Why not horns?

Horns are the best jump on a pair asap.

people who may have spent upwards of $10k per pair for their speakers,, and do not have some kind of horn set-up, probably haven't really heard a good set of horn-based speakers. 

OK, back to the horn thing. I just got a pair of Altec 19s a few weeks ago and they are sounding great. Less efficient than my Cornwalls and less forward as well, but they have fantastic impact. I feel like I am in that Maxell ad every time I turn them on (I know, our younger members are asking, "What's a Maxell?", time moves on.).

Ah, thanks for the follow Al.

Hi Unsound,

That was an emulation attempt that occurred a bit later during the 1980's, with a different Carver amplifier model, that was written up in Stereophile and therefore drew more widespread awareness. Remarkably (or perhaps not), Stereophile's writeup of Carver's effort to emulate the CJ tube amp made no mention and reflected no awareness of his earlier effort to emulate the solid state ML-2 with some of his other models.

Best regards,
-- Al

I think the m4.0t was the one mirroring a CJ amp maybe?

I ran a 4.0t for a long time up until a few years back. It was definitely a unique sounding beast. I would say that it did tend to match up best with speakers that were more tube amp friendly by nature, my Maggies at the time and my Triangle Titus's. Went loud but fell flat with more difficult loads, like B&W and Dynaudio and also OHM but to a lesser extent.

Al, I was under the impression that the Carver was supposed the emulating the sound of a conrad-johnson amplifier?

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50

Yes, nicely put Seikosha. Clearly, listeners were speaking about what they heard before TAS and Stereophile came along; it would be silly to think that they weren't. As I said in an earlier post, even if Kiddman's premise is correct, so what? As you say, it was HP/JGH and others who actually consistently put their thoughts in writing and were able to get many who were new to the hobby excited about it; in no small part, because they related this terminology to the music in a vivid way. I, likewise, don't recall these individuals taking credit for "inventing" the terminology. To the extent that they are given credit for it, I don't think that this "transgression" can't be forgiven for the credit that they do deserve. I just don't get the general tenor of these criticisms as if these individuals were somehow guilty of some great sin when the truth is that they brought a lot of interest to the hobby.

****I believe that the real legacy of HP and his followers is that we are no longer concerned with high fidelity reproduction, or accuracy, but instead pursue good sound.****

Really?! Read these comments (in the context of the entire story) from Kiddman's post:

****At no time was there any suggestion of distortion, nor any hint, in the quality of the music, of the electrical transfer it had undergone. For the new apparatus (”microphones, amplifiers, electrical filters, transmission lines, and loudspeakers”reproduces with absolute fidelity all sounds that the normal human ear is capable of hearing.****

****From 1960, a Shure ad: "Shure announces a stereo arm and cartridge that recreates sound with an incredible fidelity, transparency,....." ****

Are you kidding me?! Those comments put a lot of this in context and demonstrate the state of "hi-fi" back then. Do you really think that those comments would hold up to scrutiny by most knowledgable audiophiles today? If those comments are an indication of the level of sophistication of the average audio aficionado (and equipment) of the day, then I think much is left to be desired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

++++The truth is that I don’t know everything. No reviewer does. And we all can miss things and sometimes do. Now there is the key. What I did from the very start of TAS [The Absolute Sound] was invite multiple commentaries on things because no one person has the perfect insight- not me, not anybody else. If you think I’m full of you-know-what… comment. It is the internal dialog that sets up the truth that will reflect the variety of opinions you get from people exploring the equipment. Perspective is the word. And you have to know what that perspective is. That is what I tried to identify with the absolute sound by asking: What is your perspective? How do you look at things? You know how I look at it, I try to compare it to live music. And if I fail on that… comment. If I do a really good job… comment.

{{Are you hoping to provide a sense of illumination as a writer?}}

Yes, but not only that. Illuminating is the first step of the process. What I am trying to do is help people create a passion for that which is eternal. And that which is eternal is music. Take the Tagore quote: “music fills the infinite between two souls.” That is what music does. And if I can turn that passion on or show people the way to that passion… I am a guide, I am not the end. I am to be looked at as a guide. Not as a final authority. What happens, is that a person’s life is enriched to an extent that they will be ever thankful, not to me, but for the enrichment. For the music. See I am not here to teach people what HP says. That’s bullshit. What HP says is bullshit comparatively to what they can find out on their own. But if I can kick their ass into starting… that is the goal. ++++ - HP (interview in High End Report)

++++ I think the explosion of designs in the High End are symptomatic of the health of a field that others have said is dying. This is the most creatively stimulating period for designers since the early Seventies and there are more interesting and good electronic designs out there at once than there have been in a quarter of a century.++++ - HP (interview in TNT Audio.)

The 1.5t was nowhere near the ML2 (itself not my favorite amp)and making "transfer function matches" between 2 totally different amps with different components and topologies is entirely preposterous.

This was "an inside job", nothing less. Should surprise nobody familiar with the Fourier shenanigans.

Correction to my previous post: Looking at Issue 10 of "The Audio Critic" I am reminded that the Carver amplifier which was the subject of the preprint was the M-1.5t. The M400t was released subsequently, and was claimed to have been similarly matched to emulate the transfer function of the ML2, but was not the subject of Aczel's preprint.

Regards,
-- Al

03-06-14: Kiddman
Aczel criticism overblown? I don't know that this would be possible.

Here's a guy who never published a particular issue, but write a bogus review for Carver saying that Carver had exactly duplicated the sound of a well known, very expensive amplifier. Nice little arrangement, Carver reprinted the excerpt from the non-existent issue and supplied them by the load to Carver dealers. Nice little bit of fraud on both sides. The amp, by the way, was very poor sounding compared to one Aczel said it was identical to, and took out many a tweeter of relatively easy to drive speakers at way less than its stated output power.

The aforesaid review was in fact eventually published, in Issue 10 in 1987. That was the first issue Aczel published following the nearly seven year hiatus I referred to earlier. The 1983 review "preprint" to which you refer was extracted from what Aczel indicated in Issue 10 had been an almost complete, mostly set in type issue which was not published due to the hiatus, which occurred for unrelated reasons. Carver requested and was granted permission to issue the preprint.

Also, I recall some seemingly credible speculation that the close transfer function match between the aforesaid amplifier, the Carver M400t, and the transfer function of the Mark Levinson ML2 it was designed to emulate, may not have been maintained in production to anywhere close to the same degree as the match that was measured by Aczel on Carver's prototype.

Also, I'll mention that I owned an M400t for about 20 years, alternating it with other much more expensive amplifiers. It sounded surprisingly good, driving 90 db speakers having easy to drive impedance characteristics. (Its predecessor model which I VERY briefly owned, the M400a, which pre-dated Carver's attempt to match the transfer function of the ML2, did sound very poor). The M400t had no trouble whatsoever cleanly producing 100 to 105 db peaks at my 12 foot listening distance playing classical symphonic music on labels such as Telarc, Sheffield, and Reference Recordings. It never clipped once in my extensive experience listening to those kinds recordings having exceptionally wide dynamic range. The amplifier, btw, is still going strong in the home of a relative, after 30 years.

Regards,
-- Al

My point is that folks were using the terms, so whether they were in reviews or not they were in the lexicon. Therefore, they most certainly would have been used in reviews even if there were never an HP. Actually, first piece I quoted was a news story, not an ad, so we can say that the press indeed used the concepts and words in the 30's. And that press piece compared the sound of the hi-fi to that of a symphony....which is "real, live, unamplified instruements".

So there we go: words and concepts, including using unamplified instruments, goes right back to the 30s.

Seikosha,
Nicely put! I don't intend to overstate the influence of HP and JGH but they did bring subjective opinion/reviewing to a wide audience of readers. They weren't "all knowing gurus" but I'll give them their due credit.
Charles,

Aczel criticism overblown? I don't know that this would be possible.

Here's a guy who never published a particular issue, but write a bogus review for Carver saying that Carver had exactly duplicated the sound of a well known, very expensive amplifier. Nice little arrangement, Carver reprinted the excerpt from the non-existent issue and supplied them by the load to Carver dealers. Nice little bit of fraud on both sides. The amp, by the way, was very poor sounding compared to one Aczel said it was identical to, and took out many a tweeter of relatively easy to drive speakers at way less than its stated output power.

Some of the criticism of Peter Aczel in this thread is overblown. In a changing environment for someone to alter their position can be considered a sign of an inquiring/flexible mind. "All amplifiers sound the same" is not an accurate statement of his position, it should read "all amplifiers should sound the same". If amplifiers are designed to be accurate to the input signal, then they should sound very much alike. Stereophile considered this issue when they put a Cary 805 tube amp on the cover with a Krell and asked, "If either of these amplifiers is RIGHT...the other is WRONG." Aczel believes that he had a methodology for determining if an amplifier was "right". Whether or not his methodology was correct or even useful is a tangent I won't pursue, but at least he was asking the question about accuracy. I believe that the real legacy of HP and his followers is that we are no longer concerned with high fidelity reproduction, or accuracy, but instead pursue good sound. The end result of this type of thinking is that we now talk about "the sound" of fuses, outlet covers, resistors and binding posts.

Thanks for the info Kiddman.

I was never under the impression that HP or JGH ever claimed that they were the first to use these terms, I felt that they were the ones who picked them up and started using them consistently and made efforts to let us know how they were using them and if HP ever bragged about it, it wasn't about inventing the terms, it was about using them consistently in his reviews. In other words, they were the first who started drilling into the readers a point of view stating "hey, here's how we listen to equipment and these are the terms and definitions of the words we use."

There is no question in my mind that people were talking about image placement or soundstage concepts before the first issue of Stereophile or TAS. I remember being a kid and my father playing records and pointing out the placements of the different sections of the orchestra while the record was playing.

Before JGH and HP, I can't remember any reviewer who was consistently describing what they were hearing from audio equipment in terms imaging, depth, soundstaging and transparency and if there was someone consistently reviewing this way before HP and JGH, then they should be given credit.

My memory of reviewing before HP/JGH back then was that it was all about how everything measured on the bench and then at the end of the review there's be a few generic sentences about how the sound was clean and fine, just as it measured, or if their was an anomaly in the measurements, a statement about the sound to support that anomaly.

What do you think; were HP and JGH the first mainstream writers to consistently review this way, or were others reviewing like this earlier?

Who invented the terminology: more evidence it was not who you think it was.

One of HP's favorite words/concepts, which he claimed he coined, and wrote a long essay about: "Transparency."

From 1960, a Shure ad: "Shure announces a stereo arm and cartridge that recraates sound with an incredible fidelity, transparency,....."

There goes another concept and word that did not need inventing.
--------------------------------------------------
Then listen to any of the 5 Fischer stereo perfectionist systems and you will hear hitherto unattainable tonal purity, STEREO DEPTH (my caps) and realism, a PANARAMIC SWEEP (my caps) of living sound......"

There we have both depth and width imaging concepts clearly described, 13 years before the founding of TAS.

--------------------------------------------------

Go to this video and forward to 12 minutes 30 seconds and you will hear the phrase "....to create an illusion of depth and width....."

There we have it: the concepts of imagine, but going by the name "illusion"...I would submit that this is as good a word as "maging". But further, the words "width" and "depth": all that is needed to describe imaging. I suspect that I will also find the words "focus" and "space" used if I search a bit more.

The date of this video: 1957!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------

The above is simply to support my original premise that it was not any individual reviewer who invented the concepts and vocabulary, about stereo, and to show that the concepts and vocabulary to describe depth, imaging, transparency, "closest to the live event" were in use before the 70's, when the magazines many think of as having defined high end stereo were founded.

The language and concepts were being developed decades before most readers of this forum assume.

Who invented terminology to describe what we hear?

One more entry to dispel the myth that this was anyone associated with TAS, Stereophile, or any such magazine.

Below you will read the words and phrases "auditory perspective" (I think that word describes imaging enough to suffice as an equal substitute for "imaging"); "an illusion that causes the listener to seem to hear a specific sound from the point at which it originates" (sounds like another description that fully describes imaging and focus";
"audience in Washington had no difficulty in telling just where on the Philadelphia stage the brasses, tympani, bass viols, and so on were placed" (now we see the word "placed", so the concept of "placement" is introduced.

Folks, the proceeding article was in 1933!! I think we can see we did not need modern reviewers to introduce the concepts of imaging, placement, stage, illusion, and "auditory perspective."

1933!

Now the Article:
----------------------------------------------------
NEW ELECTRICAL SYSTEM GIVES VAST TONE TO Full Orchestra on Empty Stage

Conductor, 150 Miles from Musicians, Controls Expression with Master Key

ORCHESTRAL music such as never before had been publicly heard, poured from the apparently empty stage of Constitution Hall, Washington, D. C, a few nights ago when Dr. Leopold Stokowski, conductor of the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra, demonstrated before the National Academy of Sciences, a new electrical system of musical reproduction and transmission developed by engineers of the Bell Telephone Laboratories.

The source of the music was the stage of the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, 150 miles away. There the hundred musicians of the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra played a program of standard orchestral numbers. In front of the Philadelphia stage stood three sensitive microphones, one in the center and one at each side. Each was connected separately by telephone lines with a loudspeaker that stood behind a sound-porous curtain on the stage in Washington.

In the rear of Constitution Hall sat Dr. Stokowski, before him a small oblong box, not unlike a midget radio receiver, with a front panel equipped with three dials and a pair of switches. Manipulating these devices, the conductor controlled the music of the far-away orchestra, hushing the sounds issuing from the loudspeakers until they were barely audible, and then making them swell to twenty times the volume produced by the actual orchestra.

At no time was there any suggestion of distortion, nor any hint, in the quality of the music, of the electrical transfer it had undergone. For the new apparatus (”microphones, amplifiers, electrical filters, transmission lines, and loudspeakers”reproduces with absolute fidelity all sounds that the normal human ear is capable of hearing.

Moreover, the location of the microphones in reference to the source of sound and the placing of each loudspeaker in a position that corresponds with that of the particular microphone with which it is connected brings about an effect that the Bell Telephone engineers call “auditory perspective,” that is, an illusion that causes the listener to seem to hear a specific sound from the point at which it originates. For example, the audience in Washington had no difficulty in telling just where on the Philadelphia stage the brasses, tympani, bass viols, and so on were placed. Hum and the other noises are only one three-hundredth of those heard from moving-picture theater sound equipment.
-----------------------------------------------------

This took me 5 minutes to find on the computer. Guaranteed I could come up with a reference to "depth" and the other concepts that folks, listening to HP's self-reporting, believe he invented.

I remind you, this article was a full FOUR DECADES before TAS was founded.

what is a horn?

"Julian Hirsch, Leonard Feldman, Rok2id :), Pete Azcel and about 99.99999999999% of all HUMANITY, both past and present, KNOW, that all amps sound the same. Meaning, if they are well made and engineered correctly, they have no 'sound'."

Hey Roks, no offense but don't you ever get tired of trying to convince a collective group that gather together to discuss their experiences with different audio products that they are just wrongheaded and that your light of absolute correct conciousness is going to somehow sway them to your belief system? Why do you do this and often relent to the pressures you are subject to endure? I really dig your appreciation of music but for the life of me wonder why a guy in the 99.99999999999% percent of humanity feels SO compelled to mandate the rest of us in see the errors of our experiences on a forum dedicated to this concept. BTW, when was the LAST time you compared different amplifiers in the past 5 years,(not to mention cables, I won't even bother to go there, we know, right?) Competent design indeed and indeed what do you mean by that aside from the electrical compatibility of a specific speaker to a specific amplifier aside from the room? I'll give you this, you ARE a persistent pest but I still love you man! I would however suggest you stay within that which you know unless you are willing to offer more than what you believe, your specific experiences maybe? Or is it all for your personal amusement? Inquiring minds really want to know :)

PS Why did I "go there". Well Roks, you and I have gone head to head before several years back yet you still adhere to the same balderdash yet have to date given not one example of your personal experiences. At least I havent't read it, maybe I'm mistaken. In any case, its all good, enjoy!

Thank YOU Al for your informative and interesting contributions to this forum.

In real instruments and voices are very direct to point out and very small in proportion. At shows you often hear that voices become bigger and less sharp focussed. I would never choose for this. It is less realistic.

"Mapman, I remember there was an Ohm model that got good reviews back in the early 80's in Stereophile and maybe TAS too."

I've seen Stereophile reviews of the first and second generation Walsh 5s. Stereophile review of gen 1 directly influenced gen 2 as I recall.

That's about it though. If TAS ever addressed any Walsh designs, I am not aware.

OHM is a more "blue collar" type brand that has never specifically targeted the "High End" buying community, TTBOMK but rather just let teh pecking order of things fall out naturally over time as determined by the consumers, not those in teh media who might assume ownership of what is or is not "high end".

Frogman & Tubegroover, thanks for your comments. Yes, I recall the saga of the Fourier Systems speakers quite well.

In fact I auditioned the substantially redesigned second version of the Fourier I at Lyric's White Plains store in 1983, as I was shopping for speakers at the time. In Aczel's own words (Issue 10, published in 1987 following the long hiatus), the redesign addressed "some driver-related problems that had eluded our attention in the laboratory, [which] made its interface with certain rooms unpredictable." Shortly after the release of the initial version a generally negative review in "The Sensible Sound" (not exactly the most hyper-critical of audio review publications) had cited a "silvery spacey effect" created by its subsequently replaced tweeter. The mid-range driver was also replaced in the redesign.

The version I heard sounded generally ok during my fairly brief audition, but left me unexcited.

Aczel's lengthy recounting in Issue 10 of the Fourier saga and his involvement in the company is persuasively written, as might be expected, and if taken at face value would dispel any cynicism about it all. But who knows?

One thing is certain. Both the timing and the degree of his ideological metamorphosis were striking, and, as you indicated, fascinating and mysterious.

Best regards,
-- Al

Interesting read this thread, particularly the last part concerning reviewers and their motivations. While Harry Pearson may have been a guiding beacon to many readers of TAS he never was to me. More a pompous know it all although I occasionally was amused by his writing style. In the context of the history of subjective review and reviewers I always felt more drawn towards JGH and what I perceived in him a real integrity in his often attempts to correlate measurements with what he heard. Don't know if anyone recalls in the mid/late 80's when there was a blind listening session performed with the reviewers of the magazine when the ARC SP-9 was compared to the SP-11. JGH was the ONLY one of the reviewers that participated that could consistently hear the difference between the two. The thing about Gordon that seemed to ring true, to me at least, is that he didn't ever seem to have an agenda and that he reported what he heard and always attempted to be honest concerning that. He was my hero in that I felt I could trust what he heard and reported.

Almarg, thank you for the history lesson; fascinating, and should be very interesting for those too young (or uninterested) to remember. You may also recall that it was Aczel who gave Fourier speakers some of their first positive reviews. It was then revealed that Aczel was one of the owners of the company. Hmmm. What that says about the integrity of the reviews (and the reviewer; at least, at that point in his career) is fairly obvious. What it it says about Aczel's sudden change of opinion (and it's motivation) about the sound of amplifiers I find far more interesting and mysterious; and, I know you are too much of a gentleman to surmise. I am not nearly as much of a gentleman, and am still ruminating the possibilities ....

Slight correction to my previous post: "who's" should be "whose" :-)

Regards,
-- Al

Regarding Mr. Aczel, I think it is worth noting that there were vast differences in his views following and prior to the approximately seven year lapse in publication of "The Audio Critic" that occurred between early 1981 and late 1987, while he was involved with the Fourier loudspeaker company.

The later Mr. Aczel, consistent with what has been said above, believed that all amplifiers meeting certain basic criteria (high input impedance, flat frequency response, low output impedance) sound the same. The low output impedance criterion, btw, excludes most tube amps.

On the other hand, here are some quotes extracted at random from Volume 2 Number 3, published in 1980. These pertain to solid state amplifiers, which certainly meet those criteria:

Re a revised version of the Bedini 25/25:

The sound is, if anything, even better; the silkiness of the highs and the transparency of the midrange are unsurpassed in our experience, except possibly by some -- not all -- versions of the Futterman tube amplifier and one or two solid state prototypes. The bottom end of the Bedini is very impressive for a 25/25 watt stereo amplifier with a single power supply, but of course there are many large amplifiers with all-out dual power supplies that will give you firmer and subjectively deeper bass.

Re The Leach Amp:

We find it beautifully transparent in the midrange, very well controlled on the bottom end, but a bit overbright and glassy on top (our bench tests won't tell us why).

And this comment in the preamplifier review section of the same issue:

Regardless of your methodology, you can't escape from judging subjectively which one of two sounds appears to sound more like music. Or at least more like what you believe to be the true sound of the input. And such a belief can be formed only by listening first to the output of a familiar reference system driven by that input. Which is where we came in.

Mr. Aczel was someone who's reviews and opinions I **wanted** to like and respect. He wrote in what was stylistically an extremely persuasive manner, and his writings always seemed to convey an impression of an intelligent and disciplined approach to component evaluation. Ultimately, though, I found it impossible to reconcile much of what he had to say with my own experiences, and those of others for whom I had respect. Especially in his later period.

Which is not to say that I believe investing $10K in a pair of wires generally makes much sense. In audio, as with most things in life, IMO the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle ground between the extremes.

Regards,
-- Al

If anyone is so deaf as to not be able to hear or comprehend differences in amplifiers, a new hobby is in order posthaste.

That is MHO, and worth exactly what it cost you......

Shakey

****By the way I'm listening to Milt Jackson and Wes Montgomery "Bags Meets Wes!".*****

I seem to have 'Bags' with everyone, except Wes. Should be a good one. Very hard to make a bad Jazz recording that includes vibes. Esp Jackson.

Speaking of not having, I seem to have let Fats Navarro slip thru my net totally undetected. :(

Cheers

The speaker/room is the only component that should affect sound.

Cheers

In the link provided by Rok, it is claimed that the ONLY component which effects sound is the Loudspeaker.

Shindo San would be much impressed.

"99.99999999999" of the time, with some gentle prodding and especially persistence, truth will usually reveal itself. Those desperately seeking support for a questionable position would do well being careful about who their bedfellows are.

Rok2kid,
Hello my fellow jazz lover/admirer, we'll have to cheerfully disagree on the "all amps sound the same" issue. It has been covered redundantly and there's nothing new to add and to each their own. By the way I'm listening to Milt Jackson and Wes Montgomery "Bags Meets Wes!".
Take care,
Charles,

Julian Hirsch, Leonard Feldman, Rok2id :), Pete Azcel and about 99.99999999999% of all HUMANITY, both past and present, KNOW, that all amps sound the same. Meaning, if they are well made and engineered correctly, they have no 'sound'.

Now the question is, which 'camp' is laughable? Humanity, or 'audiophiles'.

I don't know anything about HP. Neither he, nor any of the other charlatans, occupy space in my universe. BUT, what Pete said about him, and it was brutal, you can take it as Gospel!!

The man did not lie or stutter. Spoke English. You understood him. A true hero of audio. Don't like it? Too Bad!!!

One more thing. We all splurge on something! If anyone wants to spend 10k on a power amp, or a few feet of wire, fine! Just don't feel you have to demolish or corrupt science and the scientific method, in order to justify your purchase.

After all, it's your money. Leave science out of it. The Wire Moguls won't mind. :)

Cheers

Peter Aczel's "all amplifiers sound the same" attitude is why I'd referenced Stereo Review earlier. Even as a young greenhorn back in the late 1980s I knew that mindset was patently false. This is an obvious area where the subjectivity crowd got it right, component's most definitely sound distinct with their individual character. Julian Hirsch was very different from the compelling HP and JGH in those days.
Charles,

I am still waiting for actual and specific examples of the lying and bullying that HP is accused of. I also find it ironic and more than a bit laughable that Peter Aczel, the man who claims that all amplifiers sound the same, is being introduced into this discussion as a way to somehow give credence to the bashers.

What sort of a man reads Playboy? For those old enough to remember, this was an ad campaign launched very successfully by Hugh Hefner. In those days (the Madmen era) American men were being encouraged to fancy themselves to be oozing savoir faire and unabashed self confidence. James Bond was there to set an example of the gentleman who is rugged, handsome, virile, well to do and always tasteful. HP developed an essence of such an individual as the TAS reader, the audiophile snob, the knowing and eager pursuer of the Absolute Sound. It was pretentious to its core and it reeked of arrogance and selfishness.
And it was the launching point for a collusive and insular con game. He was a petty and petulant tyrant given to vindication or revenge as he felt necessary. He seemed to think of himself as Queen of all he surveyed. And we bought into his schtick hook, line and blinkers.

But that's not why we're here. We are gathering at this thread to determine why we as individuals have or have not chosen to explore the greater virtues of horn loudspeakers.

A simple 2way hybrid system can be put together for under $5K if active amplification is used and a little creativity is employed. I obtained a fine working pair of JBL L-200 speakers. The weak point of these was always the mid-horn. So I bypassed that horn and mounted a larger and more broadband horn on top of the cabinet. At first I just used the onboard JBL passive crossover. Then I acquired a digital speaker management system and bi-amped the speakers.
This worked very well and set me off on my way.
The footprint of this combo is 24 inches wide by 21 inches front to back, with the compression driver extending about 8 inches behind the cabinet. I think in today's audio that would not be considered a very large speaker.
That takes care of price and size arguments. Some will surely object to the appearance and some will simply not have a large enough room. Generally, however, a horn installation is a pretty realistic option for nearly anyone who reads Playboy.

If Kiddman is right (and in this respect he is) that the industry would have flourished, whether or not there was an 'HP' or 'JGH' reporting on it, then some responsibility rests with the manufacturers, distributors and the rest of the industry in the States for failing to recognize the virtues of horns and low powered tube amplifiers at the time. If you rewind to the early 70's, the focus, with a few exceptions, was high powered amplifiers; acoustic suspension speakers, of the 'bookshelf' variety, were still the norm for home use and the only horn loudspeakers I remember from that era were Klipsh and a variety of professional and sound reinforcement pieces, e.g. Altec A 7. Electrostats were also sidelined for a number of obvious reasons. The Magneplanar was a practical compromise for planars, but took up space and required oodles of power.
Information about good sounding gear was not as easy to come by then; you could rely on what could be heard at your local hi-fi shop (I was fortunate in having a good one in my town) and in others' systems.
Whether or not HP and JGP 'invented' the vocabulary, they did much to promote the notion that not all gear was created equal and questioned whether specifications dictated sonic outcomes (remember the quest to reduce 'TIM')?
Perhaps HP did audio enthusiasts a disservice by failing to recognize the virtues of horns, but given the direction of the industry as a whole, I don't think he should bear sole responsiblity. And to the extent he and other writers did inform and influence readers, I regard it as a positive. How many people were aware of some of those great old recordings before these magazines explored them in depth? (I always enjoyed Sid Marks' work on the RCA and Mercury catalogs and even if I didn't always find the music on HP's 'Super Disc' list to be engaging, he did identify a number of well recorded albums that I can still listen to today).

Strong stuff in that link but hard to shoot down totally.

The audio magazines really don't go about their things any different than any other publication with a focus on selling stuff. Science and technology is boring. Fantasy and soap boxes are much more fertile grounds for keeping people interested.

For an industry firmly reliant almost exclusively on technology, high end audio no doubt resides elsewhere. It is to real science kinda what WWE is to real sports.

Honestly, I have read all the rags over the years on occasion and continue to but I take it all with many grains of salt. I did not know who HP was or his influence until this thread.

Someone must be to blame for all the nonsense that goes on for big $$$s in HEA. In all fairness, TAS should probably be held as accountable as any.

Interesting article Rok2id!

I didn't read TAS, but here is an opinion of Pearson written by the man I most respect in Audio.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_23_r.pdf

Another short paragraph about the guy in Issue #24.

Cheers

Dkarmeli, specifics please. My definition of "lie" is not the issue here; yours is. Explain "misguidance and misinformation" with specific examples; it is very easy to condemn or criticize. What exactly are you referring to? I would like to understand your perspective.

Frogman, What would you call creating a bully pulpit through misinformation and misguidance to satisfy one's ego and fulfill a personal agenda without care for those who're your supposedly helping? Not to make this political; " if you like you can keep it, period!".

An honest question: what lies? There may be disagreement, but lies? Kindly explain.

Macrojack & Kiddman, I'm with you regarding HP. I'm surprised after all these years of bullshit there are still so many that haven't caught on to his lies. Of course certain manufacturers benefited while others paid the price of his crap. His sound, the absolute sound was a misnomer to begin with. The man's a charlatan and a narcissist. Having heard his systems on two occasions I even wonder if he can hear. Unfortunately he was influential and imo ruined high end. He moved the goal post from musical all the way to hifi and worse. I don't understand how people can read his crap for years and not see through it when its always the same self stroking gibberish. Never met the man but from what I hear his writing is a reflection of him.

Hi Kiddman,
We've shared forum topics before and I've come to respect your insightful input and feel the same regarding Frogman as well. I do feel a sense of gratitude towards HP and G. Holt for their publications in my early years in this most enjoyable pastime. Of course as you gain personal experience/knowledge the influence of others naturally tends to diminish. They did jump start my exposure to the world of subjective audio review and observation. In those days Stereo Review and Audio magazine in contrast did virtually nothing for me.
Charles,

I doubt anyone would argue that HP wasn't one of the pioneers of subjective audio journalism. As for creating the language of describing what is heard, I'd really give just a bit more credit to J. Gordon Holt. Without either of them I suspect that many of us might still not quite understand what many of us were describing. I think that in itself begs for some respect and gratitude.

Setting the record straight is all. Folks so often give HP credit for "founding the industry", "inventing the language that allowed us to talk about what we hear", and implying the industry would not have flourished without him. I am offering an alternative take, the reality that although the exact same words might not have been used, the phenomena were recognized and discussion and awareness of great equipment would have occurred without HP. Great journalists do not create industries, they report on them. That they often take credit for products, or "discovering" certain products, or even an entire industry, more reflects on the type of individual drawn to telling folks "how it is" than the reality of the situation.

No more, no less, no agenda.