The IEM (in ear monitors) Bible thread - a guide to help every musician

[Woodinblack]

3 hours ago, SimonK said:

1) I've taken my Linsoul KZ ZS10 ear pieces back from my son (who was using them for gaming), but he's buggered up the cable - can anyone recommend a replacement (probably looking at around £20 accepting it is probably a disposable item in the long run)? There seem to be plenty of options on Amazon?

 

I got a really nice tangle free cable from aliexpress which is all braided, unhelpfully I dont' remember the name but it has been excelent, and saved a good minute at each gig!

 

[Wombat]

I have z10s and zars. The cable that came with the zars is MUCH better quality.

[dave_bass5]

57 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Ah, ok. I’ve not used other IEMs so can’t compare but I find the NUX fine for my needs. I have the whole band in them (at various levels - I don’t usually need a lot of drums as I’m mostly standing right next to them!) and not noticed quality or distortion as an issue.

Yeah, im wondering if the distortion wouldn't be noticed with a live band, especially on a smaller stage. 

[dave_bass5]

51 minutes ago, SimonK said:

Any thoughts re a replacement cable for the ear pieces?

 

(I am coming to the conclusion that there are as many opinions as there are products RE the transmitter/receiver!)

My singer has this one (if you’re talking about the KZ type), although she doesn’t use those IEM’s anymore. 
 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B07ZQCBYXS?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_title

[Wombat]

Yes, KZs. I bought both to save on postage as they get different ‘reviews’ here. Both are ‘ok’ but they weren’t hitting the spot so I’ve also got senheiser 100s and am currently using them. I’d love something more custom but I’m not gigging enough to justify the outlay. The 100s are ok. The existing desk (zoom lt12) is great but only allows mixing channel volume. I expect if I could eq my bass for the IEMs separately to the FOH I’d like the 100s more…

[javi_bassist]

I received last week a pair of Soundbrenner Waves after a lot of the Spam in Instagram. And I have to admit that they are incredible. They are one of the most comfortable in ears I ever used. And soundwise are great. They have a little bass boost, but just a little, which makes them really good for gigging. The cable is fine, I like it. I was very skeptical with them until I tried them. 

[SimonK]

Well there's a discovery - I didn't know 4.4mm balanced jacks existed having spent years just thinking they were only 1/4" or 1/2"! Now had to buy an adapter for my new headphone cable to go from 4.4 to 3.5 (1/4")... apparently there are also 2.5mm jacks out there as well... humanity should have learned from the USB debacle!

 

(although is 4.4 common for IEMs?)

Edited December 30, 2025 by SimonK

[Mottlefeeder]

The common jack plug sizes for headphones were 1/4 inch (6.35mm) originally for hifi, and 3.5mm (USA 1/8 inch) for Walkmans and similar small gear. Both of these were tip/ring/sleeve (TRS) giving connections for left/right/common ground.

A quick google search suggests that the 4.4mm connector appears to be mainly aimed at headphone connectors where the user needs to keep the left and right return conductors separate, so it is a TRRS, but connected differently to phones' 3.5mm mic and earphone headset TRRS. This may be why they went for a different size.

Just guessing.

David

[Chienmortbb]

The 4.4mm plugs are called bantam plugs and are used in professional audio applications, for example, high density patch fields. I have only heard of them being used for headphones, using high impedance headphones. You can plug the 'phones directly into the jack field to check for a signal.

[SimonK]

So the upshot is that IEMs normally use standard 1/2" or 1/4" jacks and the 4.4mm connectors are just there to catch out the unwary?

[TimR]

19 minutes ago, SimonK said:

So the upshot is that IEMs normally use standard 1/2" or 1/4" jacks and the 4.4mm connectors are just there to catch out the unwary?

 

Sounds like you might not have the right spec cable. 

[Chienmortbb]

13 hours ago, SimonK said:

So the upshot is that IEMs normally use standard 1/2" or 1/4" jacks and the 4.4mm connectors are just there to catch out the unwary?

They are designed for s specific job and are not readily available. Their primary use is slimline jackfields, Patch panels, patchbays,  not connecting low impedance headphones.  

[Mottlefeeder]

 

22 hours ago, SimonK said:

...spent years just thinking they were only 1/4" or 1/2"! Now had to buy an adapter for my new headphone cable to go from 4.4 to 3.5 (1/4")... 

Rereading your original post, I think there is still some confusion here. 

In imperial measurements, the common headphone jack diameters are 1/4 inches and 1/8 inches.

In metric, that would be 6.35mm and 3.5mm.

When you talk about 1/2 inch jacks, and buying a convertor 'from 4.4mm to 3.5mm (1/4")', I wonder if you are confusing the imperial and metric equivalents and searching for the wrong adaptor?

David 

[dave_bass5]

6 minutes ago, Mottlefeeder said:

 

Rereading your original post, I think there is still some confusion here. 

In imperial measurements, the common headphone jack diameters are 1/4 inches and 1/8 inches.

In metric, that would be 6.35mm and 3.5mm.

When you talk about 1/2 inch jacks, and buying a convertor 'from 4.4mm to 3.5mm (1/4")', I wonder if you are confusing the imperial and metric equivalents and searching for the wrong adaptor?

David 

Must admit i thought the same. Ive never, ever, come across a modern device that wasn't using a standard jack. Certainly not IEM stuff. 

[SimonK]

1 hour ago, Mottlefeeder said:

 

Rereading your original post, I think there is still some confusion here. 

In imperial measurements, the common headphone jack diameters are 1/4 inches and 1/8 inches.

In metric, that would be 6.35mm and 3.5mm.

When you talk about 1/2 inch jacks, and buying a convertor 'from 4.4mm to 3.5mm (1/4")', I wonder if you are confusing the imperial and metric equivalents and searching for the wrong adaptor?

David 

 

No - you are right - I meant 1/4" and 1/8" which are easier to write than 6.35mm and 3.5mm! What was actually confusing me was the number of rings on the connectors as I always thought that more than the normal two ment there was also a mic line, so didn't realising that there was also a wider jack 4.4mm connector with four rings! Then I thought maybe it was an IEM thing and I had inadvertently bought the right thing, but no, the "pentaconn" connectors are a cork-sniffing audiophile thing!

 

Anyway the adaptor has arrived now and all is good.

[Woodinblack]

On 16/12/2025 at 17:57, Woodinblack said:

 

Thats the one I use instead of the U4, although mine cost me £32! But the switch can be a bit intermittent, sometimes the quality can slip and after a lot of gigs and practices the receiver battery life is starting to get close to the end of our gigs if I forget to plug it in at half time.

 

OK, I got the WX52- and I have been pretty impressed with it, tried it tonight in a practice, really good sound quality and a solid build.

[wateroftyne]

Hey hey! Still intrigued to hear opinions of anyone who has used the ACS Ambients....

[woodyratm]

53 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

Hey hey! Still intrigued to hear opinions of anyone who has used the ACS Ambients....

I used ACS ones with the ambient filter. They failed twice and couldn’t find the issue. They refunded me in the end at least! 

[javi_bassist]

I went really deep into the rabbit hole of in ears. I went from KZ ZST, KZ Castor pro, KZ ZS10, Sennheiser IE100 and IE400, Shure 535, Plunge Audio Dynamic, Soundbrenner Waves (and Westone X30 are on its way) and I went back to Sennheiser. Now I have my IE400 with custom molds and the IE100 as a spare. I am even tempting on trying the IE500, but I read that they are not that good and they are expensive, but the Sennheiser are really really good. I am preparing a full review of all the models I have tried.

 

I am also currently using the Xvive U45 with the Rolls PM351. It is a great combo IMO that allows me to have always control over my bass (sometimes I am very picky and my experience has taught me that it is better to rely on you than in the soundguys, since we do not work with our own soundguy). I previously have the Sennheiser XSW, but this is more straightforward and easy. And I had some dropouts with the XSW and never with the Xvive. 

 

 

[Al Krow]

On 02/01/2026 at 23:04, Woodinblack said:

 

OK, I got the WX52- and I have been pretty impressed with it, tried it tonight in a practice, really good sound quality and a solid build.

 

Is that the Swiff WX520 Woody? Did you have the Xvive U4 before and feel these are a step up?

[Greg Edwards69]

On 04/01/2026 at 11:55, javi_bassist said:

I am also currently using the Xvive U45 with the Rolls PM351. It is a great combo IMO that allows me to have always control over my bass (sometimes I am very picky and my experience has taught me that it is better to rely on you than in the soundguys, since we do not work with our own soundguy). 

How do you have the Rolls wired in, Javi? Does it mix the signal from the desk the Anagram? If so, is the bass channel muted on your monitor send, or do you mix the anagram over the top?

[javi_bassist]

32 minutes ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

How do you have the Rolls wired in, Javi? Does it mix the signal from the desk the Anagram? If so, is the bass channel muted on your monitor send, or do you mix the anagram over the top?

The bass goes from the Anagram to the Rolls. The mix from FOH has no bass, to avoid phase issues. 

[Woodinblack]

7 hours ago, Al Krow said:

 

Is that the Swiff WX520 Woody? Did you have the Xvive U4 before and feel these are a step up?

 

Yes to both, absolutely a step up (I still have the XVive U4, but haven't used it for a long time).

[Al Krow]

43 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Yes to both, absolutely a step up (I still have the XVive U4, but haven't used it for a long time).

 

Oooh can you go into a bit more detail on why you're liking this better / what the key improvements over the U4 are?

 

Our drummer recently got one off AliExpress and has been very happy with it.

 

About time you returned some of GAS I seem to regularly put your way!

[Woodinblack]

5 hours ago, Al Krow said:

Oooh can you go into a bit more detail on why you're liking this better / what the key improvements over the U4 are?

 

Several things. Obviously the features that really matter are:

Its stereo. Yes, I keep banging on about that but if you have used stereo IEMs, you wouldn't want to go back to mono.

Sound quality is better - no noise, no hiss, sound seems fuller, but maybe that is the stereo, although note that on my main band I haven't really explored the stereo too much, other than having the guitarist on one side, keys on the other, singer on the side of the keys, other backing singer on the other side (mostly - vocals are more centred). In general I get more clarity of sound through this than the U4, when using with the same IEMs.

 

Mechanical. Its one self contained box which contains everything. Yes, I know, you can get a box for the XVive (I have one, although it was an extra), but this is how it comes. Its also cheaper.

 

Connectivity - no contest here. I know, it may not matter to some because you are normally going to connect it one way, but I have two bands and I connect it different ways with both, one with a TRS and one with the 1/8th". The XLR is stereo, and also TRS in the centre, then there is a mono TS (probably less useful as you could presumably use the stereo TRS with a TS), and an 1/8th inch stereo jack which can come from an line aux source or a headphone socket. There is also a USB-C rather than stupid USB-micro socket, and it is one USB-C lead not having to remember where you have put your USB to dual USB-Micro lead. The transmitter charges the receiver.

 

 

Then when you open it, there is the receiver, sitting in the case, charging. The case is also the transmitter. Handy mono / level switches and a max volume knob so you can set up the type of input nicely - hmm.. a bit susceptible to fingerprints, but I didn't actually notice that.

 

 

Then you lift the transmitter up, press and hold its screen, and it gives you a mute switch (double press) or a volume (even if it takes a while) on a big metal spinny knob that isn't going to be knocked by your strap like almost every single gig with the U4 halfway through the gig, and if it did, you wouldn't be having to dive for it trying to remember which one is the volume because its the huge knob on the front! Its also very solid and metal and it has nothing fiddly on it at all, unlike those terrible buttons on the front of the U4. There is a pretty solid clamp on the back, and also a USB-C socket - I assume if you wanted to charge two receivers for one transmitter.

It also shows the level coming through the IEM, so you can see if it is actually working without listening to it.

 

 

I loved the U4 when I got it, even though I had to move everything else way from 2.4GHz as it splatted all across the X18s connection, but this is just another step for me, even if the sound wasn't better (and it is), and it wasn't for the stereo thing, it is just a nicer device to use, it feels more sturdy.

 

the big caveat in all of this is that I have had it just over a week, I have used it in one practice and one gig, so who knows how it will get on in future. I had stopped using my U4s, in place of the MS-1s, as the stereo was compelling, but the MS-1s were just so cheaply built and the power switch was more than a little flakey, and the quality wasn't all that great but I still carried around the U4s charged and ready, as frankly I didn't trust the MS-1s, but I think I can probably stop doing that now with these. But maybe after a couple more gigs.