|
EPILOGUE: At Studio B Mastering
|
Charlotte, NC
This PAR Session Trial wouldn’t have be
complete without a “head check” at a
proper mastering studio, providing an ideal monitoring environment
and another experienced set of ears (in blind testing) to
assist with evaluation. Dave Harris and his Russ Berger-designed
Studio B Mastering — a pro with plenty of critical listening experience
through Dunlavy SC V monitors, Lavry Engineering Blue
Series 4496 ADCs and DACs, a Crookwood custom mastering
console, etc. — fit the bill perfectly.
First, I let Dave hear our IS (inverse sum) files to whet his
appetite, and he was quite surprised at the differences, taken
aback by how one file was so much quieter and lacking in high
end (the Mytek). We both noticed the presence of sibilance,
amounts of kick drum vs. bass guitar and frequency emphasis
curves of the various IS files. We then mused for a long while on
the content of the IS files, questioning what contributes most to
audibility. Is it the DAC or the ADC, the attenuation of certain frequencies,
the gain of frequencies, distortions of the time domain,
or a blend of all of the above? Fun stuff.
Upon hearing the orchestral files, Dave expressed how much
he wished he had a baseline to which he could compare these
converters’ recordings. Without the benefit of being present at the
Stevens Center during recording, I asked Dave to choose a file
based on what he would choose if mastering these options for a
client. Within about eight listens total (a few repeats of two ideal
one-minute sections and then repeats of smaller sub-sections), he
decisively (but still blindly) picked out the Mytek as being the
“fastest,” “most articulated,” and “snappier,” even as he questioned
whether its bottom was either thin or accurate, without a
true reference. The Prism drew his second rank for opposite reasons:
a “very nice” sound — heavy emphasis on the word “nice”
— “mellowed,” and “most finished.”
Dave’s third pick was the Lavry, which he called “drier” and
with a “transient absence, as if limited.” Unlike me, Dave was not
pleased with the Benchmark, citing its coloration and “blurring.”
This environment did shed an exacting new light on such issues,
and Dave reported hearing more differences than he expected.
At this point, Dave knew he liked “converter #3” the most (not
knowing it was the Mytek), and his preference stayed the same for
the piano evaluation. Very quickly this time, he declared his continued
admiration of the Mytek, citing all the same exact reasons that
Alex and I had. Again, Dave picked the Prism for his number two,
again citing the warmth, the “nice-sounding loss of transients” and
its finished qualities. He was largely ambivalent about the Lavry
Engineering, calling it both the “most open” and “a little bland.”
Dave hesitated at summarizing but called the four units “all pro
and all usable.” He stated there was not a winner or loser here: “It
depends on what you’re working with.” He ultimately cited the
Mytek for the most honest portrayal, the Prism as the “most finished
and tamed,” and the Lavry as “not unlike-able, not at all
negative.”
— Rob Tavaglione
|
|