When and why IEM became a thing for music listening?

[Killcomic]

Each strand of hair has 16 cores!

 

[Blackwoof]

Who said that? How IEMs outperform EVERY dynamic headphones? And in which field they outperform that?

Because BA & Planar digaphrams can handle much higher excursion force without micro deforming, Bass THD for the ER4XR & Sundara are <0.2% at 104db. They can cope with stop/start or droning bass because they don't rumble when not needed. Meaning they can actually hit much harder even acting as micro subwoofers because they can reproduce 15db under 100Hz.

 

[Blackwoof]

I don’t have IEMs… I have AirPods. So I have a couple of dumb questions… Do IEMs have noise cancelling like buds? Do they have pass through on the noise cancelling so you can talk to someone while wearing them? Are they as easy to pop in and out as buds? Are they wireless? Can you adjust the volume and change noise cancelling modes on the IEM itself so you don’t have to pull out your phone? These are all features that are important to me.

They act like ear plugs that pump out music, ER4XR can do 40db noise reduction making almost deaf to everything.

 

[MudEnjoyer]

The real question is when people will finally give up with outdated tech such as headphones.

 

[2leftears]

The real question is when people will finally give up with outdated tech such as headphones.

Speak for yourself. I have a good use-case for headphones and can't use IEMs, so for me headphones are not outdated technology at all.

 

[MudEnjoyer]

Speak for yourself. I have a good use-case for headphones and can't use IEMs, so for me headphones are not outdated technology at all.

The headphone market is so stale that if they released a Yamaha HP-1 from 48 years ago today people would go nuts about it.

 

[castleofargh]

Because BA & Planar digaphrams can handle much higher excursion force without micro deforming

What is this? Excursion for ants?
It's only because we have a seal between the driver and the eardrum, involving a small volume of air, that a BA can achieve high SPL while not moving much.

Bass THD for the ER4XR & Sundara are <0.2% at 104db

Did you mean 2%? IDK for the Sundara, but if there is an ER4XR that remains below 0.2% at 104dB, that's nearly a miracle, and it probably would sell for quite a lot. My ER4SR goes well above 0.2% even at 90dB@1kHz, and the XR was usually measured to have more distos than the SR.

They can cope with stop/start or droning bass because they don't rumble when not needed. Meaning they can actually hit much harder

It doesn't work like that, whatever "hits" is content at higher frequencies, meaning usually those feelings are about the overall FR instead of some damping level in the low freqs.

even acting as micro subwoofers because they can reproduce 15db under 100Hz.

No clue if you're now roasting the IEM or having typos in every other number.

It's been a few years, and you still haven't given up on any of the false statements you love to make about THD, driver speed, and planar and BA comparison for all the wrong reasons, even though many people have told you otherwise, me included. I remember having posted 2 etymotic impulse responses from my own pairs, one with a micro dynamic driver one with a BA to show that at similar scale there was no evidence of the BA being faster(I think it was the opposite in my anecdote).
Obviously, when you scale up, the bigger drivers will have a harder time moving all the extra air and that's a new design challenge.

 

[Shawnb]

The real question is when people will finally give up with outdated tech such as headphones.

In what way are they outdated?

 

[ChrizzSouma]

Portability, driveability, convenience, and typically cost. In the budget range, an iem will often outperform a similarly priced headphone at detail retrieval. Some also find iems more comfortable but it's completely subjective.

Exactly! When it comes to portability, driveability, convenience, and often cost, IEMs tend to be a better option, especially in the budget range. They often outperform similarly priced headphones in terms of detail retrieval, which is a huge plus for people looking for clarity and precision in their audio. Plus, IEMs are generally more comfortable for many, though of course, comfort is subjective and depends on personal preference. It’s all about finding what works best for you, but IEMs definitely have some distinct advantages in certain areas.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I have read this entire thread and many great points have been made. The question is in the title of the thread which “When and why did IEMs become a thing for music listening?”.

To best understand the current phenomenon of IEM popularity you have to look at the slow progression to today in 2025. At first IEMs were custom made for musicians on stage. They, the builders used hearing-aid technology. It makes sense that famous musicians would want small in-ears in contrast to full size headphones. Around 2007 there was the beginning of IEM popularity among Head-Fi listeners. So in many ways the IEM field is much younger for music listening than full-size.

My personal history is really starting to compare full-size back to back in 1975, but I really didn’t start buying IEMs until 2008. There can be a slow progression into using IEMs for music. Meaning around 2016-2019 I spent considerable amounts of money on a full-size set-up.......though in hindsight my love was migrating over to IEMs for personal audio enjoyment.

So to try and understand what has happened in the market place since about 2013 is IEM technology has gained popularity. This is both due to the ability for low cost IEMs to provide great tone and technicalities, but also for expensive IEMs to gain in those same areas. In 2025 we now have $10,000 IEMs. But to be more realistic there has been a huge series of growth in the popularity due to cellphones. Oh, wait remember the pivotal year of 2007? Are you starting to understand the coincidence of cellphone use bringing portable audio to the masses? The iPhone came out in 2007!

So it has been a slow and steady increase in sound quality being able to be brought forth from primarily China makers to slowly improve the drivers and applications of those drivers. Also new and wild ideas of Planar drives, PZT drives and dual Dynamics have made the sonic reality a thing on many different price levels.

For myself I slowly gained mental understanding of the inside your head ability for IEMs to project the sound, where full-size goes and creates a stage more to the outside of your head in perception. So now you understand it is the projected stage that is the difference here.

As far as value that is totally subjective, to where probably the $1800.00 full-size are equal to $1800.00 IEMs I use, but the mental agenda of understanding music is still subjective. IMO Subsequently I find IEMs to become more intense like whiskey in comparison to beer?

 

[gregorio]

At first IEMs were custom made for musicians on stage. They, the builders used hearing-aid technology. It makes sense that famous musicians would want small in-ears in contrast to full size headphones.

The choice for musicians on stage was never between IEMs and full size headphones. The choice was between on stage monitors (wedges) and In Ear Monitors and at big gigs with huge PA systems the stage monitors commonly had to be at hearing damage levels for musicians to hear them clearly enough. The solution was custom In Ear Monitors, moulded to perfectly fit in the musicians’ ears, thereby blocking out a significant amount of the noise on stage and allowing far more reasonable monitoring levels while not affecting the musicians’ ability to move around (as the IEMs were powered by wireless receivers similar to lav packs). This was only the case on stage though, when recording in studios with far more controlled acoustics, no PA to compete with and no need to move around to entertain an audience, musicians use full sized headphones.

For myself I slowly gained mental understanding of the inside your head ability for IEMs to project the sound, where full-size goes and creates a stage more to the outside of your head in perception. So now you understand it is the projected stage that is the difference here.

The difference when they were first invented and still today (apart from the isolation) is IEMs portability and low power consumption. I and many others find full size headphones to also give the “inside your head” perception of soundstage. So for some/many, your “difference here” is not even a significant difference, let alone the main difference.

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

The choice for musicians on stage was never between IEMs and full size headphones. The choice was between on stage monitors (wedges) and In Ear Monitors and at big gigs with huge PA systems the stage monitors commonly had to be at hearing damage levels for musicians to hear them clearly enough. The solution was custom In Ear Monitors, moulded to perfectly fit in the musicians’ ears, thereby blocking out a significant amount of the noise on stage and allowing far more reasonable monitoring levels while not affecting the musicians’ ability to move around (as the IEMs were powered by wireless receivers similar to lav packs). This was only the case on stage though, when recording in studios with far more controlled acoustics, no PA to compete with and no need to move around to entertain an audience, musicians use full sized headphones.

The difference when they were first invented and still today (apart from the isolation) is IEMs portability and low power consumption. I and many others find full size headphones to also give the “inside your head” perception of soundstage. So for some/many, your “difference here” is not even a significant difference, let alone the main difference.

G

You are right.......I'm wrong.
IEMs only as oppose to wedges. And the wedges are slowly being more taken away now due to musicians wearing IEMs even more now, they even mix the audience sound with two additional microphones to give the musician a more IEM live feeling. This is being done by the board mixer taking the signal and wirelessly putting it into the IEM monitor feed...........also helping eliminate feedback from a microphone (dropped in the wrong place) from wedges. And acoustic/electric guitar feedback!

And of course getting the musician on stage a clearer IEM signal, than wedges.

I was just guessing that in the very old days they used full size headphones on stage, but your probably right, they almost never did (due to being hot) and only in the recording studio, like they still do.


But on point two, I have analyzed this phenomenon for the last few years, and due to the equipment I have, IEMs put it into a different stage than full-size. But this is only my opinion, and trying to understand why I made the move over to IEMs from full-size?

 

[gregorio]

And the wedges are slowly being more taken away now due to musicians wearing IEMs even more now, they even mix the audience sound with two additional microphones to give the musician a more IEM live feeling.

I’ve not heard of that being done, that obviously wouldn’t help the clarity of the monitor mix. I can’t say for sure it’s never been done though.

This is being done by the board mixer taking the signal and wirelessly putting it into the IEM monitor feed...........also helping eliminate feedback from a microphone (dropped in the wrong place) from wedges. And acoustic/electric guitar feedback!

It depends on the size of the gig, typically with big gigs there will be an entirely separate mixing desk and mix engineer dealing with the monitor mixes, because each musician will have their own specified monitor mix. It would typically not affect guitar feedback though, which is virtually always feedback between their guitar and cab or the cab mics and the PA system, rather than with the wedges. There typically wouldn’t be much of their own guitar in their own wedge to cause feedback, unless for some reason they’re a long way away from their cabs.

But on point two, I have analyzed this phenomenon for the last few years, and due to the equipment I have, IEMs put it into a different stage than full-size. But this is only my opinion, and trying to understand why I made the move over to IEMs from full-size?

I find different full-size HPs create the illusion of a different soundstage and IEMs do too, so for me that’s obviously not the main difference with IEMs. I don’t dispute that it maybe for you but I don’t know if that’s also the case for the vast majority of others and therefore if your bolded assertion was largely true or largely false but it certainly doesn’t appear to be completely true, unless I’m a real outlier.

G

 

[Livetaswim06]

My first big purchase was the shure se530 or 535. This was near 20 years ago and I had saved up for a long time to get them on min wage. I loved the sound they made! Eventually I just couldn't deal with ear wax and sold them. If you have waxier ears or are particularly lazy about cleaning the ear tips then maybe full size is for you.

If I could get over that I would probably get an iem too. For now I'll just rock the Dali when traveling and at home. Bigger purchase maybe later this year. That being said I plan to check out the more popular iems at canjam.

 

[2leftears]

My first big purchase was the shure se530 or 535. This was near 20 years ago and I had saved up for a long time to get them on min wage. I loved the sound they made! Eventually I just couldn't deal with ear wax and sold them. If you have waxier ears or are particularly lazy about cleaning the ear tips then maybe full size is for you.

If I could get over that I would probably get an iem too. For now I'll just rock the Dali when traveling and at home. Bigger purchase maybe later this year. That being said I plan to check out the more popular iems at canjam.

IEMs are also ill-advised for people with eczema in their ear canals (uncommon, but yes, you can get those autoimmune conditions in your ear canals). That's why I can't use them myself.