[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Canford Headphone Limiter (In Ear Monitoring revisited)
Dan Ash wrote:
>
> I'm another skeptic of in-ear monitors - so I don't speak from
> experience here... I would point out that compressors in general, if
> improperly used, are prime feedback offenders.
Ehm.. I fail to see how you'd have feedback problems with a sealed IEM?
Of cause, you may be talking about feedback generated elsewhere, being
fed to your IEM..
> I don't care for headphones much either, but they've got to be much more
> easily removed in the event of feedback.
>
> Maybe a 2-stage expander->limiter would provide a predictable level in
> an in-ear system.
Please explain the use of an expander here? I's have no problems with a
2-stage system comprised of a low-ratio soft-knee limiter plus a hard
limiter to cut the really damaging tops really fast.
And I can understand Buzap's worries for picked-up interfEARenses *post*
a limiter. Makes sense to me, hense, I too would want it as part of my
reciever package - *after* the actual reciever.
> Dan Ash
> White Plains, NY
>
> Subject:
> Re: Canford Headphone Limiter (In Ear Monitoring revisited)
> From:
> Sam Nilsson <sam@servingpeace.com>
> Date:
> Sun, 04 May 2008 12:43:54 -0700
>
> To:
> Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
>
>
> Buzap Buzap wrote:
>
>> I was taking a look at in ear monitoring systems.
>> One thing that disturbed me:
>> Even though most wireless IEM systems have a limiter, most only have
>> limiter on the _sender_ but not on the receiver.
>
>
> Hi Buzap,
>
> I think that the most sensible solution is to have a built-in limiter on
> the bodypack. I think that a lot of them actually do have that feature.
>
> For instance even the most basic Shure wireless bodypack model has a
> limiter:
>
>
>http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_P2R_content
>
>
>
> - Sam
>
>
> .
>
--
rgds,
van Sinn