Re: Canford Headphone Limiter (In Ear Monitoring revisited)

[van Sinn <vansinn@post.cybercity.dk>]

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