When The Beatles played their final formal concert at San Francisco’s Candlestick Park in 1966, their musical performance was less than optimal because their adoring fans were screaming so loudly as to overwhelm the sound they were creating and they simply couldn’t hear each other. Any monitoring they had was insufficient and could not outstrip the near-continuous screaming of the fans. This may have even been fortunate for the band — if the performance was audible, it probably wasn’t particularly tight, since the lads could not hear each other. The Beatles concert was early proof that it’s essential that musicians be able to hear each other clearly while performing.
Problem Solved
The first solution to this challenge was to point some speakers toward the musicians. To avoid speakers blocking the fans’ view of the band, they were squat and placed on the floor, aiming up at the players. Another approach was hiding speakers in the sides of the stage or up in the trusses where they wouldn’t block the view. This has worked well, but just like always, better technology came along. The paradigm shift in this domain was the introduction of in-ear monitors (IEMs). In the late-1980s, Stevie Wonder experimented with prototype IEMs, establishing proof of concept.
By the early- to mid-90s, everybody wanted their own IEMs, and now they’ve matured into a fully developed product with substantial competition in the market, ranging from high-quality professional gear down to inexpensive starter kits for high school bands playing their first gigs outside the garage. We’ll look at the two monitoring solutions here — there are some attributes common to both, and there are attributes that are substantially different. For simplicity’s sake in our examination, we will presume that in most churches, IEMs are mixed mainly by the performers themselves and monitor speakers are usually mixed by either an FOH or monitor engineer. I would respectfully submit that this is indeed usually the case, with only a few exceptions.
Things That Make IEMs Great
In-ear monitors present a solid list of advantages that have helped them to become a standard. They reduce stage volume immensely. They virtually eliminate the possibility of feedback. They deliver vastly better audio quality to musicians and vocalists, typically in stereo, and at SPLs that are much better for ear health. They block high stage SPLs, also contributing to better hearing health. IEMs deliver sound without the wash of acoustical crosstalk that happens on the platform. They can deliver click tracks, the voice of the music director, and other niceties that we don’t want the congregation to hear. They allow musicians and vocalists to handle their own mix, and they facilitate performer mobility on the platform — the sound delivered by IEMs doesn’t vary contingent on one’s physical location. And last, IEMs eliminate the weight, bulk and unsightliness of monitor speakers.
But Wait — IEMs Are Not Without Flaws
The list of advantages presented by IEMs is impressive, but they’re not perfect, and we need to examine their shortcomings as well. The user experience associated with IEMs seems to be the main grievance, particularly for musicians and vocalists who have used monitor speakers for a substantial period of time. And even for those who have not, the use of IEMs tends to be an otherworldly experience, blocking our regular acoustical hearing and replacing it with an artificial blend of signals. In the early days of IEMs, users complained of a feeling of isolation from the audience. The problem was largely resolved by blending in a room ambience mic (or two for stereo), but even that technique can have its own drawbacks — I recently heard a story of a nice lady bringing a tambourine to church and playing it loudly in close proximity to one of the ambience mics, virtually burying the click track in the IEMs — a very serious problem indeed!
One bad experience with IEMs can sour a performer to their use, and they may never overcome their resistance to another try. And providing a good IEM experience can be a spendy prospect compared with speakers. Cheap speakers are more likely to be forgiven than cheap IEMs, which can spawn a multitude of problems not even related to audio quality. I believe that “decent” speakers would be preferred over bad IEMs by most performers. A related issue is the resilience of hardware. Speakers are generally more resistant to rough handling by volunteers than IEMs. Another issue is the “more me” mix. We tech types tend to presume that musicians and vocalists will all be thrilled to have control of their own mix, but the reality is that some prefer to focus on performance and not mixing. And let’s not forget that wireless IEMs can be susceptible to RF dropouts on occasion, a problem that simply does not afflict monitor speakers. And wedges don’t eat batteries like wireless IEMs, either.
The Reasons Why Speakers Live On
We’ve established that IEMs done badly can be disastrous, and the relatively lower price of decent speakers over high-end IEMs is attractive. Speakers do not require the setup, care, and feeding of room ambience mics (hence also avoiding the problems that such mics can create). IEMs, which are handled extensively by their users, are much more prone to accidental damage than big, tough monitor wedges, which are purpose-designed to survive being down on the floor, kicked from time to time by zealous performers. And with speakers, we can breathe a little easier, knowing that those monitor blends are being mixed by people who are ostensibly better qualified to do so — and the performers can do what they do best — perform.
Speakers Pose Challenges, Too
Feedback is the negative attribute most frequently noted in relation to speakers, and unfortunately, feedback is more likely with untrained volunteer engineers, which is a common reality for churches. Similarly, I’m much less likely to turn performers loose with control over their own mix with speakers in play — in my mind it’s a recipe for feedback disaster. Another issue: we cannot feed click tracks or the voice of the music director through speakers. Speakers are big, heavy, and they take up space on the platform. They can be ugly and intrusive to the visual aesthetic, too. They add to the soup of unwanted wash emanating from the platform, even if we point them away from the congregation. That wash reduces the clarity of the sound reaching the ears of our congregation and performers alike. And while stereo monitor mixes are possible, they’re more challenging with speakers. A related issue is that performers must be in proximity to speakers to hear them clearly, and this limits their on-platform mobility.
What Are We To Do?
If a church has pro audio engineers handling sound, speakers can be an attractive option for numerous reasons, but if that is not the case (and indeed it’s not with most churches), IEMs are the more attractive option. But there is a caveat: I recommend (as I almost always do) to bring a seasoned professional in for the initial setup, so as to optimize the experience for the performers. If they have a bad experience, IEMs can become a very hard sell in the future. We have focused on the differences between speakers and IEMs and treated them as if ne’er the twain shall meet. But there are plenty of churches that have brought IEMs and speakers together to work in perfect harmony. As always, budget, staff, and human resource considerations will play a key role in determining which way to go.
John McJunkin is the chief engineer and staff producer in the studio at Grand Canyon University.
