introduces SQ4You Personal Monitor Mixing App.
[online] Available at: https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/live-sound/allen-heath-introduces-sq4you-personal-monitor-mixing-app/ [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].

rAVe Publications (2012). InfoComm 2012: Behringer Exhibits its P16 Personal Monitoring System. [image] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpeZzM-kEjI [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018].

rAVe Publications (2017). InfoComm 2017: Digital Audio Labs Adds Livemix CS-SOLO to Mixer Family. [video] Available at: http://www.ravepubs.com/rave-video/infocomm-2017-digital-audio-labs-adds-livemix-cs-solo-to-mixer-family/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].

Rossi, N. (2016). The Truth About Personal Monitor Mixing. Church Production, Volume 6, [online] (6), p.38. Available at: http://digital.churchproduction.com/publication/?m=25645&l=1#{"issue_id":"318822","page":"40"} [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].

Savage, A. (2016). Massive myMix system on Pete Tong's Ibiza Classics tour. [online] Audio Media International. Available at: https://www.audiomediainternational.com/live/massive-mymix-system-on-pete-tongs-ibiza-classics-tour- [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].

sxpro (n.d.). Digital Audio Labs Livemix CS-Duo: Dual Mix Personal Mixer for LIVEMIX. [image] Available at: https://sxpro.co.uk/digital-audio-labs-livemix-cs-duo [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018].

Tingen, P. (2015). Inside Track: James Taylor's Before This World. Sound on Sound. [online] Available at: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/inside-track-james-taylors-world [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].