IEM-TAPING

Except for ordinary audience recordings made with external microphones and mostly digital recorders or DAT-recorders these days, there´s also some tapers that also focus on so-called "IEM-Taping". We got the chance to ask some questions from a "IEM-taper" located in USA. Here´s what the taper had to say about IEM-recordings.

How would you describe “In Ear Monitors” (IEM) for those who doesn´t know what it is? 

Most amplified live music has an onstage monitor system for band members to hear themselves. In traditional settings, there were wedge monitor speakers at the lip of the stage, each with a mix specifically designed for an individual player. Guitar players often monitored their guitars by the sound coming from their amplifier. However, this can result in a very loud and chaotic stage volume as each band member struggles to hear himself or herself through the wall of sound. Also, consider band members that walk around the stage; as they leave their little pocket of sound, they cannot properly hear their mix. In Ear Monitors (IEM) is newer approach for musicians to hear themselves onstage. Outfitted with isolation earphones, usually custom molded to their ears, they receive an individualized mix through an FM radio receiver. These IEM systems use a specific FM frequency range, so it is not something you will pick up on your car radio. With the wireless monitor system, a musician can walk a football field length away from the stage and still hear the band without any change. Each mix is tailored to the musicians’ preference. For example, a lead singer may have a mix with high vocals, medium drums, and low guitar/bass. The drummer may have a mix with high drums, metronome, and very little of everything else. The engineer may mix in stereo for added depth; the lead singer may have the guitarist panned to their right side, as to simulate the placement of the guitarist onstage. As nobody in the audience typically hears the wireless monitor mixes, IEM mixes are often used as a tool for stage production. Many bands will often use a metronome to keep time. Some bands play their songs along to a pre-recorded backing track, and rely on spoken word cues for placement markers. Some bands, such as Dave Matthews Band, use IEMs as an onstage intercom system with clipped lapel microphones. The wireless lapel mics are broadcasted to to the monitor mixing board, then rebroadcasted back to the rest of the band onstage, thus allowing for onstage private conversations. As IEM mixes are broadcasted openly, some recording enthusiasts have used receivers to dial into the onstage mixes for recording purposes. Oftentimes an individual mix presents an incomplete sounding recording of the show, recording and mixing multiple musicians’ mixes can result in a very clean and full mix. One clear advantage of recording from IEM mixes is the lack of intrusive crowd noise or poor acoustics. However, you can still easily end up with recordings marred with loud metronomes or imbalanced mixes.

There are mostly IEM-recordings of bigger bands like U2, Bruce Springsteen and the ex-Beatle Paul McCartney available to mention just a few. IEM-feeds tends to be used by the bigger bands. How would you describe the difference in doing IEM-taping in bigger arenas and stadiums vs. smaller concert venues?

There is not a large functional difference between bigger arenas/stadiums and smaller concert venues. Most of the time, monitor engineers may mix the feeds differently depending on the setting. A large stadium may have more ambient crowd noise and reverb in the mix to give the sense of space, whereas a theater show may be more straightforward. One additional challenge is reception. The further away you get from the directional transmitting antenna, the worse your reception will be. It will be more of a challenge to stay closer to the antenna, and within its polar pattern of transmission, for a larger venue.

Of all IEM-recordings you´ve made, which one´s do you value the most and why so?

Most of my favorites are a combination of high level taping and mixing (great music does not hurt either!). I will admit to a certain amount of pride when I, as just a resourceful audience member, can pull off a taping and mixing job that rivals or surpasses official releases.

Heart Vancouver 2013 – Recorded 7 feeds. Lots of click track on bunch of feeds, and balance is wonky on some feeds. However, with some very clever extractions, able to make a nice sounding stereo panned mix of a great unique show (with special guests Shawn Colvin and Sarah McLachlan). I am proud of that one because it was both a combination of high quality taping and then the mixing follow-through.

U2 Sao Paulo 2017 – I went to foreign country, got through aggressive security, ran six IEM feeds for four shows, and then was able to put together some nice sounding mixes. U2 has lots of click track and metronomes, but I have been able to have some good success removing that in post-production. I released the final Sao Paulo show on the torrent sites, which of course was stolen and bootlegged quickly.

Rod Stewart Reno 2018 – Not the huge Rod Stewart fan, but I beat my record on recording. I was able to record 16 stereo IEM feeds, everything they had running onstage. Like the shows mentioned above, I was able to tie it all together into an amazing sounding mix, which rivals official releases.

Radiohead Berkeley 2017 – Pair of highlight shows from Radiohead. Another example of recording the right feeds, and then also having the expertise to mix it together into something that sounds better than any of the webcasts the band put that year.

Killers San Francisco 2008 – Fond memories of this show; excellent IEM feeds mixed with an excellent audience recording of a high-energy show.

Def Leppard Vegas 2013– Def Leppard did an 11-show residency in Vegas back in 2013. Working with two other tapers, we bagged every single show (and three rehearsal days) with multiple IEM feeds and mics. Plus those were highlight shows for Dep Leppard, and I have been underwhelmed by everything they have done since.

Prince Oakland 2016 – Did nice assisted listening device and audience mix of a pair of Prince shows, less than a month before he died. Nice memento, and the only time I saw him.

Adele San Jose 2016 – Great concert, great voice, tricky recording job. First—they haveanintrusive metronome in the mixes, which is a challenge to remove without destroying the vocals. Through some adaptive noise reduction, gating, and phase inversion, I was able to remove most if it seamlessly. Second, they had two PA systems that would switch on/off depending on which stage Adele was using. You do not really notice it during the concert, but it wreaked havoc on the mixing side. The latency between the speakers to a specific seat would change by approximately a half second each time they switched, but the IEM feeds stayed in consistent time. Making sure you adjusted for that latency every time was a real tricky mixing job.

U2 Vancouver 2017 (Rehearsals) – Another big scope taping job. U2 did two weeks of rehearsals at the Vancouver Stadium for their Joshua Tree 30^th Anniversary tour. I recorded all of it, every single note they played on stage. Everything, except the very first set on the first day, is recorded in multiple high quality stereo feeds, often with backup feeds running. Then I spent about 4 months later that year painstakingly removing all the clicks and counts from that entire set, so it is a complete package. Maybe one random day I will drop the full package on the torrents and just blow some minds away.

Which IEM-recording has been the trickiest to record so far?

Probably Bruce Springsteen was one of the trickiest. He had a very large band onstage, yet he or his guitarist did not wear IEMs. Steve Van Zandt had a guitar tech IEM, and Nils Lofgren later had a tech feed, but it was usually a challenge to get that “glue” mix to tie everything together. Even the best Springsteen pull needed 5-8 quality feeds, and then the dedication to mix it all together.

Some people argue that IEM-recordings are morally wrong. In comparison with an ordinary audience pulled tape is there any difference? What´s your take on this?

I would personally disregard the argument against IEM vs. Audience tape if you were engaging in stealth recordings. If it’s a stealth pull, then you have already made the decision to disregard the artists’ personal wishes on recording. That said, there are open taping acts that are against IEM recording. Dave Matthews Band comes to mind. In those cases, I will still record the IEMs (since it results in my favored recording sound), but I will not release them out of respect to artist. At the end of the day, I got into this hobby because I wanted a high quality recording of the show I attended. I am going to lose any sleep if the artist gets fussy about me listening to their show again after the fact, IEM or not.

Is there anything that has changed since you first started out doing IEM-recordings if you compare to these days?

When I started out, I was using very simplistic and cheap radio scanners to record IEMs. I would usually run two mono feeds with the scanners into a single stereo recorder. It worked well for a neophyte taper with very limited equipment budget. As time moved on, I upgraded my equipment to better receivers and recorders. Now I will generally plan on multiple stereo feeds with the goal of a full mix of the recorded feeds. 

Obviously, this next question needs caution. Without going into too many details, what is your advice if someone wants to start doing IEM-recordings?

Be honest with yourself on what your expectations and commitment are. It takes a lot of time to become competent in IEM taping, and you will likely fail more often than with a microphone rig.  I have seen far too many people with lots of enthusiasm, and then they get started and realize how hard it is, and generally scrub out. Alternatively, be honest with yourself, and maybe decide a simple rig is the best for you (which could be a single receiver and recorder). If you think IEM taping is for you, get 1-2 radio scanners and tape everything you can. Learn all the local venues and practice, practice, practice. Go tape random shows that you have no musical interest. Sometimes you will be pleasantly surprised, but you will also gain the experience you need be successful on shows that are musically interesting.

Technically speaking. What is the IEM frequency response and could you explain why some IEM-feeds lack low-end (bass)?

IEM receivers that musicians use onstage have a frequency range of approximately 25 Hz-15,000 Hz, which can result in a good sounding live recording. The IEM systems often have proprietary noise reduction systems, which will compress the sound at the transmission and expand at the receiver level. This helps the system maintain a wild dynamic range while minimizing the noise floor. However, many folks may be using a radio scanner to record IEMs. It is significantly cheaper and generally easier, but radio scanners were not designed for music. As such, they have a frequency curve that usually rolls down the low-end, and emphasizes speech (1k-4k range). Additionally, they are mono, and will not have circuitry to perform the noise reduction expansion. Therefore, they will sound much more compressed and shrill compared to the IEM receivers.

Do you also record ordinary audience recordings or are you solely focusing on IEM-taping?

I also record with microphones, but not always. Sometimes I will collaborate with an audience taper, which frees me up to record with IEM gear. However, sometimes I will run my own microphones during a solo run. However, sometimes the best spot for IEM recording is not ideal for audience taping, and vice versa. Many times the best audience taping spot is center of the general admission floor, which is usually a poor spot for IEM recording due to crowds and antenna orientation. In an ideal situation for recording solo, I will run microphones with clean wireless pull, and mostly using the microphones to mix in for some general ambience.

 Many thanks for answering the questions for us!