In-ear monitoring has become so common and pervasive that it’s become hard to remember the days of yore when floor monitor speakers were the only option and IEMs hadn’t yet emerged. When they did first appear, they were expensive and complex to integrate, and only large churches with large budgets adopted them. Advances in technology and lower prices due to economies of scale have made IEMs so inexpensive that even very small churches have deployed them. Many (including myself) predicted the demise of the venerable stage wedge. After all, they present numerous drawbacks, including adding substantial unwanted stage volume, increased potential for feedback and the (preferred) necessity for a dedicated monitor mixer — device and personnel. And IEMs bring with them quite a few benefits — reduced stage volume, less potential for feedback and the possibility of musicians taking control of their own individual mixes.
Options Aplenty
Note that I stated that this is only one possibility. While musician-controlled individual monitor mixes have caught on and become as popular as IEMs themselves, they are not a foregone conclusion. Larger churches with larger budgets (and larger volunteer pools) are keeping the notion of a dedicated monitor mixer alive. Smaller churches with smaller budgets are definitely less likely to do so, but even that’s not completely out of the realm of possibilities. Let’s take a look at the considerations, challenges, and benefits of the various ways of providing monitoring to our musicians and vocalists.
Most churches that have been around for a while and, with sufficient need to do so, have implemented some kind of monitoring system. In the old days, it usually started with one or two floor wedges. If it were two speakers, they frequently shared a single mix at first, perhaps graduating up to more sophistication later — two discrete mixes. Once the church started down the floor wedge path, it was just a matter of scaling up — one speaker becomes two, two speakers become four, and so on. In this case, the budget was probably not the most challenging consideration. After all, it doesn’t cost that much to acquire a couple of additional floor wedges and a two-channel amp.
The Staffing Issue
The greater challenge in the case of smaller churches is getting a human body in front of the monitor mixer to put together mixes that help the musicians improve their timing and pitch. While mixing front of house is a task that requires some skill, it’s arguable that mixing monitors requires every bit as much — if not more. And compared with front of house, monitor mixing usually requires greater skills related to empathy and human interaction. And it’s not just a matter of understanding what one person wants to hear and dialing it up… in some cases, the number of discrete mixes can climb well into the double digits. There may or may not be volunteers cut out or prepared for this kind of duty. And we speak of them in the plural because it simply won’t do to schedule the same poor soul to mix monitors for every service every week. That duty must be delegated to at least a couple of someones, if not more, to avoid burnout.
Let’s take a moment to address an issue that almost certainly eliminates one of the potential options available to us. We can have IEMs mixed by a professional monitor mixer or we can have IEMs mixed by the musicians and vocalists themselves. We can have floor wedges mixed by a professional monitor mixer, but the idea of turning untrained musicians loose with the capacity to boost floor wedge SPLs to feedback-inducing levels can lead to problematic scenarios. Certainly, measures can be taken to limit the SPL from our floor wedges, but that diminishes the amount of control given to musicians and vocalists by way of creating their own mixes and setting levels that work for them. And there’s always going to be that handful of rogue frequencies that defy feedback elimination, and granting performers the capacity to crank up the monitors just doesn’t sit well with me. We’re probably best off to avoid that. Be very careful if you choose to pursue this path.
So let’s say we choose to go with IEMs, and we decide to absolve the performers of the responsibility of handling their own mixes. We will indeed need a human being to handle those monitor mixes, and they will almost certainly need to have at least a little experience. Do we delegate this task to our front of house mixer, or do we designate a separate mixer and put a human in front of it? The key considerations here lean toward budget. An additional mixer and the capacity to split the signals between it and front of house don’t come for free. Human resources are the other big consideration. Indeed, larger churches have larger pools of prospective volunteers, or the capacity to earmark the money necessary to hire in a pro. For this reason, seeing a discrete monitor mixer is more likely in a large church than a small one.
The Self-Monitor Mix
What if we decide to let our performers handle their own IEM mix? It’s worth noting that they may or may not have the capacity to execute their creative performance duties and engage in the more technical task of creating a useful personalized monitor mix for themselves. This can be tricky, particularly if the music is challenging and requires a lot of focus. I’ve volunteered to play bass on an upcoming retreat weekend, and I was also asked to mix front of house with an iPad, whilst playing bass. I initially agreed, but as time goes by, I’m increasingly dubious about my ability to keep both of those plates spinning simultaneously. Asking musicians to mix in real time could potentially be a tall order. Also, we may have seasoned musicians who are not particularly tech-savvy, and understanding this new digital technology could be a real challenge for them. A compromise to help resolve this is to simply resign ourselves to establishing a good baseline mix, and only make tweaks during the service if absolutely necessary. The performers at my home church are generally very happy with a static mix for the entire service if they get it right from the start.
Solutions
On that note, the notion of audio professionals providing some guidance to the performers is very smart, in my opinion. I remember years ago explaining to vocalists that it was counterproductive for them to continue turning up various elements of their IEM mix, because at some point, the beltpack through which they’re receiving that mix begins to apply a brickwall limiter to keep their ears safe, and jamming more level into it is not going to improve the separation and/or clarity of what they’re hearing. After turning down individual elements and turning the master up, they found their mix was better and clearer — and seemed louder too. Score one for the tech folks helping improve the lives of the creatives.
One other possibility to consider is a hybrid setup. Maybe it makes sense for the drummer to have a floor wedge, while the front line are all equipped with IEMs. But indeed, for aforementioned reasons, it’s probably a good idea to keep any and all loudspeakers under the watchful eye (ear) of pros who can deal with emergent challenges effectively. But by all means — allow the musicians to mix their own IEMs if they care to do so.
As always, planning and careful consideration of all the possibilities are the keys to success. I recommend talking to the creative folks to get their input and find out how they’d like to proceed. If possible, let them experiment with playing and mixing simultaneously to determine whether it’s plausible for them to do so during services. They may conclude they’d like to have someone else handle the mix. Whether you’re already engaged in sophisticated monitoring or just starting out, careful thought and consideration are important to determine how to proceed.
John McJunkin is the chief engineer and staff producer in the studio at Grand Canyon University.
