Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
IEMs, Singers and Occlusion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="andy craig" data-source="post: 108523" data-attributes="member: 502"><p>Re: IEMs, Singers and Occlusion</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hi Andy,</p><p>I see from further down the thread, that you are doing your auditioning via a PM5D, which is introducing some latency in the signal path.</p><p>I distinctly recall an occasion when I was using an XL3 and setting up an XTA SIDD as a channel insert over the main vocal channel using a microphone and headphones. The difference between the insert out mode, i.e. full analog path with no latency, and the insert in mode with latency, was phenomenal. I would imagine that if you were to ask a vocalist using iems which sounded better, they would always choose the zero latency option.</p><p>I know that George Michael finds it so off putting that they use an XL4 just for his IEM mix, and the band and BV's are on a digital console.</p><p>I wonder if that's why some people ask for their vocal to be so loud. They're hearing the comb filtering introduced by the combination of bone conductance at zero latency , and iem signal with latency, and they don't like it. If the IEM signal were to be significantly louder than the bone conductance signal would the comb filtering be markedly reduced? Can someone chime in with the maths? </p><p>You can probably tell that I'm thinking out loud here.</p><p>I'm not sure how much budget you have to throw at providing a better solution for your client, ( possibly not a whole XL4's worth of budget), but a cost effective improvement might be to have an external analogue mic-pre and an analogue summing unit to combine the mic-pre output and a stereo mix from the PM5D. The output of the summing unit would go straight to the IEM transmitter.</p><p>That way you'd have all the benefits of recall for the mix, but the all-important analogue signal path for the vocal.</p><p></p><p>The ideal items would be a Midas XL42 for the preamp, and a Midas XL88 for the summing.</p><p></p><p>Enough late night musings from me.</p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p>andy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="andy craig, post: 108523, member: 502"] Re: IEMs, Singers and Occlusion Hi Andy, I see from further down the thread, that you are doing your auditioning via a PM5D, which is introducing some latency in the signal path. I distinctly recall an occasion when I was using an XL3 and setting up an XTA SIDD as a channel insert over the main vocal channel using a microphone and headphones. The difference between the insert out mode, i.e. full analog path with no latency, and the insert in mode with latency, was phenomenal. I would imagine that if you were to ask a vocalist using iems which sounded better, they would always choose the zero latency option. I know that George Michael finds it so off putting that they use an XL4 just for his IEM mix, and the band and BV's are on a digital console. I wonder if that's why some people ask for their vocal to be so loud. They're hearing the comb filtering introduced by the combination of bone conductance at zero latency , and iem signal with latency, and they don't like it. If the IEM signal were to be significantly louder than the bone conductance signal would the comb filtering be markedly reduced? Can someone chime in with the maths? You can probably tell that I'm thinking out loud here. I'm not sure how much budget you have to throw at providing a better solution for your client, ( possibly not a whole XL4's worth of budget), but a cost effective improvement might be to have an external analogue mic-pre and an analogue summing unit to combine the mic-pre output and a stereo mix from the PM5D. The output of the summing unit would go straight to the IEM transmitter. That way you'd have all the benefits of recall for the mix, but the all-important analogue signal path for the vocal. The ideal items would be a Midas XL42 for the preamp, and a Midas XL88 for the summing. Enough late night musings from me. Cheers, andy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
IEMs, Singers and Occlusion
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!