TEST: INEAR SD-2 / SD-3

- Rarely does a manufacturer succeed in placing the field of action of its product range so clearly in the company name as the company Inear. What might the company, which is located in the village of Roßdorf near Darmstadt, produce? Joking aside, even without the striking company name, the manufacturer of Inear monitor systems has made a name for itself far beyond the borders of the music business. Among other things, the guys also equip the German Formula 1 drivers around Sebastian Vettel with monitor systems to provide them with the necessary instructions for the next pit stop.

Normally, Inear manufactures its systems as custom-made products, i.e. the customer has an impression of his inner ear cast by the guys directly or by a hearing aid acoustician of his choice and receives a custom-fit design. As a supplement to this, Inear has now brought the Stagediver series onto the market, which have determined an average from over 500 custom-made models and shine in 99% of all cases with a very high fitting accuracy. In the offer are the Stagediver SD2, respectively SD3, which go with a 2-way, respectively 3-way system to the start.


Construction

Even before I hold the actual product in my hands, my eyes shine after unpacking as when I still ran naked with the drum around the Christmas tree. The Stagediver series comes with a Pelican case of the highest quality in both the 2 and 3 models, which is reflected in the form of a black steel finish, an unbreakable snap hook, a pressure equalization valve (the Yanks love that sort of thing), and a plastic-padded interior. You can't pack an item any better than that!

If you open a case, you'll find a gold-plated adapter (3.5 mm to 6.3 mm jack), 3 cleaning cloths and 2 additional plastic attachments to adjust your personal wearing comfort. In addition, the cerumen filters (filters for earwax) are interchangeable. The connection cable has a length of 1.40 meters, with which one can easily reach both the receiver of a radio system and a stationary solution. When using the system, external noise is additionally attenuated by about 26 dB.

The overall workmanship is excellent, which is due in no small part to the fact that the entire manufacturing process is carried out in the home country. If you take a look at the earphones, the plastic bodies, reminiscent of modern art, give you pause for a moment. Is this what the inside of my ear should look like? Well, the subsequent wear test disproves the initial skepticism and shows how complex our ear canal is after passing the auricle. Although no individual adjustment was made, the earphones actually fit like a glove. Nothing wobbles, nothing presses and even heavy headbanging does not bring the system out of its anchorage. The rounded upper ends of the earphone leads nestle unobtrusively around the front of the outer ear, so discreetly that you hardly notice you're wearing earphones at all when the system is in use.

At the same time, the shielding from ambient noise is kept within pleasant limits. The external sound is audibly reduced and conversations with a person standing opposite can only be understood with difficulty on a stage, but the notorious total isolation does not occur, which sometimes creates an uneasy feeling with some artists. A good compromise, where in case of doubt the monitor man must mix a little room component to the main signal.


Practice

So how do the two Stagedivers sound? In order to answer this, one must first consider the different conceptions of the two systems. While the 2 ways of the SD2 should generate a frequency response as linear as possible, the SD3 generates a deliberate coloring of the sound in favor of the bass frequencies. So we are not dealing with an SD2 counterpart with a slightly higher bass content, but an independent design, which is only visually almost identical to SD2, but sonically has a completely different target audience in mind.

While the SD2 indeed generates an even, unobtrusive sound image without the horrible bathtub EQ, the SD3 delivers a clear bass boost in combination with a discreet lowpass in the high-frequency and high-mid range. The result is obvious. While guitarists, singers or even keyboardists will rather prefer the linear sound without too much frequency bending, bassists or even drummers will appreciate the extreme low-frequency poundage of the SD3. Especially our 4-5 string players, who like to turn the stage into a booming bass hell ("I need it for the feeling") can rattle their cheekbones with the SD3, while their band mates secretly turn down the master volume of the bass system, longing for redemption.

But also the SD2 convinces me all along the line. It was deliberately avoided to lower the midrange too much for feel-good reasons, after all, you have to be able to manage your sound on stage via the system. Nevertheless, the system does not come across too bony, which tends to spoil the joy on stage. The system is also very resistant to overdriving at peak levels and, in combination with the external noise attenuation of approx. -26 dB, manages to generate a very high stage volume when required, to which the very low resistance of only 40 ohms also contributes.

Conclusion

With the Inear Stagediver SD2 and SD3, the Hessian company brings two products to the market that are to be placed in the absolute top class. Processing, equipment, sound and conception are in every respect to be considered exemplary and convince all along the line. The average value for the Inear Monitoring, taken from more than 500 custom-made products, fits like a glove. In addition, the choice of system allows you to concentrate on your main instrument in terms of frequency.

Is there nothing at all to criticize about the system? Well, one or the other will chafe at the comparatively ambitious price of the manufacturer, but development AND complete production in Germany has its price. But in return, you get everything that can be done well and better in this segment.  For all who are planning to buy an Inear system, a real must! Top grade!

Additional Informations:

- A Comprehensive Comparison: Floor Monitors vs. In-Ear Monitoring Systems

Introduction:

Audio monitoring is crucial for musicians and performers to deliver their best performances on stage. Traditionally, floor monitors have been the go-to solution, providing on-stage audio reinforcement. However, in recent years, in-ear monitoring systems have gained popularity, offering a more personalized and immersive monitoring experience. This article aims to provide a detailed comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of floor monitors and in-ear monitoring systems.

Floor Monitors: Floor monitors, also known as stage monitors or wedges, are loudspeakers placed on the stage facing the performers. They project sound directly towards the musicians, providing them with a live audio feed during performances.
Advantages: 1.1 Natural Stage Presence: Floor monitors allow performers to hear their own sound in a more natural way, mimicking the experience of a traditional live performance. This can help performers connect with the audience and maintain stage presence.

1.2 Shared Monitoring: Floor monitors are typically set up to provide audio reinforcement to multiple performers simultaneously. This makes them suitable for bands and ensembles who prefer a shared monitoring experience.

1.3 Easy Interaction: With floor monitors, performers can easily communicate with each other and the sound engineer on stage, as everyone hears the same audio mix.
Disadvantages: 1.4 Audio Clutter: Floor monitors can contribute to stage clutter, occupying valuable space and potentially obstructing performers' movements. This can be a concern, especially on smaller stages.

1.5 Feedback and Sound Bleed: Floor monitors are prone to feedback issues, as their sound can easily be picked up by nearby microphones, leading to unwanted squealing or distortion. Additionally, sound bleed from floor monitors can interfere with front-of-house sound reinforcement, impacting audio quality.

1.6 Limited Isolation: Floor monitors provide limited isolation from ambient noise, which can be problematic in loud or noisy environments. Musicians may struggle to hear themselves clearly, leading to imprecise performances.

In-Ear Monitoring Systems: In-ear monitoring systems consist of custom-fit or universal-fit earphones connected to wireless receivers, delivering personalized audio mixes directly into the performers' ears.

Advantages: 2.1
Personalized Monitoring: In-ear monitoring systems provide individualized audio mixes, allowing performers to hear precisely what they need to perform at their best. This tailored monitoring experience can enhance overall performance quality.

2.2 Noise Isolation: In-ear monitors offer excellent noise isolation, blocking out external noise and providing a clean and focused audio signal. This is particularly advantageous in loud environments, ensuring clarity and reducing the risk of hearing damage.

2.3 Mobility and Stage Freedom: In-ear monitors provide performers with the freedom to move around the stage without being tied to a specific monitoring position. This can enhance stage presence and overall performance dynamics.

Disadvantages:
2.4 Learning Curve: Switching to in-ear monitoring systems may require a period of adjustment for performers who are accustomed to floor monitors. Getting used to the new monitoring experience and managing audio mixes can take time.

2.5 Cost: In-ear monitoring systems can be more expensive than floor mon
itors, especially when considering the initial investment in wireless transmitters, receivers, and high-quality earphones. Additionally, ongoing maintenance and replacement costs should be taken into account.

2.6 Limited Ambient Sound: In-ear monitoring systems may provide such excellent noise isolation that performers lose the sense of audience engagement and ambient sound. This can affect the overall performance and connection with the audience.

Conclusion:
Both floor monitors and in-ear monitoring systems offer unique advantages and disadvantages in live performance situations. While floor monitors provide a more natural stage presence and easy interaction, in-ear monitoring systems offer personalized monitoring, noise isolation, and stage freedom. The choice between the two ultimately depends on individual preferences, performance requirements, and budget considerations. Many musicians and performers opt for a hybrid approach, utilizing a combination of floor monitors and in-ear monitors to strike a balance between on-stage audio reinforcement and personalized monitoring.

- Headphones and in-ear monitoring (IEM) systems are both popular choices for personal audio listening and monitoring. While they serve similar purposes, there are distinct differences in their working principles and applications. This article aims to compare the functioning of headphones and IEM systems to understand their unique characteristics and applications.

Headphones: Headphones are over-ear or on-ear devices that cover the ears to deliver audio directly to the listener.

Working Principle: 1.1 Sound Reproduction: Headphones use a combination of drivers, such as dynamic drivers, planar magnetic drivers, or balanced armature drivers, to convert electrical signals into sound waves. These drivers generate sound by vibrating diaphragms, which produce audible frequencies that are perceived by the listener.

Advantages:
1.2 Soundstage and Immersion: Due to their larger size and design, headphones often provide a wider soundstage and a more immersive listening experience. They can create a sense of spaciousness and depth, particularly in stereo recordings.

1.3 Comfort and Extended Use: Headphones are generally designed with ergonomics and long listening sessions in mind. They are suitable for extended use, as they distribute the weight across the head and ears, reducing discomfort during prolonged wearing.

Disadvantages:
1.4 Portability and Mobility: Headphones can be bulkier and less portable compared to IEM systems. Their larger size and wired connections limit mobility, making them less suitable for on-the-go use.

1.5 Noise Isolation: While some headphones provide passive noise isolation due to their design and fit, they may not offer the same level of noise isolation as IEM systems. Ambient noise can still penetrate the ear cups, affecting the overall listening experience.
In-Ear Monitoring (IEM) Systems: IEM systems consist of earphones inserted directly into the ear canal, providing personalized audio monitoring and noise isolation.
Working Principle:
2.1 Noise Isolation: The primary function of IEM systems is to create an acoustic seal in the ear canal, blocking external noise and providing a clean audio signal. This is achieved through the combination of a proper fit, eartips, and the close proximity of the drivers to the eardrums.

Advantages:
2.2 Customization and Personalized Monitoring: IEM systems offer a high level of customization, with custom-fit options available. This allows for a precise fit and personalized audio monitoring, tailoring the sound to the user's preferences and specific needs.

2.3 Noise Rejection: IEM systems excel at isolating the listener from external noise. This is especially beneficial in live performance settings, as it allows performers to focus on their own sound without being distracted by ambient noise.

2.4 Portability and Mobility: IEM systems are highly portable, with wireless options available for greater mobility. Their compact size and lightweight design make them convenient for on-the-go use, ideal for musicians, audio professionals, and listeners who require mobility.

Disadvantages:
2.5 Learning Curve and Adaptation: Using IEM systems may require a period of adjustment, as they provide a different monitoring experience compared to traditional headphones. Getting accustomed to the personalized sound, fit, and managing audio mixes can take time.

2.6 Limited Ambient Sound: The excellent noise isolation provided by IEM systems can result in reduced awareness of ambient sound. This may affect the user's perception of the environment, such as audience response, on-stage cues, or external sounds.

Conclusion:
Headphones and in-ear monitoring systems offer distinct advantages and considerations in terms of sound reproduction, comfort, isolation, and portability. Headphones excel in providing a wider soundstage and comfort for extended use, while IEM systems offer personalized monitoring, noise isolation, and portability. The choice between the two depends on individual preferences, intended use, and specific requirements for audio monitoring or personal listening.