In-ear monitors have become wildly popular in recent years, and with good reason — they exhibit a substantial list of positives. But at the same time, floor wedges have not disappeared during the time that IEMs continue to gain popularity. Why is that? They must offer some special something that IEMs just can’t deliver. But IEMs solve so many problems and make everybody so happy. Initially the editorial overlords at FRONT of HOUSE magazine proposed the idea that this month’s column should answer the philosophical question “floor wedges or IEMs?” but it didn’t take much discussion to reach the conclusion that the more appropriate focus should be “why do we continue to use both floor wedges and IEMs.” So that will be our topic of discussion, and it will prove to be informative and riveting.
IEMs — So Darn Popular
First let us examine why IEMs have become so darn popular. It’s likely that the most common reason for choosing IEMs over wedges is the avoidance of feedback. Obviously, any time you have microphones in proximity to loudspeakers, there’s always a danger of feedback. By eliminating all the monitor speakers from the platform, you limit the potential for feedback to the FOH speakers. And unless you’re doing something very, very wrong, your P.A. speakers are located in such a way that they are much less susceptible to feedback than monitor speakers — which by comparison, are traditionally located very close to the stage microphones. Reduction or complete elimination of feedback is a high-priority, and choosing IEMs over wedge monitors contributes strongly to that goal.
Another reason IEMs enjoyed such success? They drastically reduce stage volume. Over the past couple of decades, there seems to be a move toward the completely “silent stage,” meaning if the P.A. was suddenly muted, the only sound emanating from the stage would be vocals and the sound produced by acoustical instruments. This is advantageous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is handing complete control of the auditory experience over to the professional who is best equipped to make it sound great, the FOH mixer. We accomplish this by either acoustically isolating instrument amps in boxes backstage somewhere, or by leveraging increasingly powerful (and convincing) amp modeling hardware and/or software. We also deploy electronic drum kits or acoustically isolate a traditional kit, resulting in the elimination or at least the reduction of drums reaching the congregation by any other path than front of house. Very obviously, using IEMs for everyone can eliminate the use of stage monitors, which is high on the list of ways of approaching the goal of a completely silent stage.
The Not-So-Silent Stage
Worship music has been improved by the use of accompaniment tracks and a click, not to mention the convenience of enabling a music director to talk to musicians and vocalists in live, real time. This could be accomplished through wedge monitors in very large sanctuaries, but smaller churches are too intimate, with the result of the congregation hearing not only the click track, but also the MD barking at the drummer “NO, idiot! Don’t start the build yet!” To facilitate tracks, clicks and barking MDs, we pretty much need to insist on IEMs.
The cacophony of stage monitors doesn’t just affect the experience for the congregation — it also has a negative impact on the musicians and vocalists. If each person has their own personal mix in their own personal floor wedge(s), the overall acoustical blend on the platform may not be optimal. The bassist might want to hear a whole lot of the kick drum, but the vocalist standing next to her may not. These same speakers also put unwanted SPL into microphones. When I bring up the fader on the lead vocalist, I want to hear just the lead vocalist, not a blend of vocalist, guitar amps, drums, cymbals and all the rest. Stage monitors contribute to this soup, and in somewhat unpredictable ways. The deployment of IEMs strongly contributes to a reduction of this, and gives our performers a much clearer (and personalized) monitor mix.
It’s great for musicians and vocalists to have control of their own monitor mixes, but let’s face it – this might not go well if they’re in control of a mix that appears from a potentially very loud speaker. My nightmares feature young vocalists with a cowbell pouring from their floor wedge and feeding back at every turn. So “more me” monitor mixing is almost certainly best left to the domain of IEMs.
So it’s clear that IEMs are perfect, flawless, and should completely replace stage monitors, right? Not so fast, there, pal. In-ear monitors come with their own set of issues and challenges. Invariably, the IEM signal is delivered via RF, and RF can be finicky and sporadic. Loudspeakers are hardwired, and hence more reliable to consistently deliver the signal. And IEMs require racks full of transmitters and buckets of bodypacks and batteries, along with the management and administration of all this hardware. Speakers just work.
Performers all want their own personalized IEMs, complete with personalized ear-molds, so we have a disaster on our hands when they arrive at church having left those personalized IEMs on the kitchen counter at home, and services start in 12 minutes. This is not an issue if we’re using speakers. In-ear monitors require us to go out of our way to blend some room ambience into the monitor mix so the performers don’t feel weird and isolated — there’s no such issue with floor wedges.
Peanut Butter and Chocolate
Okay… so it’s clear that both options offer some considerable advantages. Couldn’t we use both IEMs and floor wedges simultaneously? The answer is yes — we can. In fact, by leveraging both, we may be able to create a better arrangement than if we were to use one or the other exclusively. I would respectfully submit that this is the principal reason why monitor speakers have not gone the way of the dinosaurs. They are still useful and even preferable for certain applications now in the age of IEMs. In particular, it might make some sense to put a speaker or two in proximity to the drummer, who is already creating a lot of SPL, and who may be acoustically isolated from the congregation by a little room with Plexiglas walls. In fact, if we’re using an electronic kit, we absolutely must provide our drummer with the actual sounds they’re creating, and it makes sense to accomplish this with a speaker or two.
If no tracks or click or barking MD are featured in our scenario, it’s actually plausible to go full-on traditional, with no IEMs at all, and an array of wedge speakers around the platform. I am a great fan of system redundancies, and as we’ve said, IEM systems tend to be more complex than speaker systems, and complex systems are more prone to problems. What if we had both? In the event of an IEM failure, it would be very nice to smoothly shift right over to floor wedges, with nary a hiccup.
Each monitoring topology has its pros and cons, and both are valid in modern worship. A bit of planning and examination will provide direction as to how to deploy one, the other, or both for maximum functionality and versatility.
John McJunkin is the chief engineer and staff producer in the studio at Grand Canyon University.
