Kind words, dj nellie. Thanks.
Quote:
I just want to say that was a very insightful post, thanks Jack. It's always interesting to hear about the history and current state of headphones, especially from an industry insider.
I find your view that ambient vents are a bad idea somewhat surprising, since I've read about many artists who want to have them. I even saw a Kanye West performance where he was only wearing 1 side of his customs--I guess that's enough for him to hear the mix and be able to hear how it sounds to the audience.
Just curious, do you think that some degree of a bass boost is necessary or desirable in a custom IEM meant for stage performance? From what I've heard, it seems that the most popular customs from JHA, Westone, and UE (except maybe the UERM) have varying degrees of bass impact and warmth that might be considered above what would be purely neutral.
And now, a small rant about ambience and IEMs on stage...
It's important to realize that, from the stage, Kanye cannot hear what the FOH sound system sounds like -- not even close. Lots of artists, on occasion, wear only one IEM, and some do it habitually. In terms of hearing health, this is a downright dangerous practice, as it exposes the open ear to uncontrolled ambient levels (which reach upwards of 110 dB on a lot of stages) while at the same time requiring the "in" earpiece to be turned up 6 dB to compensate for the lost synergy of having the two earpieces working together as a system. Some artists pop one earpiece out in order to hear the audience, or to hear their amp acoustically, or to have a conversation between songs, but most often the core problem is bad wireless performance (or the fear of it). And eventually, it becomes a habit - because the artist is concentrating on the performance, not the equipment.
The bottom line is that most performers want *some* ambience in their mix, but the technical hurdles to doing that while maintaining the integrity of the sealed system are considerable. Punching a hole in a sealed BA system is epic fail (again, IMH-but-somewhat-qualified-O), as it offers no control over the admitted ambience while simultaneously destroying the seal that the unmodified earphone design attains.
Over the years, monitor engineers have gotten pretty adept at injecting audience mics into the mix, which is easily the next-best approach. The problem is directionality of the ambient sound is fixed (so everything is directionally backwards when the performer turns around), and the fact that a few mics can't adequately capture a full venue. Still, most performers find it the least intrusive compromise.
The Sensaphonics 3D Active Ambient is the only system to have cleared the technical barriers to controlled, natural ambience without compromise. The 3D embeds microphones in the earpieces, creating a binaural system that provides both the same audio the open ears would hear, but also provides full directional cues. The biggest technical triumph of the 3D system is getting those tiny mics to sound natural, and not to overload/distort when exposed to acoustic sources that can reach 140 dB in close proximity (think snare drum). That's the patent-pending part of the design -- and the reason no one else has come up with anything competitive with it.
Regarding your other question -- that's really a matter of artist preference. A neutral, reference-style IEM (like the Sensaphonics 2MAX) is IMHO the best starting point in a stage scenario. But some people love the bass, and that can be attained either via a bass-heavy IEM or by EQing from a neutral starting point.
In a professional touring scenario, the sound engineer is dialing in whatever the artist wants to hear in the monitors - both the mix and the EQ - so the choice of IEM sound signature isn't really as critical in live sound as it is in the audiophile market, where the music is already mixed and the tools for tailoring the sound are much more limited.
