akimball442 Posted December 10, 2015 Author Share Posted December 10, 2015 I had never heard of the so called 'Gundry Dip,' but it's an interesting concept to say the least, and furthermore interesting that it's in *exactly* the band I'm complaining about. Hmm. So why, then, are so many recordings so terrible? I actually listened to a bunch of my grandmother's old Elvis 45s the other day. She was in her teens when she got them, and no doubt played them to death on something that would disgust any and all of us, no doubt with a badly worn stylus. They were never really abused, but there's plenty of surface noise on a lot of them. They sound GREAT. Simple, mono.... but the Guitar, Bass, Drums, and the King all sound like the real deal. Nothing sounds artificial, and nothing overwhelms anything else. It's convincing. It sounds like those instruments sound in real life, and that being the case, it's believable that that's how Elvis really sounded, in person. You can believe that if you were in the studio, that you would have heard it in the same way that you're hearing it when you listen to these old records. So what happened circa 1960 to the recording industry that things got so crappy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjptkd Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 This was pulled from a review of Carver's new ALS speakers: "In a sense, the speaker’s native, natural balance—and what Carver had in mind, as I understand it—is to have a BBC-style “Gundry dip” in the 2 to 4kHz range or on up somewhat further. (There are theoretical reasons why this sounds good—the ear’s diffuse-field response in this region is much lower than its frontal direct-arrival response, and making stereo recordings effectively moves some diffuse field into direct arrival. So it’s a good idea to compensate for this perceived difference. One can see the figures on this in Bech and Zacharov’s book Perceptual Audio Evaluation. But if you do not like this, you can adjust the extent of it, or even adjust it away with the controls, though I doubt you will want to as the speaker really “likes” the Gundry dip in sonic terms.)" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Please excuse if covered already but seems you know your equipment then and have tamed the mids with the EQ treatment at least on the CTA song, which is as described by you and others. The most evident mid difference to me was the exponential midrange horn versus the Tractrix. which difference can be found in the Chorus1 & Chorus2, same experience with the Forte1(exp) & Forte2(trac). To be clear, I think most would agree that the Tractrix horn is more revealing/sensitive to your ear than an exponential horn. Welcome to the forum! Source then means a lot, and in some cases everything. Edited December 10, 2015 by billybob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 You might like what Mallette describes here: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/155914-bjesus-a-miracleby-dizrotus/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absolve2525 Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) I'm a huge fan of Chorus II. I have Crites Ti tweeter diaphragms also. I loved em hooked up to my big vintage Sansui receiver. The midrange sounded great and never fatiguing. I EQ'd the bass some, but I do that with all my big speakers lol. It sounds like the source and/or room are causing problems? Edited December 10, 2015 by absolve2525 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.