From: Dave Jensen <djensen@claven.idbsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Console Question
Organization: Morrison Center for the Performing Arts
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:09:07 GMT

>>>(Dave Jensen writes):
>>>1) Do you perceive a need for stereo on-stage monitoring (In-The-Ear
personal
>>>monitoring being a prime example)?

>>(Galen Watts writes):
>>Given a choice, anyone would want stereo monitors.

>(Frank Filipanits writes):
>I would like to take exception here;  there is a reason most headphone
>boxes are wired for MONO.  It is much easier to cue off a mono signal than
>a stereo one.  Particularly with neato swooshing choruses, etc.

Is this your opinion, or can you support this statement with either a
manufacturers specification or text from a recognized instructional manual? It
is my opinion that headphone boxes are wired mono because aux sends have
traditionally been mono outputs. Wiring the box mono is the easiest fix. Are we
using mono because it is better... or because there have been no alternatives
for multiple mixes?

>Stereo monitoring introduces alot of unusual properties such as position-
>dependant phase shifts that are distracting for a musician.  The only person
>who should be concerned about stereo imaging is the engineer sitting in a
>controlled environment with fixed listening position (control room) or
>wearing a pair of headphones.
>
>I'm not clear on what your intended use would be, so let me address a few
>scenarios:
>
>If you are dealing with a rock/pop live sound reinforcement application,
>stereo is a moot point.  At stage volume levels, stereo imaging is 
>non-existant.  And if the performers are standing still enough to
>appreciate stereo imaging, they need to work on stage presence.
>
>If you are miking an ensemble, what need is there for a stereo monitor for
>the musicians?  I understand the utility of having a send for a stage hand
>adjusting mic placement, etc. but I fail to see why a musician would benefit
>from a stereo monitor.
>
>I guess in ANY situation, what is the utility of having a stereo monitor
>for the musicians?  and what stereo image do you present?  How does this image
>correspond to the image s/he is already receiving without monitors?
>
>Maybe I'm missing something here... please share your views on this.
>
>I can say one thing with absolute certainty;  I prefer mono when I am 
>recording (as a musician... of course I use stereo when I'm the engineer :)
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Frank Filipanits Jr.    B.S. EE/Music, California Institute of Technology '92
>>><< Go 'canes! >><<       M.S. Music Engineering, University of Miami    '94 

>franko@alumni.caltech.edu   "I ain't evil - I'm just good lookin'..." A.Cooper
>

In the above scenario, Frank brings up some valid points concerning the
impracticality of live stereo monitoring from a traditional perspective.
However, the trend toward In-The-Ear monitoring on stage demonstrates that good
stereo imaging (due to the inherent exclusion of ambient sound) is not only
practical but desirable. There are two types of commercially available ITE
systems. One is a simple stereo FM transmission or hardwired system, the other
is a hybrid that takes a generic mono band mix, synthesizes it into stereo for
background, and blends in on top of that a separate mono channel. Either way it
appears that stereo is not only acceptable, but is the norm. Steve Miller uses
the former system in concert and his mix sounds exactly like a commercial
recording, complete with all effects and placements. All in all, it appears
that the ability to have individual stereo is closer to perfection than the
traditional methods of monitoring. Others now using ITE monitoring include
Grateful Dead and Def Leppard.