In-ear monitoring is becoming a practical option for musicians and engineers at all levels. Is it time you made the switch?
Jon Burton
In-ear monitors (IEMs) have only been around for a relatively short time. Introduced in the late ‘80s, they only really became affordable about 15 years ago, and it’s fair to say that they’ve revolutionised the touring industry. Many live acts have adopted them now, and for some tours they are seen as indispensable, mainly due to the freedom they can give the performer — particularly singers. The ability to have a consistent sound wherever you go on stage has enabled uncluttered set designs, increased freedom of movement, and enhanced performances. The combination of a wireless microphone and in-ear wireless monitors is now a common sight on many tours.
For those who have never seen or used in-ear monitors, they are two-part systems. There’s a transmitter, usually a half-rack unit, which transmits the monitor mix wirelessly (via radio) to a receiver, a belt pack around the size of a mobile phone that the performer wears. This picks up the monitor signal and amplifies it through a pair of earpieces. The transmitter and receiver operate in the UHF band, between 606 and 614 MHz. Other bands are available, but some require a special licence: the wireless frequency spectrum is regulated by the Joint Frequency Management Group (JMFG), and their web site,
www.jfmg.co.uk, has the latest information — although, as spectrums are currently being reassigned, that info is always changing!
Risky Business?

A typical in-ear monitoring system, comprising a half-width rack radio transmitter, a belt-pack receiver and a set of earbuds.
A typical in-ear monitoring system, comprising a half-width rack radio transmitter, a belt-pack receiver and a set of earbuds.
Anyone who has used radio equipment before will know that interference and dropouts are always a potential issue, and the increasingly busy wavebands are making finding clear frequencies a difficult task. However, modern systems tend to use carrier signals, which lock the belt pack onto the transmitter’s frequency, and this has done much to alleviate interference problems.
As with any radio signal, dynamic-range compression and reduced bandwidth compromise audio quality, but the technology has become increasingly sophisticated and can deliver high-fidelity sound with reasonable consistency. Modern systems are very stable and produce a good-quality signal, and though the sound is not quite up to hi-fi standards, due to the restrictions of broadcasting, the advantages of being wireless, and the freedom this provides, usually outweigh any minor sound-quality concerns.
The earphone side of in-ear systems can vary greatly in price and quality, however. Most systems are provided with generic buds — the kind of headphones you would normally associate with MP3 players. The next step up from there is a generic mould; these are more ear-canal shaped and fit a bit more snugly, making them less likely to come out. The best option is to have a mould taken of your ear, and a custom monitor made for you. These vary in price depending on the model, and can range from £100 to over £600. Custom moulds have the advantage of being a snug and usually comfortable fit, and they also cut out a lot of external noise, so can be great on loud stages. They can, however, lead to a feeling of detachment, and you can become a lot more reliant on your sound engineer to provide you with a balance mix.
The Band
...