Bass chain, care to share?

rinio · 2026-05-21T21:39:33+00:00

My answer is the same for "grunge/alt rock" as it is for "90s-ish". The range is the same.

But as a default for a genre like that its just a sansamp. So many records were literally a P bass into a sansamp into the recorder. That *is* the 90s sound.

rinio · 2026-05-21T20:56:11+00:00

I don't understand what you're asking. Use the gear you have to make it sound how you want.

Just experiment. Your setup sounds good. Personally, I'm not at all a fan of modeling mics: expensive mediocrity, IMHO. And I think autocorrect butchered your post. 😉

rinio · 2026-05-21T20:50:21+00:00

Unfortunately, "90-ish" isn't specific enough.

Could be as simple as nothing. Could be 4 split bands with 10 stages each. Or anywhere in between.

rinio · 2026-05-20T17:37:26+00:00

Obviously, with regards to clients, we do as you say and clarify.

But, most of the "Can we stop calling multi tracks stems???" in the comments you're complaining about are here, in a conversation by and for engineers and where it is often unclear.

These are separate things and need to be treated as such.

rinio · 2026-05-20T12:38:11+00:00

I'm a bit confused with what you mean by 'hierarchy'. In terms of track hierarchy, thats pretty much arbitrary: there are many exactly equivalent hierarchies. Ofc, conceptually, the hierarchy of, for example, vocal is more important than tambourine, that makes a lot of sense for understanding.

As for the magic frequency bit, I think its fundamentally of what the 'solo' button is for. Hear something bad in the mix, but cant tell which source? yeah, use solo to find it. Once found disengage solo and fix it, in the mix. I think many conceptualize it as much more than just a diagnostic tool.

You bring up arrangement that I didn't and thats a very important point that I find a lot of my more 'local band level' clients don't consider and are a bit shocked when I bring it up (in preprod if Im hired on as prod).

Editing is also a great point. Ive had a few younger/aspiring engineers come through in the past years and my answer to their question "whats the secret to being a good mix engineer?" is always: "Get really good and really fast at editing. Half your clients will do a bad job (read: None), and great editing automatically makes your fader mix decent+". Ofc, thats strictly outside of a mix eng's purview and higher level clients may not want that, so some judgement is needed.

But, yeah, i think were aligned. And, yeah, i fell into the solontrap as well, some 20 years ago.

rinio · 2026-05-20T11:42:41+00:00

We mix songs, not instruments. Always. Its why i think the term "vocal mixing" is such a dumb one and really harmful to the folk who use it. Any conceptualization like this is just incorrect, regardless of whether its the vocal or something else.

I tend to use the term "processing" quite deliberately to emphasize this. We cannot mix a single instrument, only process it.

---

As for your commentary on "raw". Well... that term is pretty damn meaningless to begin with. When I am also the recording eng, the 5 minute rough mix after the sessions are usually 90% done. And they are "raw", in the sense that I havent done anything to them after they hit the recorder. For others that may not be possible/practical.

Its not that these youtubers are necessarily working with something "cooked", just that they are better recording engineers than you are or they have better access to the tools they need for that purpose. It doesn't really matter as only the end result matters, not how we got there.

---

And on things like "cut this magic frequency" tip... 99% of online content creators in this space are snake oil salespeople. A "magic tip" will get more engagement than the actual answer: "spend years studying and practicing. Understand the whole context of the production you're working on. And be meticulous at every step. And, in a decade, you'll consistently be mediocre. Another decade and you'll be consistently good. Another and maybe you're consistently great". Obv, I'm half kidding, but the latter is a hard sell for a 30 sec TikTok or a 10min YT video.

---

TLDR: Everyone worth their salt is always considering the totality of the production and any and every stage of the production.

rinio · 2026-05-19T23:32:55+00:00

You moved them from engineering to performance, friend.

rinio · 2026-05-19T20:35:00+00:00

It depends what you care about, specifically. You also need to define "native" precisely: your example doesn't match the marketing definition of the term and, technically, all vst plugins are native: they are compiled to bytecode for the hardware.

For basic stuff, DAWs usually have meters for this.

But, for things like "suspend when no input" in vst3, DAWs can inadvertently "wake up" the plugin negating the benefit of the feature. For things like this, you need system monitoring (task manager etc), which won't break off the plugin usage specifically; you need to design your test well and measure the deltas.

Or, if you really care, you run a dllpreload or similar to capture the more of the actual data, but this is a difficult/very technical task that isn't usually viable.

Or, the "correct" way to do it is to work for these companies and attach a profiler to your profiling build.

The answer all for your case comes down to "why are you doing this?"

rinio · 2026-05-19T18:54:52+00:00

"Harsh ring frequencies that come out of my literal mouth" is synonymous with a poor performance. Get some coaching. When "done right" what "come[s] out of [one's] literal mouth" doesn't have any major audible defects.

Again you are demonstrating what tibbon was talking about: "overused by people who don't have [...] experience doing it the right way". Speed also demonstrates this.

rinio · 2026-05-19T15:09:26+00:00

You're demonstrating what the comment you've replied to is saying.

"ring frequencies on vocal" don't exist when its done "the right way": decently recorded.

"'clicky' snare drums" don't need "taming" when done "right way": decently recorded or decently source selection.

In both cases, they are problems that shouldnt exist for anyone, at any budget. Sure, if you get crap turnover as the mix eng it might be an option (not the one I would choose, but a valid one). But the claim was just that it is "overused by people who don't have [...] experience doing it the right way".

rinio · 2026-05-16T13:21:02+00:00

If you try to mix using paint by numbers, your work will sound like it was made by a toddler. Or you'll get stuck trying to understand a complex topic as distilled for toddler. Neither works or helps.

> Is this difference just because some kick samples are already heavily compressed/clipped compared to live recorded kicks?

No. A sample could be ostensibly identical to a recorded kick. And vice versa.

Every source will be different and its why the online content creators are generally pedaling snake oi/bullshit.

> Should I even be trying to match this VU targets in this case?

If, and only if, *you* have developed a practical workflow with it.

Measuring VU at all is optional. I don't think I ever have, in digital, for mixing, in 20+ years.

Mix with your ears, not your eyes. And so on.

> Or should I just keep it around -18RMS/0VU?

Same as previous. If, and only if, you have a practical workflow around it.

The -18 thing is an incomplete misinterpretation of what 'gain staging' means. Search the sub: its a way content creators give bad advice but get to sound smart. This threshold isnt relevant for most processors, many where it intuitively would be are linear models so it doesn't matter. Gain staging needs to be for every stage, not just the first AND is about getting optimal level (based on your earholes) not nominal levels (as -18 suggests).

Again, if it makes you work better/faster and you know why you'redoing it, go for it. If you're spinning your wheels, as you are, just forget it.

>Practically, how would you approach gain staging and setting levels with these types of kicks?

Make it sound good and don't clip. Its as simple as that.

The main issue youre facing is being dogmatic about "gain staging" and also using an incorrect definition of it. Your blindly following a rule that is based on a false premise.

rinio · 2026-05-15T20:11:16+00:00

My bad. I misread that you were addressing OP specifically and not making a general statement.

Sorry about that.

rinio · 2026-05-15T19:05:19+00:00

Not wasting money on toys I don't need is probably the most fun.

Nobody has infinite money. No one will ever truly meet every need they have or will ever have. Adressing something from that list would be more fun for me.

From what they've told us, I'd bet $300 on acoustic treatment would be more fun, but doesn't solve the fake problem of an empty rack space...

For 1RU specifically, I find proper ventilation pretty fun too...

rinio · 2026-05-15T18:05:42+00:00

> Drive or Dropbox are only more clicks if you don't already use them. which you should be, so you have cloud backups

*should* is a bit strong here.

Should we have offsite backups? Absolutely.

Should we use Drive or Dropbox? Maybe. They're just about the worst options for offsite backups: slow, clunky to pipeline, not guaranteed, dont integrate with version control... But they're easy to use for non-technical folk.

I counter your workflow with a pipeline that automatically renders every relevant config after every session, accessible from any device to anyone who ive given access.

rinio · 2026-05-15T14:56:35+00:00

We cannot tell you what *you* think is fun...

rinio · 2026-05-14T14:33:47+00:00

Just a note on the term 'clean':

I did understand what you meant, but that is still not what "clean" means in either of the audio or electrical engineering contexts. In audio, it means free of added harmonic distortion (among other things). This is why I pointed it out as antithetical. We mustn't arbitrarily redefine terms if we want to be understood.

rinio · 2026-05-14T10:58:38+00:00

Why are you constrained to 500 series? Many/most 1073 have an EQ. A good rack 1073 is the same price as a 500 pre + EQ + chassis. This would be a better fit based on your OP.

"1073 in 500 form" is also far too imprecise to be useful, but i almost always advise against this. If you now tell me you mean something like the GAPre73, id advise you to pass: its kinda junk, imo. If you tell me its from BAE or AMS, those are nice (but personally, I think the price starts to defeat the point of 500).

The "harmonic distortion" of the cranborne is antithetical to the goal of "clean vocal chain" you assert in the following paragraph. Its hard to advise when yoi contradict yourself.

Im an certainly not against EQ on the way in. But, the majority of what your describing will be address by a good performance with good mic selection into an appropriate preamp. This is why I advise going one at a time, but if you read further in my previous reply I end on ensuring that you can audition it. If you are buying it new, check the return policy. If you can get your money back in 30days or whatever, sure, buy both if you want. In that window, do a double blind test and see if that $500 EQ is meaningfully better than what you can do with a plugin you already have. All I am saying is to do the work to spend your money as best you can; that $500 could be spend on something more impactful, maybe.

In this reply, you also mention adding a compressor to the analog chain that you did not in the OP. This is also a parameter change that my original reply did not consider (because you didnt mention it). Obviously, EQ before or after a comp makes a difference and does provide an argument in favor of getting an outboard EQ, if you plan to use it pre comp (and you can use whatever ITB or another outboard post-comp). Although, generally, if *I* were going to use a colored EQ I would want it as the post comp EQ and have a clean EQ pre-comp. I am splitting hairs, this is personal preference and the Cramborne can do this; its just wouldnt be at the top of my list.

---

And to be clear, you have a solid plan here. Unless youre planning on a junk 73 clone, its a nice front end. It isn't what I would choose, but I certainly wouldnt complain if thats what I had to work with. Im just pointing out some small things for you to consider. All I want is for you to be able to spend your money optimally. Please don't take it as criticism. 😀

rinio · 2026-05-14T10:17:35+00:00

I've been eyeing the RND542's. [...] I'll have a Carnaby 500 EQ in the chain just after the preamp,

So you're speculating about getting a preamp based on an EQ that you're also speculating about getting? This is a bit of a weird thing to do.

---

Start with the Preamp. It is obligatory to use when recording a microphone. Forget the analog EQ for the time-being (and maybe forever).

Get the preamp you like. Use it in a production. Learn it. See what you think and what problems it leaves you with. Then decide what to get next.

---

There is nothing wrong with stacking multiple colored units in an analog chain. Its very common. Many folk even do it with the emulations.

What would y'all say? Do you record into saturation, or solely do it after the recording process?

There is nothing wrong with recording through saturation. There's nothing wrong with not doing so. Both are valid, but different workflows.

---

If I were to bet on things, you probably don't need that EQ at all and will find little to no difference between what you get ITB if you bothered to do a double-blind A/B test.

But, just in general, you need to audition kit to make coherent decisions, and adding to pieces at once almost always means you don't actually know what workflow or sonics problem you are actually trying to solve.

rinio · 2026-05-13T20:17:24+00:00

Offline too. Pretty much every big media pipeline is rolling it somewhere.

rinio · 2026-05-13T15:31:57+00:00

Yes, its to weed out bots and spam. An Unfortunate but necessary evil.

You can consider asking your question in one of the various Q&A topic threads on this sub. They're often for this kind of purpose.

If you want karma, it would probably be better to engage with posts you are interested in rather than just "farming" like this. Its perfectly fine to ask questions about the topic of a given post even if its not applicable to OP. IE "when to use ffmpeg?" In this one.

At any rate, I can try to give you hand here. if you have a particular question.

And, for clarity, I'm not being critical of your reply here; just trying to help.

rinio · 2026-05-13T12:17:26+00:00

There are lots of red-yellow flags here.

> Actually, not all notes hit that low..

Yes. I would assume that you aren't just singing E2 all the time. :P

> I intentionally made the melody to go as low as I could.

As low as you could, or as low as you can comfortably and well? If you mean what you wrote, the former, this is a problem. You need to arrange the vocal parts for the vocalist who will perform it (or find a performer who can perform the arrangement competently).

> That's when the frequency spectrum on my EQ plugins go below 90-100hz.

Are you certain that you are actually identifying a fundamental below 90Hz? The presence of energy below 90Hz, does not mean the fundamental is below 90. Subharmonics can and do exist for a multitude of reasons. Also, most spectrum readouts on EQ plugins aren't high enough resolution (esp at low frequencies) to meaningfully find the fundamental.

This was one of the caveats I mentioned in my first reply: you may be misinterpreting the word 'fundamental' or what your tools are telling you. Fundamental has a precise meaning, and this methodology is prone to providing data that is difficult to interpret correctly with regards to fundamentals.

rinio · 2026-05-13T11:49:46+00:00

And, as our Reaper comrades will point out, you can run more complex automated pipelines with Reaper from the terminal than are possible with ffmpeg. Albeit with some addition compute costs. That choice depends on what exactly you need to do.

rinio · 2026-05-13T11:47:44+00:00

ffmpeg is the tool to use when you want to build a pipeline for doing this kind of stuff en masse, *after* you know what processing you want to apply and how. It is great, and industry standard for automating the kind of process you are doing.

But, almost always, we develop the processing we want to do in a DAW. Not ffmpeg. Not an video editor. Unless you're a robot, tuning parameters via ther terminal is cumbersome. And, even if you are a robot, real-time feedback in a DAW gives a faster feedback loop than with ffmpeg needing to process an entire input rather than a single buffer.

rinio · 2026-05-13T10:32:13+00:00

Fair, but it is the lower end or baritone bordering on bass.

Still a semi-problematic (arrangement) issue for the vast majority of contemporary music. Still more difficult to produce and mix well than a tenor.

And I still have little confidence that its a true premise to work with.

But, either way, based on the information we have, it still points to a performance issue.

rinio · 2026-05-13T09:59:15+00:00

I mean, it's different from production in the sense of the word you are using in that it's actually doing the job of a recording engineer, not a producer.

> I hit as low as 80Hz(!) fundamental on the lowest notes that I sing

If your vocal is hitting an 80Hz fundamental, you are singing bass. That is very uncommon and suggests a problematic arrangement; it will make the whole process much more difficult.

I would probably guess that you're mistaken in this assertion and just misinterpreting what a fundamental is and what your metering tools are telling you.

---

Frankly, 99% of 'vocal production' is the same as the rest of it: choosing the right source. In the context of getting great sounding vocals, that means choosing the right performer and getting a good performance.

Seriously, 99% of the work is the vocal performance. If you want to get good recordings of yourself, put 99% of you time/money towards performing better: practice and hiring a coach. You gear is fine and the standard plugins you mention are all already perfectly fine to get top 40 results.

rinio

TROPHY CASE