Topic: In-Ear-Monitor Taping

[Ray76]

I believe the acronym is Assisted Listensing Device. It is a FM reciever from the soundboard. You just have to talk to one of the people at the information desk and they can give you one. Usually don't sound great. Recording can have FM wave issues and the sound can be analog.

Oh thats what they mean at theatres, when they say hearing impaired people help

+T man thanks

[redbook]

Sound of ALDs is much more "plain" than the IEM ones since they are bringing the frequencies that impaired people can hear, so most of the ALDs lack decent bass.

Can upload a few samples of IEM and ALDs later if you want

[Ray76]

Sound of ALDs is much more "plain" than the IEM ones since they are bringing the frequencies that impaired people can hear, so most of the ALDs lack decent bass.

Can upload a few samples of IEM and ALDs later if you want

i will take your word on that one bud. NOt something I am even remotely interested in doing, but just wanted to see what it was.+T BTW, im in europe too.

Ray

[DP]

I've recently been introduced to sniffing in-ear-monitor transmissions as a taping option, and while I'm still researching the post-recording remastering fracas that inevitably follows, I wanted to solicit recommendations for good general IEM receiver equipment that can 1) scan frequencies from multiple IEM manufacturers  2) separate the L/R channels correctly,  and 3) collect as much (non-noise) background data as possible  4) Besides, I was leaning toward being outside the venue anyway.

1) IEM receivers are specific to models for a designated band of frequencies from a manufacturer. what you are looking for does not exist in practice or even as a theoretical model as far as I know - if you do find such a (sexy) beast, please let me know, as we would love to adopt such a versatile system when we're on tour!

2) See 1). I guess the closest gizmo would perhaps be a scanner capable of stereo decoding. It would not sound good though as it would have a noisy, frequency-limited audio stage, as this gear is not intended for audio applications. More pertinently, scanners would not have the appropriate RF expansion algorithm for the companded signal which is different for every manufacturer and even varies with the model.

3) Sorry, don't understand what is meant by "background data" here.

4) Unlike radio transmissions in the kW range, in-ear transmitters typically put out 10-100 mW at best, and are quite directional. So trying to get this intentionally weak signal from outside would be a pointless exercise. At the very best you will get so many dropouts and RF interference that the recording would not be all that listenable. Besides, wouldn't you feel a pang of conscience for stealing a show without even having supported the artist? And what's the point of recording a live gig if you are not actually there to enjoy the whole visceral experience?! 

Stick to audience recordings if you must tape - the FOH crew has put a lot of time and effort into presenting a sound intended for the audience with the proper balance and mix, so why mess around with an unrepresentative, unbalanced monitor feed that has most of the band missing from it? 

btw, I'm speaking here as an audio enthusiast and fan of live music of course, and not from my work perspective where even stealth audience recordings would be severely frowned upon, especially with all the illegal bootlegging for profit happening on ebay these days (not accusing anyone here of this practice, just stating how management and the record labels feel about this issue).

And I think enough has already been discussed here about the legalities and morals of snooping in on private conversations not intended for public ears...

btw, all receivers do leak out a weak but definite IF signature that can be triangulated with the appropriate gear - and we don't have to have the budget and resources of the NSA to implement such a detection capability - just ask a couple of my colleagues who have worked with Shure on this...so be forewarned! 


DP

[redbook]

DP, you look like you know what are you talking about, but I've heard plenty of IEM recordings done with non specific receivers (ICOM and Alinco brands), and also lots of recordings done from outside the venue.

BTW, one of the great uses of IEM is that you can tape soundcchecks and rehearsals from outside the venue.
This can't be done even with the best mics out there.

[Evil Taper]

you tell me,....
I'm the one who here speaks out constantly against stealth recordings going out on the internet d/l sites, because I feel its detrimental to tapers.

I can understand you are against massive d/l sites, but what do you think about stealth tapers?
Are they evil tapers, too?

Team EVIL is mostly stealth.  Being evil is just more fun...as is the 007 type stuff you do in order to stealth.  My .02 is that a good audience recording sounds better than any soundboard you'll ever hear.  It has a live ambient quality to it that's added by sound play in the room and when you negate that from the recording...well...it's just another soundboard show.  There's definately a more intimate pleasure in listening to a live recording made with mics and I don't really see why anyone into the taping scene would really choose to pass it up.  You'll have alot better time stealthing at crazy shows than you will sitting in your van taping a radio feed.  I imagine that ten minutes into pulling a parkinglot IEM tape you'll be muttering to yourself about how lame it is that you're sitting in your vehicle listening to the radio when there's thousands of people seeing a live show.

[redbook]

I mostly agree with you, but I, like probably all the "IEM supporters" out there, I see IEM recordings as a complement to the audience shows.
An good audience is better than a good IEM, for sure, but why not taking the best of two worlds and get a dual mix?

And of course each thing has its moments. Taping from outside of course is not better than being in the show (taping or not).
But taping a rehearsal or a souncheck could be very interesting and there is no alternative for this (unless you get a sbd patch for the soundcheck, which could be very difficult).

[Evil Taper]

In my eyes, even soundboards are a boring listen.  I don't really have a desire to hear soundboards anymore after getting out there and taping.  Cheesy yes, but there is something much more romantic about an ambient recording.  That's the sound as captured at that single point in time by a single individual.  To me an IEM source is like a broadcast source...it's just not live.  I'm a musician and I really enjoy hearing how instruments react to their environment and the only way to observe this in a recording is hearing how it sounded in the room.  I'm not even sure I enjoy listening to matrix recordings made with full soundboards.  It's just not the same or as personal of an experience.  What I really enjoy about the hobby is that the recordings refliect the individuals who make them, not the sound guy at the venue (of course there are the exceptions where the shows are very poorly mixed in the venue).  This concept is just not something that's very interesting to me unless you were say taping someone like Zakk Wylde whose guitar never seems to be loud enough.  I will say that I preffer Jimi Hendrix soundboards over aud pulls, mainly because of the clarity of the guitar...have yet to hear a really good hendrix aud tape but there might be one out there.  Do what you're gonna do but don't pretend like you made the recording...you dubbed a radio signal.

I do, however, think it's kinda cool that you can record a sound check like this...but then again the sound checks are boring to listen to anyways.  I'll tape them when the bands are doing them before they come on stage but I've never had anyone request them.

[redbook]

Again, I agree with you, but again... why don't get an excellent audience source, and mix it with the IEM source so you can get an even better recording?

And like I said before, some things turn out well and some others not.
Some bands (Stones, U2...) spend two weeks rehearsing in stadiums before they start a big tour.
Capturing those two weeks can be a cool listening experience that can't be done with audience mics.
That's much better than tape a simple soundcheck where the band (or even their technicians) test the instruments.

[Evil Taper]

After you've mixed an IEM recording with a decent stealth aud recording please tell me how great it sounds.  The fact is, you're mixing a poorly mixed recording with an ambient recording with distinct spacial characteristics and balance of sound.  The results are going to be not so hot.  I really don't see how this sort of thing would enhance my listening experience.  From a tapers point of view, I want to hear how other tapers gear perfroms in a given situation.  I guess if you're one of those people who lives for hearing soundboards, go for it.  To me, however, doing this is soiling a pure recording.  BUT....as with any decision you ever make in life.....do it for yourself.  If you really love listening to IEM recording then record them.  It's your life, your money, your time...you don't need someone else to reassure you of it.  If you have moral doubts about it then don't do it.  Get some balls guy

[redbook]

I can understand your point of not supporting iems because they don't feel live, or don't enhance your experience of taper... I can understand and agree with it in some parts, but I can't understand why taping iem is so immoral in non open taping bands.

As you said, if you want, do it yourself, but please respect them as an alternative taping method

[nickgregory]

As you said, if you want, do it yourself, but please respect them as an alternative taping method

actually I disagree with this...it is not an alternate taping method...it is, as staated earlier, dubbing a radio signal....to equate it to taping does the hobby an injustice

[redbook]

actually I disagree with this...it is not an alternate taping method...it is, as staated earlier, dubbing a radio signal....to equate it to taping does the hobby an injustice

It depends on what do you consider on taping.

Technically is obtaining a recording of certain concert. So we can consider this as taping
If you think this as a hobby of capturing live ambience... etc you are right

But that's not the question, I was just trying to say that *sometimes* IEM can bring good results when used with audience sources.

Just that

[bgalizio]

Sound of ALDs is much more "plain" than the IEM ones since they are bringing the frequencies that impaired people can hear, so most of the ALDs lack decent bass.

I hate to shift gears a little again with ALD talk, but any sound tech worth his/her salt will NOT mix an ALD with more high frequencies. Why? Because, as most hearing impaired concert goers will tell you, we use ALD's not to HEAR the music (it's already loud enough for us to hear), but for fine discrimination of the vocals. We can't hear the vocals well if the highs are so shrill. I prefer an ALD to sound just like the sound in the theater would be, but it's busted up right against my ears so I can understand the vocals.

Now, I usually tell the sound tech about my preference prior to attending a concert. Some people still insist on mixing them horribly, but that is usually followed up by a complaint from me about how shrill the sound quality was. I'm considering taping one or two shows (non-taping friendly bands, and I don't have a stealth mic, or any mic, setup yet) from the ALD this summer. We'll see how that turns out. The only thing I'm struggling with is that I use the ALD service anyway, why not run the ALD > JB3 > my ears and record? Well, if they turn out, I'll of course want to spread the show around. That's where things start to get fishy for me - should other people be aware of this? I'd probably just label them as FM sourced, but who knows. I'll wrestle with that when the time comes.

And, most "SBD" shows from U2's Elevation tour were ALD recordings.

[dev0n]

DP, good information, thanks a bunch.  For reference you might be interested in http://www.lithiumnode.com/~devon/fresno_iem.mp3  That was a recording made by another anonymous person with a good receiver and a high-gain antenna, and I don't think any decoding was necessary except maybe MPX.

As for those that contended that IEM is not really being "taping" and being inferior due to the lack of room acoustics and crowd noise, I certainly appreciate the input, but it is safe to say that there are a lot of subjective preferences in there, and we're all different.  I mean, how boring would we be if we were all identical?  :-)  I personally don't see much difference between a microphone picking up ambient sound waves in an enclosed space and a receiver picking up many of the same signals over a radio frequency.  The carrier is the only thing that differs.  I like the energy of the band in a live performance, other aspects are largely secondary to me.

As for the thrill of capturing crowd noise, you all might appreciate this story that explains my position: I apparently recorded a long drawn-out debate by two female attendees at a Tool show (a conversation I did not hear when it took place, but noticed later) as to whether or not they should expose their breasts to Maynard Keenan.  They were arguing that they 1) weren't sure he wasn't gay, and 2) thought their breasts might not be particularly pleasant to look at.  This vacuous nonsense went on for a few minutes and occluded most of Sober, one of my favorite songs.

So that sort of soured me to recording crowd participation :-)