Why not horns?

Really? I don't think so; my heroes make music and sound not write about them. Here's what I do know: I can't remember a time that I bought a recording that he recommended, and then, when judging the sound of the recording on my system not being able to verify what he described. Operative word here is MUSIC. I am not aware of anyone else being so articulate and accurate (aargh!) in the way that he wrote about recorded music; and the passion with which he did so. That is good enough for me. Additionally, I can't think of a component that he spoke highly of and which I then owned (not many), or had extensive experience with, that I disagreed with his assessment of. The man has great ears.

Ralph, way wrong. There were great horns when Harry hated them.....Tannoys have been great for a long time, various JBLs were, horns were all over in recording studios sounding great.

Kiddman, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I happen to agree there were great horns when hp made that statement and one of my early customers was making Hartsfield reproductions which sounded great at the audio shows in the late 80s and early 90s. I was running Altecs with dual 15" woofers back in the 1970s... Anyway my point was with my last post that hp would certainly not say that today.

As far as contributions- hp created most of the vernacular we audiophiles use to describe the sound of our stereos- 'soundstage', the use of color descriptions to describe tonality ('bright', 'dark', etc.). He was one of the very first to describe the sound of equipment based on listening. Stereo Review and other magazines around at the time simply did not do that. Nowadays we take that sort of thing for granted. So his contributions should not be ignored even if you don't agree with his reviews. He had a serious influence on high end audio.

Given his influence, still sounds like horn designs were largely ignored by HP back in his day, and that may be one (not the only reason) that horn speakers do not get as much attention today (or over the years since their heyday) as they might deserve.

On the other hand, over the years, I have heard a lot more poor or mediocre sounding horn based systems than really good ones. Only in more recent years again it seems have a large variety of vendors seemed to endeavor hard to get the design right and also make them affordable and in a package whose size has appeal for more as well.

So the comment earlier that HP did a disservice to horns somehow seems to ring true to me, even if the error was merely one of omission, in that he was in search of TAS apparently so cost, size etc. should not have been a limit.

Did he ever review any Walsh style speakers set up well?

If not then I'll pin that disservice on the poor guy as well. :^)

Ah, history is so easy to swing to your position when you are doing the reporting.

Harry claimed he pioneered the use of many words as related to audio and they certainly were not all true.

"High end" is the most ridiculous one.

As for "soundstage", I have used, and heard others use, words like "placement", "positioning", "3d" before we ever read HP or Holt. Many of us identified the lack of 3 dimensionality of CD before HP ever reported on a CD player.

To really believe we (the industry) would not care about such things without his specific words is ludicrous. Before HP or Holt ever took pen to paper stereo was long since out there....gee, how did they get the placement so correct on records pressed in 1959 without having Harry tell them that there was such a concept as center, left, right, or a sense of depth possible? How did they ever get a soundstage before HP "invented" the word? Do you think that the fabulous mic placement on RCAs that HP so lauded years after they came out was just luck? That the placement just happened to serendipitously be there to be discovered by HP?

All the greats that MADE it happen, who knew what they were putting out long before HP came on the scene, are shortchanged by the revisionist history that says HP taught everyone about such matters as imaging, depth, etcetera.

HP and many reviewers are great at taking credit for what they are critiquing, as if they were the cause of the advances. That's just not reality.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Kiddman, I don't recall ever reading copies of the Absolute Kiddman or of Kiddmanfile. Let's assume for a moment that you are correct about the use of a similar descriptive language before Holt or HP did. So what? The point is that it was they that took the leap and made the investment to found their magazines and introduce me and countless others to it. Isn't that alone deserving of credit? You seem hell bent on not giving them any credit. I am truly curious as to why that is. Perhaps a clue lies in your hint that you are in the industry. BTW, no one has said anything like:

****To really believe we (the industry) would not care about such things without his specific words.****

****gee, how did they get the placement so correct on records pressed in 1959 without having Harry tell them that there was such a concept as center, left, right, or a sense of depth possible? How did they ever get a soundstage before HP "invented" the word? Do you think that the fabulous mic placement on RCAs that HP so lauded years after they came out was just luck? That the placement just happened to serendipitously be there to be discovered by HP?****

HP revered the great engineers like Layton and Wilkinson and gave them their due many times over in his reviews of their recordings as well as discussing their techniques.

It seems obvious to me that there is something going on here beyond a simple wish to set the record straight. I for one would be interested in knowing what that is.