Should this tech device should be illegal?

[wolfgang]

In-ears. Tech crutch used now

I saw a post on Reddit WGI about electronic devices called in-ears. It may (or may not) be a literal click track, but imo should be illegal in a competitive environment.

The context was indoor percussion, especially Independent World class, but if they're used there, the same idea could be used on a football field, and in theory by anyone, not just drums (or even musicians).

Two quotes are attached. The first is the introductory post:

"There’s been some buzz about what the earbuds that some groups use do. These are called in ears, they transmit the sounds of samples, electronics, drumset, or click tracks/metronomes. Many groups use them to line up tricky passages, line up cold attacks/front to back moments, fix difficult listening environments, or just to make sure that the center snare is always on the beat. Many praise groups that do this for their innovation while others claim it to be “cheating” or a “loophole” to the “No auditory metronome rule”.

Please note my issue is not with the performers, and I get WGI is not DCI, but there is a huge overlap in design staff. My issue is the use of this tech in a judged environment. Imo it's like mic'ing the best players in a hornline during full-ensemble moments, aka adding elements beyond the listening of the performer on the field.

Anyway, to be fair, below is a lengthy quote from one of the members in the thread photo which gives reasons in favor of using this tech:

"hi, yes, i'm the person in slide 2 of this.

the in-ear monitors shown in my photo are from 2022 with Matrix World. This was my age-out season and picture is from Finals.

We used these in ear monitors as a way to listen to each other playing as a way to blend and balance with each other. the entire keyboard line was moving on the floor, providing different listening environments throughout the show. nothing was pre-recorded in the track, the channels we could hear are purely for other players playing their parts. there was no click track or metronome in our ears. it would really help us give cues that were very nuanced at moments in the show, where players at the front of the form could not see anything happening behind them.

I really enjoyed my time working with them. Hell, it made me feel like a Rockstar on the floor. They provide another thing to take care of and another responsibility that really feels much more mature than the other shows I've been apart of. I am all for these, as they provide a unique experience for the player, and helps provide something that makes the product feel more elevated and more complete, rather than just "hoping things line up."

I think all together it makes me feel like i had more agency. Your favorite rock bands or artists use these to make sure they're on the right track with the band, why shouldn't we?"

Should this type of aid (positive) or crutch (negative) be legal in a judged activity? Are these currently used in DCI?

[cixelsyd]

You mean I never have to hear "DUT DUT DUT DUT" from the center snare anymore?  Sign me up!

[rollinthrurolls]

Did not bluecoats do something similar to this for Downside Up? 

[OldSnareDrummer]

From the Department of "Back in My Day".... we(snares) would simply rehearse more often, practice harder, listen listen listen and all hang together and never go anywhere without each other to form that as perfect as possible synch. 

Electronic Ear crutch? We don't need no stinking electronic ear crutch. 

 

[keystone3ply]

16 minutes ago, rollinthrurolls said:

Did not bluecoats do something similar to this for Downside Up? 

IEMs have been utilized for several years. 👍

IEM = "In-Ear Monitor" 

Edited February 11 by keystone3ply
c

[cixelsyd]

Seriously, there are a number of ways to look at this issue.  Here are two important ones.

1.  As I am learning more and more, the equipment suppliers seem to determine everything about this activity from conception to extinction.  This device is another example.

2.  Throughout much of time, marching ensembles dealt with timing most effectively by maintaining close-order drill.  When corps grew larger and drills spread out more, timing lags became an ongoing problem.  Significant skills were developed to compensate.  Rehearsal techniques were developed to focus on the issue.  Listening forward was weeded out; listening back was encouraged.

If everyone had in-ear monitors, it would be possible to program them to compensate for positional time lags.  That would make it much easier for the performers to line up the ensemble.  But if you believe this activity should be a skills competition for the performers, this takes the game further away from that. 

[mingusmonk]

27 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

If everyone had in-ear monitors, it would be possible to program them to compensate for positional time lags.  That would make it much easier for the performers to line up the ensemble.  But if you believe this activity should be a skills competition for the performers, this takes the game further away from that. 

It is not realistically attainable to manage 165 IEMs moving dynamically across a 57,000 square foot field for precise execution needs of all performers today. Want proof? Nobody is doing it. Not that the creative minds we have in audio engineering haven't considered all of this and beyond. Their evaluations of the benefits of attempting such feat have left them on the side of "not today."

[wolfgang]

Bonus question-  If someday, someone invents a lightweight device that could have

A) a tiny microphone attached to the front of bells of brass instruments, and B) a component that attaches to the tuning slide,

and could automatically push/pull the tuning slide in or out depending on whether the mic perceives the pitch to be flat or sharp on longer tones, say any sound 1 second or longer (in essence- live auto tune for brass), how would that go over?

[cixelsyd]

35 minutes ago, mingusmonk said:

It is not realistically attainable to manage 165 IEMs moving dynamically across a 57,000 square foot field for precise execution needs of all performers today. Want proof? Nobody is doing it. Not that the creative minds we have in audio engineering haven't considered all of this and beyond. Their evaluations of the benefits of attempting such feat have left them on the side of "not today."

165 is not necessary.  Only about 112 performers in the prototypical "full corps" contribute sounds.  And of those, the stationary front ensemble instruments would not require adjustments for varying field position during the show.

[mingusmonk]

13 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

165 is not necessary.  Only about 112 performers in the prototypical "full corps" contribute sounds.  And of those, the stationary front ensemble instruments would not require adjustments for varying field position during the show.

This is splitting hairs. It is as simple as the scope and scale of your scenario is still not worth the gain. It is easier today to work the ensemble via more traditional tower techniques, ears, and eyes rather than adding IEMs to the mix. IEMs are not a set-it and forget-it magic bullet. Even for small ensembles. 

 

You imply above that this has something to do with lack of support from the equipment/gear scene for IEMs. And that the activity receives some great benefit driven by  other suppliers.  But simultaneously, you are constantly talking about how electronics are some kind of $2 million budget suck. What segment of the audio engineering industry is currently manipulating the activity's usage? And how are they doing that while still costing us millions of dollars?